Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
I've been arguing against this program for years, it nothing new. The federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in health care or health insurance for the general population, that would be up to the States and individuals. That's exactly what the founders intended.
.
So that's a yes, you will literally argue for ANYTHING that they tell you to. Including cutting off sick kids from healthcare.
Just like the founders intended, you're totally right.
Fuck you, I have no obligation to support other peoples kids. Also the constitution is the supreme law of the land, which you apparently have no respect for.
.
Yes, no obligation... and obviously you also don't have the morals or empathy to do the right thing either. You sound like the total package.
So, it's the right thing to do to have kids you can't support and then pass that responsibility off to your neighbor?
Good try, but horrible try.
On Saturday nights do you buy buckets of chicken and go to the park and eat it in front of homeless kids for kicks?
The children don't have a choice in who their parents are... You don't want people having abortions, so what's YOUR solution then? Keep in mind that there will ALWAYS be poor people, even if every single person in the world got a job. It's a fact, there will always be a lower class of poor people.
So give us YOUR solution.
I don't eat fried chicken. Solution? Don't bring children into this world if you can't support them.