Michael Moore is a strange person. I have never seen one of his films. I have always assumed that he was far too liberal for my taste. Yet he is an interesting, thought-provoking man at times, in the interviews with him that I have seen. He has a middle class background with middle class values. He also seems to think capitalism is evil. Perhaps I misunderstood him though. He is not what people sometimes call ‘the Hollywood elite.’ I found his letter in the Huffington Post and almost didn’t read it.

I am going to ask you to read his letter. Please do not comment on Michael Moore. Our like or dislike of him is not the issue. Please respond to what he says. Any part of it. There are many layers in what he has to say.

 

Friends,

I live in Michigan, in one of the 31 counties represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by none other than Mr. Bart Stupak, a Democrat. You’ve probably never heard of him. He’s a pretty quiet guy, a former Michigan State Police trooper who boldly decided to run some 18 years ago as a Democrat in a rural part of Michigan that votes almost exclusively for Republicans (yes, I know — what am I doing here? I’ll save that story for a future letter).

His voting record is pretty conservative for a Democrat, but he’s had a few shining moments. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, he voted for some gun control, a not-too-popular position to take here in northern Michigan. The NRA came after him with all they had in 2000.

But the good people of this area knew Bart’s story and understood: He’s been touched personally by gun violence. In a terrible tragedy, his teenage son, depressed and confused from the medication he’d been prescribed, killed himself with the family’s .38 revolver. Despite the NRA’s best efforts, Bart was returned to Congress by an overwhelming margin.

Yet, here we are, just days before a weak, simple-minded, but now ultimately necessary health care bill has a chance of making it through Congress — and Bart Stupak is threatening to derail it because he wants to make sure that no woman who buys her own insurance with her own money is able to have a medically-insured abortion. We’re not talkin’ about federally-funded abortions — those were stupidly outlawed long ago. Bart Stupak doesn’t like that the Democrats’ bill doesn’t prohibit private insurance programs, set up for those whose employers don’t provide it, from providing abortion coverage if they get any federal funding — even to an individual woman paying without any government help. That’s it.

A group representing most of America’s 59,000 Catholic nuns has written to Congress and said that Obama’s health care plan should be passed. Stupak, instead, has chosen to diss the nuns. Last night he went on TV and dug his heels in — he said he intended to stop this health care bill and he didn’t care what anyone had to say.

Now, it would be easy for some to just pass this attitude off on his Catholicism — he believes what he believes and you have to respect him for that, even if you don’t agree with him. But it’s not that simple. It turns out that Stupak has been living in a subsidized room in the “C Street House,” run by the infamous right-wing Christian cult “The Family.” It was in this former convent that GOP Rep. Chip Pickering (according to his former wife) carried on the affair that ended his marriage. It’s where South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford sought refuge as his marriage fell apart thanks to his affair. And then there’s C Street roommate Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who cheated on his wife with the wife of one of his top staffers. (The Justice Department is currently investigating whether Ensign committed a felony while paying off his aide to keep him quiet.)

C Street is where power, money, sex and religion meet. So am I led to believe that Bart Stupak lives in a brothel and belongs to a cult? He says he was just renting a room there. But that just doesn’t ring true. Something stinks to the high heavens here, and Stupak sees no irony in taking his holier-than-thou position while living in a house that should be dubbed “Hypocrites’ Hideaway.”

If Stupak were truly pro-life then he’d vote for this bill. Right now, a mother in the U.S. has a ten times greater chance of dying in childbirth than a mother does in Ireland. If you really wanted to reduce abortions, you’d have to ask yourself this question: Why does godless France, where abortion is nearly free (it’s covered by their universal health insurance), have 20% fewer abortions per capita than we do? What’s even more amazing about that statistic is that you can’t even get an abortion in America in 87% of our counties because there isn’t one single doctor in those counties who will perform one! 87%!! The Right has scared them to death — sometimes literally — out of performing an otherwise legal, safe procedure. So, you can say women have “choice” in this country, but the reality is the “choice” doesn’t exist in the majority of the nation. “Right to Life” has essentially won this battle. (My personal position: I don’t get to have a position — I don’t have a uterus. If a Senate that was 90% female told me I couldn’t have a vasectomy or made it a crime to leave the toilet seat up, I guess I might object.)

What is “life”? An egg is life, a sperm is life. Those sperm aren’t running on a battery pack. They are living creatures, as is a fertilized egg. But they’re not “human beings.” A human being is something that can exist outside the womb of a mother. If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, then I respectfully ask you to go down to the DMV today and have them change your birthday on your driver’s license to 9 months older than what you’ve been telling everybody.

So back to my question. Why do we have an abortion rate 20% higher than France’s (and more than twice as high as Germany’s), especially considering most doctors here won’t perform them? The answer is any country that has universal health care, where contraception is free, where child care is free or inexpensive, where there is less poverty because people don’t become bankrupt over medical bills — those societies are simply going to have fewer unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

And there the mask gets pulled off the Bart Stupaks and the “Christians.” If the statistics show that countries with government-provided universal health care and nearly-free abortions are, in fact, the countries with the fewest abortions, then why on earth wouldn’t the Right be the first in line to support universal health care?

Because it isn’t about “universal health care.” It’s about controlling women, period. It’s about sticking your nose in other people’s business. It’s about pushing your religious beliefs on everyone else because voices in your head tell you your Jesus is The One — even though your Jesus never said one single solitary word in any of the four gospels of the Bible about abortion or fertilized eggs being human. You’ve just gone and made it up about “life beginning at conception.” Jesus never said that. The little voice in your head said that, the same little voice that wants your grubby paws on women’s uteruses. You need help. Please get some help and leave the rest of us alone, Mr. Stupak and friends.

After all, isn’t it enough that women can’t get an abortion in any of the 31 Michigan counties you represent in Congress? There is not one single abortion provider here in the north of the state, according to Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan. Hey, Bart — you’ve already won! Women’s rights have been stamped out in your entire Congressional district! Woo hoo!

So why don’t you leave the rest of the country alone, step out of the way, and let them have the minimal health coverage this bill will give them? You wouldn’t really crush the sick and infirm because of your own personal agenda, would you? What would Jesus do?

In the meantime, Bart, my neighbors and I are going to make sure a real Democrat runs against you in August’s primary here. One of our religious beliefs in these parts is to never impose our religious beliefs on others.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

The final battle over health care NY Times link(without Michael Moore)

31 Thoughts to “Michael Moore: My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain”

  1. Emma

    Anyone who knows me knows that when the “what would Jesus do?” weapon is pulled out, especially by people who aren’t even religious (and often critical of people of faith), that I have an odd tendency to go deaf on their arguments.

    And I don’t think Michael Moore is the ultimate authority when he preaches: “What is “life”? An egg is life, a sperm is life. Those sperm aren’t running on a battery pack. They are living creatures, as is a fertilized egg. But they’re not “human beings.” A human being is something that can exist outside the womb of a mother. If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, then I respectfully ask you to go down to the DMV today and have them change your birthday on your driver’s license to 9 months older than what you’ve been telling everybody.”

    Mr. Stupak has a right to believe that life begins at conception. just as much as Mr. Moore has the right to believe it does not. I know many people who are not at all religious who believe that life begins at conception. For them it is scientific fact, not faith or “imposing religion.”

  2. kelly3406

    This letter rambles on and on without really making any lucid points. Moore makes a number of assertions without backing them up. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people in this rural Michigan district (“almost exclusively for Republicans”) is against this healthcare bill. I would also bet that the vast majority in this county is pro-life. His silly definition of when human life begins does not cut it.

  3. I am pro choice. I think I have been my entire life. Is this really what the abortion flap is over? I thought that everyone was getting an abortion sur-charge from all the uproar. Now I read that it is Stupak is refusing to sign because he doesn’t want the status quo.

    Unbelievable.

    We have had conservatives up running their mouths this week. I thought it was time to give an uber-liberal a chance to get hit with raw tomatoes.

  4. kelly3406

    Moore said ‘C Street is where power, money, sex and religion meet’. Darlene Druyan, an acquisition official at the Pentagon, went to jail and Boeing received fines of millions of dollars for the corrupt deal in which Ms Druyan was to receive an executive job in exchange for her support of Boeing getting the Air Force tanker contract.

    This is the exact procedure used by Obama and Pelosi to secure Congressional votes for the healthcare bill. There have been offers of ambassadorships, executive positions and the like in order to get reticent Congressmen to vote for this monstrosity. If it is corrupt for the Pentagon to engage in such behavior, why is it not corrupt for the federal government in similar behavior?

    Obama is using money and favors to bribe Congress to vote against the will of the majority of Americans. It is the sort of governance that we expect of Hugo Chavez in Venezuala, but not in America. What will be next? Deem and pass for the next Congressional and Presidential elections?

  5. kelly3406

    @Moon-howler

    I would not accept the word of Michael Moore that Bart Stupak refuses to sign because he doesn’t want the status quo. Remember that he did sign on to the House version after the Stupak amendment was adopted.

    The right does not support universal healthcare for many reasons other than the abortion debate. Moore tries to conflate the two, but there are issues of constitutionality of healthcare mandates and federal regulation of internal state issues.

    I favor a simple healthcare initiative that eliminates pre-existing conditions, adopts tort reform, and allows consumers to purchase healthcare insurance from any other state. Obama could get overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation that limits its provisions to those three items.

  6. Emma

    @kelly3406 If this were a good bill, and the Democrats knew it was a good bill, it would have been put to a straight vote, and recalcitrant Dems would have taken ownership of their votes. This tactic of “deem and pass” could not possibly have turned me further off from any possibility of supporting this “reform.”

    As is said so often here, perception is reality. Congress is treating the bill like a big turd in the middle of the sidewalk now. We should all question why.

  7. Kelly, I fear that Stupak is holding up things over exactly what Moore says. Voting yes or no over a bill should not be over whether or not women buy abortion coverage with their own money. I don’t know where employee insurance fits in to this equation.

    Bartering for votes for a bill is nothing new. I am chuckling over the opposition acting like this is something new under the sun. Kelly, I think you and I have kicked around long enough to know that this is business as usual.

    What of those 50% or so, give or take whatever the standard deviation of error is, who desperately need/want the health care bill passed?

    BTW, don’t interpret this thread as my support of the bill. I have mixed emotions about it and there has been so much screaming and shouting over it, I reserve judgement. It doesn’t matter what I want anyway. Not totally for it, Not totally against it.

  8. I thought that ‘sperm weren’t running on battery packs’ was hilarious. Leave it to Moore to add some techno levity.

    I just had to erase. I broke the talking about the person rule.

    Actually Stupak is reaching and MM is on to something. Stupak is in serious disagreement with some might big anti abortion heavy-weights…like the Catholic Church and a whole flock of nuns. This dude is worried about tax credits or something. If he doesn’t like the bill in general, fine. Man up and just say that. He shouldn’t be going on some obscure IRS credit. That’s a stretch. The Hyde Amendment prevents abortion being covered with taxpayer money. Always has. Rightly, wrongly, JUST IS. Stupak’s reasoning is flawed.

  9. kelly3406

    The realclearpolitics average shows that only 40% of Americans support the health care bill.

    Based on articles that I have read, the healthcare debate can be characterized as an argument over who gets to pay. Those in favor of it predominately think that someone else will pay for their healthcare (corrupt corporations, the rich, etc). Those against it predominately think that they will be taxed to pay for someone else’s health care. Those against it also resent the government for trying to seize more power.

    The federal government however has completely lost sight of the real issues. This has become more of a struggle for power and the need to save Obama’s presidency.

  10. Pat.Herve

    The only fair way to have the insurance company ignore pre-existing conditions, is to mandate everyone having insurance. I was once against having an insurance requirement, but it is the only way to have pre-existing conditions waived. Increasing the pool does increase the cost on the individual, but spreads the risk out among more, and hence will reduce the entire cost.

    Abortion gets thrown around – and often becomes a centrally focused issue because it is often polarizing, and the candidate wants to pander to a certain group in a hope to get more votes. Personally, abortion is not for me. But I do not want to tell others what to do – it is their God, their conscious that they have to deal with. I also do not want my tax dollars to subsidize an abortion. SHould abortion even be covered by insurance?

    But, to say that a plan that is partly subsidized by the Gov’t cannot even offer an abortion provision in the plan is just wrong. Even the RNC health plan offered abortion services until recently – http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html

    We need healthcare reform. Healthcare is the stealth tax that we are paying for anyway. I cringe when I hear the same people talk about what they want to do now, but failed to even offer to do anything during the past years. This is not Bush bashing, but why could the GOP not get tort reform done during the past 8 years? Why is tort reform such a show stopper? I am for reforming Tort – meaning that frivolous law suits should cost the frivolous accuser – but to limit my payout to $250,000 when someone else was clearly in the wrong is not right. If a drunk Doctor paralyzes me in a surgery – http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_14421797 – and all I can get is 250K, and a lifetime of pain – well, that is not tort reform that I want to see for anyone.

    My question to you – what exactly is the tort reform that the GOP wants?
    What do they mean by allowing insurance plans across state lines?

  11. @kelly3406
    I think it matters who you ask, where you ask and how you ask. For instance, someone like me, and there are a lot of ‘like me’s’ out there, will register as a for or an against depending on how the question is framed. For the sake of argument, I would say Americans are split right down the middle on how they feel about health care.

    Interestingly enough. I just don’t think the entire thing should be decided around the abortion issue. That is a red herring if I ever saw one. The Hyde Amendment really takes care of it.

    This entire country is being run around abortion. That is just wrong. I can’t believe how many decisions are made because of something that should really be only our own personal business. I am astounded that this health care bill has been at a cross roads for months over freaking abortion which was already decided over 30 years ago by the Hyde Amendment.

  12. @Pat.Herve

    Pat, I think I agree with you. I just wish our legislators would talk about real things instead of what they think their constituents want to hear.

    I definitely agree with you about tort. That definitely depends on whose ox was gored.

  13. kelly3406

    @Moon-howler
    How typical. The numbers do not support your belief, but somehow you know better that the split is 50-50. Please do not let facts get in the way of your beliefs.

    As for Pat Herve, you may believe that an insurance mandate is fair, but it is unconstitutional. Such a mandate would be the first time in history that the federal government required U.S. citizens to pay for simply existing. And the CBO does not agree that the costs will go down. It projects that costs will go up. Even if the projected costs were neutral, we all know that the cost of any entitlement increases with time and eventually goes bankrupt. Tell me a single case where this has not happened.

    And practically it will never work anyway. If the cost of insurance for an individual is $10,000 per year, but the penalty for not acquiring insurance is only $1,000, many people will opt to pay the penalty. Since insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage, these people will simply acquire insurance when it is needed. This will greatly increase insurance premiums for everyone else, because now people who are insured will be pay not only for themselves, but also the costs of those who take advantage of the system.

  14. kelly, pull in your horns.

    1. The numbers don’t support my belief? What is my belief? You know as well as I do that different sets of statistics give us different views of health care. Attempting to dismiss my opinion doesn’t make that go away.

    2. You obviously didn’t read a word I said about framing the question to those who feel health care reform is needed but who aren’t sure about this bill. How the question is posed is going to give you different results with independents and non-ideologues on this topic. You seem to be an ideologue so you wouldn’t understand what I am attempting to say.

  15. Rez

    Wolfie said– “The Hyde Amendment really takes care of it.”

    Under the rules of statutory construction, a later law trumps an earlier law and a more specific law will trump a general law. The Hyde Amendment was not a constitutional amendment thus it is subject to modification by another law that is more recent and more specific, even if it doesn’t specifically say that it is modifying the earlier law. It could modify by effect even if it does not do so by wording. (Example of modification by wording is “this provision repeals section XXX” or “Notwithstanding section XXX” or many other means). By effect would be something like “a person may purchase X using amounts provided in this act to do so-and-so”. In that case, one would have to read the two laws and make sense of them. The simplest would be that the first law prohibited a direct payment by the government and the second permitted subsidy funding after it flowed through an individual. That is how it could affect the Hyde Amendment.

    Thus, it is possible that this new law could partially override the Hyde Amendment so it is not a red herring.

    I would doubt that many democrats would be falling on their swords to buck their party if there is no chance that it couldn’t affect the Hyde Amendment.

  16. I am not sure what you just said Rez. It is probably me and not you. However, an awful lot of people I have known over the years have tried to neuter the Hyde Amendment, to no avail.

    I just hate to see the world, once again, revolving around abortion. This issue isn’t along party lines, by the way. I got my start with Republicans for Choice. My husband was with Catholics for a free Choice–Frances Kissling’s old group. I don’t know if they are still around or not. I throw this in because many people assume that only democrats are pro choice. Absolutely not true. Many people just don’t talk about it if they aren’t Democrats.

  17. Rez

    My comment wasn’t about democrats and republicans or how they feel. My comment was that one would think that Mr. Stupak must really believe that it affects the Hyde Amendment or else he would be voting with his party. If someone is willing to be affected (if they punish people, as either party does) over the principle, it must mean that something is there to be concerned about.

    I didn’t say one way or another about abortion, I was pointing out that one can’t dismiss 9red herring) the concern by Mr. Stupak. Or put more bluntly, where there is smoke there is fire.

    And I was pointing out that the Hyde Amendment is not above being watered down by the bill before Congress (I don’t know if it is, but there sure seems to be a lot of people from the President’s own party that are willing to suffer his or the leadership’ wrath over the issue.)

  18. Rez

    that was (red herring) not 9red herring)

  19. I believe that Stupak is rigidly anti abortion and it gives him an excuse to oppose the bill. I believe he is disingenuous. Imagine that, a disingenuous politician.

    Last I looked at it, Hyde was solid as a rock, or as they say on SNL, solid as Barack.

  20. My personal feelings about Moore and his ……principles, make me suspect everything put out by the person. His entire letter is to cloud the issue of Stupak’s amendment without addressing the issues. “set up for those whose employers don’t provide it, from providing abortion coverage if they get any federal funding — even to an individual woman paying without any government help.” – Set up by whom and funded by whom? The fed’l government. He’s contradicting himself. “But they’re not “human beings.” A human being is something that can exist outside the womb of a mother. ” – Apparently, toddlers that can’t feed themselves are not humans. And his letter is a rant against any religious belief that believes in the sanctity of life, most especially Christians. His religious belief, apparently, is atheism and would push that on others.

    What the nuns that support the bill state show that they have been taken in by the spin put out by the White House. Now, Sister Campbell states that 50 million are without health care. From my point of view, nothing prevents the Catholic Church from providing free or discounted health care to these poor people. When I grew up in New Orleans, Charity Hospital was right down the road. Also, how can the nuns go against the Bishops and the Church? Many of the leadership of the Sisters is very liberal. They have fallen in love with the idea that the government will fix everything.

    From an interview that I read, Stupak’s point of view is that the subsidized insurance premiums to policies that support abortion provide government funding for abortions.

    But the entire premise is still false. The entire health care bill is unconstitutional, as are most of the social programs. It is not within the authority of the government, ANY government to run private business, control health care, mandate purchases, etc.

  21. Here’s a statement found at http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/03/nuns-back-health-care-reform-bill.html:

    March 18, 2010
    In a March 15th statement, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke on behalf of the United States Bishops in opposition to the Senate’s version of the health care legislation under consideration because of its expansion of abortion funding and its lack of adequate provision for conscience protection. Recent statements from groups like Network, the Catholic Health Association and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) directly oppose the Catholic Church’s position on critical issues of health care reform.

    The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, the second conference of Major Superiors of Women Religious in the United States, finds the provision of the bill to include expansion of abortion funding and fails to include conscience protection. We believe the bill needs to include the Hyde Amendment as passed by
    the House in November.

    Protection of life and freedom of conscience are central to morally responsible
    judgment. We join the bishops in seeking ethically sound legislation.
    Mother Mary Quentin Sheridan, R.S.M. President

    On behalf of the Membership of the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious”

    Scroll down at that site and read Jeff’s letter. He’s a doctor that discuses his ideas on why heath care costs rise so much. Good read.

    From my research, the nuns do NOT represent 59,000 nuns. There are 793 orders of nuns. There were 55 signatures on the letter. Here’s an excerpt from my source: http://www.zenit.org/article-28689?l=english

    he Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious is asking for “ethically sound” legislation on health care, which it says isn’t found in the bill currently being debated on Capital Hill.

    The council sent out a statement today saying it supports the position of the president of the U.S. bishops, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who opposes the “Senate’s version of the health care legislation under consideration because of its expansion of abortion funding and its lack of adequate provision for conscience protection.”

    The council’s president, Religious Sister of Mercy Mother Mary Quentin Sheridan, signed the note.

    The statement comes on the heels recent statements from groups such as Network, the Catholic Health Association and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, who “oppose the Catholic Church’s position on critical issues of health care reform.”

    The letter stated that the organization represents 59,000 Catholic sisters, a number the U.S. bishops said was “grossly overstated.”

    “Network’s letter, about health care reform, was signed by a few dozen people, and despite what Network said, they do not come anywhere near representing 59,000 American sisters,” said a communiqué issued today by the conference.

    “The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice,” it added. “There are 793 religious communities in the United States.

    “The math is clear. Network is far off the mark.”

    All of the organizations that are supporting Obamacare are liberal “social justice” groups in the modern sense of the phrase. These sisters have decided that the ends justify the means.

    Here is the Anchoress on this “news” and also to put it into context: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2010/03/17/ap-rehashes-old-news-to-help-obamacare/

    Her whole site is a good one for information on the Catholic Church.

    Here is Stupak on his position: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35930025/ns/msnbc_tv-the_daily_rundown//

  22. Pat.Herve

    Kelly – because now people who are insured will be pay not only for themselves, but also the costs of those who take advantage of the system. – but there are many who say that those people already use the system and services that are currently available to them anyway.

    How do you propose getting around the pre-existing condition limitations that currently exist?
    How do you provide insurance across state lines without having a federal minimum on insurance coverage?

    I was not for having a mandate, but after listening to the experts, having a mandate is essential to resolve the pre-existing condition issue, otherwise, you are mandating a burden on insurance companies. I would liken the health mandate to Federal taxes, Fica, and medicaid – I do not know too many people who can just live without an income.

    What is the cost of doing nothing (a whole lot more than doing something).

  23. Rez

    And is the cost of doing nothing more than doing the wrong thing? Once you have done it, it is less likely to be stopped or changed.

    Experiments should be done a step at a time or else you don’t know what went wrong when it does.

    @Pat.Herve

  24. And THAT, Rez, is why we have 50 states. Try it on a small scale first.

  25. Pat.Herve

    but we have not been making any small changes, just waiting for the beast to consume us.

    Healthcare
    Medicare
    Social Security
    Deficits

    They are all looming around the corner, and yet, we are not doing anything about it. Have you started saving for retirement yet? I know many people in their 50’s who have not started yet, although they were told when they were in their 20’s that they should start saving….

  26. Rez

    Have I started saving for retirement? I am retired. And I worked hard for everything I got. My first job was at 14. And pumped gas at 16–that was my second job at the same time. Paid for my own college education. Went to a private school also–paid for that with the money I made from when I was 14.

    Now, would you like to pay my annual taxes for me? I go into debt just paying taxes because I make too much money (that I earned after nearly 50 years of working) to be able to take hardly any deductions. I can take no deduction for my kids’ education that put me over $100K in debt. Think it was easy borrowing to get my kids’ an education? I would hate to tell you how many of the ordinary deductions I cannot take. And I am still working because my taxes eat me alive and I couldn’t afford my home without it.

    So, I do have an interest in how Federal money has been spent.

    Sorry, but you may have thought you were asking an innocent question, but perhaps it would be wiser to ask people things about their situation before you make an assumption? Don’t you think?

  27. Rez

    So is it boo-hoo time for this guy? I think not. i don’t fit the profile for people that want to redistribute wealth. Sure wish I would find one of those wealthy people–maybe I should move to Gainesville?

  28. Rez

    And one last thing–even though I worked all those years, somehow I still found time to march with Dr. King and be at both Resurrection City and the March on Washington. Do you know how to become disillusioned? Watch a movement led by Dr. King, who did not believe in handouts but also believed in personal responsibility. He just wanted people to have the opportunity to display the personal responsibility.

    But what happened? The democratic party through politics as well as people whose sole means of income is calling everything “racist” highjacked the movement after the Civil Rights Act. And I frankly see the same things today in all of these movements.

    The answer to universal healthcare is not funding it, and the reduction of crime is not putting more cops around, it is creating an opportunity for people to display their own personal responsibility and giving them a job. You want to eradicate poverty? it isn’t about giving money, it is giving opportunity. Why do you think welfare to work did so well? Yeah, Bill Clinton was forced into it but it was successful because people didn’t want an endless cycle of handout, they wanted to break free of that.

    I am done–so thanks for asking if I started to save for my retirement.

  29. Rez, I think you give more credit to the human race than I am willing to do. Do you honestly think some people want to work? I don’t.

    Everything I have witnessed as an adult says exactly the opposite. Some people would rather sit on their arses and let everyone else haul the load.

  30. Rez

    So that is why we make sure to give it to them?

    That comment kind of shocks me–it doesn’t shock you?

  31. I don’t necessarily want to give people something when they are too lazy to work. Won’t is different from can’t.

    Which comment are you asking me about? Very little shocks me actually–especially with lazy people.

    And I don’t know how I feel about health care. I still have many unanswered questions. I think reform was needed. I don’t know if the law-makers have a good bill or not. Too much fighting and screaming for me to tell.

    I think people are already getting health care for free or near free in the form of medicaid.

Comments are closed.