I admit that after my last comments that I just had to see if and how they got twisted and I was correct.

First, I am not on a 'hate-fest' with your President. My initial objection was to his lying to the nation, Period!

As to the insurance companies, I favour laws universally to restrict their abuses of people for mere profit.

As to Mr. Firth, in my original question to him I asked for 'his honest assessment' and now after a series of twisting, he has not been able to adequately give me one, but has shifted every which way but giving a straight answer.

I have said that I am not opposed to socialised medicine but I do disagree with the government lying to its people and have asked you as to how you approve or justify it. Your responses show that some of you think it's just fine.

I have pointed out to you that in a Democracy people should be told the truth and then let them decide or have a say in it. You disagree or should I ask 'Do you disagree?'

The only logical assumption is that your opinions are predicated on a lie, and to ask for an 'honest assessment' is in itself an impossibility. To some here, honesty seems to be an 'inconvenience'.

That is the same mentality that gave credence to Hitler's blaming the Jews for burning the Rheichstag in Berlin. But this time it's anyone who disagrees with going along with a lie.

What next?
Who's next?
Which fellow citizens should be allowed to be rounded up for their 'final solution' just to accommodate this and other lies being allowed and being supported to be believed?

If this is the case, then America has deteriorated to hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.
You may protest vehemently but the evidence is right in front of you. You may disagree what you've become but how can you deny it?
What next, sympathising with those poor Nazis??