"Kevin Cunningham" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 4:36 am, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
It is not up to tax payers to offer "choice" to women when they fail
to live up to their own personal responsibilities as citizens, this is
not negotiable. Those politicians who advocate such policies reflect
great dishonor on their positions of public office and the United
States of America.

Just like using "Tarp" money for new spending packages to create
"jobs" is also dishonorable spending. The problem is not that banks
or businesses do not have the money, it is that we don't know how we
are going to spend it. If I don't know what the health care and
energy policies are going to cost me, and it is all too apparent that
US politicians are more interested in election rather than business
cycles, I have no incentive to create jobs or a business.

But according to you it was a moral imperative to randomly invade some
country and kill thousands of our troops. It was a moral imperative
to spending trillions on new weapons systems that don't work. It was
a moral imperative to keep the defense industry humming no matter
what.

So you oppose not spending money and getting a working health care
system. You supported spending billions in failed wars. Does that
make any sense?
==========

Yes. In Bizarroland.