Regardless, planned parenthood is also available for prenatal care, breast exams, and administration of birth control to regulate unhealthy or abnormal menstruation.. it is available for those who need that care but dont have enough $$$ to pay putrageous doctor bills. Thats where you go for those services if you are poor and have no insurance. This cutting of funding will hurt those services as well. Perhaps a compromise was in order? Wait, why would anyone in government do that? (/Sarcasm)
Exactly, as I see it, it isn't just to save money today, it is to set up a very tough future argument for government controlled/run healthcare. "Look, all these people, they need." "..the percentage has risen this much"..etc.
Somethign is not as it seems, me thinks. They easily got the finger pointed at the "repubs" too.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:30 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
the american tali-ban [GOP] and their sex hangups strike again
everytime the rightwing has a chance to do the correct thing the religious nuts start screaming about abortions WHERE IS THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY abortion is far cheaper then child welfare programs
the right claims to be about cutting government spending THIS SHOWS CLEARLY RELIGION IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN SOUND FINICAL PLANNING or damm the cost you must respect our fairytails
Wow. Sorry children cost money I guess. You know what, they should only cost their own parents money.
Exactly, as I see it, it isn't just to save money today, it is to set up a very tough future argument for government controlled/run healthcare. "Look, all these people, they need." "..the percentage has risen this much"..etc.
Somethign is not as it seems, me thinks. They easily got the finger pointed at the "repubs" too.
Yes I would think "business as usual" would get the finger pointed at the repubs. But then there in lies a decision of which finger to point at the basterds!! I don't want the same fights we have seen between the parties it yields the same BS results. As indicated by tbone there are some very needed health care offered by the program. We need to stop the abused parts. Don't do "business as usual" and start the whole damned program from scratch just for some damned politician to be glorified by "Look what I done" BS. We don't need to re-invent the wheel we need to make it more round!!
[This message has been edited by Butter (edited 02-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:44 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I think this is an asinine statement. Nobody is "pro-abortion", they are pro-choice. Big difference. No one is advocating babies being killed just for the heck of it.."Hey everybody, lets go out and kill babies".. what a crock. Thats evil. Its also a convenient damning political tool for people who can conceive of no reason for abortion to exist because of their religious beliefs.
Pro Choice is advocacy for the availability for the procedure in cases of rape, incest, and imminent danger to the health of the mother. These are pregnancies that no one should be FORCED to carry out to term. Or is it okay for an 11 year old girl who was raped by her uncle to be made to carry that child? If so, you should be the one elected to tell her that.
My wife has this one friend from work that has had THREE abortions! She's from Brazil, and never uses protection. She dates guys here and there, and gets pregnant now and then. She takes care of it by having an abortion each time.
Interstingly enough, she finally met a guy who she decided to marry. They are trying to have a baby, but now she apparently can no longer get pregnant and she's really upset about it
I realize this isn't the norm... but thought it was worth mentioning... kind of an interesting twist.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: My wife has this one friend from work that has had THREE abortions! She's from Brazil, and never uses protection. She dates guys here and there, and gets pregnant now and then. She takes care of it by having an abortion each time.
Interstingly enough, she finally met a guy who she decided to marry. They are trying to have a baby, but now she apparently can no longer get pregnant and she's really upset about it
I realize this isn't the norm... but thought it was worth mentioning... kind of an interesting twist.
Good point. I don't think we the tax payer should have to repeat taking up the slack for her bad decisions. Put a limit on it then make the person who made the bad decision pay for there own procedure.
IP: Logged
01:51 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
I think this is an asinine statement. Nobody is "pro-abortion", they are pro-choice. Big difference. No one is advocating babies being killed just for the heck of it.."Hey everybody, lets go out and kill babies".. what a crock. Thats evil. Its also a convenient damning political tool for people who can conceive of no reason for abortion to exist because of their religious beliefs.
Pro Choice is advocacy for the availability for the procedure in cases of rape, incest, and imminent danger to the health of the mother. These are pregnancies that no one should be FORCED to carry out to term. Or is it okay for an 11 year old girl who was raped by her uncle to be made to carry that child? If so, you should be the one elected to tell her that.
Abortion should not be used as birth control. Legs should be crossed and abstinence observed. But that is not the only reason it happens.
Am I wrong?
Regardless, planned parenthood is also available for prenatal care, breast exams, and administration of birth control to regulate unhealthy or abnormal menstruation.. it is available for those who need that care but dont have enough $$$ to pay putrageous doctor bills. Thats where you go for those services if you are poor and have no insurance. This cutting of funding will hurt those services as well. Perhaps a compromise was in order? Wait, why would anyone in government do that? (/Sarcasm)
I don't have a problem with abortion what so ever, but I don't buy into someone telling me it ain't killing because we set the time when it is actually a baby. That is for each to determine as they have to live with their decision. I am not religious so you can throw that out the window. I don't even have a problem with most of your argument. Supposedly only 17% of their funding is from taxpayers, and even though it all goes into one pot they claim that no taxpayer dollars are used for abortions, good luck selling that one. And I am sure the all of the advocates who believe that they are needed will donate to make it up. And I may be wrong but didn't the SCOTUS rule against forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions?
IP: Logged
01:58 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Good point. I don't think we the tax payer should have to repeat taking up the slack for her bad decisions. Put a limit on it then make the person who made the bad decision pay for there own procedure.
She probably paid for them herself... so it would have come out of her health insurance from her company, not through planned parenthood. But I agree.
the american tali-ban [GOP] and their sex hangups strike again
everytime the rightwing has a chance to do the correct thing the religious nuts start screaming about abortions WHERE IS THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY abortion is far cheaper then child welfare programs
the right claims to be about cutting government spending THIS SHOWS CLEARLY RELIGION IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN SOUND FINICAL PLANNING or damm the cost you must respect our fairytails
LAUGH. OUT. LOUD.
WOW.
You know, jails cost money too... instead of paying for people to sit in jails, why don't we just buy a bunch of bullets and kill them all?
Cheaper, right? WAYY cheaper than paying for the facilities and their food everyday..... RIGHT?
Anyways, abortions aren't funded by the taxpayers. I'm fairly certain that that is all privately donated and/or paid for by the "abortee". That's not my beef... I don't care that the taxpayers don't pay for that. I care that they perform them.
That, and I am against government funding for pretty much every other program they have there*. I know women that have never set foot there... and I know others that know the workers by name (literally).
I bet it gets refunded soon.. Despite all of the child prostitution and "advice" they give, there is a major percentage of our population that want it funded... so it'll be back in some form or another.
*Considering we're heading that direction anyways, I'd be okay with some of their other exams and such being dispersed through other programs and helped paid for by the taxpayer, if that's what the citizens vote for.
Wow.....two pages of biological men discussing what they would allow biological women to do or not do with their ovaries.
Would you guys be so judgmental if you were discussing testicles?
The government shouldn't fund abortions....agreed....but the present movement in the House goes FAR beyond a simple funding issue. If those on the right are going to complain about the left's attempts at "social engineering," you have to be "fair and balanced" (pardon the reference) and recognize the current efforts for what they are as well.
Wow.....two pages of biological men discussing what they would allow biological women to do or not do with their ovaries.
Would you guys be so judgmental if you were discussing testicles?
The government shouldn't fund abortions....agreed....but the present movement in the House goes FAR beyond a simple funding issue. If those on the right are going to complain about the left's attempts at "social engineering," you have to be "fair and balanced" (pardon the reference) and recognize the current efforts for what they are as well.
I don't think I am discussing ovaries. If this is going to go the abortion route... the difference is, you see a woman who will go through 9 months of something she doesn't want to go through, a respectable viewpoint, and I see a child that doesn't have a voice yet. Two different ways of looking at it, but I don't think it's fair to say that because we are men, we don't deserve opinions on the matter.
....... I don't think it's fair to say that because we are men, we don't deserve opinions on the matter.
Respectfully, holding opinions on the issue of WOMEN'S reproductive rights is one thing.....attempts to impose those opinions in the form of public policy is another entirely.
I bet it gets refunded soon.. Despite all of the child prostitution and "advice" they give, there is a major percentage of our population that want it funded... so it'll be back in some form or another.
I believe you are correct. The point I'm would like to see addressed is how to take out the negative working parts of the program. How can we get our politicians to not fight about whether not to fund it cause I believe the Senate will fund it. But how to improve the program so it works like most folks would like it too.
IP: Logged
04:08 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Butter: Good point. I don't think we the tax payer should have to repeat taking up the slack for her bad decisions. Put a limit on it then make the person who made the bad decision pay for there own procedure.
and they dont
this is about some people trying to keep sluts legs shut
sharia law
IP: Logged
04:10 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9471 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Respectfully, holding opinions on the issue of WOMEN'S reproductive rights is one thing.....attempts to impose those opinions in the form of public policy is another entirely.
Who is imposing what? A woman is ending a human life that resides in her. I think that is a bigger imposition on that human life than the 6 months that a pregnancy is a bother to the woman's life. Yes, I know that pregnancies are 9 months but the first three are hardly an imposition on a woman's life.
As far as reproductive rights, a woman exercises those rights when she chooses whether to have sex or not. IMO abortion should never be used as birth control.
IP: Logged
04:19 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
I believe you are correct. The point I'm would like to see addressed is how to take out the negative working parts of the program. How can we get our politicians to not fight about whether not to fund it cause I believe the Senate will fund it. But how to improve the program so it works like most folks would like it too.
If you figure out how we can do that, you'd probably be a write in for president. We need that in all areas!
IP: Logged
04:23 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Respectfully, holding opinions on the issue of WOMEN'S reproductive rights is one thing.....attempts to impose those opinions in the form of public policy is another entirely.
Again, you see it through the eye of the woman.
I see it through the eye of the child.
Two different ways of looking at it, and I don't think one is wrong, but I do think one certainly holds more weight.
IP: Logged
04:28 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Who is imposing what? A woman is ending a human life that resides in her. I think that is a bigger imposition on that human life than the 6 months that a pregnancy is a bother to the woman's life. Yes, I know that pregnancies are 9 months but the first three are hardly an imposition on a woman's life.
As far as reproductive rights, a woman exercises those rights when she chooses whether to have sex or not. IMO abortion should never be used as birth control.
humans breath air
[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 02-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:34 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by 2.5: You don't really get to decide what it is about though right? It is about different things to different people. (Hence politics)
and neither does anyone else.
IP: Logged
04:35 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Respectfully, holding opinions on the issue of WOMEN'S reproductive rights is one thing.....attempts to impose those opinions in the form of public policy is another entirely.
Respectfully... if poor women no longer get a free ride with government subsidized abortions, they'll think twice about having unprotected sex, which will lead to fewer abortions, and less cost.
It all comes down (again) to the two ideologies... Democrats believe there should be a safety-net at every turn, Republicans believe that makes people lazy and iresponsible. I tend to agree...
People make mistakes, but that's part of life... you have to deal with them. Getting an abortion using my tax dollars is not something I agree with. The overwhelming vast majority of abortion cases are simply because the girl didn't take the right precautions when having sex, for fun...
If I'm paying for her womb with my tax dollars, then I should have a say in what happens to it. Is that clear enough?
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Who is imposing what? A woman is ending a human life that resides in her. I think that is a bigger imposition on that human life than the 6 months that a pregnancy is a bother to the woman's life. Yes, I know that pregnancies are 9 months but the first three are hardly an imposition on a woman's life.
Well, that's stringent..... YOU think? Hopefully, Doug, your most recent pregnancy went smoothly for you.
While you're at it, however, please clarify the attempt to redefine "rape" and "incest" or add a codicil that would outlaw abortions EVEN when the life of the woman carrying the child is at risk, essentially saying she can die as long as the fetus is OK.
Does not the concept of "pro-life" extend to the mother as well?
When science advances to the point where I can push a baby though my urinary tract, then and only then will I feel qualified to tell a woman what she can do with her plumbing. Until then, however, I'm a bit uncomfortable making that judgment call.
I freely leave that determination up to you.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 02-23-2011).]
If you figure out how we can do that, you'd probably be a write in for president. We need that in all areas!
I don't think I alone can do that. But I think we as a whole could figure out how to get "the powers to be" to address issues much better than we are presently doing. If WE the People don't want to see business as usual then WE the People must change it. I think communication with "the powers to be" is the key in this effort.
Social media seems to have the middle east all tore up at the moment. Lets be American minded and create a better way for the changes the people want to be communicated to our leaders/politicians.
One idea-- There should be a way to create an application for a social media that can be viewed by the "the powers to be" that will help them simplify and go about their business in a more productive way.
What I mean is we all do, not none of us do. We all fight for what we fight for, for our own reasons. Shutting out people by saying thats not what it is about is just telling people what to think. Saying an issue is about something can only sincerely really mean you think that view is more important or supercedes the other view I suppose.
IP: Logged
04:46 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Well, that's stringent..... YOU think? Hopefully, Doug, your most recent pregnancy went smoothly for you.
While you're at it, however, please clarify the attempt to redefine "rape" and "incest" or add a codicil that would outlaw abortions EVEN when the life of the woman carrying the child is at risk, essentially saying she can die as long as the fetus is OK.
Does not the concept of "pro-life" extend to the mother as well?
When science advances to the point where I can push a baby though my urinary tract, then and only then will I feel qualified to tell a woman what she can do with her plumbing. Until then, however, I'm a bit uncomfortable making that judgment call.
I freely leave that determination up to you.
And the day that a child in the woman clears his/her throat and says "You know what? My life is meaningless and I probably won't amount to anything anyways, so just go ahead ad kill me; it'll be easier that way." is the day that I'll feel comfortable with the abortion. Until then, however, I'm a bit uncomfortable killing that child.
IP: Logged
04:49 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
The Conservative Right doesn't suggest eliminating the public school system, they are suggesting that we eliminate the Federal Department of Education. As it stands, the Department of Education currently costs the taxpayer 78 billion dollars a year (as of last year's non-existant budget). However, as you know, public schools are paid for by property taxes. Generally speaking, across the United States, the Department of Education is responsible for about 4-5% of the total money spent on Public Education.
I DO believe that education should be mandatory, but since it's ILLEGAL for the Federal Government to mandate the purchase of schooling, the Department of Education has no business in funding public schools. (it's not illegal for the state to do that however) What they should be doing, in my opinion, is determining the fundamental basic course curriculum that should be taught at the schools. Basic US History, Math, Science, English, Literature. Everything else should be at the discretion of the state, which it is.
I advocate that we eliminate 77.9 billion dollars from the Department of Education, and give them 100 million dollars to form a 50-state education comission to set the school curriculum. Nothing more, nothing less.
For what it's worth, I think all states should POOL the property tax school fund across the district. This would prevent poor schools from being poor, and wealthy schools from having more money than they know what to do with. That's not socialist if it's at the state-level. It's up to the state to decide what they want to do... that's Federalism.
I think many people in the media mis-interpret what the Christian fundamentalists say when they talk about eliminating the Department of Education.
And the day that a child in the woman clears his/her throat and says "You know what? My life is meaningless and I probably won't amount to anything anyways, so just go ahead ad kill me; it'll be easier that way." is the day that I'll feel comfortable with the abortion. Until then, however, I'm a bit uncomfortable killing that child.
Unfortunately, many women don't have that mindset of "I just lost a child". I know far too many women that have gotten abortions because of... other reasons. They aren't bad people, and I'll never label them as such. But the coldness to which they carried through with their decision... it chilled me.
I don't believe that every person for abortion wants to murder a child. I just don't want that to even be an option.
I wish I too possessed the capacity to be as monochromatic in my views but I unfortunately see the world in varying shades of gray.
Do you believe that the unborn, fetus, or whatever you choose to call it, has any value?
Is it worth more than a dog? Is it worth more than a person's public embarassment? Is it worth more than a person's inconvience? Is it worth more than a cockroach? Or is it completely worthless?
What value, even if it is zero, does a person who see in shades of grey place on the unborn?
In my opinion, no life is devoid of value... NO life. However, we makes determinations about who should live or die on a daily basis and, more often than not, those determinations are predicated upon reflection and consideration of all the parties involved and the humanistic impact of said determinations. They are rarely arbitrary or linear but rather viewed through what could best be described as a "morally kaleidoscopic" lens.
From a purely societal perspective, what makes this issue any more or less subject to the same "value of life" judgments we make in other similar or vastly dissimilar instances?
IP: Logged
05:56 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9471 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
In my opinion, no life is devoid of value... NO life. However, we makes determinations about who should live or die on a daily basis and, more often than not, those determinations are predicated upon reflection and consideration of all the parties involved and the humanistic impact of said determinations. They are rarely arbitrary or linear but rather viewed through what could best be described as a "morally kaleidoscopic" lens.
From a purely societal perspective, what makes this issue any more or less subject to the same "value of life" judgments we make in other similar or vastly dissimilar instances?
As a society we have placed a value on life which does depend on a number of factors. It is clear that there is value to a human life since it is a crime to unjustly take a life or to do harm to another person.
My question was specific to you. For lack of better wording, I'll use "cost" as a measure. The cost to the woman is social stigma, possible embarassment, inconvience, possible emotional costs, discomfort and the pain involved in labor. There is also possible health issues involved as well. Most or often all of these costs are temporary.
The cost to the unborn is absolute and irreparable.
Most people in the anti-abortion camp do not value the life of the unborn as complete equals to someone who is born. Most would allow for exceptions such as if the mother's life was in danger. Therefore we who are anti-abortion are looking at the "shades of grey".
I don't see that on the pro-abortion side. The mother's word is absolute. If she wants a baby, then it is a baby. If not, then it is equal in value to a tumor or hang nail. If she is manic depressive and changes her mind ever 30 minutes then I guess according to the pro-abortion side the unborn would change from being a baby to equal to a tumor every 30 minutes as well.
I ask you again, what value, if any, do you place on the unborn?
IP: Logged
06:45 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22742 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I don't like this thread at all... if there's one thing I hate, it's abortion.
quote
Why women have abortions 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
Honestly, and I'm serious here... I CANNOT comprehend how a woman or man can watch the birth of their own child, and still support abortions after that. I simply can't understand it. Before my wife gave birth to our daughter, I was like many of you... I didn't have any real opinion. I thought it was bad, but kind of felt it should more or less be the woman's decision. All I heard from the media was this and that about rape, incest, and health reasons... little did I know that 93% of people were doing it just because they didn't want to "deal with it." The baby is apparently too inconvenient.
It's very telling what society has become today... we're can't be inconvenienced, so we'd rather kill a fetus than have to go through the trouble of raising the child. What lessons are learned? Anyone ever see the movie Juno? Why can't people who **** up be held responsible for their actions and give the child to a family who can't have one?
After my wife had a miscarriage a few months ago, it only served to re-enforce my solidifying belief. Too many people today try to downplay, or make comfortable in, our mistakes.
Every healthy fetus grows up to be one of these:
It you prevent that from happening... how is that not murder?
And no, I'm not for the death penalty either. I'd rather we bring back the chain gang and recoupe some prision costs.
Beautiful kid....I've had three of those myself, one of which was able to survive despite her mother suffering through two miscarriages and one forced abortion before successfully bearing a child to anything close to full term. She was compelled (that IS the term....compelled) to undergo a full hysterectomy at age 29 in the process of her last pregnancy because her reproductive system was too compromised for her to live without undergoing the procedure. My now-25 year old daughter Traci was born seven (7) weeks premature and praise God, is expecting my 1st grandchild in June.
I think you and others are confusing the concept of "pro choice" for a statement of "pro abortion."
IP: Logged
07:19 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9471 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Beautiful kid....I've had three of those myself, one of which was able to survive despite her mother suffering through two miscarriages and one forced abortion before successfully bearing a child to anything close to full term. She was compelled (that IS the term....compelled) to undergo a full hysterectomy at age 29 in the process of her last pregnancy because her reproductive system was too compromised for her to live without undergoing the procedure. My now-25 year old daughter Traci was born seven (7) weeks premature and praise God, is expecting my 1st grandchild in June.
I think you and others are confusing the concept of "pro choice" for a statement of "pro abortion."
I think that the language is being abused by the "pro choice" side.
The people who say they are "pro union" will tell you that they support unions but would never mandate it. It should be a "choice" of the workers to unionize. Pro (insert anything) does not mean mandating something in most circumstances. It usually means giving people a choice.
Another example is the pro gun lobby. I am part of the pro gun lobby. That does not mean that I want everyone to have a gun. I want everyone to have the "choice" to own a gun.
People who run from the term "pro abortion" are showing their own distaste to be associated with such a horrific proceedure.
I freely admit that I am anti-abortion with a few exceptions. The "pro choice" side has never given any exceptions to their views. They are absolutist in their views and unwavering. They claim to see things in shades of grey yet just like you, have difficulty stating what value the unborn have. The reason is because placing a value on the unborn also places a mirror in front of the person making the value judgement. They would rather have it both ways. The unborn is valuable if it is wanted but worthless if it is undesirable.
IP: Logged
07:35 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
I think you and others are confusing the concept of "pro choice" for a statement of "pro abortion."
The problem is, making the choice to have an abortion results in the end of a life. Is that murder, or is it simply a woman's right to do as she chooses with her body? We convict people if their actions result in the death of a fetus (e.g. a drunk driver who causes an accident that kills a pregnant woman).
My opinion is that our rights are limited to those actions which do not cause direct harm to others. In other words, I have a right to do as I please up to the point that my actions infringe on you. In terms of abortion, does a woman have a right to do as she pleases even though her actions will end another's life? We all know that pregnancy is a very possible outcome of sex, so is the choice to have sex the choice we're talking about? Once a woman is pregnant, her actions no longer affect just her but now directly impact another life as well.
But it isn't cut and dried either. In the case of rape, should a woman be forced to carry a child even though she never made the choice to engage in an activity that could result in pregnancy? I don't think she should, but we are still talking about ending the life of another. If it's murder to unjustly kill someone else, is this murder or not?
Beautiful kid....I've had three of those myself, one of which was able to survive despite her mother suffering through two miscarriages and one forced abortion before successfully bearing a child to anything close to full term. She was compelled (that IS the term....compelled) to undergo a full hysterectomy at age 29 in the process of her last pregnancy because her reproductive system was too compromised for her to live without undergoing the procedure. My now-25 year old daughter Traci was born seven (7) weeks premature and praise God, is expecting my 1st grandchild in June.
I think you and others are confusing the concept of "pro choice" for a statement of "pro abortion."
You might not be saying this to me specifically, but just so it's clear I understand your position. Though I don't think that way, I can empathize enough to say I can see how many would want the option of abortions in some cases. However, I don't think you have shown that you understand that pro-life does not mean "Against-choice". We are for choice... choice for the child. We each have our own views, and while I will vehemently defend my own and fight to have abortion taken away as an option, I cannot and will not get angry at those that believe otherwise, until they show me disrespect for my own views.
Thank you for keeping a cool head, as always. You are always a pleasure to have on the other side of the table.
