P.S. Not paying any attention to any drama about the police and blah blah blah.


Just look at the beautiful look of joy in her innocent eyes. It's very heartwarming and tear-jerking.

This was good, but go see the legit thing. I was at a Mexican wedding earlier this year and they had the most spectacular mariachi band. Tear jerking when done right.

Thanks ant....tear jerking JERK!!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

On second thought, fuck family.


Ew!

>> ^ReverendTed:
Your argument (and Stormsinger's) also misses a critical point:
Just because we don't want to give up our income to the government to subsidize one welfare program or another doesn't mean we aren't charitable people. I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it.
The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy.
What Stormsigner might interpret as "I got mine, fuck you", in some cases might be "I got mine, and I'll give some to those in need. I'd just rather give it of my own free will in meaningful ways than have it legislated by and into the Washington bureaucracy. "


And what -you're- missing is that that is no replacement. What Americans give to charity (worldwide, not just to incountry causes) every year does not even cover just the Federal budget for social services, much less State and Local. And that's for tear-jerking causes like starving children and natural disaster victims.

In your selective payment setting, what would get paid for? Roads? Plenty of people don't drive. Education? A ton of people don't have kids. Medicare/Welfare/Unemployment? "I'll never need those! Only those (non-existent) welfare queens use 'em!" That just doesn't work. Like vaccinations, some things absolutely need to be done by nearly everyone for it to work at all.

Now I'm not saying there's nothing in Government that could be cut- 50% of our military budget for sure, and ending the Drug War's popular on the Internet. But that's not what these people are saying. They take offense with the whole concept of taxation to fund the Government. That's completely broken fantasythink, that a tiny tiny government would lead to a better world.


Edit: Forgot about "I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it. The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy."
That's also a fallacy. There's plenty of inefficiency and overhead in charities as well, and it's an easy argument to say there's a a lot of goal overlap and effort wasted with charities with similar goals and no cooperation.

Tear jerking all around. Even spam-bots cry at this. *quality

Health care companies 'alone' have rescinded? That statement indicates there are others who would rescind? Who are they, and why would they?

Furthermore, this little tear jerking video presents no problem that needs to be fixed. It's emotionally charged, but otherwise without sound basis. Perhaps the situation could presented in another light (though it is virtually impossible to contemplate an alternative given the current climate nationwide of fear and loathing being pushed by roughly one half of media outlets).

"The poor insurance companies have to deal with people defrauding them every day by filling out applications and leaving out material, pertinent facts regarding their health. It's a good thing insurance companies can double check with other documents available to them, otherwise they'd have no way to defend against such rife fraud and deception." Same facts, different spin.

But, we can't think that way, because there's an old woman crying in front of us.

Honestly, the solution is not external intervention of any kind, she needs internal intervention. That is to say, the woman should do everything in her power to disclose all of her previous medical conditions. Right away, she could challenge the insurance company to search through her medical history so if there was some history which would deny her future coverage, they'd either have to say so immediately or forever hold their peace. That way she'd know where she stood into the future, and could take other actions if the insurance company chose not to cover.

Unless, in this specific case she already did do something along those lines, then the insurance company should be sued for fraud, or breach of contract, or whatever. Remedies already exist for every problem that exists. No need for 'new laws' (if there ever was such a thing) or greater regulation or elimination of private insurance on the basis of the facts presented in this video.

It's still curious to me that a member of congress who was against every piece of war spending is suddenly giving a tear jerking speech about how a vote against this bill is tantamount to leaving soldiers high and dry with no support or training.

Your lack of sourcing for this opinion made me curious. especially since it was opposite of my thinking on John Murtha, so I decided to do a little digging.

Here is his voting record on defense issues since 1993
for those that don't click the link, he always votes for appropriation bills and has consistently voted against any condemning statements of the military
Here are his rankings according to military interest groups
again, for the non-clickers: he usually rates somewhere in the 80 to 100 percent category
Here are some of his rankings according to peace interest groups
here he runs middle of the road, but their formulas are a bit more complicated because they take into account foreign aid and human rights intervention, not just military spending

And this is from his bio on his website:
Military/defense service

"Congressman Murtha is so well-respected for his first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues that he has been a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties on military and defense issues and is one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in the country. He is the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective."

So basically, I have no idea where you got the idea that he votes against war spending or hasn't always been looking out for our troops. Maybe you are confusing him with Feingold??? Sorry to bring facts into the matter, but somebody had to do it.

"Big Agriculture would go under if they did. Murtha gets on my nerves. "

Big Agriculture is hardly in danger of going under. American farms produce so much food that they tend to drive the price's in other parts of the world down. Farm subsidy bills are incentives for farmers to produce and sell less so the international markets can compete.

It's still curious to me that a member of congress who was against every piece of war spending is suddenly giving a tear jerking speech about how a vote against this bill is tantamount to leaving soldiers high and dry with no support or training.

But I guess according to some other people, you're not allowed to ask those questions.