COUPLE WINS $4.5 MILLION

[slim 1,533]

So how much do your repub and tea party politicians want to fund for their care? Are you saying YOU will advocate for the higher taxes decent care for them may require? Time to put your money, and your votes, where your mouth, or your post, is! I personally support the liberal democratic position that we owe these vets the best care and the rest of us have to pay the taxes needed. What about YOU?

Not for one second. What I will vote for is a welfare mom being denied a single penny more while the vet gets the best treatment available.

Sip on that.

Interesting, I don't recall our techs ever saying that.

And I always forgot to ask!

Did you forget or did you just assume it was normal and they'd tell you if it wasn't?

[Fandango 1,440]

Interesting, I don't recall our techs ever saying that.

And I always forgot to ask!

The 4d ultrasounds were incredibly clear. There's a folder on my fb from summer 2010 that has some in there. You can see everything.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Not for one second. What I will vote for is a welfare mom being denied a single penny more while the vet gets the best treatment available.

Sip on that.

You rail against welfare mothers taking up tax dollars, but there is another class of people who pose a far greater threat, and take up even more money.

[Fandango 1,440]

You rail against welfare mothers taking up tax dollars, but there is another class of people who pose a far greater threat, and take up even more money.

I think what Slim objects to is the notion of the welfare moms who do nothing but churn out kids and get more and more money, all while doing nothing to financially change their situations. VS the disabled military, who have gotten that way due to the sacrifices they laid down for our nation.

One deserves, the other exploits.

[slim 1,533]

You rail against welfare mothers taking up tax dollars, but there is another class of people who pose a far greater threat, and take up even more money.

Who's that... the criminal class? (Keep in mind, many of those are already in the welfare class.)

I think what Slim objects to is the notion of the welfare moms who do nothing but churn out kids and get more and more money, all while doing nothing to financially change their situations. VS the disabled military, who have gotten that way due to the sacrifices they laid down for our nation.

One deserves, the other exploits.

Bingo.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Who's that... the criminal class? (Keep in mind, many of those are already in the welfare class.)

Two birds with one stone then with my penal colony idea.

[Danno 1,228]

So how much do your repub and tea party politicians want to fund for their care? Are you saying YOU will advocate for the higher taxes decent care for them may require? Time to put your money, and your votes, where your mouth, or your post, is! I personally support the liberal democratic position that we owe these vets the best care and the rest of us have to pay the taxes needed. What about YOU?

Wow, you must be a real; Patriot!

here you are standing up for wounded vets.

Must be a small club you're in.

[Danno 1,228]

More insipid Dannologic™. Danno, if you found out that your unborn son would be gay, would you abort it? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question, I think we all know the answer.

Are you back on the gay-thing again?

This one deals with abortion, while I know you love the ones dealing with Homosexuals... give it a rest.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I'm not saying he can't. I'm not saying he's not going to be a valuable and contributing member to society.

But, what I am saying is there is a HUGE cost associated with raising a child such as this and the parents were responsible enough to realize they didn't have the money to do so. They would've aborted the pregnancy had they known. The medical folks were negligent and thus they must pay for the care of the kid.

Sure it cost a lot of money, so do kids with cancer. We dont suggest killing them do we, give the parents the right to do the "responsible" thing because they can't afford it??? Now I dont equate the two as the same on a moral scale, my point is that just because it makes it easier on you doesn't make it "the right thing to do".

Sounds like they weren't concerned at the time since "all was well."

You don't think he'll understand that he's not "normal" and all those trips to the doctor aren't free?

I don't like it. I don't like the fact that stupid parents cost me money.

Well thats life and I still say kids shouldn't pay the price for stupid parents. What wrong for us as a whole to make sure out children are taken care of?

In this case, it sounds like the parents were actually very smart.

No so sure about that...

Here we go again. If the government isn't the best option, why do we let them do it?

I said that the gov. was part of the equation and thats because there are just not enough people out there volunteering or contributing.

Also, if there are plenty of people then how are there not enough people? Do you mean people volunteering? Or.... do you mean "there aren't enough people to pay for it all?"

Scratch plenty, I should have said "a lot" but nevertheless we need a lot more people.

I am anti-abortion, but come on....having a sonogram and seeing 3 limbs missing? How could that be missed? That was gross negligence...and regardless what the parents would have done, they had a right to know.

btw, I take umbrage with calling a child 'invalid'. It's rude and unnecessary

I guess with abortion on the table they do legally have a point...sigh.

[_Simpson_ 250]

You rail against welfare mothers taking up tax dollars, but there is another class of people who pose a far greater threat, and take up even more money.

politicians?

[slim 1,533]

Two birds with one stone then with my penal colony idea.

Hey, if you can get it going, I'm all for it.

Sure it cost a lot of money, so do kids with cancer. We dont suggest killing them do we, give the parents the right to do the "responsible" thing because they can't afford it??? Now I dont equate the two as the same on a moral scale, my point is that just because it makes it easier on you doesn't make it "the right thing to do".

If parents could tell their child was going to have a severe form of cancer BEFORE birth, I wonder how many would choose to end it early. We're almost there, medically.

What's amazing to me is our grandparents all had eight or ten kids because two or three were likely to die and the rest were needed to help out around the house, farm, get jobs, etc. Now, it's almost backwards from that where the parents have to help the kids. I wonder if we'll return to that standard once the dollar takes a $#!T.

Well thats life and I still say kids shouldn't pay the price for stupid parents. What wrong for us as a whole to make sure out children are taken care of?

What's wrong is who are you to say how my dollars should be spent? What if I want to take care of deaf kids and you'd rather take care of cripples?

"But slim, I wanna take care of all kids."

That's great. So do I. But, I want my money to go to the kids, not fifteen other people in line to "help" them. I don't like the fact that under government-run programs very little of my dollar goes to the needy and a whole buch of it goes to "non-profit" organizations that pay their administrators six figures. And that's only AFTER my dollar's been hit for taxes.

I said that the gov. was part of the equation and thats because there are just not enough people out there volunteering or contributing.

Scratch plenty, I should have said "a lot" but nevertheless we need a lot more people.

What if people didn't pay so much to the government?

I mean, seriously, next time you get your paycheck, consider that net pay. Of course you're going to pay for local police, fire, schools, etc., but what if you had that other 15% or so back in your check?

Do you think you'd be more or less apt to donate to charity?

I guess with abortion on the table they do legally have a point...sigh.

Is that you throwing in the towel? Say it isn't so!