Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 2 March 2014

I wonder if the Sistine Chapel would have ever been painted if Michael Angelo had refused to paint it based on his religion? This logic means any artist could be coerced into providing his or her skills regardless of their religious views.

And if you can coerce people to use their skills where they are not doing so willingly... The first thing I thought of is the disaster that is coming when we already have a shortage of doctors.

We had a presentation at the Republican Men's Forum on the problems of Obamacare by a very bright doctor married to very bright woman whose career was in hospital management.

There is a frightening number of doctors practicing today who are over 60 (and a surprising number over 65).

We are not graduating enough people to replace them as they retire and many are retiring because of Obamacare or refusing to take Medicaid patients because it costs them money to take those patients. How many young people contemplating a medical career would change to something else?

Ocare's success depends on being able to coerce doctors to take patients they don't want and that's the case whether we're talking about Ocare as presented (never expected to work) or the real objective of single government payer.

This current attack is being made in several states with gay people suing to force people to provide them a service. (For the record, I bear NO malice toward gay people--just coercion.) It's wide spread enough that it's obviously a plan.

Whether it's just a plan to set up a BS attack on Republicans in the next election (like Steffy's contraception question that turned into "the war on women") or a longer range plan to force doctors to take as many non-paying patients as the dictator decides is right remains to be seen, but I think this is the end goal.

Sorry it took me almost as many pages to say it all as Ocare took...

It may not matter. As I understand it she’s not running for reelection, or cannot.

You are correct that she cannot and is not currently running, but she has contested that restriction and says she has lawyers who says she could run again.

So far we have 7 or more running for Gov.

I don't know her personally but I know several people who have known her since she was a PC. Apparently she was very conservative back then, but has changed a lot since then. She is currently very susceptible to input from lobbyists who have money. I am told by those who know that she's not real bright and she has reportedly had a small stroke some time ago during her time as Gov and I know that that can change a personality.

Sadly a ton of AZ women think she's wonderful and I'm pretty sure she once was.

Now, Sarah Palin is another thing all together. Palin has a record that she can run on and experience in governing that most women don’t have. I would support Palin any day of the week.

I would too, but she's officially not really a woman. Yeah, I know she's beautiful, feminine but not emotion driven, a loving mother; but those are currently disqualifiers for "womynhood".

In fact she's not a woman because she's not a victim of the war on womyn despite vicious and constant attacks on her and her family. Now Hillary is fiercely independent but totally a victim. She has accomplished nothing good and caused a lot of damage. She couldn't help it because she's a victim so she "deserves" to be in charge. It's enough to gag a maggot.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.