We WILL find out how it works

Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 11 months ago to Government
555 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Vermont decided to take it a step further by setting up their very own single payer system.

The slogan of the program: Everybody in, nobody out.

For details: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/vermont-m...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I can't be everywhere all the time. I comment when I believe I have something to contribute. However, since you brought up the subject...
    I believe the WHO has been politicized and their findings suspect. Their studies are lacking some metrics and even if they weren't I wouldn't really care. Freedom comes with risk and a price. I will take my own risks and freedom. I don’t really care what other nations are doing. I would rather live free for a shorter period than to live under the collective thumb agenda for longer.

    However, there is reason the right is skeptical. These may be somewhat dated, but I have no reason to believe things are any different.
    http://www.cato.org/publications/briefin...

    http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2011/04/method...

    http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/04/...

    http://wichitaliberty.org/health-care/wo...

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB12...

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      http://www.cato.org/publications/briefin......

      Claim: "They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance."

      But it's an empty claim. Nothing to back it up. Just political screeching.

      I looked at a couple of others and they appear to be little but political diatribes trying to discredit WHO with vague claims rather than offering any real evidence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 11 months ago
        Thank you for your opinion. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Please note that rather than present anything specific...

          As it usually is with those who don't really have a point.

          Show us another specific standard than WHO uses and why that should be adopted instead. Meanwhile universal health care sure looks like it's working in lots of places and it's much less expensive.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 11 months ago
            Please note that one of the benefits for foreign nations is that *many* of the previously developed medical breakthroughs came about at great expense here and those other nations have benefited without the expense. Capitalist systems promote greater innovation. In recent years the government drifting further from true capitalism and creating bureaucratic road blocks has made it more difficult. socialized medicine will only hinder this process further. Also the WHO numbers regarding mortality include traffic fatalities which have nothing to do with health care...
            http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the...
            There, have I made a point?
            I believe we will have to agree to disagree.
            Like your heading... We will see.
            I think we are done now.
            Thank you.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Do you mean stuff like this Published on October 25, 2013 at 1:18 AM: "Cancer Research UK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) are together committing -35 million for five years to four separate cancer imaging centres across the country, helping to cement the UK's position as a world leader in cancer imaging research. The new initiative builds on the -50 million initial investment in October 2008."

              That's from: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2013102...

              Let's go for something TODAY...: "
              December 6, 2013 by J-Wire Staff

              Read on for article

              The development of ground breaking communications systems for the next generation of computers is the goal of research collaboration between the University of Sydney and Technion – Israel Institute of Technology…with financial backing from the NSW Government.



              The project was launched yesterday by the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, Jillian Skinner MP, and the Technion’s Chairman of the Board of Governors, Lawrence Jackier at an official event at the University of Sydney."

              http://www.jwire.com.au/news/technion-an...

              Stem Cell research in the Philippines.
              Research on pot in Israel.

              Holey crap Bat Man, some of the most advanced research in the world has been illegal in America for political and religious reasons.

              Do you really want to claim that America is the most advanced in the world? All because people make money at it?

              In fact patent pharmaceuticals in America have kicked prescription prices to among the highest in the world. Others around the world can more easily get them because they are government subsidized, so even when we are best in developing something many Americans just won't be participating because of the right wing politics.


              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 11 months ago
    The article says that all hospitals, and all health care providers, will become "non-profit".

    Great shades of Castro!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
      Don't take "non-profit" as meaning that they don't make money. They merely don't sell stock and declare for their tax status they are not seeking to make profit - but most all do otherwise they would not continue to exist. Biggest scam going is to be a "non-profit." You make all the money you want and don't pay taxes on it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 11 months ago
    From the article: "The program will be fully operational by 2017, and will be funded through Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes."

    The citizens of Vermont will be in for a rude awakening, when the additional federal funds for the Medicaid expansion get turned off. These funds are sunset provisions, and if my memory serves me, will expire after 3 years. This was the main reason that my state refused to take this 'bribe' to set up a state exchange...the Florida taxpayers would be handed the bill, when the federal funds ended.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
      Exactly! and that's the part that Boboro and the national media completely fail to point out... the ACA funds for the states are NOT "forever funding" from the Feds (ie, national tax receipts..), they go AWAY after a period of time and AFTER THAT, the states (oops... the state's TAXPAYERS) will be the only source of making up the difference!

      Talk about "bait and switch"?! Let alone "caveat emptor"! Sucker bait!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
        Actually it may cost less. Get rid of the fat cats, tort cases for care, and stockholders and there is more money for health care that doesn't come out of a tax payer's pocket and go down a rat hole.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
          Absolutely true, Bob, but does the ACA directly address fat cats and tort cases? Was/Is that the intent and content and main goal of the Act?

          I agree that lots of money like that goes down a rathole, and some of it is your money and MINE, too, but I don't support an ACA as a way to deal with it.

          I don't support ANY legislation that isn't focused on a specific issue and has "riders" on it that suck everything and the kitchen sink in, just to get the attachments made into law.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      So the argument that someone from OK would have to pay for Vermont is absolutely false.

      Thanks for that insight.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 11 months ago
        Yes, and no.

        The beginning years that have federal funding will fall on every American taxpayer.

        And there is always the possibility that the federal funding can be extended by Congress....
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Guess we will just have to see how it works. BTW, MA still has Romney care.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 11 months ago
            The major difference between ObamaCare, and RomneyCare, is that Romney didn't rewrite the basic healthcare insurance coverage requirements, and force the insurance community into oblivion.

            Under ObamaCare, even a 60 year old flaming homosexual has to have maternity benefits, as well as birth control coverage. Insanity....
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Really? Can you show us that?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 11 months ago
                Do your own research.

                You just revealed just how little you know about what you are promoting.

                You are about to get exactly what you deserve...but, sadly, you are taking so many of us down with you.

                On second thought, I don't trust you to get the facts, so here is what you didn't know:
                "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 1302, “Essential Health Benefits Requirements,” page 45, signed into law on Mar. 23, 2010, available at www.thomas.gov, states:

                "(b) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS.—

                (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall define the essential health benefits, except that such benefits shall include at least the following general categories and the items and services covered within the categories:

                (A) Ambulatory patient services.

                (B) Emergency services.

                (C) Hospitalization.

                (D) Maternity and newborn care.

                (E) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.

                (F) Prescription drugs.

                (G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.

                (H) Laboratory services.

                (I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.

                (J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care."

                http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view....

                Read it, and weep....
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  weep about what? Folks are getting health care.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Rocky_Road 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Really?

                    You can be replaced by a bumper sticker...and make more sense.

                    Talk to the hand.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Remember, Rocky, that Boboro seems to have the belief that adding millions of people to government funded health care programs will instantaneously reduce TOTAL health care costs in the country.

                      I don't disagree AT ALL that more PREVENTIVE CARE will help lower costs in the long run, but I have serous doubts about what the real savings will look like over the next 1, 2, 5, or 10 years.

                      We shall see.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Not just the improvement from preventative care but the improvement of not having to pay fat cats and their stockholders. The money won't be at risk on Wall Street either. Considerable savings there.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                          oh, ps... My wife and I have ALL of our retirement IRA money being managed by Fisher Investments (fi.com ... check it out.)

                          My IRA was opened in June of 2004, rode through the Crash of '08 and as of a few days ago the balance stood at a bit over two percent HIGHER than the day I opened it.

                          Our combined IRA totals were down ZERO POINT THREE NINE percent after nine years and six months AND withdrawing cash AND paying fees a bit in excess of $530,000 over that period.

                          Go tout some other fiction to the unwashed masses....
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                          Spoken as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-capitalist, Bobor... If you really think that's evil, there's no discussion possible. Thanks.

                          Try "Economics In One Lesson" ... the whole message is in the first ten pages or so; the rest is examples.

                          Ciao!
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 11 months ago
    Vermont appears in many ways to be an excellent state for shruggers. Much of its legal code is solidly skewed toward "mind your own business". I'm rather surprised to see this measure enacted there.

    "The program will be fully operational by 2017, and will be funded through Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes. In exchange, there will be no more premiums, deductibles, copay’s, hospital bills or anything else aimed at making insurance companies a profit. Further, all hospitals and healthcare providers will now be nonprofit."

    Sounds like looting to me, albeit compartmentalization of what is already mandated on a national scale. It will likely serve an excellent purpose in that the results of the "experiment" will be obvious, as they will be contained within the state of Vermont. Whether politicians will acknowledge this remains to be seen. No doubt any success with be shouted from the mountaintops. Failures....who knows?

    I wonder if the collapse of The Old Man Of The Mountain was a "sign".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 11 months ago
      Vermont has been making a very, very hard left hand turn for several years. I know many people who have moved to that region in recent years who are rabid statists almost complete Marxists and they have huge numbers of like minded robots.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
        It was a specific and intentional effort to turn Vermont Blue. It was small enough that if the lefties could get enough of their kind to move their they could change the politics. Seems to have been a successful experiment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 11 months ago
      Will add that this article includes some very trenchantly twisted quotations from the United State Constitution. An example, perhaps, of "the devil quoting scripture to suit his own ends".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
        Do you have a specific example?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 11 months ago
          A correction: the article cites the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It cites "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as a binding declaration of a "right" to medical care
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
            The DofI did not "create" any rights, it merely presented that they exist (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), and then listed the grievances against King George as to how England was not allowing those to be fulfilled.
            Rights, as correctly stated, are "inalienable" and are not granted by anyone or anything.
            One cannot extrapolate from those rights the requisite means to achieve them. That is up to the individual. What the DofI stated was that everyone has a right to their life and liberty and it cannot be taken away capriciously. That you have a right to pursue your happiness, but are not guaranteed that you will achieve it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 8 months ago
              The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, though I have seen it cited by some as if it is. The DOI is merely an elegantly-worded thumbed nose at King George. It does not establish or guarantee any "rights" to anyone. That was where the article went wrong, which I thought was implicit in my earlier remarks.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
                I'll agree that it didn't guarantee rights, but it did identify "inalienable rights." Or that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inherent in being a human being and thus cannot be bestowed nor should they be inhibited.
                After that, then, the DofI goes on to state all the ways that King George and England in general had in fact been taking those rights away.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            I will agree that the Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution.

            It's good for society to be healthy just as it is good to have clean water and waste carried away.

            It doesn't need to be a "right" for it to make sense that everyone has health care.

            For example: It's way better to treat infectious conditions than to let them infect others.

            It's better to treat diabetes early than to chop parts of people off because of complications. It's way less expensive and those folks can remain in the work pool.

            It's better to get folks mental health care before they shoot up schools.

            It's better that a family is able to keep their home and remain productive rather than be marginalized over medical bills.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
              Wait... Wait... You're not really Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid posting under a pseudonym, are you???
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                If you are a citizen without problems I see no reason you can't keep your gun and I certainly want to keep mine.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Bob, the problem is that, while you make that judgment, tons of other folks don't, and sorry, but it also opens up the "gray area" of someone falsely accusing some gun owner of "being unstable" or, in your words, "having problems," in order to get their gun(s) taken away from them because that someone doesn't approve of guns.... or just happens to be pissed at them or hold a grudge or mad that that neighbor's dog barks too much or whatever. Check my home page image collection and look at all of the anti-gun control ones....
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
              The "public good", or "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" has been the source of most, if not all the enslavement that has taken place throughout history.

              "It's better to get folks mental health care before they shoot up schools. "

              It's better still to raise them properly so they don't turn into homicidal maniacs. Oh, wait, we've rejected all the traditional values and practices of America as superficial and unimportant, the values and practices that raised the Greatest Generation.

              You on the left keep changing things, experimentally, then instead of rejecting your changes as the failures they are, insist upon *more* changes in order to make society fit your idealized model.

              Man has the right to life; he's born with life, and one cannot deprive a man of his life without violating his right to life. But you are under no obligation to keep him alive.

              Man has the right to liberty, and you cannot deprive him of his liberty without violating his right to liberty. You cannot load him with obligations simply because he's alive or has abilities society would like to exploit, without violating his right to liberty.

              Man has the right to pursue happiness, but he has no right TO happiness. No one is under any obligation to help him achieve happiness, or to hand happiness to him. To thus oblige them would violate *their* rights to liberty.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      It's a question of WHO is doing the looting. The cost of health care rising at a phenomenal rate and nothing the public can do about it. So, it's big business that's doing the looting because they can. There is no incentive to control prices... On the contrary, even for insurance companies, rising income is what they want. Vermont has stepped in for the public to stop the looting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 11 months ago
        I agree that there are significant problems with our health care "system" (forgive me for generalizing). One significant factor in costs is the cost of malpractice insurance and the unwillingness of at least some physicians to perform certain procedures due to the risk of a lawsuit.

        My concern about this system is that it is mandatory. "All hospitals will be non-profit" is state control of (in some cases) private property. Part of it is paid for by Federal money, meaning that Vermont's experiment is being subsidized by people who do not live in Vermont. Yes, there are relativistic questions but these do not change the basic premise.

        I believe that many of the problems with America's health care "system" could be resolved if malpractice suits were strictly limited to demonstrable cases of injury (as opposed to results the patient "didn't like"). Although it would be government control, I would like to see restrictions on public advertisement for prescription medications as well (e.g. those commercials that don't even tell you what the drug is for). At least one major pharmaceutical company presently spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research. Guess who's paying for that?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
          Notice how there's almost no attention given to the astronomical increase in the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            With universal health care the medical portion of the expense goes away.

            Insurance rates will go down.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
              But will the malpractice?

              And if the medical part of the expense goes away... how does the doctor get paid?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                The same way a doctor gets paid in Canada or one of our military doctors gets paid.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Say it, Bob... How do the doctors get paid?

                  Military doctors get paid the same way every other soldier gets paid... tax dollars.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Ain't it great that not all doctors are driven by greed?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                      All doctors are driven by greed; all humans are driven by greed.

                      What varies is what humans are greedy *for*.

                      Answer the question, Dr. Potter. How do the doctors get paid?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Spin, repeat as needed Hiraghm.

                        The same way a doctor gets paid in Canada or one of our military doctors gets paid.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                          ANSWER THE QUESTION. Are you afraid to admit it?

                          Are you afraid to admit that MY MONEY will be taken to pay for YOUR OPERATION?

                          Now explain to me how it will be cheaper. What will cause doctors to charge less, just because the money is being taken from the pockets of millions instead of the pockets of the patients?

                          What will cause the medical part of the expense to go away? What you meant was that the *patient* will no longer have to bear the whole burden of the cost, because it will be loaded onto the backs of his fellow citizens.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                            Oh, and MY money will be taken to pay for yours.

                            "backs of his fellow citizens"

                            Yup, like clean water and other infrastructure we have agreed to as a society.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          With universal health care the patient doesn't have to "win" a case to be covered so that cost of medical malpractice goes to zero. Actually it may go below zero because lots of conditions won't necessarily progress to where surgery might be needed.

          For doctors who make mistakes there should be a reliable method to take them out of practice and if egregious enough (operating while drunk for example) jail time is appropriate.

          For "pain and suffering" how else can companies be held accountable?

          Tort reform is often touted as the solution. Although I disagree with much of it the documentary "Hot Coffee" has some interesting points. And for the record, anyone who is dumb enough to spill hot coffee in her lap shouldn't win a lawsuit for doing so. McDonalds didn't do anything wrong. When I buy hot coffee I expect it to be hot.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            Jail time costs the taxpayers money and doesn't compensate the alleged victim.

            " Kate Sullivan: Well, for someone who has nothing nice to say about lawyers, you certainly have plenty of them around.

            Lawrence Garfield: They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fk up everything. "
            - "Other People's Money"
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              So what do you think should be done with a doctor operating drunk who hurts people?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                It would depend upon the individual circumstances.
                Suppose a patient was in desperate need of an operation, and the doctor, who had been out with his wife celebrating their anniversary, was the only doctor available with the training and experience for the operation? Should he sit in a jail cell? Or let the patient die? If he lets the patient die, does he *then* sit in a jail cell?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  My guess is you would let him drive to the hospital drunk too.

                  Must be nice to live in a world where you can make stuff up instead of doing research or seeing facts.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Why would you let a drunk doctor operate on you?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Well, Hiraghm seems to think it's OK.

                      I think a doctor who is drunk and operating should be put in jail.

                      Same for any driver.

                      Same for anyone who is in a position where people will be hurt if they screw up.

                      And yes, I do certainly believe that if someone is behind the wheel driving and blows positive that they should be immediately be put in jail for 24 hours and their car impounded. At the end of 24 hours they get out and get their car.

                      Second time 48 hours.

                      Third time a month.

                      And so the trend continues.

                      Due process is very simple. Behind the wheel and blow. Over the limit it's an immediate time out.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                        ... reminds me of a two-hour discussion I once had with a devout Mormon.

                        At the end of which he agreed that "abortion is NOT a 'black or white' issue"...

                        You certainly see things in black and white, even if there might be shades of gray.

                        Lucky you.
                        Maybe.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          Drinking or impairment in any circumstance is a black and white issue. People die from drunk drivers.

                          For a first offense a 24 hour time out would be the wake-up call. For those more committed to bad behavior it escalates. If that's black and white so be it.

                          In abortion I am also black and white as far as the right wing is concerned. I don't think anyone should decide but the woman herself. What she decides is no never mind to me, only that she decide.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                            Bob, a dear friend and coworker of mine was killed in an auto accident some decades ago by a repeat-offender drunk driver. I'm not without experience in the field.

                            But, like me and the Mormon, I might be able to describe some circumstance where it WOULD be a "good idea" for someone whom you would define as "impaired" to actually DRIVE somewhere for SOME reason that you might agree is good.

                            But black and white? I predicted your response. I love to be right, as most folks do, so thanks for that.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        I have the solution.
        Do away with medical schools.
        If there are no doctors, there's nobody to charge these unacceptably high fees.
        Do away with pharmaceutical companies. If there are no medicines, there will be no unacceptably high fees.

        How is it "looting" to charge what people are willing to pay?
        How is it "looting" for the cost of insurance to skyrocket because insurance is expected to cover more and more non-catastrophic treatment?

        When a hospital charges $5k for an operation if you pay cash, but $12k if you use insurance, that is an indicator that it's health *insurance* that's driving up the cost of health *care*.

        I see employees at work wasting all kinds of supplies. Not simply using too much or using it sloppily, but simply losing tools after one or two uses. Why should they be frugal with supplies, when somebody else with deep pockets, Walmart, is footing the bill? The same is true with health insurance. Because someone else is paying for it, people are going to the doctor for everything and popping pills for everything.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          "Because someone else is paying for it, people are going to the doctor for everything and popping pills for everything."

          Hiraghm, can you show us how that works in countries that already have universal health care?

          In America do military dependents who are eligible for health care use it more often that the rest of America?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            You mean those countries going bankrupt?

            EVERYONE IS ELIGIBLE FOR HEALTH CARE.

            The only requirement is that you are able to pay for what you BUY.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Bankrupt? Really? Japan, any country in Scandinavia, England...

              BTW, you didn't prove your alleged "point" that folks will use more health care if it's available.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                Yes, because nobody uses what's freely available. What planet have you been living on? Can't be this one if you've never seen people avail themselves of what they don't have to pay for... especially after you leftists have replaced our traditional values of honor with the entitlement mentality which reigns today.

                Yeah, Japan... how long has their depression been going on now? Since the late '90s?
                Have you checked the tax rates in those countries you cited? They're going bankrupt.

                The way countries with socialist, government controlled healthcare (can't be confused with *universal*) is the way they deal with it in Canada... months long lines for even basic treatment. Poor quality healthcare when you do get it. Travel to the United States for specialized, expensive treatments if you need them and can afford them.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Still no examples, just claims.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    WALK OUT into this country you claim as your own. You're asking me to explain why blades of grass behave in such a grass like way.

                    I'm not going to do your research for you.

                    Okay, you win. Health care costs and health insurance prices are NOT going through the roof. They're not high at all, because nobody is availing themselves of health care or health insurance.

                    What procedures does a typical policy cover? Mammograms? Prostate exams? Tranquilizers? Birth control pills? What?

                    The idea of *insurance* is to cover emergency, catastrophic circumstances. You have a car accident, you have insurance. You need an oil change, you pay for it. Sure, regular maintenance might prevent blowing a tire and having an accident, but should insurance pay for your Goodyear radials or the 75 cents 7/11 charges to air them up? Should insurance pay to have the dents you got in your Prius 18 months before getting the policy knocked out?
                    Should it pay for the garage to house your Prius so that it doesn't get hail damage.... just in case?

                    Examples would be anecdotal; surely you want data rather than examples? Japan's depression? When WAS the last time you picked up a newspaper, or turned to anything but the human interest pages?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Many folks can't afford the preventative care you suggest be paid for.

                      Thus they move into more expensive situations.

                      It's less expensive to treat things early.

                      Japan isn't bankrupt as you are trying to suggest. And their health care is better than ours.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                BTW, you didn't prove your alleged "point" that folks will use more health care if it's available.

                ???????? That's not the point, as Hiraghm points out in his reply... AVAILABILITY of a product or service does not create excessive demand... getting it "free" (ie, not having to pay directly for it or having someone else pay for it instead of you) DOES create excessive demand and market distortions.

                But liberal "true believers" will not or can not understand that.

                http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin/linked-in...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  "DOES create excessive demand and market distortions. "

                  Claimed, now prove it. In the Army do folks use it more? In other countries that have universal health care do folks use it more?

                  Prove it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                    The proof is all around you, but if you're not willing to acknowledge it, there's no way I can possibly demonstrate it to/for you, Boboro...

                    Look for a simple example, at any and all public assistance programs where the recipient need do NOTHING but "sign up" to receive the benefits... and then, after some time, everyone starts to notice that more and more people sign up for it, it becomes more and more expensive to support, and when more funding is brought to the "free service," more and more people sign up or demand to be eligible.

                    Got your Obamaphone? Anyone ever turn that "free offer" down?

                    Or crop insurance, flood insurance subsidies that put the paybacks on the backs of everyone in the country, NOT just the home owner?

                    Nope, can't see that... Even your hygienist's free toothbrush and roll of floss isn't "free," but it IS, pretty much rolled into the fee YOU pay the dentist's office and not anyone else. Do you ever refuse the "free toothbrush"?

                    Didn't think so. I take them, too, give them to my wife and buy my own toothbrushes at Costco.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    trickle down fails when the govt intervenes. It works lovely in an unfetterd capitalistic system. If it is such a failed system-why did Nancy Pelosi and kook economists tout the concept when describing the value of a welfare dollar?
    through those three branches we should have our property rights protected first and foremost-not be stolen from.
    you are the first person EVER to call me silly
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      Silly is what I think of people who don't have a point and insist that ad hominem is a proper debate tactic.

      Our "capitalistic" system is constrained nae, just about obliterated, by the crony capitalism that keeps the 1% settled firmly in control.

      At least welfare dollars are in circulation. I have no problem with property earned. Property gained through financial fiat and other schemes like corporate welfare are crushing America.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
        What ad hominem?
        There is no cronyism without govt. There is less cronyism with less govt
        I and others have made this point multiple times in multiple ways.
        Your solution is more govt. And to "balance " whet you see as the big guy against the little guy you advocate for certain private groups having a cronyism relationship. It doesn't fix anything. The poor only stay poor or get poorer the cronies only v become more powerful. And those politicians become more powerful. It is inefficient, people suffer, the overall economy suffers and the nation weakens as a result. I have posted statistics that show this, usually from govt websites. You usually do not respond to those posts . And continue making the same arguments that have been refuted. I always have good points
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago
          >"There is no cronyism without govt." I have to disagree. Nepotism is a form of cronyism, as are kickbacks, both of which occur irrespective of government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.

    Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution give us any rights. Not one.

    God gave us rights. The Constitution protects them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
      God doesn't exist. How could he give us rights? And if he gave them to us, why doesn't he enforce them?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BuffyT 10 years, 11 months ago
        If God doesn't exist who was it that appeared to me with my father right after he died? He appeared to me as blinding white light, and several other heavenly beings were with him. I was wide awake, sober, etc. He spoke to me three days later, he said to me "Your daddy's going on now" It was his voice, I said WHAT??? I was surprised of course... He repeated "Your Daddy's going on now" And I didn't see or hear him again after that, except in a dream one night.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 10 months ago
          I honestly don't know who it was that appeared before you. If you were the only one who saw it, you are the only one who can define it.

          How do you know you weren't hallucinating?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        You *don't* want to go there with me.

        As for enforcing them... free will, baby. If He enforces them, how are we to have the choice to surrender them? Or defend them.


        Rights cannot come from other men, unless you stipulate that there are some men who are superior to other men as rulers by some criterion (please specify this criterion).

        Rights are a convenient fiction we use to establish the relationships between men. Rights don't exist; there is only power and action. And therefore, objectivism goes in the same toilet as socialism.
        "Morality" is therefore defined by what pleases me to define it, and consists of doing that which I have the power to do. There is no right or wrong beyond that which benefits me and that which does not benefit me, and the effect this has on others is irrelevant.The only limitations on my will are those other people more powerful than myself.

        Still wanna play like there's no God?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -2
          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Awwww Hiraghm, you've gotten it wrong again: ""Morality" is therefore defined by what pleases me to define it,.."

          You can be as "moral" as you want (or don't) in America.

          We don't use "morality" to define us. We use social contracts. Individual "morality" is irrelevant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            It's not surprising that logic is not your strong suit.

            No one is saying how moral one can or cannot be. In a Godless world, "rights" exist only so far as one has the power to exercise them. I have the "right" to nuke England off the map, if I have the ability and desire to do so.

            As there is no God to provide an objective standard of morality, therefore it is moral for me to nuke England off the map, should I desire to do so.

            Group morality is just another expression of slavery.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Thank you for telling us how you rationalize bullying. I believe that to be an interesting insight.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                Bullying? The intimidation of others for one's own pleasure? Didn't even consider the topic.

                Without God to provide an objective standard of morality, the only standard of morality is that which one has the power to do, and which gives one pleasure to do. The only limitation on said power is to encounter someone with greater power.

                For example, under this postulate (in spite of your attempts at mischaracterization), it is both one's "right" and perfectly moral for one to walk down the street raping women at random, until one encounters either a woman or a man more powerful than oneself with the desire to stop one from doing it. Then it remains moral, but one loses the right to do it.

                Because without God to provide an objective standard of morality.... "moral" is just a matter of opinion. Even Ayn Rand's definition. (although I tend to favor Heinlein's definition).

                I am tired and finished trying to explain the obvious to the willfully obtuse.

                G'night, troll.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Hiraghm apparently believes that without his god it's impossible to be "moral." Watch: "it is both one's "right" and perfectly moral for one to walk down the street raping women at random,..."

                  Like I said before... "Morality" has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's activities. Social contracts and laws are what governs that. There ain't no "morality" in a 15 mph speed limit in a school zone. It's simply a fact that things are much safer for the kids when drivers slow down. As a society we've agreed to do that.

                  If you wanna see what religion does to governments go to one of those Muslum countries.

                  Simple: The United States government won't establish any religion.

                  Oh, and don't forget Ayn Rand was an atheist.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                    re: Boborobdos

                    When Americans speak of religion, despite the propaganda the media and this administration puts out, we are usually speaking of Christianity.

                    Fred Speckmann
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Christianity with may versions.

                      But America is still a melting pot where all religions are allowed from Christian Scientists to Scientology.

                      The one thing most have in common is a god who can't finance his own work so he begs from those who are expected to give it to him for a promise of eternal bliss and 70 virgins or whatever.

                      Most religions conger images of cannibalism and L. Ron Hubbard auditing a tomatoes.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Re: Boborobdos

                        It seems that your grammar is starting to fail you or at least the typos are increasing to a point where little of what you write is making sense. Please re-read your post above and make corrections to clarify your meaning.

                        As to your claims that include Scientology as a religion, I suggest that you study their beliefs a little more and understand that they are not believers in any form of God as believers in God understand it.

                        Your reference to 70 virgins and throwing it together with the beliefs of the many different religions is another example of your ignorance on the subject. You and I are continuing this debate as if either one of us is expected to be convinced. I'm sure that I don't expect to convince you of the existence of a God and frankly I'm not engaging in this back and forth to convince you of anything other than the concept of I'm more than happy for you to exist in your ignorance and can only hope that you allow me the same privilege.

                        Sadly it seems to be a problem for atheist to allow the existence of religious beliefs among others when we have no objections to your personal beliefs. The question comes down to a simple couple of facts. I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that god doesn't exist. Therefore the word faith is a part of religious beliefs. Atheist need to learn the meaning of freedom, freedom for me and for you without demeaning or prohibiting such beliefs by either one of us.

                        Fred Speckmann
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          From Fred: "I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that god doesn't exist. "

                          I can't prove there isn't a pink whale somewhere either.

                          But, if you make the claim that something "is" then it's up to you to prove it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                            Ah, you are correct and I actually can prove it. proof is in the knowledge of something being true and I know it to be so. However my knowing something does not depend on your agreement and understanding. For example, take the color red, the reason it's true is that we both agree that it is. however if one of us doesn't agree, does that make it any less true?

                            Fred
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago
                              Fred,
                              red has an objective definition. the label "red" is arbitrary, but we do have to agree on the label. THat's language. but just because someone is color blind, does not mean "red" does not exist. As we gain more knowledge, we can more exactly define what red means. ie. it's wave length, heat temp related to a black body...but all of this is based on an objective reality. verifiable. not subjective beliefs. I want to point out that in common language the word "faith" can be confused with "confidence." This is not what Rand meant when discussing "Faith."
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                Actually "red" can be agreed upon to be a particular frequency of light. It is the same frequency regardless of the perception. What I would like to see is Fred's god in any frequency. So far he is invisible. If I were walking down the street talking to an invisible something, like Harvey maybe, I'd be questioned.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                                Red is not objective, it is a "label" that we agree on. You can't make a blind person understand what the color red really is. you can point at objects and tell the blind man what color they are but that's as far as his understanding will go. But as to Rand's definition of faith, she was entitled to any definition she wants, we each have our own based on our life experiences. It is not like defining the word door and being able to define it by its purpose and its normal location and function.

                                Fred
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  No. You're wrong. You can measure the wavelength of light to determine what color it is. If you perceived red as green, you would call it red to be able to communicate what you see to other people, but it would look like red to most everyone else. Red is consistent. You can't call it something else and expect any one to understand you.

                                  You are saying that words mean anything you want them to mean. Which yeah sure, that's true. But no one is going to understand what you are saying. That's exactly what you are doing in your previous argument. redefining words to whatever makes your point valid.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • airfredd22 replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                            • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                              You confuse "knowledge" with "belief" and in that way, you lose the "argument" with Bob.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                                A misunderstanding on your part. When Christians use the term believe, or at least when I do it is usedas knowing but not able to prove it. To me faith comes from knowledge of what I believe to be true.

                                Fred
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  Well, Fred, that's probably the best example of circular "reasoning" I've ever heard. Good Job.

                                  Believing is when you know something but can't prove it, and knowledge comes from believing what you believe to be true.

                                  Just Wow, but what the hey, so many agree with you, and consensus = truth, right?

                                  LOL
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • khalling replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  • airfredd22 replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • -1
                          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          Ummmm, Fred.... Over here: "The Church of Scientology pursues an extensive public relations campaign for state recognition of Scientology as a religion"

                          They call themselves a religion. For more details check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology...

                          Awwww shucks Fred, let's go straight to the source: "Scientology is a truly unique contemporary religion—the only new major religion to emerge in the twentieth century."

                          That's from their own website: http://www.whatisscientology.org/?utm_so...

                          Clue: I'm not atheist. Slippery little attempt to paint me, but such would be an error.

                          Another clue: I'm not going to tell you what I am. If you join me on my path because I am on it it may not be the right path for you. If you refuse the path because I am on it you may be refusing what is right for you.

                          And another clue: I haven't stated anything false about any assorted religions or actions I've cited. All are true, just not phrased as those who practice them are accustomed to.

                          So, eaten any gods lately?

                          Smith
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Yes, Fred, and that's one of the problems in the US today, ( in my never-so-humble opinion [imnsho]).

                      We are a pluralistic nation, a "salad bowl" of different beliefs and backgrounds, not a "mixing pot" where individual aspects disappear into the amalgam.

                      Many Christians behave as if there is no other lord but Jesus, despite the contrary religious beliefs of billions of other people (including atheists like myself.)

                      So when you make statements like that, we see it as YOU trying to shove YOUR beliefs down OUR throats while you claim that WE are trying to shove ours down YOURS. We're not.

                      For the most part, all we want to do is be able to believe what we believe without anyone (Christians OR Muslims or anyone else) telling us our beliefs are wrong or inferior to yours (no matter WHAT your holy book tells YOU.)

                      Any more than homosexuals recruit and convert "straights" in order to grow their ranks or "destroy marriage as an institution." Red herrings, completely, except for True Believers on EITHER side.

                      If I believe, claim or say that there is no god, you reach into your beliefs and historical texts to "prove" that I'm wrong. If I ask for any recent events or examples as proof, you reach into the same bag as if the proofs were on video somewhere. Sorry. Just not enough for me and a lot of others.

                      And, lest you make some other spurious claims, I oppose virtually ALL extremists "isms" too. I believe Islamism is one of the most dangerous of all today because if you don't follow THEIR beliefs, they claim the right to tax you or kill you (and it's their choice.) VERY un-Randian, too.

                      oh, and the raping women going down the street and "God-given rights" stuff?

                      ALL of those things fall under "power and agreement." If you exceed the speed limit in a school zone, the community has AGREED to vest POWER in the police to arrest, fine or imprison you. If you wantonly rape people, you're going to either be caught by the police, vested with the same POWER to lock you up for trial, OR that "stronger individual, male or female," who kicks the shit out of you is wielding POWER over you directly in order to convince you that you "really shouldn't do those kinds of things."

                      POWER and Agreement. That's what makes people stop for red lights and agree to uphold the Constitution.

                      Few people understand that.
                      Ciao, again!
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Re: Boborobdos

                        Great points, there's only one problem with your points. I defy you to find one statement I made insisting that i as a Christian am right and you as an atheist are wrong. Nor have made any attempt to "convert" you to anything and in my opinion to each his own. If a person wants to hear about Christianity or any other religion, I'm always willing to discuss the matter as I have with you. This conversation started not because I insisted on the validity of Christianity or any other religion, It was your insistence on the lack of existence of a God that started the conversation. My best wishes to you in your persuits.

                        Fred
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • -1
                          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          And it's still a FACT, Fred, that if the Christian bible is taken literally even virginity isn't a way to prevent pregnancy.

                          May I remind you of that girl Mary who got knocked up by a much older guy? If Joe hadn't been such a good guy what might have happened?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
        Forgot for a moment. Ayn Rand was an atheist.

        Nobody can worship a god and follow her teachings at the same time.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
          Re: Boborobdos
          I would suggest you ask some Cubans who risk their lives getting here in small leaky boats unless you can find a few of the people who actually swam through shark infested waters wearing a life preserver.

          As to Ayn Rand being an Atheist, true, but that only shows that she was mistaken in one of her beliefs. In the recently rediscovered interview, she states that one of her reasons for not believing in a God was that it conflicts with man then believing that they could never achieve being like God. her misunderstanding was that Christian belief is that we should all try to become like God, therefore proving her misunderstanding of Christianity.

          Fred Speckmann
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            Yes Fred. Many of those Cubans were criminals. Not the political kind but the kind that pray upon other human beings. Then there are the ones like Elio's mother who lost a custody suit and tried to run away from the father. There are many reasons folks get into the water.

            Mentioning preying I find it sad that any religion has to grow its ranks for it's members to get their ticket to their heaven punched. Do what you do among yourselves, but leave others who don't join alone.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
              Re: Boborobdos

              Sadly you continue to show your ignorance regarding both matters. True, there were many criminals among the Mariel Boat Lift during the end of the 1970''s and October 1980 when it ended, but these were criminals specifically released and sent to the U.S. By Castro in order to cause great havoc in the U.S. These “immigrants” had nothing to do with the people I'm talking about and you know it. That there are criminals among refugees on occasion is not in dispute, but I'm talking about the vast majority of those refugees.

              As to your ignorant comment “...I find it sad that any religion has to grow its ranks for it's members to get their ticket to their heaven punched. Do what you do among yourselves, but leave others who don't join alone.” Who is trying to inject religion on you or anyone else? It is you who through your commentary are injecting yourself into the religious beliefs of others by making your unsubstantial claims of a non existing God. None of us will have proof one way or the other until our death, that's why believers in God refer to their belief as faith. You are entitled to your faith in that there is no God and frankly I could care very little about your personal beliefs. However to insist on your belief being correct is to insist that my belief is incorrect. What difference should it make to you what my belief or the beliefs of billions of other believers in the word are? To leave each other alone without dispute is what most believers advocate. I've never heard of any religious person suing to disallow any atheist from stating their belief.
              Fred Speckmann
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                What difference should it make to you what my belief or the beliefs of billions of other believers in the word are? "

                When they try to inflict those beliefs on others through anti-abortion efforts, taking over school boards as was done in Dover, PA, blue laws...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                  "When they try to inflict those beliefs on others through anti-murder efforts..."

                  "When they try to inflict those beliefs on others through anti-slavery efforts..."

                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Remember Hiraghm, I posted to you the catechism for slaves. Christians supported slavery.

                    You might want to get your history straight.

                    Ohhhhhhh, and abortion ain't "murder." (except in the context of YOUR religion)

                    Abortion is mostly legal in most of America.

                    You may want to consult a dictionary before you splash picket sign jabbering around.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                      You might want to get your history right. The driving force behind abolition was Christians.

                      In your eternal quest to preserve your ignorance, did you ever once hear me announce a religious objection to abortion?

                      An unborn child has a unique, human genetic pattern. That makes it human. Otherwise we can euthanize the crippled, the different, at will, and it wouldn't be "murder".

                      It's called, "science", genius, not religion.

                      Murder is mostly illegal in most of America... except in abortion clinics.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -2
                        Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        "An unborn child has a unique, human genetic pattern."

                        And an acorn has a unique oak genetic pattern. But you don't build a house out of acorns.

                        Pregnancy is a process that ends when your brutal god aborts it (miscarrage), or when the woman decides.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                          You don't build houses out of children, either.
                          Or oak trees.

                          And oak trees have no rights.

                          When God aborts a pregnancy (miscarriage), it's a tragedy. When a human aborts it, its murder. At least that's what the state claims when a pregnancy is aborted against the will of the pregnant woman...

                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • -2
                            Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                            BINGO! Give the man a cigar.

                            Finally you have acknowledge that the pregnant woman has a will of her own. Then again, even a monkey will occasionally type a word.

                            In America what is gestating (define by each woman who is pregnant) has absolutely no rights but what the woman gives it.

                            And please quit using "murder" outside the context of your religion.

                            BTW, I have some mighty fine oak floors in my home. Acorns just wouldn't have been the same.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                              So you're saying the unborn child is not human unless the woman says its human. What's stopping the rest of us from defining people we find inconvenient as non-human?

                              You may have mighty fine oak floors in your home, but they're not made of trees.
                              In this country we use pine for the frames of houses, not oak.

                              Nice try, though.

                              My definition of murder is simple and has nothing to do with Christianity, and you know it.

                              Another question you won't answer:

                              What defines a human being?
                              If it's anything more than the genetic pattern, then it will be possible for individuals to kill other humans without it being murder.

                              No where does the Catholic church, or any protestant church, nor the Bible, nor any other religious tome state that a human being is one with a unique human genetic pattern.

                              That's mine. It is not religious, it is scientific. If you can come up with some definition of human that is able to ignore the human genetic pattern, please share it. Otherwise, I suggest you stop harping on it, because you're looking like more of a fool than usual.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                Missed the mark again HIraghm. You said: "In this country we use pine for the frames of houses,"

                                OK, how did it go building a house out of pine cones?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                Hiraghm wants to play word games.

                                Let's watch: "If you can come up with some definition of human that is able to ignore the human genetic pattern, please share it."

                                Right off the top of my head I'll agree with Descartes, "I think therefor I am."

                                "Humanity" should NOT be described as genetic or pretty much any other physical characteristic. Remember, entire races were defined as less than human because of genetics. Is a person missing a leg or arm at birth through genetic fault less than human? Just doesn't work

                                And of course when we encounter intelligent races not from Earth the situation will get really complicated. Maybe they weren't created in your god's image, if such actually occurred.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  Dogs think.
                                  Monkeys think.
                                  Apes think.

                                  Is a person with Downs syndrome or other mental deficiency less human?

                                  Is a person missing a leg or arm due to misadventure less than human?

                                  A person through genetic fault who is missing a limb still retains a human genetic pattern. He's not suddenly Neanderthal or Australopithecene.

                                  And that's not an argument against including as human someone with a unique human genetic pattern.

                                  We have not yet encountered intelligent SPECIES not from Earth; and they are unlikely to be able to get a human female pregnant.

                                  As for Descartes, you apparently misunderstand the point of his assertion; I'm sure YOU know you exist. How do you know you're human?

                                  Entire races were NOT defined as less than human because of genetics. They were defined as less than human based upon superficial physical characteristics, not genetic patterns.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Boborobdos replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • -1
                                Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                "So you're saying the unborn child is not human unless the woman says its human."

                                Not saying it's an "unborn child."

                                I'm saying it's whatever each woman defines what is going on inside of her. That's her right and you have zero say in it.

                                MOF, neither do I have any say. I simply respect what she wants to say.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  So that sub sandwich I had last night I can define however I wish because it's going on inside me.

                                  So when I poop it out, I can dress it up and call it "Bobo"...

                                  The world is what it is. A baby not yet born is not a part of his/her mother, any more than a two year old holding on to mommy's hand is a part of his/her mother.

                                  Yes s/he is dependent, yes s'he's funny looking, yes s/he is inconvenient. So are two year olds and illegal aliens.

                                  Note how we're no longer arguing "my religion" when you cease focusing on it like a rabid hamster...
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Boborobdos replied 10 years, 11 months ago
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                "making your unsubstantial claims of a non existing God."

                Can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove your god is real.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                  The last thing I would want to do is convince *you* that God exists...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                    You will succeed at convincing me of nothing Hiraghm. You have twisted and posted so much misinformation (like tossing the word "murder" around incorrectly) that you never convince me of anything except of your own zeal.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Let me spell it out for you, since you've decided to be so openly obtuse:

                      If you don't believe in God... according to "my religion"... you will go to hell.

                      So why would I want to convince *you* that God exists?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        What part of "I don't care about your religion except as it impacts those who don't choose to follow it" don't you understand?

                        Your are using your religion to commit spiritual rape if you try to force it upon another.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                          Which part of "go to hell" are you incapable of comprehending?

                          You are currently committing spiritual rape by trying to force your religion on me.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                            You do what you want WITH YOURSELF.

                            I'm not forcing you to do anything except stay away from those who don't want your religion.

                            If part of your religion is to prey upon others it is wrong.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
          Who says?
          Ayn Rand was a woman with remarkable insight, in some ways.

          What makes you think I follow her teachings, ignorant child?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            You are correct. I have a little trouble imagining Ayn Rand allowing someone to die simply because they couldn't afford health care.

            Was she moral without religion?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
              In that statement of yours you prove your ignorance of her philosophy. She believed in the free offering of charity, but was against forced so called charity through taxation. Free will is is a part of her philosophy and it is also a Christian principle.

              Fred Speckmann
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                Oh and Fred...
                Ayn Rand's belief in free will was coincidental with the alleged free will offered by Christians.

                BTW, how's that cannibal thing going? Eat any good gods lately? You know, that transubstantiation thing?

                "In theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist is changed, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality,[1][2] into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] " That's from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstan...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Re: Boborobdos

                  Your commentary is becoming more absurd and I might even say deranged by the minute. Is it that somehow in the past you were somehow disillusioned by exposure to the concept of God, whatever it was I'm sorry that you have come to the conclusions you have. But, you are entitled to them as my faith teaches me.

                  As to the concept of the “ sacrament of the Eucharist is changed, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality,[1][2] into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] " there are those that believe it to be a symbolic change and those that take it more literally. The question remains, what difference does it make to you? Leave and let be, is the only principle at stake in this debate. I have no desire to convince you of anything, yet you insist on your point of view to be fact. As I wrote earlier, neither of us can prove our beliefs, but I'm only stating what my belief is without insisting on it being a fact. Yet you are consistently casting aspersions on my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

                  By the way, congratulations on your abilities to use a dictionary. We can both play a game of digs at each other, but I would ask to what purpose? Live in piece and believe what you will, please allow me and others the same privilege.

                  your statement regarding Ayn Rand's belief in free will jsut proves her mistaken understanding of at least Christianity as she came to the understanding of the teachings of God without realizing it. Just proves that despite her brilliance she just didn't get it when it comes to the existence of God.

                  Fred Speckmann
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -2
                    Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Whatever...

                    Ayn Rand was still an atheist and I still advocate that religious folks keep to themselves and not dump on the rest of America to forward their religion.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                If free will is such a "Christian" principle why do so many Christians want to take freedoms away from others? Your god gives 'em free will, and the local nuts work to take it away. Doesn't seem right to me.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Re: Boborobdos

                  Please provide one example of any Christian who wants to take any freedom away from anyone.
                  It wouldn't seem right to me either if there were such "Christians."
                  Fred Speckmann
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Here in Texas, you cannot buy alcoholic beverages before Noon on Sunday. Just one example...

                    Here and now in America, such religious Blue Laws have been rolled back, overruled in court, and repealed. But vestiges remain.

                    Until 1990 or so, in about a dozen states you could not vote, serve on a jury, or hold elective office if you did not profess a belief in God.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Exactly how did that law get passed in Texas?
                      I mean, with everyone being atheist except for a few despicable... Christians.

                      I would not trust an atheist on a jury or to give truthful testimony on the stand. They've no stake in telling the truth if a lie will benefit them.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Why should I trust a christian? After all, aren't they doing stuff for their god? How do I know about that god?

                        Ooops, he is kinda brutal. Sent his own kid to be tortured and die. Killed everyone except Noah and his kin. Killed a bunch of folks in a couple of cities and then Lott go so drunk on magic wine...

                        Brutal god. Why should I trust anyone who worships him?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Re: MikeMarotta

                      I certainly agree with your concern about the liquor laws that prohibit stores from selling legal products before noon. I'm a believer in the free market and that there should be no laes prohibiting legal products to be sold whenever the storekeeper chooses to do so 24 hours a day. It seems to be a leftover from earlier times when religious influences were stronger than they are today.

                      However, would appreciate some further information regarding your claim that, “Until 1990 or so, in about a dozen states you could not vote, serve on a jury, or hold elective office if you did not profess a belief in God.” this would be unconstitutional in a very obvious way as the Constitution specifically prohibits any such restrictions.

                      Please remember that among any group and that includes Christians, there will be unreasonable people. My statements regarding religion and Christianity specifically, are about following the teachings of Jesus Christ and the 10 commandments as best as we possibly can. Few of us are successful at it and certainly I'm not. However, that doesn't change my beliefs and my desire to become a better human being.

                      Fred Speckmann
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 11 months ago
                        See the topic thread here in the Gulch under Politics:
                        http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/27...

                        I show my proof there.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                          There is no question that during the history of our nation many Constitutional requirements were disregarded throughout our country. It's even worse now. However, the important part of the constitution is what the founders wrote and intended to happen. The fact that corrupt politicians and judges chose to interpret the Constitution to serve their own ends doesn't mean that the Constitution is not the greatest document ever written. m Men unfortunately are men and it is usually their worst that comes out the more power they gather. As an immigrant of long standing, I may look at these things a little differently having experienced Communism while a boy in East Germany. My advice is to read the Constitution and watch that the politicians live up to the words and the real meaning. I will personally apologize to anyone that was ever denied anything, from running for office to a place to sit in a restaurant if prohibited by any person claiming to be a Christian. It certainly would not be following the teachings of Christ no matter what they claimed. As a Christian I will defend with my life anyone who chooses to live differently. That is what Christ taught me.

                          Fred
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        So, Fred wants a little proof...

                        He can go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religiou...

                        But this should be kept in mind: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

                        So, although it's against the rules the "Christians" still try to have an impact on how America runs.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 11 months ago
                          From that article: "Eight states do include language in their constitutions either requiring state officeholders to have particular religious beliefs or specifically protecting those who do..."

                          Such laws no longer stand in defiance of the Supreme Court decisions, but the laws have not been repealed. In point of fact, the first decision was in 1961, but 30 years later the problem still existed. See the article here in the Gulch under Politics.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -3
                    Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Awww Fred, anti-abortion efforts stand out.

                    But now I'll bet you want to define all christians rather than those themselves who call themselves christians.

                    You use the term, you sort 'em out. Someone says they are "christian" and advocated taking away something (like choice even though that there brutal christian god seems to have said folks should have it) I'm going to take them at their word. You don't want them to be christians then you tell them to stop using your god.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
              "Religion" in and of itself does not confer morality.
              Not all religions are equal, as only one can be true.
              In that she was an atheist, in the manner in which she led her life, no, she was not moral.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      Nope. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

      If it's got so much of your god in it show us some quotes from that their christian bible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      Awwwww Hiraghm, you should know better than that...

      America don't have no state religion. It's right there in the Constitution. Without having a religion / god acknowledged it can't be protecting something.

      Are you really in America, Hiraghm? You sure do seem to have a different slant on things.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        You are correct, America has no state religion. This has nothing to do with our acknowledgement of the existence of God.

        Would you like me to inundate you with some more Founding Father quotes where they not only expressed belief in the existence of God, but expressed preference for Christianity as the unofficial religion of the U.S.?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          No need. We still don't have a state religion so you can make no claims that any of our laws are based upon religion.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 11 months ago
            See my comment above to Airfred22. And you would have to agree. America has had Christianity as its de facto state religion. Just as the Muslim theocracies allowed that "people of the book" were also allowed certain liberties, so, too, did the USA grant privileges to Jews and Muslims who professed a belief in God.

            You seem to be arguing both sides. Either America is legalistically dominated by religion or it is not. I see that things are changing. As I noted, since about 1990, atheists have been allowed to vote.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ nickursis 10 years, 11 months ago
            Excuse me? I am pretty sure our culture is one labeled "Judeo Christian" for a reason. The basic structure and accepted norms for moral action stem from those basic precepts. Most western culture stems from it as well, so how the heck do you get that there is no state religion? Good grief, if there was no state religion the damn democrats wouldn't have been in charge these last 6 years. Ask all the "We want change" people who voted for a one term senator who didn't have a clue what he was doing but could persuade a few million that he did. That's a powerful religion...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Guess you missed the memo. Check out the first amendment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ nickursis 10 years, 11 months ago
                Guess you can't read:
                Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
                There is no mention of the background of the culture, or the fact that it was based on Judeo-Christian values. You seem intent on just putting pieces into play on the chessboard that have no part of the game just to obscure the issue. Either that, or you are one of those highly educated individuals who "can clearly state the obvious" to those of us uneducated peons, and are responsible for the incredibly bad education system we have. Stop pontificating and speak to the matter at hand. There are lots of silly arguments you can try, but the plain and simple fact is, at that time, and in that culture, the WAS a religious influence that was reflected in our laws created then, and carried on. That was the specific reason for the 1st Amendment, to protect the individual right to choose their religion and not have it dictated by the state (which was the case in England if you studied any history). Period. End of story.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
        The U.S. Constitution protects the right of its citizens to practice or not any religion i.e. denonmination without preference. It is a common misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. It does not prohibit the practice of religion but guarantees the right to do so without interference by the state.

        Fred Speckmann
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Still no state religion, much as some from the right are demanding it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            We are establishing a state religion, from the left. We are all being forced to bend knee to the faith-based religion of Earth worship, put forward by the Greens.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
            Re:Boborobdos
            You state, "Still no state religion, much as some from the right are demanding it."

            Please provide one example of "some from the right demanding it."

            Fred Speckmann
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Examples, certainly Fred.

              The Dover, PA, creationism fiasco from just a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_...

              Oh, and here is another one: "Comment is free
              The Mormon church won't drop its opposition to gay marriage..."

              That's from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...

              Let's go for another one! Is there another one... You bet: "September 7, 2011 - Massachusetts Catholic Bishops Oppose "Death with Dignity" Initiative Petition"

              From: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/Utility/Ne...

              Ohhhhh shucks Fred one more huh...!: ABORTION: "The Roman Catholic Church has consistently condemned abortion..."

              That's from: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resour...

              It has consistently been extreme right wing politicians who cater to the religious folks, thus trying to make religious beliefs law in America. Bad, bad, bad...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                The Mormon church retaining its opposition to homosexual oxymoron is NOT a state religion.

                An establishment of religion would be the Anglican Church.

                Solyndra, Bobo. Pig-tail, poisonous lightbulbs, Bobo. We are being forced to accept the tenets of the Green religion in actual practice by the federal government.

                I notice that you don't mention one other religious imposition on the federal government: murder. All Christian religions condemn it as an extreme sin, therefore in order to avoid establishing a Christian state religion, we must halt any and all legal penalties for committing murder.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Social contract: I won't kill you or your kin if you don't kill mine.

                  And lots of Christians call abortion "murder" but it is legal. Hasn't worked so well in halting that. Guess that there Christian influence ain't so strong.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Lots of Christians called slavery immoral, but it was legal.

                    Can't have it both ways.

                    Abortion, except in self-defense of one's life, IS murder because you are killing a creature with a unique, human genetic pattern, making him human.

                    If being inconvenient, funny looking, and dependent upon others deprives one of one's humanity, then let me get my ammo, cause I got a lot of illegal aliens and welfare parasites to shoot.
                    (for the candy-asses out there, that's sarcasm.)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Here goes Hiraghm trying to impose his religion again: "Abortion, except in self-defense of one's life, IS murder because..."

                      Only in this case in the context of your religion, Hiraghm. Abortion is legal in most of America. Further, some folks even understand how it only applies to their religion. Don't believe it! Check out: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

                      "you are killing a creature with a unique, human genetic pattern,..."

                      Bull exhaust. A fetus is no more a "human being" than an acorn is a tree. Try building a house out of acorns. But, the genetic material is the same.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        I'm curious...

                        Why are so many around here pushing their version of christanity when Ayn Rand was an atheist? Seems to me like they have an agenda other than what Ayn Rand supported.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

    "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

    "If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." - Thomas Paine

    " As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others. "

    -= Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
      " Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence. "

      -= Alexander Hamilton - Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793 (See Article 2, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America).

      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: "We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
        What's "foreign" about universal health care? Last I heard Vermont is still a part of the good old USA.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
          The concept. Would "alien" be preferable?

          You are the one who referenced the socialist paradises with universal healthcare. To bring their socialist ideas here would be to introduce a foreign element.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            Not when we do it on our own.

            BTW, are you using "socialist" the same way Rush used "Marxist" about the Pope?

            Also, it doesn't matter what you call them they still have better health care than we do.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
              But we are not doing it on our own. As I said, you keep referring to the socialist paradises and their "universal health care".

              I am using socialist to refer to scumbags that wish to enslave men one to another for the benefit of the inferior of spirit, at the expense of the superior in spirit (for want of better, concise terms).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      Ohhhhh, now we are a "democracy" and not a republic?

      Sheesh, why can't you get things straight and keep 'em that way?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        The Founding Fathers were neither Democrats nor socialists; therefore their attitudes and views were not static in time, nor in lockstep with one another.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          So? What's your point?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            That I am not having any trouble keeping anything straight. Would you prefer I misquote the Founding Fathers for the sake of a false consistency?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Actually you can check out The Treaty of Tripoli for the Founding Fathers' and our government's position on your false claim.

              It's in the middle of the article at: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                The whole Tripoli affair is a stain on the history of the United States and a stench in the aroma of Jefferson's legacy. We sold out an ally for the sake of that vile treaty, it surprises me not a bit that the treaty turned out to be nothing but Moslem-pandering. I find it ironic, as no "harmony" existed between the United States and Libya at the time.

                "I find that I agree fully with my good friend Patrick Henry when he said it cannot be emphasized too strongly or to often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on The Gosple of Jesus Christ." - Edward Rutledge

                "Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast." - Patrick Henry

                "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
                -- John Adams

                "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
                --Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

                "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
                --The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

                The "wall of separation" is between *church* and state, not between *religion* and state, which gets back to the "establishment" issue.
                Just as the 1st never protects you from *exposure* to speech, it never protects you from *exposure* to religion, even speech and religion expressed by those in high office.

                Please list all the Moslems who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.
                After, please list all the scientologists, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, atheists (*not* "deists"!), and Hindus.
                I think you will find that, particularly culturally, those who formed the government were primarily oriented toward Christianity.
                Thank God.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes.
    yes
    yes

    I don't have to give Shriner's Hospital a single penny.

    I didn't say *military* doctors don't have enough incentive. Although I'd bet you military doctors are NOT the most skilled and capable doctors available.

    Anything done involuntarily for the "common good" is slavery.

    It is slavery for me in OK to pay for a road in Hawaii.

    It is slavery for me in OK to pay for soldiers to make Afghanistan safe for Afghans. It would not, however, be slavery for me to pay for soldiers to conquer Afghanistan for possession of and control over, for the benefit of the United States.

    It is slavery for me in OK to pay for clean water, etc in Hawaii.

    Aside from the armies, the rest of that is no business of the federal government's, according to the Constitution. And even the Constitution prevents the federal government from having a standing army... legally.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      "Although I'd bet you military doctors are NOT the most skilled and capable doctors available."

      Really? I relied upon them for four years and I thought they were great.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        yes, well... you also think socialism is great.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Nope, didn't say that. When you suggested that military doctors weren't as good as any others I disagreed with you and gave you an example.

          The doctors at Shrine Hospitals (that don't charge patients for treatment) are among the best in the world, yet they aren't money grubbing entramanures sucking what they can get from the public.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            I did NOT say they weren't "as good as any others". I said I'd bet they weren't the best.
            And I'd bet the doctors at the Shriner's Hospital aren't among the best in the world, except in the sense that doctors practicing in America are among the best in the world.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              ROFL... The Shriners' doctors are among the best of the best when it comes to orthopedic and burn treatment. Are you wrong because supreme ignorance, or are you deliberately wrong?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      "And even the Constitution prevents the federal government from having a standing army... legally."

      Missed that one. Gonna have to show me a quote on that one.

      Guess Hawaii isn't a part of the United States anymore. Or is it? I seem to have missed the memo.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        Hawaii has never been a part of Oklahoma, or Oklahoma City. A road there or clean water there benefits me not at all.

        **"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; **

        To provide and maintain a Navy;

        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" - U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8.


        I surrounded the relevant section with asterisks.
        The Founding Fathers did not want there to be a standing army; we were, however, to have a standing navy, which means a standing marine corps for those military functions necessary in situations short of actual land warfare.

        There are historical reasons for this provision.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          They simply renew the budget every year.

          Oh, and I can understand that we don't need such a standing army as we used to. But that also means that in today's world we would have to implement a draft. Oops. It would also mean that they would have to be trained and in today's world an incident could be over before that can happen.

          So, we still need a standing army. Let's let them pick the weapons instead of politicians and their pork barrel efforts though.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            it doesn't *say* that. It said the raising and supplying of *an army*. Words meant things back then.

            No, it doesn't mean that today we'd have to implement a draft.
            You chose to entirely overlook the marines part of my comment. And the fact that the States are expected to train the militia, meaning we'd already have trained troops, just not the hated "regulars".

            Whether we need a standing army or not has nothing to do with its Constitutionality.

            And generals and Admirals have such a great track record of picking weapons, such as the cavalry officers who opposed implementation of the tank and airplane, the naval opposition to aircraft carriers (the potential of which nobody but Billy Mitchell saw before Pearl Harbor. Sad that only the Japanese listened to him).
            It wasn't politicians who held up the adoption of the M16 rifle.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
    We'll be watching.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      Funny thing about health care. If folks don't get it they die. So, do you consider putting a gun to someone's head and telling them to give you money to be an honest business model?

      You know, pay me or die. Could that be part of the reason health care costs are rising so fast?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
        Tell me if I'm correct when I say the difference between me and you is that you think I'm morally obligated to save a fellow human if it is within my capacity to do so.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
          Without a doubt, a moral human being would save another if possible.

          Fred Speckmann
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 10 months ago
            So am I immoral for not sending aid to those in Africa who need help Fred?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 10 months ago
              No, I am talking about individuals. For example should you step in help a drowning person if you are able to swim? You are not obligated to risk your life unless you choose to do so. Should you step in while a group of men are beating up another man. Same answer, should you feed a hungry child, I would say yes, if you can afford to do so without risking your own childs welfare. Could you do without a meal in order to feed a child, I'm sure you and I both could. But the example you gave is simply a matter of choice since you can't save the entire continent, does that mean you shouldn't try to find a way that makes sure the help gets to those in need. Ultimately, it's a personal choice and let your conscience be your guide.

              Fred
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 10 months ago
                Individuals live in Africa too. We were both talking about individuals.

                So I can afford to feed a child in Africa while continuing to survive. The child is an individual, is in need, and I can help.

                Your first statement above said a moral human would save another individual. Then you immediately switched sides when that individual is in Africa. Don't play this bullshit game saying that helping those in Africa is just a simple choice. All morality is choice or it isn't morality.

                Am I immoral for not helping individuals in Africa or not? If I am, then you condemn almost the entire planet as being immoral. If I am moral though, you can't play the double standard that I have to help people to be a moral human, yet still be moral while not helping people.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 10 months ago
                  You have of course misconstrued what I actually said. unless you live in Africa, you probably can only help by giving money to charity. Furthermore, at no time did I accuse of of being immoral in any circumstances. I have no desire to judge you or anyone else on their morality. I'm discussing what is moral for me not for you. that's why god gave us a conscience, what atheist have, I have no idea.

                  One additional point I want to make, in general I choose not to engage with people who can't help themselves and have to use vulgarities in debates. therefore, not because I'm a Puritan, but because I choose not to engage in that type of language, I will say good bye to you and wish you a Merry Christmas.

                  Fred
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                    Awwww Fred, please be consistant: "I have no desire to judge you or anyone else on their morality."

                    You have judged gays harshly many times.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 10 months ago
                      a perfect example of why I labeled you an idiot. I have never judged gays about anything. I do have an opinion about the conduct of lots of people including "militant" homosexuals who insist on not just being treated as equals, which they, but as living a lifestyle that is superior to that of heterosexuals. That is the militant position that a relatively small number of homosexuals take despite the propaganda put out by the militants. Your life would be simpler and better if you chose to keep your sexuality to yourself as most heterosexuals do. I'm not saying stay in the closet, but stay out of peoples faces and go about your life like evryone else. Of course there are some heterosexuals that want to be in peoples faces as well and they are just as crazy as the militants on your side of the fence.

                      Good luck and Merry Christmas.

                      Fred
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                        Hey Fred! You posted: "I'm not saying stay in the closet, but stay out of peoples faces and go about your life like evryone else"

                        EXACTLY! That's how many many people feel about over enthusiastic Christians out to get their ticket to that their heaven with that their bullying brutal god.

                        BTW, at least militant gays haven't shot any doctors in the name of their god.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
              Argument to the extreme doesn't work Fred.

              But in fact one of the moral things Bush did do was get a bunch of antiHIV medication to Africa.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -2
          Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
          Are you? Please tell us... Are you willing to let others die for your politics?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 10 months ago
            Am I morally obligated to? No
            If they want to die for my politics then yes I will let them. If they don't want to die for my politics I won't force them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 10 months ago
            If I refuse this health insurance program, they will fine me. If I refuse to pay this fine they will arrest me. If I refuse to be arrested, they will shoot me. Are you willing to kill others for your politics?

            If so I hope it is you personally who shows up at my door to be my executioner.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -3
              Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
              Yup, you don't want to support the society around you that makes possible the standard of living you enjoy.

              I'm optimistic you could find a hut in the woods like Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski did. Wayyyyy off the grid. With nobody looking for you it's unlikely you would be bothered. It would be your own personal gulch.

              Otherwise you are dependent upon society. Like it or not there are obligations to be a part of it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                1. Contingent on another.
                2. Subordinate.
                3. Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support: dependent children.
                I do not see that any of those definitions fit rozar, as he describes himself. He lives by free, voluntary exchange for a mutual benefit. He wishes to live in a system where YOU aren't going to get any value by voting for the use of physical force against him. He would like to trade for governmental protection of natural rights from others' using force against those rights.
                On all laws which limit his freedom, he does not accept them but may be willing to to endure them while actively advocating for their end.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                How does the society around him make possible the standard of living he enjoys?

                Prove that Rozar is *dependent* on society.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 10 months ago
                  I'm dependent on interacting with society. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to do anything for them, nor does it mean they are obligated to do something for me.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                    you choose to interact with society as a rational decision. You are not "dependent" ,by its definition, on society.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                      Yes, one can create their own gulch and go off the grid.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                        since you are likely paid to hang out here, at least pay attention. Within the US at present, while highly undesirable laws are in FORCE, one can still make the decision, by their own choice to comply. this is not an either or proposition, bobo. Please keep up
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • -2
                          Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                          Nope, not paid.

                          Sad that you consider laws and social contracts to be "force." My guess is you just don't understand the benefits of and living in a society.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                            bobo-you are such a nuisance
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                              Truth works that way.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                                I understand law and contracts. there are few "social contracts" required for a free society. You want more. You want majority rules. Our nation was not founded on those concepts. That is reality not the truth as you wish it to be.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                                  Silly girl, why do you try to tell folks what I want? I don't want a pure "majority rule." If things were that way we would still have slavery in the South, and religious nuts would be preventing same sex marriage and assisted suicide.

                                  We have an excellent system with our three branches of government.

                                  And through those three branches we get things, laws (also can be called social contracts) that generally are what is best for America.

                                  Want proof? Look at how "trickle down" has failed.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • khalling replied 10 years, 10 months ago
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
            Why is asking a question such a negative? Ohhhhh, I get it! It challenges folks out of their nice little comfort zone and what their advocacy can result in.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
            define "politics" in this case?

            Depending on your definition of "politics", I'm not only willing to let others die for my politics, I'm willing to kill for them. And I'm willing to pay others to kill for my politics.

            The thing is, however, that when killing and dying are necessary solutions to a political problem, it's already too late to solve it.

            Consider the Confederate War; 600,000 dead, and that was just the military deaths. Half the reformed country economically destroyed and in depression. The other half followed within a decade.

            Or the French revolution, which resulted in greater and more widespread horrors than those for which the people were rebelling.

            Or WWII, even. The political difficulty with Japan and America wasn't resolved by killing. It was resolved by the defeat of Japan and imposition of American cultural values on the Japanese.

            The current war with Islam isn't a political battle, but an ideological one. Historically, ideological battles can't be resolved through politics.

            Arakal said, "Ideology *counts*. The only catch is - almost always when ideology counts, *it does the counting with a sword*."
            - Ideological Defeat, by Christopher Anvil
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -2
          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          OK, I can follow orders, but I don't see where it's going...

          You are "correct when I say the difference between me and you is that you think I'm morally obligated to save a fellow human if it is within my capacity to do so."

          Of course it's patently false. It's better for society if folks can stay in the workforce and don't contaminate others with disease. It isn't a question of "morality." It's just good business for a society to treat medical issues for everyone early.

          "Morality" is a secondary issue at best but so many seem to think they have the be all and end all in their corner of the world with their version...


          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
            I didn't mean to be curt. I'm sorry.

            I would place the morality issue first, but that's just my preference and maybe, if you would be so kind, you could talk to me about it.

            Your argument that it is good for society means that you think the benefit of society is more important than what's good for the individual.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -2
              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Don't you think it's good for the individual to remain productive and healthy? Being sick is so yucky.

              So it's win win for the individual and society.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
                I do. I think that that in most circumstances the individual should be productive and happy and that society will benefit from that individual.

                But there is a cost to reward ratio. The more pure water is, the more expensive. Most people would love to drink the purest water, because it's better for them, but would refuse to pay for all of the resources it takes to purify water to that level.

                It is the same with health. I think I am healthy enough. But I smoke. And for right now I like to smoke, knowing that I will hate it later. Other people over indulge in food. Others refuse to brush their teeth and others refuse to exercise. They feel like their time will be better spent doing other things. Whether it is or not doesn't matter in this discussion, just the fact that they chose to do other things than maintain their body.

                Even genetic diseases fall under this category. If you cared about your health you would go in for a relatively cheap check up and you would ask your family about any common diseases among them. From that point on you can choose to do something to protect yourself from your genetic disposition, or not.

                Maybe you could give me your thoughts on this, I may have gotten off track from where I wanted to go but If you would like to offer your opinion I would appreciate it. Or you can tell me it isn't worth talking about and I could try again lol.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -2
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  The cost / reward ratio has proven itself to be effective in many countries and in organizations like the Army, Catholic Hospitals, Shriners, etc. It works. It's that simple.

                  Bad habits are bad habits. You are rare that you admit yours. Around here what I most often see is folks piling on such saying they don't want to pay for someone else's bad habits. Ayn Rand herself smoked.

                  We are a society pretty much interacting with each other. Taking care of each other makes it better for everyone.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
                Bob, I think one missing or slightly off-center point here is that, if I do something good for someone else, I may feel good about doing it, for whatever personal reasons, so that's a positive reinforcement FOR me to have done it.

                In addition, I AM A MEMBER of "society," so "society" HAS benefited from my actions... but keep in mind that initially and maybe forever, only I and the person I helped are the ones who know it.
                I think this is where Rand's position would be that if anyone thinks anyone SHOULD/MUST do "nice things for others" FOR the "good of society" ALONE, that IS "immoral," and I tend to agree.
                If lots of people do good things for others in my society or culture, I'm probably going to benefit, but that's NOT why i'm going to, on an individual basis, "do nice things" for others. Unless I feel good about having done it. Something like all of the non-taxable donations I make to organizations that champion some of the issues of groups I'm NOT a member of....
                Can I believe in Rand's points and still LIKE PEOPLE and want to see them live happier, safer lives? I think so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                  I agree that individual charity is a good thing.

                  But we still need to support society. Without it we don't get to enjoy the standards we have. That includes roads, bridges, health care, utilities, and all the infrastructure we need to get along.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago
                    Bob, I'm completely willing to pay for anything I use, including highways, bridges, and infrastructures of water, electricity, natural gas, etc.

                    I think the problem in the way you phrase your second paragraph is that it's impossible to quantify how much "support" "society" needs or wants.

                    It's the proverbial, robbing Peter to pay Paul always gets the support of Paul.

                    And as my lawyer-adversary Claire on Linked In's White House Group puts it, there is NO LIMIT in her mind to how much teachers should be paid. Yeah, they're very important, but NO LIMIT?! Hundreds of k per year? Millions?

                    I really think that individuals and a "free market" can set the "going price" of just about everything much better than any "good for society" claim.

                    Here in NC, there's a current battle going on between eco-forces and government agencies about repairing or replacing a bridge to the Outer Banks. One eco-group actually proposes building something like the second-longest bridge in the world to solve "access" problems for the local residents, while the government tries to point out that their solution fails to meet existing EPA regs!

                    Go figure. Why does my home insurance rate include subsidies for folks who own a home on the coast? Good of Society so people can go there to fish, sun-bathe and vacation.

                    I'd much rather pay the going rate for a sensible bridge and local dining and lodging costs based on real costs than some nebulous "good of society" impossible estimate.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                      We resolved the teacher issue and unlimited pay. If I remember correctly we agreed that neither of us wants a teacher (like a doctor) who is in it just for the money. Of course there are exceptions like on 60 Minutes last night with that supper-dupper football coach. But the parents are paying voluntarily.

                      I think we also agreed that rebuilding in hurricane and flood zones was crazy when structures are wiped out again and again.

                      Rather than a bridge might a ferry where those who are traveling down there can pay as individuals? Or, is the volume too high? A toll road perhaps? After all, it is they who choose to be out on the islands.

                      So, you can see that I'm not for supporting pet pork barrel projects just to suck up tax $$$.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago
                        Bridges and ferries are part of the "discussion." Folks that like the sea promote the joys of sailing and fresh air and ferries.

                        And don't seem to have concern for folks who don't give a rat's patoot about that but just want to "get there quickly and easily," which kind of lends itself to highways and bridges.

                        I like it when utilities and infrastructure "carry their own weight," too. I-540 on the northwest side of Raleigh was done with the promise of electronic toll collection (and tolls!) but not too many people use it. I did some math and estimated that the per-mile tolls are 3-5x what any "average toll" tends to be. I wonder what would happen if DOTs got "transparent" about numbers like that.

                        btw, how do you find out if a doctor (or surgeon) is "really" good or "just in it for the money"?

                        I think there are dozens of niches that Consumer Reports could and should be involved in that would help answer questions like that... :)

                        Merry Christmas, too!
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                          Consumer Reports is a good idea. Angie's list (if it's honest) is a good idea.

                          Several fronts can help keep good doctors and weed out some of the bad ones.

                          Enforcement and regulatory agents need to be more open about doctors with questionable outcomes.

                          Hospitals need to clamp down on doctors who have drinking or drug problems. If they DO something about a doctor with that kind of problem the hospital itself should be shielded from any malpractice issues.

                          Insurance companies, rather than increasing insurance fees, should discontinue coverage for those who are concomitant.

                          Medicare and Medicaid need to clamp down on fraud more than what they have been doing.

                          I'd like to say outcomes are important, but some surgeons take risky patients because of the challenge. Others will milk a dying patient financially for all they can. How can one tell the difference? Good question.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                    Why should I pay for roads in Hawaii and bridges in Alaska, when I have never, and most likely will never, need to drive on either? Why should I pay for health care for homosexuals in San Francisco, when I have no say in their diet, exercise, or other behavior? Why should I pay for windmills in Arizona, when my State is loaded with oil and natural gas? Not to mention plenty of wind.

                    My local government can be paid to arrange the construction of local roads and bridges, and their upkeep, as well as utilities. The most successful roads around here are toll roads.

                    "We" do not need to pay for health INSURANCE (which is what Obamacare is and is NOT the same thing as healthcare).

                    Of what benefit is it to me that you get cancer treatment? Of what benefit is it to me that you get your hernia operated on? Roads, power grids, bridges, I can decide whether they are needed around here, and am a lot more likely to have an effect on any local government decision, as people who've never been here, who don't live here, and who have no vested interest in the well-being of my community won't be sticking their noses (or votes) in.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                      The products you use travel on roads outside what you may personally use.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                        Then let those who use those roads pay for them.
                        I pay for the products.

                        And trucking companies pay a TON of additional highway fees to the federal vampires.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • -1
                          Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                          And directly or indirectly you should pay your share. That's the way it works in America.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                            My share of what?

                            I should pay my share of what I don't use?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -1
                              Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                              But the trucks that bring you stuff are using the roads.
                              You really don't get it, do you? We are in a society. If you don't like it go make your own gulch.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                                No, you're the one who doesn't get it.
                                The trucks who are using the roads pay to use the roads. Those costs are figured in to what the company charges for the product.

                                Now, I could pay less for the product if the federal government didn't charge the truckers so much, because most of what I get here in OKC comes from Paul's Valley... which is local.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
        And increasing health care costs have NOTHING to do with malpractice insurance costs driven up by frivolous lawsuits OR the time and effort required to fill in innumerable government-mandated CYA forms ?

        No, it's NOT as simple a "cause and effect" issue as you'd like to make it.

        And, people "without health care" don't all die. What a crappy "argument."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
          Really? And what do you expect the outcome of diabetes to be when untreated?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago
            Bob, did you notice the word ALL in my last post. Not ALL people without health care die from the lack.
            Yes, diabetes, untreated, will likely kill you, but one of my local friends decided that he didn't want to be treated for his diabetes, so he went on a very strict and healthy diet, lost weight and lost his diabetes. I just had bariatric surgery last week. I was on the road to diabetes. Most people who have the surgery and had diabetes go completely off insulin or other treatment in days, weeks or months.

            Stop throwing red herrings and black/white "what-if's" into the mix, ok?
            Thanks.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
              Good luck with the surgery.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago
                Thank you! My surgery was 12.18 and, per the surgeon, describing the outcome to my wife, "Textbook." I was off painkillers by the 21st and things look fine. One funny thing... I gained ten pounds from the day before surgery to my first home weigh-in on 12.20! With nothing put into my body but lots of saline, some pain killers and anti-nausea drugs and a few other routine shots. I've dropped a pound or two per day since then... almost back to pre-op weight. Strange. But progressing very well. Can't do the walking exercise that the bariatric folks insist on until my right knee's torn meniscus is repaired. With luck, that may be scheduled soon...
                Happy Holidays
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
              Ain't a "red herring" when people actually die.

              How are those without insurance supposed to pay for the operation?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                They can borrow, sell what they have, steal... or die.

                Tell me, if the surgery didn't exist... how would they treat their diabetes?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                  insulin, if they can afford it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                    And if no one developed or manufactures the insulin treatment?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                      And if your brutal god didn't create gays there wouldn't be discussion about same sex marriage.

                      Hiraghm, you can "what if" all day.

                      At the end of the day America is better with universal health care and same sex marriage.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago
                        And that's EXACTLY why _I_ can't support or be a member of any right- or left-wing organization OR a Democrat or Republican party!

                        Universal health care is based, in part, on the assumption that ANY kind of free market or individual choice must be completely managed and provided by a government or central planning and delivery agency.

                        And as for homosexual marriage, opposition, at root, is always based on some religious doctrine and it pisses me off that the states' legislatures haven't woken up to the idea that "marriage" should be in the realm of the churches and the LEGAL rights to "life partnership" should be specified for anyone and everyone who wishes to live together and, if they wish, have sex.

                        Sci-fi novels have solved those issues for decades by describing "contracts," freely entered into by any two (or more) individuals, where the aspects of divorce, inheritance and ALL the other crap is spelled out in the contract.

                        If you don't like the contract, find another partner or a better lawyer to draft the document!

                        Oh, and those contracts... in many stories, they're NOT "for life." Many have specified durations "with option to renew or terminate."

                        And in those stories, virtually all of the issues y'all are ragging about don't exist.

                        Go figure.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
            Old age.
            Ask me in 20 years.

            Treatment for most ailments does not require a physician.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
              Ah, the old christian scientist approach.

              ROFL...

              Yes, Hiraghm, you pray for relief.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                You monomaniacal obsession with Christianity is unhealthy. Did a priest molest you when you were a little girl?

                You insist upon putting words in my mouth, so to speak, yet call me a liar for drawing conclusions as to your character (or lack thereof) from your own words.

                Treatment for most ailments does not require a physician; have a headache? Bayer Aspirin will do. Cut your finger? Johnson's salve and a band-aid. Sinus headache? A bowl of boiling water and a towel. Ear ache? A cotton ball soaked in heated Vick's Vapo-Rub. A black eye? A raw piece of beef. Tummy ache? A peppermint candy. An abscessed tooth? A straight pin, some rubbing alcohol, plenty of mouthwash, a mirror and steady nerves.

                Most ailments afflicting most people can be treated by the people themselves, or their family. It's only in recent days when health insurance has begun covering everything from cancer to condoms that people feel *dependent* upon the medical profession for every boo-boo in their lives.

                While prayer certainly wouldn't hurt, it's not mandatory.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                  Nope, no priestly molestation for me.

                  Your home brew medicine might be OK and not do any more harm, then again...

                  The practice of medicine has gone from a chicken if the patient could afford it to corporate demands of what the traffic will bare.

                  Insurance companies have absolutely zero interest in curbing medical costs because their percentage stays the same no matter how much or little it costs. But when costs go up they get more at the same percentage so they allow prices to go up.

                  Doctors who are in it just for the money IMO are worthless.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                    "might" be OK?
                    "Not" do any more harm?

                    I've merely given remedies which have kept me alive for half a century, and have yet to fail.

                    But, of course you would reject one caring for his own troubles; one must rely on "experts" for the simplest of remedies. The individual is too incompetent, too ignorant, too weak to treat even the trivial malady of his own.
                    He must go to experts to be drugged, prodded, carved upon. To lance a as boil is beyond the "average man" as brain surgery. So requires the progressive philosophy.

                    Insurance companies do not *allow* prices to go up. they cause them to go up. By covering tests that are unnecessary, by covering medicines and treatments that could as well be performed by the individual, by his family or not at all.

                    When a hospital charges an insured person $12,000 for the same operation that they only charge $5000 for when the person is uninsured... it's a pretty clear indicator of what the problem is.

                    And, remember... Obamacare is about health *insurance*... not health *care*.

                    Doctors who are in it just for the money are no different from bakers who are in it just for the money, or steel manufacturers who are in it just for the money, or retailers who are in it just for the money.

                    There are few people who follow careers of their choosing "just" for for the money.
                    A doctor may not be willing to sacrifice his happiness and comfort to cure the ill, but that doesn't mean he's in it just for the money. He could become a banker and gain money.

                    A doctor who isn't interested in the money is a doctor whose competence I question.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                      Hmmmmm, looks to me like you don't have much of an opinion of doctors in Catholic hospitals, Shriners hospitals, and the military. Most, if not all, could make way more in other venues.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                        As far as their skills as doctors is concerned... no.
                        Where's your proof that most, if not all could make "way" more in other venues?
                        Some doctors take low reward jobs for the same reason people in other professions do: they lack the skills to command a higher price.

                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        Excuse you, where's your evidence of this?
        By what definition of "health care"?

        Yes, if I don't eat nourishment, I die. If I don't sleep, I die.
        If I don't get a free box of rubbers, I don't die.
        If I don't go have the doctor shove his finger up my butt every six months, I don't die.
        If I don't have my teeth cleaned periodically, I don't die.
        If I don't get a new optical prescription every year, I don't die.
        If I don't exercise regularly, I feel lousy and get fat... but I don't die.

        There are lots of things covered by health *insurance* that are non-lethal if not done. There are lots of healthcare treatments that don't require insurance or a doctor; aspirin for a headache, a steaming bowl for blocked sinuses, a band-aid for a boo-boo, Ben-gay for a sore back.

        There is no "pay me or die". You *will* die one day; that is inevitable. All healthcare treatment... ALL OF IT... goes to delaying that inevitability.

        To be more accurate...

        You know, pay me for my knowledge, skill, time and effort, and in exchange I will help you delay your inevitable death. You don't pay me for my knowledge, skill, time and effort... I wish you luck. If I am forced to help you delay that day... one of us has become a slave.

        Imagine a housing contractor telling you, "pay me, or you can live in the street". Is that a gun to your head? No, it's you paying a contractor for his training, skill, experience and effort, which provides you a house. A house... without which... you die.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -2
          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Hiraghm claims: "If I am forced to help you delay that day... one of us has become a slave."

          Nobody is "forced" to be a doctor. Further, there are many examples of doctors who are not in the business of medicine. They are there to offer their expertise without the money motive. Military doctors, doctors at Catholic hospitals, the doctors at Shriner's hospitals...

          Not all of medicine is run on greed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            Hate to tell you this, but military doctors... get paid... Catholic hospital doctors... get paid.
            They may *choose* at some point or other not to charge for their services, but that is their *choice*.

            The intimation with your "gun to the head" metaphor is that a doctor *must* treat you, whether he wants to or not, whether he is compensated, or not. And someone who *must* do something against his will is a slave.

            An honest business model is one where one is compensated for the value of his expertise, his experience, his training and his time and effort. It is not an honest business model to coerce his efforts from him by tears or threats.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              So, what you are saying is that it is OK for a doctor to not treat a patient, even if it's life or death for the patient, just because the patient can't pay.

              I say the doctor will be paid. Not by the patient, but they will be paid.


              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 11 months ago
                I think maybe if you looked at it from the opposite angle you would see the flaw in your way of thing and your poor understanding of basic human rights. So you say it is not okay for the doctor to put a gun to patients head and force them to give you money, which I one hundred percent agree with. However when you make the doctor give treatment for free you are essentially putting a gun to his head and saying treat me or suffer the consequences. Which could be jail, fines or anything else society deems appropriate. Either way some persons rights are violated. This is why we have the business model we have. No guns are pointed, no one is forced to do anything they do not freely commit to, and value is exchanged for value. The doctor does not force the patient to purchase his services and the patient does not force the doctor to give them to him. Health care is not a right, it should not be guaranteed by the government. The only thing the government should guarantee is an individual's right to purchase any service or product someone is willing to sell them. You suggest the doctor gets paid but not by the patient. I ask who then is going to pay the doctor?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Question asked: "I ask who then is going to pay the doctor?"

                  We all do, except that it will be at a lower rate because we won't be paying for insurance fat cats.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 11 months ago
                    So now we all are the slaves cause we all are forced to do something we do not freely choose to do.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -2
                      Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Perhaps. It's called society.

                      This is America. You can leave if you want.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 11 months ago
                        But America guarantees me liberty. So how is being forced to do something I do not wish to do liberty?

                        If I do choose to leave is that really fixing the injustice of enslaving people? I personally think that rights should be extended to people no matter where they live. Just human decency I guess.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • -1
                          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          Let 'em die... Human decency?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 11 months ago
                            I want to avoid the "who should leave America debate," it's useless. If you say the options are for me to give up my freedom in order for someone else to not have to pay for a good they want then unfortunately I would have to say to let them die. I would not ask anyone to sacrifice themselves for my sake and I believe they should not ask that of me. If they do I would like to live in a society where I am free to to say no without being persecuted.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                              It's not a debate. If someone doesn't like America the way it was designed to be by the Founding Fathers, there are other countries out there based upon other philosophies... especially socialist philosophies, particularly among the nations he's cited.
                              That is the one who should leave, out of his own self-interest in his own happiness.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • -2
                                Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                I'll stick around Hiraghm. I rather like watching extremists who want to let people die rather than help them be defeated.

                                That's what America is about. Helping others.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • -2
                                Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                But it is a debate. America is a representative democracy. That's the way the Founding Fathers set it up.

                                And yes, change is sometimes good. The end of slavery, women voting...

                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by MattFranke 10 years, 10 months ago
                                  Damn it!! This country is not a friggin' democracy. I believe Constitutional Republic is the word your looking for Bobo. Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Democracy be damned.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  America is a democracy with stipulations. The Declaration of Independence gives us rights that are not to be taken away. Democracy should not be able to vote away people's rights.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Boborobdos replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  • Boborobdos replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  • Boborobdos replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  • Hiraghm replied 10 years, 11 months ago
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                            They're going to die. It's only a question of when.
                            Why do I have an obligation to keep them alive at my expense with no compensation? Where's the decency in slavery?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -2
                              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                              Ain't slavery to pay taxes to support the will of society.

                              Did you ever think that you just don't fit in? I could fully understand that.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                                It is slavery to support the will of 'society' when that will is not MY will. It is slavery to take from me and cause me hardship for the benefit of another.

                                That I don't fit in... where? In a socialist paradise? You're right there. Fortunately, the U.S. isn't such... yet.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                        No, *this* is not America. In America, you pay for your own goods and services, or you do without.

                        You're the one who wants to turn America into one of those socialist paradises you keep bringing up. If anything, YOU should be the one leaving, for your idea of paradise exists. Leave my idea of paradise alone, and let us return it to what it was meant to be.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • -2
                          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          From Hiraghm: "You're the one who wants to turn America into one of those socialist paradises you keep bringing up."

                          Absolutely FALSE. Quit making stuff up.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                            Oh no?

                            You're the one touting countries with socialized medicine, those socialist paradises, as examples of how we should change, not me.

                            I ain't making anything up. For my statement to be absolutely false, you would have to oppose single-payer, socialized medicine, or "universal health care" or whatever leftist euphemism you care to use for government controlled and run health care. Which would be a complete and total reversal of your position to date.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -2
                              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                              No Hiraghm, you don't get to win your discussion by falsifying my position.

                              YOU don't get to define me.

                              But, you have said, "let them die" so it's clear you don't care about anyone but yourself and yours.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 11 months ago
                                "YOU don't get to define me.

                                But, you have said, "let them die" so it's clear you don't care about anyone but yourself and yours."

                                Rest assured, 'You have defined you.' You've left no doubt in my mind at all.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                                Pot. Kettle. Black.

                                I did not falsify your position, unless your own words are a false expression of your position.

                                You favor government controlled healthcare; you have expressed as much here in this argument. You have referenced the socialist paradises of Europe, the socialist paradises which have "universal health care" (which is a bullshit term, but it's yours so we'll use it).

                                Sorry, you're hung on your *own* petard, not one of my construction.

                                What makes you conclude I care about myself and mine, at all? You assume as much. As far as you know, I may be a complete nihilist.

                                I choose to be consistent, to borrow from Hank Rearden. I oppose slavery. I will not change my opposition to slavery simply because it may cost a would-be slave owner his life.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Awwwww zwdavis, where did I ever say this: "However when you make the doctor give treatment for free"

                  Please quit making stuff up. Doctors in Vermont will still get paid.

                  What I'm saying that in rising health care costs there is no incentive to lower them.

                  What you are trying to say is that remuneration for doctors will go to zero if Vermont's plan is implemented. Absolutely false. They will still get paid.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 11 months ago
                    So can the doctor refuse treatment and then not get paid by... whoever is footing the bill?

                    I'm not trying to say that doctors are not going to get paid. If I implied that I apologize. I could care less if a doctor is paid for what he does as long as he freely chooses to do it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                      I care that I'm forced to pay for something I don't want to pay for.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Me too. Oil subsidies, stupid wars...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by zwdavis4 10 years, 11 months ago
                          I agree with you. You should not be forced to pay for these things even though they "benefit society." If I wanted to invest in searching for oil or contribute to a war i believe is just I feel I should have the right to do so. Just like you should have the right to give to healthcare so there others may enjoy it at a lesser price. If you truly care about people not having to pay for things they don't want then you should not be asking them to pay for healthcare and no one should ask you to pay for oil or wars.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • -1
                            Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                            But then society would come to a halt.

                            It wouldn't be America anymore.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                              You have been reduced to arguing like a child. You know full well that your position is incompatible with any rational description of the United States as created by the Founding Fathers, so of course you insist upon referring to America in socialist terms.

                              I am through entertaining you. Retain your ignorance, and do not ever let your shadow fall in my presence.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                          I'll make a deal with you.

                          I'll support never funding another "stupid" war, or oil subsidies (which are indeed stupid)...

                          You agree to abolishing the 16th Amendment, and not every giving one single penny of taxpayer money to any social welfare program.

                          Deal?

                          (I mean, we'd have been so much better off had we not funded that stupid war, which crippled the Northern States and devastated the Southern States...)
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                Absolutely I'm saying that. The doctor invested a shitload of his life and effort in order to develop his medical skills.

                Are you suggesting that a doctor is a murderer because he doesn't treat and cure a person on the opposite side of the planet whom he's never met?

                If not, then what's the difference between that and not treating and curing a person he's met in the same town? As I said... you're going to die. All the doctor is going to do is delay that inevitability.

                Are you "okay" with watching a doctor starve to death, naked in the elements, because he doesn't have the means to provide himself food, clothing and shelter because he was obligated to give the fruit of his effort and skill to whomever desired it, gratis?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  You ask: "Are you suggesting that a doctor is a murderer because he doesn't treat and cure a person on the opposite side of the planet whom he's never met?"

                  That's right, you see health care as optional and someone doesn't "need" to go to a doctor.

                  In fact the medical community is holding Americans up as if they are putting a gun to their collective heads. They raise prices because they can, not because of any competitive element that would drive prices to a fair level.

                  Now Vermont has put the breaks on that and taken the financial incentive out of the effort.

                  Doctors will still get paid though.

                  Your extremist twisting of what's posted sure is beginning to look disingenuous.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    "That's right, you see health care as optional and someone doesn't "need" to go to a doctor."

                    It is, and they don't.

                    if you find the cost of medicine too expensive... go to medical school.

                    Hmm... someone help me out here.. .what was it AR said about the word 'extremist'?

                    I'm not twisting what's posted here. You are placing an obligation upon someone who invested a chunk of his life and fortune, indebted himself in order to master medicine, *simply because he went to the trouble of mastering it*.

                    If nobody becomes a doctor because they can't make a living at it... THEN how long do you live?

                    It's like saying I'm obligated to brick veneer your house because I developed the skill to do so, and you need brick on your house so your neighbors won't make fun of you and force you into long, expensive therapy sessions.

                    There's nothing 'extremist' in what I'm saying.

                    Was Patrick Henry extremist when he said, "Give me liberty, or give me affordable healthcare!"?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Found it, I think:

                      "If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as 'extremism,' then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth -- any man of integrity."
                      http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Ah, so in your book anything goes without question as long as you are committed to it.

                        So, what do you think of someone who advocates for cannibalism in America today isn't an extremist? I'll bet they can produce a lot of passion for it if they want.

                        And yes, if you are willing to let someone die because of your own personal greed I think you are an extremist. Of course that's my opinion. If you are different that that please explain.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Clue: Doctors will still get paid in Vermont.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                        Clue... who will do the paying for what?
                        Clue... will they be paid what their skills are worth, or will they be paid some arbitrary amount the socialist bastards in government think they should be paid?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          How do doctors get paid in countries with universal health care.

                          Personally I'd rather have a doctor passionate about saving lives rather than a doctor passionate about money.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                            Fine, then take his mind off money, and you, personally, out of your pocket, pay him the fifty to hundreds of thousands of dollars his medical education cost him.
                            Then he can exercise his passion for saving lives.
                            Personally, I'd rather be treated by Dr House than by Dr. Cameron.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                              Both are fictional and won't cure anything.

                              Yet still, my point is that greed should not be running medicine.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                                Both are archetypes; the doctor who doesn't give a damn about people but cares immensely about finding the cure, and a doctor who wastes her time and efforts sympathizing about the patient's suffering.

                                SLAVERY shouldn't be running medicine.

                                And in your case, greed IS running medicine. When you take my money, and my neighbor's money, and the guy down the street's money, and use it without their permission or consent to pay for your brother's sister's cousin's sinus medicine, that is *your* greed, and your brother's sister's cousin's greed... claiming the unearned as a right. Confiscating the product of my industry and creativity to pay for what they otherwise could not afford. Forcing doctors to settle for less than what the market would bear if they were allowed to operate freely. Denying them the yachts and vacations in the Hamptons, and thereby removing incentive for them to go through the hell necessary to become doctors.

                                You want a cure for high medical costs... *competition*. Reduce regulation, and allow doctors to make an even higher profit margin.

                                I have a friend who became a truck driver. He wasn't interested in driving trucks. But, he'd lost his business, he had had his fill of abject poverty, so he chose the profession that he was able to do and make the most money at. Yes, his decision was the result of "greed"; the further result of his "greed" is that goods were delivered.. foodstuffs... were delivered all over the country in a timely, efficient manner, because he knew that by offering higher quality for his work, he would be able to command even more money.

                                Likewise, a doctor offering greater quality of treatment, in a free market, will be able to command a higher rate for his services, while people will still be able to get lesser quality treatment for a lesser price from less capable doctors. The incentive to give the highest quality service lies in... greed.

                                Removing the incentive of greater profit, and you remove the incentive to give greater quality healthcare, and eventually the standard quality is the minimal quality to avoid losing one's license.

                                This is the way the real world works, whether you like it or not.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                  "SLAVERY shouldn't be running medicine."

                                  Is it "slavery" to pay for the common good with roads?

                                  Is it "slavery" to pay for the common good with armies?

                                  Is it "slavery" to pay for infrastructure like clean water, etc.?

                                  Clue: Don't tell anyone at Shriner's Hospitals that there isn't enough incentive for quality care.

                                  Another clue: Don't tell any military doctors that they don't have enough incentive.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Hiraghm replied 10 years, 11 months ago
          • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 11 months ago
            Do you work for free Bobo? Expecting to get compensated for your work and knowledge is NOT greed.
            And maybe for the time being no one is forced to become a doctor....but bo care will take care of that soon enough.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Doctors for the military, Catholic Hospitals, Shriners, etc. are paid.

              Why are you proclaiming that they don't? Doctors in Canada get paid too, as they do in all countries that have universal health care.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ain't a "baby" unless the woman thinks of it as such. Even if she does she can still abort it if she wants to.

    That's the way freedom works in America.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
      Sorry... reality is reality. One cannot think "banana split" and have a baloney sandwich turn into a banana split.

      Fine, if that's the way freedom works in America, I gotta go stock up on ammunition, cause there's LOTS of people out there I can declare non-human...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
        What's that water into wine thing? Oh myyyyy and feeding all those folks with a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread.

        So, are you going to shoot married same sex couples?

        Sounds like the same mentality that inspired so many religious nuts to shoot born doctors and fly airplanes into buildings.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
          What about the water into wine thing?

          I repeat my question: why do you think I'm a Catholic?

          Better than the mentality that enslaved and murdered millions in the name of the collective.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
            And same sex couples are still getting married.

            Women are still making their own decisions about abortion.

            And in Oregon folks can discuss all end of life options with their doctor.

            Ain't America GREAT!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Superficial physical characteristics are determined by DNA.

    You don't like my definition make up your own.

    You still don't get to tell women not to abort if they want to here in America.

    Your religion doesn't rule anyone but you and those who choose to follow.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
      Feel free to gloat that your intentional obtuseness makes it frustrating to discuss anything with you.

      You keep coming back to "your religion".

      I have not made a religious argument in regard to abortion. That you keep coming back to "your religion" is a clear sign you cannot refute the arguments I have made.

      Superficial appearances are indeed determined by DNA. Whether one is a man or a gibbon is also determined by DNA.

      Should a woman give birth to a thousand children, not one will grow up to be a gibbon, while the thousand will all still have unique, human, genetic patterns. Unique from the woman's.

      My argument is not that abortion is immoral and therefore should be made illegal.

      My argument is that unborn humans are still human and therefore the law must be applied equally; either women cannot murder the humans growing helplessly inside them, or I *can* murder illegal aliens... for no better reason than that woman.

      Killing human beings is killing human beings. If women are allowed to determine arbitrarily whether or not a given human being is, in fact, human, then that's a violation of the 1964 civil rights act... unless as a male I too get to arbitrarily pick and choose who is human and who is not.

      If you don't want to be called an idiot or a child, don't argue like either. Take your grudge against Christianity elsewhere, it has no place in an argument *with me* about abortion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
        Hiraghm claims: "My argument is that unborn..."

        Genetics DO NOT determine humanity. An acorn is no more a tree than what's gestating is a "baby."

        It is a PROCESS through which at the end there might be a baby.

        Fact is plans don't make a house. A bolt or tire doesn't make a car, even all the parts on a shelf don't make a car. They must be put together properly.

        And finally, if you have a visitor in your home one minute beyond when they were invited for you can call a cop to get them out.

        Yet, even if invited (having had sex is the reality) why do you demand that a woman take care of another "person" one moment more than they are wanted? If someone doesn't leave your home when you demand it my guess is you will proclaim your willingness to shoot them.

        Yet you demand a woman house a "child" YOU believe in no matter what her opinion is.

        Sheesh... Talk about slavery.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
          "Genetics DO NOT determine humanity. An acorn is no more a tree than what's gestating is a "baby."

          Indeed, an acorn IS a an oak. It is not a fern, it cannot become a fern. It is not a rose, it cannot become a rose.

          Exactly how is a an unborn child different than a quadriplegic or a brain-dead patient? All 3 are helpless and dependent upon others.
          The only difference is that, if left alone and cared for, the quadriplegic will not grow new limbs, and the brain-dead patient will not regain his brain functions. But an unborn baby, if left alone and cared for as you would expect quadriplegic, will become a human being. Not a fern, not a quadriplegic.

          Once you let individuals decide what is human, when their own interests are involved, you enter the monstrous territory of "death panels". Worse, of letting some people, simply because of their physical makeup and irresponsible character, decide who will live and who will die.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
            When it's born it is a human being.

            Before that it's inside the woman and she gets to decide.

            You can't enslave her to 9 months of labor incubating for your beliefs. Thank for freedoms in America where the religious views of another doesn't enslave women.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
              Then I'll just carve it out of her... if she dies in the process... well, she wasn't human by my definition, anyway.

              *I* do not enslave her to 9 months of labor.

              No woman on Earth has ever had 9 months of labor.

              So it's worse to enslave her to 9 months of caring for a human being than to murder a human being, and yet you'd sentence doctors and the rest of us to a life time of caring for millions of human beings, many of whom have actually *earned* our emnity.

              And of course, every woman who chooses abortion is a victim of rape. Not a one of them is a mattressback who wants to continue behaving irresponsibly. sure. Except that's not the case.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                It's slavery when she isn't paid for carrying it unless she volunteers.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
                  She volunteered when she took the penis into her body.

                  Which is an irrelevancy. If you are in my car hanging over a bridge, and the only thing preventing you from plunging to your death is my seatbelt, it's murder if I cut it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                    Nope. Just like you didn't "volunteer" if an invited guest for a party decides to stay in your house for 9 months and demands food, medical care, and shelter from you. And, offers nothing in return.

                    How long will you let them stay in your house before you shoot them?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I find it amazing that you laugh at the belief / nonbelief of another when there is plenty to laugh at in what your holy book proclaims.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
      Your opinion is not fact.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
        The fact is that same sex couples can marry.

        The fact is that abortion is mostly legal.

        The fact is that America is not a theocracy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
          The fact is you cannot have a marriage without both sexes represented.

          Many things are and have been legal which shouldn't be or have been.

          America is also not a monarchy. Which is as irrelevant as your last assertion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
            Actually same sex couples are getting married all over America.

            You aren't inflicting your version of morality upon anyone except those who choose.

            Ain't America great!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again, a total misunderstanding of what I wrote. It's not what I call the color, but what everyone agrees the color red to mean. Language and words are in constant dispute, the most famous of all would be Bill Clinton's prevarication on what the word is, is. Of course his argument was pure bs. The color red is still red but in another language it may have a name that sounds nothing like red. Furthermore it still has no meaning to a blind man who doesn't have a reference point in order to understand the concept of red. However I continue to be puzzled by the Atheists who want to convince Christians that there is no god.

    I can honestly say that I have never attempted to convince or convert any non-believer in God. I will always wish them good fortune and only ask of them that they do the same. No Atheist has ever been able to honestly show any harm to them by any Christian. That's not to say that there aren't people who call themselves Christians who sadly aren't really clear on the concept. I wish you good fortune as I wish for any decent human being who respects others as they would like to be respected.

    Fred
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 11 months ago
      Well, we could talk about The Inquisition, the Spaniards/Aztecs-Incans, etc., the Christian Missionary schools vs. American Indian children, and I can think of quite a few others.

      But the same can be said of any organized group either wishing for or trying to assert/maintain power and control - not just religions. I agree that there are many christians that live the life of non-aggression (turning the other cheek), but at the same time maintain the belief and policy of proselytizing. That's always given me a problem.

      No individual of any sort will ever be safe until the basic concept and worthiness of the right of self determination and to be left alone is more widely taught and respected.

      KYFHO
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
        The greatest and most widespread horrors of the modern world have been perpetrated not by Abrahamic religions, but by collectivists.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
          So?

          That doesn't reduce the horrors from religion even a little bit.

          Both are wrong.

          When a collectivist comes 'round here wearing that on his sleeve I'll also nail him and his hypocrisy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
        Christianity is not about those who forcefully proselytize, mu question to you is; would you like to hear about Jesus Christ and God his father? If the answer is no, then go in peace. If the answer is yes then I would take my time to try and teach you about them and whether you will believe or not I leave to God. In the question above, was there any force or a gun to your head, the answer is clearly no. If you met me in the street and asked me If I wanted to know something about Atheism or witches, not that they are similar, depending on my time and or inclination that day I might say yes or no. Yet when I say Merry Christmas people of your belief want to take me to court to prevent me of saying it. We have become sillier and sillier in this nation to protect the "public" from having their feelings hurt. the Constitution guarantees me and every citizen of this republic the right to "Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness. It makes me happy to ask the question above and it makes you happy to say no. who exactly got hurt in that exchange?

        Fred
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Fred, I have NOT declared my religion because I don't wear it on my sleeve and use it to justify hate and bigotry. This it is not a factor around here.

          The weakest of all arguments in a logical environment is "I believe." Although your belief isn't in doubt (it takes all kinds) what you believe can't be proven. Christians can't even say abstinence works because in the case of at least one virgin it didn't. It's hard to take it in the ear or swallow it in that kind of environment.

          Then I see a guy... Oh what's his name? Lott, that's it, Lott. He offered his virgin daughters to the mob and later had so much magic wine he had sex with his daughters and didn't recognize them. Black-out drunk and being able to get it up. Now that's magic.

          And finally I see guys like Bishop Spong doing same sex weddings one side of christanity and Fred Phelps on the other. Would the real Christians stand up so the rest of us aren't so confused?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
            It is truly sad that a person clearly articulate and with a decent education as I assume you have based on your writing style, can't resist continuing a one sided debate. I wished you well and said good bye as it was a waste of my time to continue this religious debate. It proves that it's not I nor any other Christian has any desire to continue debating a subject for which you clearly have no respect. Neither for the subject or the people presenting their view, instead you choose to continue an endless spouting of your hatred for Christianity.

            Furthermore the allegory's you referred to are from the (Old Testament not from the new which deals with Christianity. Even the New Testament has allegory's that are not meant to always be taken literally. In addition we need to remember that all philosophy's and their published versions are influenced by man through their editing and influences ranging from the politics of the time.

            Another thing is, you make reference to not having revealed your “religion,” frankly I don't care what your religion is as long as it makes you happy and a decent human being. I don't think that I need to define the word decent for you, I'm assuming that being on this site we are all decent human beings.

            On the other hand, it's clear that you are perfectly capable of injecting a little poison in your comments once in a while and I find that somewhat disappointing and frankly I expected better of you.

            Your argument that “ The weakest of all arguments in a logical environment is “I believe.” I beg to differ, in an argument dealing with philosophy, belief is the only thing that is being debated. It is clear that your dislike or perhaps even hate for Christianity blinds you to a degree that makes it impossible to discuss the matter either intellectually or emotionally

            I wish you well,

            Fred



            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Awwwww Fred... You posted: "Christian has any desire to continue debating a subject for which you clearly have no respect."

              I respect most religions most of the time. However when some of the members of some religions do hateful things (Muslims blowing things up, Christians shooting doctors, both denying the love and marriage between two people because they are the same sex) I get a bit irked.

              And now we get to this current environment built around the beliefs of Any Rand. She was an atheist. When someone comes around here wearing their holy blabbering on their sleeves trying to convince folks that some spirit is responsible... Well, for me it just doesn't go over so well.

              I think it's quite appropriate, from either testament, to point out the fallacies, foibles, and outright impossibilities presented on "faith."

              So, I don't worry about a dead guy on a stick. I worry about the person who is carrying it around their neck or as I saw video (and darn I wish I could find it to post) of a nun trying to jam the eyes of a clinic escort with...

              It's people and how they abuse what teachings might otherwise be excellent.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                What part of my polite way of saying that you are an ignorant bigot who finds allegory'sd in the Bible in order to make rediculous points. even you should be able to understand when someone says have a nice life and don't bother me anymore. I have in at least a half dozen posts wished you well and now I can only hope that you will be on your happy little way and no longer send replies which I will respond to in the hope that someone that is not a bogot against Christianity and Christians has something of value to ad. you definitely have not added one single thing to move this sort of conversation forward, in fact you have resorted to use examples and name calling of people who claim to be Christians but misunderstand the concept entirely. so, in order to make sure that even you will understand it, please no more comments directed towards me personally. I'm frankly tired of your inannity.

                Have a good life,

                Fred
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  And when the Christians soliciting at my door as they leave they tell me they will prey for me and that I too should have a nice day. And then they are off to my neighbor. Preying again.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
                    And you are so antisocial that you consider that an insult. All I can say my friend, you need to really work on your social skills. Maybe getting outside your cave and mixing with us poor dumb peasants might enlighten you a little. But on the other hand I hold out little hope for you. you hate too much and have very little courtesy in your heart.

                    Please accept my good bye to you that I have now sent your way 3 or 4 times.

                    Fred
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 11 months ago
          Fred; I'm sorry, you misread me a bit. I would welcome your Merry Christmas, and return it with warmth.

          It's just that my personal reason for celebrating it may be very different than yours. It's still something that I enjoy celebrating with my family and friends.

          As to proselytizing, I prefer to be an asker than the asked. My experiences have taught me that Christianity is about proselytizing in that, that's the only religious people I've personally had come to my door or approach me on the street wanting to talk about belief. Thank you for your interest in teaching me about your God and Jesus. If I feel an interest, I will come to you and ask.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
            I'm sad to say that you are one of the few that has responded in an honest and heartfelt manner to my posts. Most of them were pretty much in the same vein and I certainly understand your point about rather being the person asking than the one being asked. however that problem is the nature of the beast, the thing to always keep in mind is respect and good manners. sadly both seem to be a lost art these days. we can't be protected from all manner of being made uncomfortable at times. It's a part of life.

            Sincerely yours,

            Fred
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 11 months ago
              Fred;
              May your God bless you and keep you.

              When you or anyone else says to me, 'God bless you' or 'I'll pray for you', I generally thank them and I appreciate their caring and intent.

              Manners and respect are indeed the keys to a civil and pleasant life.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Fred, too have had Christians knocking on my door. I've made my choices and I'm happy with them so I don't need my day interrupted by some folks who want to get their ticket to their heaven punched by enrolling me.

              I let the dog bark. They go away.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                No matter how polite, as long as they are doing their bit for their benefit to get their ticket punched for that there brutal god I'll continue to use the word "prey."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
      It's scary that you haven't tried to convert non believers. Do you not care that they are going to hell? Christians don't harm atheists, they harm themselves, other religions, and other Christians. An atheist trying to convert you shows he cares about your well being, shows that he thinks you are fooling yourself and sacrificing your life in the process. That is his goal. To say you don't try to convert people is to say you don't value truth nor do you value humanity.

      Have you ever heard of the true Scotsman fallacy? No true Scotsman would murder. So if you hear someone from scotsland killed another man, you just say he wasn't a "real" Scotsman.

      You should at least start attempting to provide people with the truth Fred.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
        Re: Rozar,

        I don't know why my not trying to convert atheist to Christianity when I am willing to invite anyone who wishes to come and join me. On the other hand, I don't feel like wasting my time on anyone who announces that they are militant atheists, They may not use the word militant, but their arguments as you can see if you read any of Boborobdos' posts.

        The answer to your question of whether I don't care about them going to hell, the answer is yes, I do. However since atheists don't believe in hell, how could that argument meet with success?

        Apparently atheist and their sympathizers haven't got a clue as to what a Christian is, so I'll define it for you. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ which by the way if you choose not to believe in a divine Christ, then it still wouldn't hurt to believe in his “philosophy.”

        Show me one word or sentence in anything written about Christ that in any way could be objected to by anyone.

        As to Christians harming anyone on earth except in self defense, give me one example that wouldn't involve people who may spout the words of the Bible, but are false believers. As human beings we all commit sins on a daily basis, some minor and some major. That's why we have to work hard to walk the path of Jesus Christ and finding our way back to God through Jesus. It's not a difficult concept, but some people simply choose not to follow that path for their own reasons. God gives us free agency to follow any path we choose, some choose good and some choose evil, the choice is theirs.

        As to my fooling myself in my beliefs, why should it be any concern of anyone else. If an atheist asked me if I would join in a lecture or discussion about atheism, I would fear participating. The odds are pretty long on my being persuaded however.

        As to my valuing truth, I value it very much, the difference is that I recognize it, but it requires faith and that's what Christianity is all about, faith. I provide truth to anyone that wants to be exposed to it, but as I said, it requires faith.

        Fred
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Yes, "faith" to see your imaginary friend.

          Not "militant" about atheism because I'm not part of that.

          What I am "militant" about is shooing over enthusiastic christians away who want to "offer" or whatever other verb you want to use for your preying upon others.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
          That makes sense, I see where you're coming from. I hope you didn't take my questions above as an insult, I am just curious as to why you have faith.

          I disagree you need faith to find truth. Could you tell me how you define faith?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
            Re: Rozar
            First, please allow me to explain about needing faith to find truth. I'm writing in the context of Christianity where ultimately all questions of truth come down to faith. Faith is simply a part of Christianity as it is in fact of any religious denomination.

            I see gods hand in everything around me. How else to explain mathematics ? Could that concept be an accident? I don't believe that's possible. Nature and the way it all functions, another accident? I think not.

            I define faith as asking questions and when no other answer is possible except for a higher power or as I would say, Gods hand at work.

            Never fear asking questions, even of God. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “ Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
            -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

            The only comments I ever found insulting were from Boborobdos, whom I eventually labeled as an idiot for his continuing rudeness in trying to make a point. Apparently few people bother to engage with him.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
              Would it be fair then, in your definition of faith to say that when we don't know something, we say that god did it? I think I may have misunderstood the definition part.

              When you say that"no answer is possible" do you mean not possible based on what we know now, or not possible and will never be possible?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              From Fred: "I define faith as asking questions and when no other answer is possible except for a higher power or as I would say, Gods hand at work."

              That was an interesting idea during the black plague before germs were discovered. Now we have learned it isn't your "god" that makes us suck, it's germs, viruses, genetic problems, contaminants, hormonal imbalances, and a bunch of other stuff.

              It's nice to write stuff off as "god's" work, but in reality there are explanations.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Fred, there are plenty of religions that don't share the christian notion of "hell."

          Besides, only a very brutal god would attempt to scare folks into following him.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        "Each man's duty is to his king; but each man's soul's his own" - Kenneth Branaugh, "Henry V"

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=363KVe38M...
        (skip to about 6:15 for the relevant passage)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
          I agree with your statement, it's very wise. I watched a quick clip of the video but will try to watch the whole thing when I get off work. That is Shakespeare right?

          I may be confused on the point you're trying to make though. Would not your duty to God, the king of Kings, be to spread his word? I know that each man has the free will to decide for his soul, but they can be persuaded right?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            The significant portion of the quote, for me, is the "each man's soul's his own".

            That's what, for me, distinguishes modern-day Christianity from modern-day Islam or, even worse, Green. Go to hell, if you want (it says). Doesn't affect me.
            Massively different from Obama's "collective salvation" which he got from his Liberation Theology. And derives, or at least accompanies hand in hand, his indoctrination in the vile philosophy of Ubuntu.

            Each man's duty is to his king, in exchange for that which the king provides. At Runnymeade, the barons established that kings not only had authority, but responsibility.

            And Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V is one of my favorite films. About the only Shakespearean movie he made that I like.

            "Base is the servant who PAYS!" - also from that movie.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago
              I'll try to watch the whole thing. I would suppose it is true that each man must decide for himself that he wants to seek out the answers.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                Didn't that there brutal christian god call that "free will?" Why do so many who worship him try to deny free will to others?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Because, deep down, many who claim to be Christian have much in common with atheists and Greens?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                    There you go again... Why do you get to define christanity for others?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Please point, in that statement, to the part where I define Christianity? At which point did I say "many who claim to be Christian... but aren't"?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                        You have consistently told us that christians who perform same sex marriages aren't christians.

                        Are you now saying it's OK for christians ministers to perform same sex marriages?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                          As OK as it is for you to kiss your own coccyx.
                          As OK as it is for you to give birth to a unicycle.
                          As OK as it is for a badger to play the violin.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                            So, no real answer, just nonsense from another christian.

                            Oh well... So much for intelligent discussion after it is shown how the bigotry is real.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                              You can't kiss your own coccyx.
                              You can't give birth to a unicycle.
                              A badger can't play the violin.
                              And without a representative of each of the two sexes, there cannot be a marriage.

                              If it seems nonsense to you, it is merely your inability to comprehend at work.

                              Yes, you've shown how very real your bigotry is.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                                Actually marriage is a civil contract and lots of same sex couples are getting married here in America.

                                Love makes a family, not your brutal god.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      They define themselves as you do as "Christian." Who is any other person to refute them?



      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        "If other Mediators come to a different conclusion from mine, that is their affair, It may be that their facts are incomplete, or their aims different."
        - Whitbread's Fyunch<click>, from, "The Mote in God's Eye"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          I see you seem to have a dose of: Everyone else is wrong if they don't do it my way.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            If so, I was infected by contact with you.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Naw, I don't claim you are going to hell or anything else if you don't do religion my way.

              All I want is for you to stop forcing religion where it doesn't belong.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                You first.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  What religion am I forcing?

                  Is that what you call telling religious nuts to mind their own business?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    When you proclaim that those of us who don't follow your Green religion wish to create a hell of Earth, with no clean air, no clean water, no clean..., you are forcing your religion where it doesn't belong every bit as much as any Christian expressing his beliefs.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Quit lying Hiraghm. I don't have a "green" religion. Nor do I know of any such thing. Why do you make accusations based upon a falsehood?

                      Taking care of Earth is simply good. We need clean air and water, etc.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                        You've already expressed it by saying that, because I won't believe the tenet of your faith which dictates that Man is damaging the Earth, for which there is NO substantial evidence, I'm going to turn it into a polluted hell.

                        We already have clean air and water, etc.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    You claimed that those who don't follow your religion wish to make a hell of Earth.

                    You are not telling "religious nuts" to mind their own business, you are telling people with whom you have philosophical differences that they have no right to voice their opinions, for no better reason than that they do not agree with the nonsense you believe.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Nope, religious nuts.

                      You don't know whether or not my religious beliefs are "nonsense" because I haven't stated them. Quit lying.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                        When all else has failed, call your opponent a liar.

                        I know that one of your religious beliefs is that Man is despoiling the Earth. To believe that requires an act of faith, as there's no evidence for it.

                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                          Never said that, Hiraghm. Quit lying about my religious beliefs. You are best off not talking about them.

                          BTW, can you explain how Ayn Rand accomplished any "truth" in her writings without your god?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Strangely enough, it has nothing to do with consensus, it has everything to do with my own knowledge. I phrased it as I did, because the person I was having my little debate with wasn't really interested in analyzing the very concept of a God as his own religion seems to be the concept of Atheism as his religion whether acknowledges it or not. The point is that it doesn't matter to me what he or she believes, but it shouldn't matter to him or her what I believe.

    I should not impose anything on him/her, or vice versa. The Atheist belief that Christians want to impose anything on atheist or other religions for that matter is based on false representations by those that are always attacking Christianity. That's not to say that there aren't some misguided Christians who can get a little pushy at times. The same is true for the other side of course. When was the last time a Christian filed a lawsuit to prohibit an Atheist from doing what he wants to do other than constantly sue Christians?

    The bottom line is that for me as a Christian there is ample evidence of my faith everywhere around me, from natures bounty to mathematics. Are mathematics so precise by chance? I don't believe so. I believe therefor it is so.

    Funny thing is that Ayn Rand actually believed in the same thing, she just chose it to be created by chance. Our core beliefs are the same.

    Fred
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      Exactly Fred: "That's not to say that there aren't some misguided Christians who can get a little pushy at times."

      It's absolutely none of your business if a same sex couple marries. It changes nothing in your life except that you use it to push your religion upon another.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
      Ahhhhh yes, the old "believe and you shall see."

      I "believe" it when I see it. Show me your god, not a big foot foot print in the woods.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
        There are therefore no subatomic particles. No planets circling other stars. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid.

        Because these are things which you cannot, personally, see. You have to take the word of others of their factuality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Actually Hiraghm I've looked through telescopes and seen planets and stars.
          You can get some insight as to how planets circling other stars are PROVEN here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial...

          Same thing for subatomic particles. They are real.

          So, got any real proof of your god? Didn't think so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            Excuse me, but reading a wikipedia article is no more seeing than reading my views on religion.

            Seeing planets in our own solar system is not seeing planets circling other stars.
            ---
            Yes. Look around you.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Still can't prove your brutal god is real, eh Hiraghm.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                Not my fault you plug your ears and shut your eyes and scream "La-la-la-la-la".

                I repeat, look around you.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  I'm not screaming la... in any way.

                  What I'm screaming is leave my presence and take your brutal imaginary god with you.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    How can He be both "brutal" and "imaginary"? That which doesn't exist can't be anything.

                    You're refusing to acknowledge the existence of the world around you; without creation, its existence requires an unprovable leap of faith; that the universe was always this way, which scientific evidence strongly indicates is not the case, or that it generated spontaneously, for which, there is again no evidence. Many theories and hypotheses, but no evidence.

                    The issue is caused by your bigotry. You don't want anyone to believe any way other than the way YOU believe, and if they do so, you launch pointless attacks, expressing as little of your own personal philosophy as possible, assuming you have one, in order to beat down their belief.

                    You don't disprove their beliefs, mind you; you merely seek them out and belittle them, and make it clear that any open-mindedness on the parts of others will be used as a weapon for accusations of their own hypocrisy or insanity.

                    But we haven't established your sanity yet.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Don't see your god Hiraghm.

                  Got any clues what I should be looking for?

                  Or maybe he's "invisible"? Harry Potter did that too with his cloak.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    Yes, look for things that exist.

                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      Still don't see your god Hiraghm.

                      Why should he have any influence on business?

                      After all, your god's followers are always mooching and begging for money on his behalf. If I earn it why should I give 10% to your imaginary friend?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 11 months ago
        It's becoming clearer with every post from you that I'm wasting my time and efforts. you still don't seem to understand that I have no desire to convert you to anything, I'm trying if anything to help you to understand that your point of view is just as valid as mine for the same reason. you believe that you are correct and so do I, "proof" is only required if one is trying to convince or convert the other. You're trying to convince me and in my opinion you have no proof and since I'm not trying to concvince you of anything, I don't need any. We just happen to disagree. I wish you well and God Speed as they say in the old country.

        Fred
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
          Fred says: "I'm not trying to concvince you of anything,"

          Really. Guess you missed the efforts of Christians to change things.

          You know, the ones picketing and blowing up clinics.

          You know, the ones who poured millions of dollars into Oregon to defeat assisted suicide TWICE! And they last. The PEOPLE want it.

          And the funding of anti-gay marriage efforts.

          Blue laws...

          Christians are using their religion all over the place to trample others in America. It's silly to deny it because you may not personally take up a sign or pull a trigger. Sleep with dogs your gonna get flees.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            I note how your venom is directed solely at Christianity, that you inflate and conflate cultural mores and traditions as somehow "evils" "imposed" by Christianity....

            Yet you have not one word of criticism for any other religion. In fact, the only other mention of religion on your part is a defense of Green.

            You, Bobo... are a bigot.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              No Hiraghm, it is YOU who I am directed at. If you were muslum or any other religion and you were touting it to force others with threats of hell, etc. I'd be pointing to the hypocrisy, brutality, and silliness of that.

              It'a in't bigotry if it's personal. It's YOU who is trying to mussel in with your religion to change the lives of others. It's none of your business when they tell you to go away.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                " touting it to force others with threats of hell, etc. "

                Where have I touted it to force others with threats?

                I have stated what I believe. Have I said that I will use physical violence if you don't believe the same way I do?

                The two of of us have leaped from an airplane. We both have parachutes. I tell you that if you don't pull your chute at a given altitude, you will go splat.

                You disagree, vehemently, and refuse to open your chute.

                At which point did I threaten you? At which point did I use force?

                How can my belief be a threat to you when I don't say that I will send you to hell if you don't believe as I do?

                So you admit this is purely personal animus on your part.

                From what other venue have you come to stalk me, Bobo?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Yes, Hiraghm it's personal when over enthusiastic christians start their stuff with people who don't want it.

                  BTW, if at first you don't succeed don't try skydiving.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                    You mean like the way you've started your stuff with people here who don't want it?

                    You're not secure in your own beliefs, nor are you content to believe them. Otherwise, instead of using the label of "Christianity" to challenge the *opinions* others hold which disagree with your dearly held and deeply felt opinions of your own, you would entertain the expression of other opinions and openly discuss.

                    But, you're not interested in expanding your own horizons, but of silencing dissent.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                      My horizons are expanded, Hiraghm.

                      Your baseless accusations have nothing to do with who I am.

                      But, I see it as typical christian behavior.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
          Funny thing is, Fred, that I came to exactly the same conclusion a few posts ago, too.

          While Believers accuse Atheists of shoving their beliefs down their throats, Atheists seem to have the same feeling/experience, but, of course "the other side" denies the allegation.

          I can't prove there is NO god any more than you can prove there IS one (or more...) BFD...

          Bob's right about that quote... but I discovered the reality of it back in the computer world. "Seeing is believing" works for a lot of people, but the reality is "Believing is seeing," because most folks don't "see the point" until they believe (in) what they're seeing. Try critiquing software or a user interface that the author has fallen in love with because it's his or hers. Ain't gonna be "seen" at all.

          But please don't think WE will believe that religionists have no intention of converting anyone... can you point to any anti-gay legislation that's not rooted in something from someone's bible? Or their belief system, irrespective of empirical evidence? Good luck finding it. And that's why I occasionally make some "drive-by comments" when I see posts like the ones above.

          Ciao!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
            If you've seen any of my comments regarding homosexuality, or abortion, you would see objections with no root in or connection to religious belief.

            But, they are still dismissed by people who don't want to accept them, and can't argue against them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
              Really.

              And for same sex marriage why can't couples marry? (remember no religious reasons, and the law must apply equally to all Americans.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
                Couples can marry.
                But pairs of homosexuals cohabiting is not marriage.

                Homosexuality is a mental/emotional illness, where its victims have misdirected sex drives, the same as many others.

                There can be no argument made for changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals that cannot also be made for defining it to include animals or inanimate objects.

                If I have a "right" to marry whomever I love, then I have a "right" to marry my brother or my dog, or my car.

                Marriage is the life-long commitment of male and female humans to mate. Not to breed, not to fornicate, not to hang out together, but to form the bond nature evolved there to exist between males and females to ensure the perpetuation and survival of the species.

                It is not mating if it doesn't include a male and a female both.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
                  Ohhhhhh Hiraghm here you go again...

                  "Homosexuality is a mental/emotional illness,"

                  No it isn't. Quit lying. I asked you to produce it chapter and verse from the DSM and you failed. There is no such thing as a diagnosis of homosexuality.

                  where its victims have misdirected sex drives, the same as many others.

                  "There can be no argument made for changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals that cannot also be made for defining it to include animals or inanimate objects."

                  Quit lying. All the law needs to say is "consenting adults."

                  "If I have a "right" to marry whomever I love,"

                  The law has already defined your relationship with your brother & sister. Cohabitation, insurance, etc. for close relatives are rarely a problem.

                  "or my dog, or my car."

                  They are not consenting adults.

                  "Marriage is the life-long commitment of male and female humans to mate."

                  So a war hero who was wounded and can't "mate" can't get married. How crewel.

                  "to ensure the perpetuation and survival of the species."

                  Bull. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation in the civil contract. The species got along, gets along, and will get along fine without your god's permission to breed.

                  "It is not mating if it doesn't include a male and a female both."

                  So, a post-menopausal woman won't be allowed to marry in your world. How mean is that?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 10 months ago
                    "Posted by Hiraghm 3 days, 1 hour ago
                    "If you've seen any of my comments regarding homosexuality, or abortion, you would see objections with no root in or connection to religious belief.

                    But, they are still dismissed by people who don't want to accept them, and can't argue against them. "

                    >>>> Notice, Bob, that at no time or place in that post, did they even allude to WHERE they DID discover those beliefs, nor refute in any way that the beliefs were NOT, in any way, religion-based. But I was not surprised. It's the same answer I get when I ask ANYONE with that belief system "what's the basis of your 'conclusions' on the subject?" As if the idea that "marriage is only between people of different genders" sprang spontaneously into their minds one day, and not influenced by any external events or people.

                    It's a form of personal unconsciousness, when you don't know why you believe what you believe or can't articulate it when someone asks.

                    Whatever...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            So, what is your evidence that Hiraghm's god is real? Do you have a photograph, recording, or maybe you can bring him to a studio somewhere so we can all see him and ask questions.

            Meanwhile... ZERO evidence.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unless one is a minority or a woman.

    Or, wants to smoke pot, marry someone of the same sex...

    Funny how the right consistently wants to vote rights away from people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
      And the left consistently wants to provide any and all services to everyone, no matter what the cost.

      and believes that "the government will pay for it."

      Lunacy of the highest order.

      On Linked In, one libber, when asked by me if there were ANY limit in her mind to how much teachers should be paid, actually said, and I quote... "NO!"

      NO LIMIT. Ten thousand, I asked? A hundred thousand? A million dollars? Ten million PER TEACHER???? "No, she answered... no limit."

      And she's a lawyer, too. Go figure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
        I find it amazing that you would trust your kids to the lowest bidder.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 11 months ago
          I find it amazing that you would trust your kids to anyone, regardless of their pay-rates, unless you've first assured individually their qualifications to have anywhere near that kind of trust. I certainly don't trust anyone in government to assure me of those qualifications and then pass a law that I have to turn my children over to them for instruction.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
          Bob, you've got that backwards... the libber on Linked In was all too happy to trust HER kids, and mine, if I had any, and yours, ditto, and everyone else's, to the HIGHEST bidder; all (she) cared about was paying a lot of money to teachers, with no comment or acknowledgment of performance evaluations or seeing if it made any difference... quite UN-Randian, in my view.

          And over the years, one thing I learned was to NOT accept the lowest bid from ANYONE, even public school teachers. If people started to accept at least the SECOND LOWEST bid, give some thought to what influence that might have on LOTS of markets (including the Federal procurement agencies...)...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            There are still some folks who think we got to the moon with lowest bidders.

            Clue: Best and brightest (Kennedy's crew) don't come cheap.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
        Further, she's not me either.

        Teachers, doctors, nurses, and thousands of other folks don't go into their fields out of greed. Once substance levels are met their motives vary as much as there are people. That's part of the beauty of America. Folks can do what they want because they love it.

        Besides, I don't want a doctor who is in practice out of greed. I want one who wants to cure folks or help them exit gracefully.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
          ... and you think I do? MANY decades ago I realized that the best people to work for and work with and have work for you are those that ENJOY what they're doing. MANY studies over the ensuing decades showed that money is NOT a primary driver of "satisfaction at work." Too little is often used as punishment, but folks who don't like their job or their team or company but demand or command large or huge salaries... they're the moochers and I have NO respect for them.

          I often worked ten or twelve-hour days at my first "real" job because I loved the team and what I was doing and learning.

          I left ten years after I started because I got too good at the job and it became boring and unchallenging and there was no career path in the organization.

          The people I respect and enjoy most are NOT the ones who are "in it for the money" although, as Heinlein put it, money IS nice.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
            "MANY studies over the ensuing decades showed that money is NOT a primary driver of "satisfaction at work."

            And Ayn Rand demonstrated that herself through Howard.in "The Fountainhead."

            That was part of the book. Fulfillment is not necessarily financial.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
      You mean the same "right" that freed the slaves and supported the civil rights movement.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago
        The Republican party of Lincoln's, or even as recently as Eisenhower, only shares a name. You need to review the "Southern Strategy" to see just how hateful the current Republican party has become.

        BTW, didn't taking the slaves away take away property? I suspect that in that era you would have been screaming about property rights.

        Further, if corporations are "people" (as defined by our government) how's come they can be traded for money? Isn't that a form of slavery?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A convoluted argument at best that seems to forget the notion that lawmakers are ELECTED.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
      Has nothing to do with it. A republic is based upon a foundation of law, not the whims of 50.1% socialist scumbags. A democracy cannot and does not protect the rights of minorities or individuals; a republic can and does.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo