Stanek Sunday funnies 1-30-11
The Gosnell live-birth abortion mass murders, in conjunction with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, provided an opening for several political cartoons on our topic this week.
Even liberals like Signe Wilkinson at GoComics.com were incensed…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
… and, of course, the resurrection of this tired, false argument by liberal Ben Sargent of GoComics.com, presumably about NJ Gov. Chris Christie…
Jan.30, 2011 12:48 pm |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ben Sargent’s argument is made by pro-aborts on a daily basis. It’s true that most pro-lifers are also political conservatives, which means they favor smaller government. However, it is a non sequitur to say that conservative pro-lifers only care about unborn children. How so? I’ll tell you.
For the time being, it is only legal for unborn children to be killed. Considering the reaction of some pro-aborts to “Dr” Gosnell, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to push us in the direction of Ancient Rome where the “unwanted” born baby has no rights, either. And if the Supreme Court or Congress or some other authority ever does declare that born babies have no right to life, then we will be marching for the right of both unborn babies and born babies to live.
The March for Life zeroes in on Roe v. Wade and unborn babies in particular because they are the only people who it is legal to kill. It is not legal to kill children like those pictured in Sargent’s cartoon, so we are not quite as worried about them. Not to say that we are not concerned about children; far from it. Most pro-life activists, conservative or otherwise, do quite a bit to help children and mothers in need. The argument of Sargent and his liberal brethren is, essentially, that in order to be “truly” pro-life, you must either adopt a massive number of ”unwanted” babies and personally care for them all, OR you must be politically liberal and support massive government programs. I think it goes without saying that our government spending has gotten way out of control, but whenever any conservative proposes a cut to government spending, he or she is condemned as someone who hates the middle class, hates the poor, hates children, etc.
John – I wouldn’t go so far as using the world “hates” the middle class, poor, children… but it shows that in the world of budget priorities, those things aren’t priorities. And budgets are moral documents – if we say we’re going to spend the majority of money in one area, and take it away from another area, we are saying we value those other things more.
Right now, in a lot of places, politicians would rather cut things that directly influence children (education spending, welfare benefits, health and human services) that increase taxes on the wealthy or cut spending for older people (social security/medicare). Again, that doesn’t mean those politicians “hate” those groups – I think they just show where they place their value.
hal and EX-RINO,
What is government if words have no meaning?
great collection of funnies, love the first one!
Notice how the first one use the A word and doesn’t sugarcoat it with “women’s center” “community health services” or “flowers and sunshine murders for hire” Oh, sorry, that last one slipped out…because these ‘community’ centers are ignored by the community watchmen so as not to rile the political beehive.
Ex-GOP, that is assuming that you believe that only the government is capable of helping people in need, or “promoting the general welfare”. Most conservatives do not agree with that presupposition. Most conservatives would say that the size of our government has gotten way out of hand and drastic measures must be taken to reverse this trend of ever-increasing government. They would also argue that a smaller government is better for the economy as a whole, and thus better for all people, including children.
In other words, conservatives disagree about the best way to promote economic prosperity in our nation. And because of this difference of opinion on economic matters, they are accused daily of either not caring about children, the poor, or old people, or of just hating them outright.
Ex-GOP,
It was precisely Johnson’s Great Society that fueled the forest fire that is burning the black community into oblivion. When the government stepped in and decided to assume the role of father of the house, the community fell apart.
The answer for the poor is recognition of one’s dignity and the exercise of self-control, which leads to decreased promiscuity, greater academic achievement, and an overall better quality of life.
White, upper middle-class proaborts (the leadership of the movement) love to hold out generational poverty as the solution to abortion (pay for the baby), when the demoralization and dehumanization of generational poverty (aided and abetted by NARAL and Planned Parenthood) is what has created this nightmare in the first place.
(See a less personally-directed version of this comment further below. The original wasn’t fair to ex-GOP.)
I see a few responses needed – only going to hit the sane ones – sorry Jon – you missed the cut.
John – the concept, yes – limited government – good talking point – I’d believe the GOP’s sincerity with it a bit more if 1) they ever lived up to it, and 2) if they were a bit more across the board with it. Last we saw them in charge, we saw the Patriot Act, department of homeland security, and the massive Medicare expansion. GOP speaks great things on limited government except when it comes to 80% of the economy – social security, defense, medicare – too many of their voters in those areas to be “limited” there.
Gerard – thanks for the thoughts – I think the problems that plague the black community go beyond what you or I could sum up in an online conversation – though I would pay money to see you head into the inner city and give a rah-rah “stay in school and stop having sex” speech. Good money too.
Hmm… your reply is similar to one I once made to you, Ex-GOP. That was a long time ago; you may be ex-GOP, but you have the memory of an elephant. Getting a dose of my own medicine, am I? But I think in your case, I still dealt with your arguments. You haven’t given me the same courtesy.
Jon –
First then, riddle me this – how can you take my first comments about budgets and priorities and how I thought a poster was going to far by saying “hates”, and spin it into your 300 word rant that included such phrases as:
“stop demanding that the civil government take other people’s money to give to those whom you think are needy.” (ummm, how in the world would you infer that from my only post on this thread?)
“Your attitude seems to display a lack of confidence in the Church and an overconfidence in the secularist civil government.” Again, what the he**? So I talk, very briefly, that funding reflects what we value, and I have a lack of confidence in the Church? How do you get that?
“You obviously have no trust in the individual (voluntary giving); according to you he must be forced by a more enlightened government into loving his neighbour.” Again, why, because I said that we seem to cut things for kids faster than things for older people? What?
And your last rant on socialism? What?
Jon – seriously – I don’t mean to be rude, but sober up or something and then come back – because unless you can logically explain how you took my short little statement on budgets and turned it into that – well, unless you can explain that, I think we’d just be wasting our time because I’d fear writing anything to you – I mean, I’d ask you how you are doing and you’d probably turn me into a nazi or something.
I’m not, ex-GOP. I’ve not written on the basis of one comment alone. You’ve made many on this website over the past few years, and I’ve interacted with a lot of them in the past. Maybe you’ve changed recently, I don’t know. From your first comment under this posting of Jill, I wouldn’t say so.
Do you disagree with anything that I’ve written? I know that you would disagree with some of the inferences I’ve made about you. I can rewrite my previous comment to take them out, but I’m quite sure you would still disagree.
Again, I wrote what I wrote based on your history on this website. I would think that my very first few words would imply this history: “Yes, Ex-GOP, stop demanding…” Later I mentioned your “seemingly ceaseless nagging.” While that language may have been too strong, it does refer to more than one comment written.
I’m sorry for my own discourtesy to you. You’ll see that I’ve rewritten my previous comment below.
The civil government should not redistribute wealth. If somebody is needy, then his neighbours can give personally, or the Church can help. Conservatives already generally give much more in this fashion than their liberal counterparts do, and conservative Christians do so despite larger families.
The purpose of the civil government is to defend its citizens and keep justice (uphold law and order). Christians should not elect Robin Hoods. Too often they lack confidence in the Church and have too much confidence in the secularist civil government. After all, our Lord has told us that the poor will always exist among us, and we should seek first His kingdom–but it is not of this world.
Socialism is deceitful and dangerous. Socialists have no trust in the individual (voluntary giving); according to them he must be forced by a more enlightened government into loving his neighbour. But as the founding fathers recognized, power corrupts. If the individual is not to be trusted, then why should he have great power over other individuals? Americans historically have emphasized individual freedom.
Also, am I to blame for the poverty of my neighbour? I’m not saying riches aren’t dangerous; in fact, I would say that it’s very hard to be responsibly rich, much harder than many Christians imagine. However, riches in themselves are not wrong. The poor man can never say on account of a socioeconomic difference alone that he should be able to have the wealth of the wealthy. If he recognizes his sin, he will realize that all the woes and misery in life originate because of sin, also his own sin. He will seek first his Father’s kingdom, and then his food and clothing will be added to Him. God the Father knows best. And His children love each other and will also help him. However, this kind of help implies the help of the Church.
The entire United States is living (for now) in an illusion! Socialism is unsustainable. There’s no more money. The borrower, America, becomes a servant to the lender, China.
Ex-GOP Voter says: January 30, 2011 at 10:08 pm
“Gerard – thanks for the thoughts – I think the problems that plague the black community go beyond what you or I could sum up in an online conversation – though I would pay money to see you head into the inner city and give a rah-rah “stay in school and stop having sex” speech. Good money too.”
==============================================================
EX-RINO,
Are suggesting that ‘students in the inner city’, which in the context of responding to Gerrads remarks are ‘black students’, are inherently incapable of understanding Gerrards message, even if communicated in ebonics, and/or are inherently incapable of exercising self control?
This is the typical liberal elitist attitude we see demonstrated daily by folks like you. Your racism is just more sophisiticated and obtuse than the white robed folks festooned with swastikas, but it is no less bigoted.
Or maybe you are inadvertently revealing the results of the ‘racism’ that has been systematically inculcated by the race and poverty pimps who have been coronated and anointed by liberal establishment as the de facto official leaders and spokespeople for alll black people.
Gerard and I have a higher opinion and greater expectation for all people regardless of their ethnicity or gender.
The ‘liberal solution’ has made a half hearted, but not underfunded, attempt at treating a symptom….with a concealed motive, to first and foremost to keep ethnic minorities on the liberal plantation rather than to foster self control, self suffiency and independence.
Most people, regardless of ethnicity or gender, will perform to the level expected of them.
Liberals have low opinions and therefore low expectations for ethnic minorities and it is in the liberal establishments best interest to keep the peasants dependent rather than to liberate them from the shackles of the false assumptions of the ‘great society’.
One would hope that the election of the first ethnic minority to office of president would have a positive effect on putting the truth to the lie that your ethicity has more power to determine your future than the choices that you make.
Hi Ken,
You hit the nail on the head concerning this patronizing and racist mentality of these sob sister liberals.
Recently a teacher in our community said we can’t expect minority and/or poor children from troubled homes to act like white middle class children. What’s scary is he is winning an award.
Really genius, why not? Do low expectations help these children? It gives these children an excuse to fail.
The late black journalist Carl Rowan expressed concern over black students viewing education and proper speaking as “being white”. While I do not share Rowan’s political beliefs I respected him as a man of great accomplishment. What is more racist than to suggest education and articulate speaking is “white”? This is the kind of racist claptrap I would expect to hear at a klan rally, not coming from the mouths of young black people. Who gives these kids this mentality? I suspect its race hucksters and the liberalism that has permeated our education system. How ironic that such a mentality would have their ancestors, who greatly prized education, rolling over in their graves.
One accomplished black student discussed the ridicule she was subjected to for her education and articulate speaking. She brought up a good point. Didn’t Martin Luther King and Malcolm X speak very articulately? Who would have taken them seriously if they couldn’t even form a sentence? These men would have been little more than laughing stocks instead of the great black leaders they were.
Also, am I to blame for the poverty of my neighbour?
You put a lot of weight on the fault of the individual when there are a lot of systemic issues that create and perpetuate poverty. Some of these issues government can help with, like health care for people who can’t afford it if they go off welfare. Others, it can’t directly influence, so they have to be tackled from other angles. But as good as charity is, it’s no replacement for fixing the problems that are keeping people poor in the first place.
Jayn,
To a point I agree. I believe gov’t “assistance” has done more to trap people into lives of dependency, hopelessness, and poverty than anything else.
I have often heard black conservatives say the 1960’s “War on Poverty” was in fact a war on the black family.
But I am also convinced the black students I describe in my post are trapping themselves and their future children into lives of poverty, dependence, and despair by their mentality that education and speaking well is “white”. A mentality that will suit them for life on a street corner and little more. I don’t know about you but I consider this appallingly racist. What’s even more appalling is that it comes from the mouths of black people.
Black Americans in fact have a long tradition of two parent homes, strong family ties, valuing education, and entrepreneurship. The ancestors of the young black people I describe would be rolling over in their graves.
The teacher I mention in my post is to me another glaring example of the patronizing liberal mindset. We just can’t expect much from low income and/or minority children. Why the heck not? Guess what. Then you won’t get much.
I believe health care would be better handled with insurance reform, HSA’s, and people taking more responsiblity for their health. Gov’t interference in the form of Medicaid and Medicare has only led to outrageous cost and corruption. Typical of what happens when the gov’t interferes in anything.
I don’t want to comment too much on minorities here, but I’m not surprised that they would want to keep or create some sense of racial identity after the centuries of oppression they’ve had to deal with. I’d like to say I have an answer that respects that drive, but I don’t. That’s something they’ll have to figure out themselves.
As far as healthcare, that’s something I’ve always thought should be government controlled because the capitalist model fails. The demand aspect is relatively inelastic, which screws with the supply-demand balance in pricing. Almost by definition the people who most need insurance coverage–people with ongoing health problems they can’t afford to treat–are the ones who can least afford to get it, assuming anyone is willing to cover them in the first place.
It’s true that most pro-lifers are also political conservatives, which means they favor smaller government.
NOT ME.
Black Americans in fact have a long tradition of two parent homes, strong family ties, valuing education, and entrepreneurship.
Thank you. There still are lots of strong, two parent families in the black community and many black people who value education and hard work. Please don’t stereotype us all.
I am really shocked, I tell you, shocked, at the Signe Wilkinson column, because she is about as PC as they come.
Ex-GOP,,
“ I think the problems that plague the black community go beyond what you or I could sum up in an online conversation – though I would pay money to see you head into the inner city and give a rah-rah “stay in school and stop having sex” speech. Good money too.”
I spent seven years in my twenties working and living at Covenant House, a shelter for homeless youth (mostly inner-city) in New York’s biggest sewer, Times Square, where I did just what you derisively suggest. And I did it for very LITTLE money.
It’s just as well that you are Ex-GOP and not with my party anymore, because your brand of low regard for the human dignity and capabilities of black children makes you better suited to the Democrats.
Black children hunger and thirst for people who sit with them one-on-one and tell them of their great worth, of their inner beauty, of their great capabilities.
They hunger and thirst for people who not only tell them such things, but are willing to commit to a multi-year mentorship relationship that will actually get them there. We started such a program at Covenant House back in the 1980’s and it is a roaring success today.
So in response to your cynical disregard for these children, they are no different from any other. They just don’t want cynical grandstanding by politicians and activists, and know sincerity when they see it, responding accordingly. I was there, and I did it.
And you??
Jayn,
I am all for people maintaining and taking pride in their cultural and racial identity.
The capitalist mode of health care fails. Sure, when the gov’t interferes. If gov’t run health care is so great, why are socialist leaders like Castro importing doctors to tend to their health needs? Why does a member of the Canadian gov’t come to the US for her breast reconstruction. Were I to need such a surgery, and hopefully I never will, I would have my choice of physicians and facilities right here in my midwestern city.
Black children hunger and thirst for people who sit with them one-on-one and tell them of their great worth, of their inner beauty, of their great capabilities.
All children need this, doc!
Gerard Nadal, I’m generally against cloning but for you I might make an exception ;>)!
Why does a member of the Canadian gov’t come to the US for her breast reconstruction.
I’m not familiar with the person in question, but my best guess would be waiting times. There’s a shortage of practitioners in Canada, at least in certain fields. (Having the US next door doesn’t help–you can practically time your watch by the news stories about Canadian med students choosing to practice in the US). And hey, I’ll be the first one to admit that the Canadian system is not perfect. But you also don’t have people avoiding doctor visits because they can’t afford the cost.
You know what’s the one thing that always comes up when health care reform comes up in Canadian politics? That we don’t want to be like the US. And having been on both sides of the border, the Canadian system is at least less confusing.
Phillmiss,
Yes! All children need this, but I was addressing the challenge to speak this to inner-city youth. Libs such as Ex-GOP are the ones who treat black children as a separate species, then laugh and ridicule when we suggest otherwise.
Ninek,
:-)
Jayn,
My point exactly. Waiting times. I would guess also a lack of available practitioners and facilities. What happens to the middle or low income Canadian woman in need of the same surgery? People avoiding doctor visits because they can’t afford to? How about people not getting the care they need even if they can afford it because it just isn’t available? Are you aware the Canadian gov’t contracts with American border hospitals to provide care to their citizens?
What you describe it typical of gov’t run health care.
They don’t want to be like us? Fine. Apparently they have no problem with our hospitals.
Mary,
What Canadians want to avoid is a situation where rich people get better care than poor people. More or less, this is how things currently work there. There are issues on the supply side, but the more I learn about health care issues, the more I believe that supply is just generally an issue–the US certainly seems to have the same problem, even with people coming here from other countries for the paychecks. Meanwhile, we don’t have to worry about finding a doctor who is approved by our coverage, which procedures will or won’t be covered, getting a claim denied, losing our coverage if we get fired…you get the picture.
Frankly, I feel more secure in the Canadian system, despite it’s faults, because I know that my treatment will be based first and foremost on my need for it.
Hi Jayn,
Well obviously they haven’t avoided the situation since a gov’t official has the means to obtain care that middle and lower income Canadian women may not have access to. If there is no concern about getting your needed care, why is the Canadian gov’t contracting with American hospitals? Wouldn’t Canadians much prefer staying in their own communities and country? Why did my aunt’s physical therapist, thanks to her American medical contacts in the US, bring her Canadian father to the US to treat his cancer after he was put on a waiting list? What about his need?
Also, insurance reform, which I firmly believe is needed, not gov’t takeover, would address many of the issues you mention. So would HSA’s.
“What Canadians want to avoid is a situation where rich people get better care than poor people.”
The Canadian health care system does fix that — it makes it worse for hard working “rich” people. It increases bureaucracy, waiting times, etc, while decreasing options. Any system that worsens the options of one group to make things equal is not a good system.
Gerard,
I had forgotten that you worked at ‘Covenant House’.
Did you see the story about the Lancaster Pennsylvania School District that allowed the aministration at Mc Claskey High School to segragate struggling students by both race and gender for just a few minutes a day, about an hour a week, to be mentored by respected and successful teachers who shared their ethnicity and gender.
Whoa and behold these student showed immediate improvement academically.
If you google McClaskey High School and segregation you will find the new coverage.
Somehow, I do not believe these mentors and role models used racism as an excuse not to succeed.
I can see where these students might more easily trust and respect a person of like gender and ethnicity, but I believe that if they had time to get to know someone who did not share their gender and ethnicity they would over come both their inherent and inculcated prejudices and begin to respect and receive these other role models.
I’m a Canadian, and I know an elderly man who was put on a wait list for at least one year and perhaps several years. He finally got the surgery–some kind of bypass–but he might easily have died in the meantime.
“What Canadians want to avoid is a situation where rich people get better care than poor people.”
What is wrong with this scenario or as doctor Phil would ask, “Canucks, how’s that working out for you?”
Disagree with the premise of the statement. Most people, regardless of their nationality, want the best value their wealth can buy.
Equality is NOT ensuring that everyone is equally miserable.
Equality is ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to use their girts, talents, training and education to succeed in life as they define success, not some autocrat.
“What Canadians want to avoid is a situation where rich people get better care than poor people.”
Oh, really? I’m a Canadian, and I don’t have any problem with rich people paying to get better care than poor people. You get what you pay for.
What Canadians want to avoid is a situation where rich people get better care than poor people.
Ah, we get to the liberal heart of commie-lovin’: Rich people must be evil so we can’t let them get anything for being rich, richness should be punished! Lol!
If a rich person wants to pay for the best, how does that hurt me if I am not rich? It doesn’t. If rich people get the same lousy care as me, why should I try any harder in life? I may as well lie down and start drinking from the government milk bottle, eh? What motivation is there to succeed in life? Why bother?
The libs never see how communism and socialism go hand in hand with death, death by millions, death by thousands, death of the human spirit, death of human beings. Oh, it’s better to be dead than poor, they cry! What a crock!! I personally know Canadians that have flown here to see their preferred doctors and had their prescriptions filled. Why not? Why begrudge them? You know what happens when everyone is equally poor – Cuba, that’s what.
My new bumper sticker: I love Capitalism and Live Babies!!
Jon –
Thanks for the more sane reply. I do think you have me partially confused with somebody else – I haven’t even been on this board for “a few years”. Been on it for about 8 months, tops.
I agree with you – socialism isn’t the answer. In regards to spreading the wealth – are you not a supporter of progressive taxation?
On foreign debt – I get your point – though foreign owners of US debt is only about 1/3 of the total (not even), and China only 20.6% of that – about $900 billion. They don’t really own us – they simply financed our wars over the past decade.
Gerard – my goodness…pleasant little man you are. I question that the complexity of the issue can be summed in a simple statement, and you bring out 30 years of civil angst – wrapped up in a nice package of belittlement and smugness.
Good for you. I’m simply saying that these are complex situations, and painting one big brush and saying that’s the answer to all the problems – seems a bit simplistic.
Nice talking with you – if your only goal is to make up arguments that you claim other people say, and then feel good about yourself as you strike those down – then feel free to use my “Ex-Gop” name and hold some debates with yourself.
Ken
In regards to your first question – my answer is “no” – I’m not suggesting that at all.
Nice try Ex-GOP, but your words were pretty clear, and you got nailed for your unguarded candor.
Ken, I saw that story. I’m of two minds on the matter. I certainly don’t have an issue with choosing mentors with whom struggling students feel most comfortable. However, to do so during school hours and not during an after-hours enrichment program tends to cast the effort into an institutionalized segregation light.
Here in NYC, we’ve had entirely black and entirely girl’s public schools in recent years. On one level these schools offer students the comfort of cultural familiarity and homogeneity. On the other, there is something to be said for school being a microcosm of the world that students are being prepared to enter and function within. So the idea of learning how to deal with different people, with different cultural and religious expressions ought to receive some serious consideration. Like it or not, we need to work with all kinds of folks and need understanding and coping mechanisms. The earlier, the better.
Gerard –
Wow – I think you proved my point – if you are so sure that this:
“Gerard – thanks for the thoughts – I think the problems that plague the black community go beyond what you or I could sum up in an online conversation – though I would pay money to see you head into the inner city and give a rah-rah “stay in school and stop having sex” speech. Good money too.”
equals
“It’s just as well that you are Ex-GOP and not with my party anymore, because your brand of low regard for the human dignity and capabilities of black children makes you better suited to the Democrats.”
I think you might be suited for your own MSNBC or Fox talk show!
EX-RINO,
“I would pay money to see you head into the inner city and give a rah-rah “stay in school and stop having sex” speech. Good money too.”
Do you have any good money of your own or, are you, like most liberals, going to be spending someone else’s money to fund your amusement?
Ken –
I’d prefer to raise taxes only on rich, white people who own businesses. Or dead ones – take their estate money. I’ll set up a social program that the government can funnel money too – but we won’t do much good – just collect a bunch of money and lobby for more money with it. I’ll give you a cut.
Ex-GOP Voter, you were on this website as far back as December 2009. You commented on several posts then. For example, on December 19, 2009, at 10:30 p.m., you said the following: ‘To answer the question – how did Nelson cave on abortion? His main request was that states offer plans without abortion coverage. He got that. According to CNN, the also requested that “anyone receiving federal health subsidies would pay separately for an abortion.” Not seeing how he caved – sorry.’
I had remembered your opposition during the Obamacare debate, which seemed in my mind to have happened ages ago already. While our correspondence was not “over the past few years,” it was certainly more than “about 8 months, tops.” And we certainly argued long enough for us to get know each other’s thinking.
You asked if I am a supporter of “progressive taxation.” If progressive taxation means higher tax rates for higher incomes, then probably I’m not. My father isn’t even a supporter of income tax at all. He believes in taxing consumption, i.e. he’s for a sales (and perhaps service) tax only.
You say that China financed America’s wars over the past decade. I’m not quite sure that’s true, but if it is, certainly the debt load means that America will now be financing China’s wars. Contrary to what you say, America’s debt is enormous and extremely worrisome. As you say, budgets indicate priorities, and so I reaffirm that the civil government stick to its job of protecting its citizens (maintaining the military and police) and–if possible–get itself pulled out of the financial interference quagmire that is depriving its citizens of both their freedoms and their future.
Jon – guess we split the difference then – I didn’t think I had posted before we moved into our new home less than a year ago. Guess it was a bit before that.
So on your flat tax, would you get rid of mortgage deduction and other deductions? I suppose you would – otherwise it really isn’t a flat tax. We’ve had progressive taxation for years, and you seem to be confusing that with socialism. Two different things – and quite frankly, if you think Obama’s tax system is “socialist”, then you’d have to think Reagan, Bush, Clinton – Presidents for many, many years.
What I meant on financing the wars – the amount China owns is just a little less than the war total. And I’m not saying we don’t have a huge debt – though as a percentage of the GDP, we’re not in mass panic mode – what we need is politicians on both sides to take it seriously, stop playing games, and come up with a long term plan.
deleted — posted in wrong thread