I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: HouseOfDialysis on May 02, 2011, 09:08:54 AM
-
This thread may serve as a discussion down the road, but the first GOP debate of the 2012 cycle starts in my state of South Carolina on Thursday night in Greenville. Only problem is the attendees!
Only two are somewhat confirmed the and the state party isn't saying anything of who will be there until tomorrow, well after the deadline for registering. Also, to get on the GOP ballot, a candidate has to pay $25,000 to the party. Democrats only charge $2,500, I think. But wow...
So it looks like the only people showing up are Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Plus, given the death of Osama bin Laden, I'm sure that will skew the questioning for the debate. It's really a moot point to even ask any GOP member about it and if they say anything beyond, "Job done, Mr. President" it'll get dicey for whoever tries a backhanded compliment.
Also, Rep. Michele Bachmann has made no plans to show up, though it is thought she will run in the primary. No word from Newt Gingrich's camp or former Gov. Mitt Romney. Also not committing as of today is former CEO Herman Cain, former Senator Rick Santorum, and quite a few more.
I don't think President Obama's re-election is guaranteed by any means, but I don't exactly see principled leadership in opposition to him from anyone save for Rep. Ron Paul. Say what you will about him, but he's consistent and has never contradicted himself in office.
-
Still a long way to go.
Ron Paul like you said has had the same story for years. Who cant get behind smaller govt. and personal responsibility.
I think some big players will come out later in the year. They probably just want some of the lesser GOP candidates to get out of the way.
Wonder if Chris Christi will jump in the ring?
We need someone who has experience in running at least a business or corporation or maybe someone that has run a state or knows how to balance a budget.
If we are ever going to get real we need to reign in entitlements. Im no math major but it is easy to see if you spend more then you make you will end up in BIG TROUBLE.
and just printing more money or borrowing more money from China isnt going to fix anything.
States need to step up and take responsibility. If you want Cowboy poetry make room in the state budget dont pander to the rest of the US so you can have cowboy poetry.
-
Wow, Santorum and Pawlenty were predictable and disappointing.
Cain needs more specificity.
Paul and Johnson are my favorites thus far.
-
2012 could be one of the most anticlimactic election cycles on record.
-
No mention of good ol Sarah?
-
Sarah Palin was good for eye candy on the campaign trail, especially during the VP debate when NBC had A LOT OF back shots showcasing her legs. Yes, I did notice. But I put her in the same vein as Trump and his ilk. Just a celebrity for sake of celebrity by trade. Sure, she was Governor of Alaska and took more an earmarks than any other state in the Union...
Ugh.
-
Did anyone happen to catch the latest round of GOP debates from Iowa last night? Any thoughts? How about Rick Perry entering the race...anyone have thoughts about that?
-
Did anyone happen to catch the latest round of GOP debates from Iowa last night? Any thoughts? How about Rick Perry entering the race...anyone have thoughts about that?
Rick Perry is the GOP flavor of the month, but he doesn't stand a chance at the nomination. When the tea party crowd finds out he once pushed for a bi-national healthcare plan between the U. S. and Mexico, I imagine they'll be a little disillusioned.
-
I will not be supporting Gov Perry due to the way he handled the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. His attitude toward such matters of life and death are far to cavalier for my taste. I also don't understand why he would want to be the leader of a nation from which he suggested secession.
I've said before that I fervently believe in a loyal opposition, but this crop of GOP nominees do not strike me as loyal to any degree. I will not claim that they hate America, but I can't help but feel that they have a great disdain for a large proportion of Americans.
I understand that the priority for Americans is jobs, but I don't believe that the United States of America should be run solely as a business. What would Rick Perry do if Iran develops nuclear capability or Syria implodes?
I am very much looking forward to the GOP debate on Wednesday. I want to hear what these people have to say. I am not a follower of Fox News, but I was happy that their questions in the previous debates were actually quite insightful and tough.
-
I will not be supporting Gov Perry due to the way he handled the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. His attitude toward such matters of life and death are far to cavalier for my taste.
I found the reaction of the debates' crowds even more unsettling. Cheering executions? I'm for capital punishment in extreme cases, but applauding the number of executions as if it's a badge of honor? And cheering on death of an uninsured man?
I really want to see a healthy non-corporatist conservative party pushing for individual freedom and limited government. Right now, unforunately, the Republicans are a fringe group. And as much as they complain about debt, deficits, and government expansion, when they get into office they become the worst offenders of all.
-
Yes, I know. The crowd reactions were unnerving.
-
Reagan would be eaten alive at these debates. "Mr. Reagan, you raised taxes seven times." (Crowd gasps.) "Mr. Reagan, I understand you granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants." (Crowd screams.) "Mr. Reagan, it seems you gave the United States the largest budget deficits in its history and tripled the nation debt." (Crowd collectively faints.)
The nomination will go to Romney. His numbers still haven't gone up, even as Perry's have come down, but I'm sure once Republican voters go through their conservative flavors of the month (the current flavor being Herman Cain), they'll get behind who they think is the most electable, whether they like him or not. That's how John McCain won the nomination last time. Then, I think, Romney will think he needs a tea party-type for his running mate. It'll be Romney/Perry or Romney/Rubio.
Okay, I have to put my crystal ball away now...
-
Totally agree with you that it will be Romney, but I would love to see a Romney/Gingrich ticket.Dream on!!!
-
Anyone think Chris Christie will decide to run after all?
-
Anyone think Chris Christie will decide to run after all?
No, I don't think he'll run.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Meg Whitman held a fundraiser for Chrisitie on the condition that he not run against Mitt Romney, whom Whitman supports. Interesting. Could she be trying to secure a VP spot in the Romney compaign?
-
I'm voting for Ron Paul. It will probably be Obama vs. Romney. Nobody wins an election like that.
-
Newt is gonna get the nomination and beat Obama like there is no tomorrow.
-
Newt is gonna get the nomination and beat Obama like there is no tomorrow.
I have to admit that the love that's being given to Newt right now really baffles me. The most vocal wing of the GOP is quite adamant about removing the "professional politicians" that have ruled Washington in the past, and this is exactly what Newt Gingrich is. He is the ultimate Washington insider, and I always had the impression that this is not what this faction of the GOP is looking for.
Newt Gingrich has never been "a common man", and again, I don't understand why the people who say they want someone "like them" to be President give Gingrich a second look. He is a supreme lobbyist and has the money to prove it. He has been around Washington for decades, and he most certainly is not "like me".
I also don't get the impression that his is the "businessman" that the rest of the Republicans seem to want as President.
Newt Gingrich has the personality of a Congressional leader, and that served him well for a time, but his own party eventually kicked him out. Mr. Gingrich is famous for being arrogant, snide and petulant, but I am aware that he has converted to Catholicism and claims that this has tempered him, so over the course of the next year, we will have plenty of opportunity to see if this is true.
So, if someone can give me a coherent explanation of why suddenly we are seeing Newt Gingrich up there with Mr. Romney, I'd be really grateful because I am sorely confused.
-
I am a "bleeding heart" Liberal who believes that the purpose of government is to serve the people. I think Lincoln said it best, "A government of the people, by the people and for the people," or something like that. I have seen too many people who were dropped by the wayside and forgotten, and need the help of government - as in dialysis and Medicare. As for the GOP candidates, my eyes always search out Huntsman.
-
Newt is gonna get the nomination and beat Obama like there is no tomorrow.
I have to admit that the love that's being given to Newt right now really baffles me. The most vocal wing of the GOP is quite adamant about removing the "professional politicians" that have ruled Washington in the past, and this is exactly what Newt Gingrich is. He is the ultimate Washington insider, and I always had the impression that this is not what this faction of the GOP is looking for.
Newt Gingrich has never been "a common man", and again, I don't understand why the people who say they want someone "like them" to be President give Gingrich a second look. He is a supreme lobbyist and has the money to prove it. He has been around Washington for decades, and he most certainly is not "like me".
I also don't get the impression that his is the "businessman" that the rest of the Republicans seem to want as President.
Newt Gingrich has the personality of a Congressional leader, and that served him well for a time, but his own party eventually kicked him out. Mr. Gingrich is famous for being arrogant, snide and petulant, but I am aware that he has converted to Catholicism and claims that this has tempered him, so over the course of the next year, we will have plenty of opportunity to see if this is true.
So, if someone can give me a coherent explanation of why suddenly we are seeing Newt Gingrich up there with Mr. Romney, I'd be really grateful because I am sorely confused.
This is a fascinating time if you're an observer of politics. My understanding of Gingrich's popularity, and Jean please tell me if this is ringing true to you, is that within Republican circles the President is seen as an empty suit, someone who needs a TelePrompter to know what to say.
I think this is the context when you hear clamoring for his education transcripts or that no one has ever said they knew Obama as student or as a teacher. Gingrich's popularity on the right flows from the idea that Obama is an affirmative action poster boy, having coasted his way through life, living easy off the system. First through school and then whisked into a series of no show union jobs - organizer, lawyer, politician. Now look at Gingrich, given this judgement on Obama.
Gingrich is touted as the Joe DiMaggio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_DiMaggio) of debating. I think Gingrich supporters have decided that they want Gingrich to debate the President and if he does he'll make the President look like Mendoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_Line) by comparison. I think this is why you'll hear more and more talk about "doing Lincoln/Douglas style debates all across the country". I think the idea Gingrich supporters have is that the debates will reveal Obama to be a fraud and thus reveal his ideas and policies to be fraudulent and importantly his critique of modern republicans and the record of the last republican President and Congress to be fraudulent. It was not their fault and Gingrich will prove it on live TV.
I was an Obama delegate in 2008, I made it as far as the state convention. The only decision I have to make come January is whether to just volunteer for the President's reelection or to volunteer and try to earn my way to N Carolina. I will say that the President has had remarkable fortune in selecting his opponents over the years; that streak does look to be continuing.
-
When Paul Krugman commented that Newt Gingrich "is a stupid man's idea of what a smart person sounds like," something about that rang true to me. He speaks like he knows he is the smartest guy in the room and that no one else could possibly be brighter than him. Speaker Gingrich also is a very divisive character, and that's is not what this country needs right now, in my opinion. He is described as an "ideas man", and if he has some good ideas, I would like to hear him, but I do not sense that he has the personality to unite neither the nation nor Congress to put these ideas into play.
When I think about candidates becoming President, I imagine them in Brussels or Durban or the Far East at summit meetings involving the world's leaders, and I just do not see Newt Gingrich in this context.
I do, however, see Governor Huntsman in this role, and I like his idea of breaking up the big banks. The banks have been allowed to become "too big to fail", and I think this is a mistake. But it does seem that all of the major players in Washington from both sides of the aisle have Wall Street in their pockets, and it is easy to say, "I'll break up the banks" but not so easy to make it happen, especially when they have given so much to your campaign.
I am bothered by the fact that "colorful characters" are getting the most attention in this GOP race, and now the attention is focussed on someone who is old-time Washington. Why not look closer at Huntsman?
-
I think Huntsman too often is embarrassed by today's GOP and the republican primary electorate is not interested in anyone who thinks any of their positions is unreasonable. If Huntsman wanted the nomination he would have had to campaign as an Obama administration whistle blower, which would have given him a lot of opportunities to feed the base red meat. To his credit he didn't take that route and now he is maybe setting himself up for future runs.
-
I will say that the President has had remarkable fortune in selecting his opponents over the years; that streak does look to be continuing.
Yeah, I'm still pining for the Trump/Palin ticket of any Democrat's dreams, but Newt, or really most of the current Republican contenders, would be almost as easy for Obama.
Anyone who underestimates how intelligent Obama is does so at their peril. George Will recently said of Newt: Gingrich’s is an amazingly efficient candidacy, in that it embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington. He’s the classic rental politician. This is what other conservatives think of him. And he is too much of a pompous blowhard to understand that he is so deeply unlikeable and so obviously corrupt that he can and will lose, spectacularly in fact, either to Obama or to Romney.
I will say that Newt is every bit the candidate that the current Republican party deserves.
-
Yeah, I'm still pining for the Trump/Palin ticket
The season has just begun. Many plot twists ahead.
-
Cain wasn't able.
-
Cain wasn't able.
Oh, I suspect he WAS able, and that's what got him into trouble. :P
-
Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?
-
Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?
Depends on exactly how you define the term... I am not entirely sure what it means anymore. Can you define it?
-
Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?
At least two. :beer1;
-
It's our mutual Army training. We have obviously been brainwashed. LOL
-
Well, then would the two of you define "conservatism" to me? The general consensus is that the Republican party, which I assume to be the bastion of conservatism in the United States today, is veering ever more to the right. But "general consensus" isn't always accurate, so would you say this is a true assessment? When I see someone like Sarah Palin telling us that she knows who the "real" Americans are, I don't know if this means that "conservatives" also are privvy to this exclusive knowledge. Is Sarah Palin a "conservative"?
What is it, exactly, that you are looking to conserve?
I've watched all of the GOP debates, and I am left astounded by the shallowness of so many of the candidates who have at one time or another been catapulted to the top of the polls. Trump? Palin? Cain? Perry? Really? Really? I have listened very carefully to all of these people, including Romney, because I honestly want to hear what they have to say (otherwise I wouldn't subject myself to those debates), and whenever any of the candidates get a question they are loathe to answer, they immediately fall back to the default setting and rail against President Obama, calling him "anti-American" and "anti-business." They are like parrots, and I want to hear something MORE from them.
Santorum is a bit fixated on "the family", and somehow "the family" is the answer to all of our prayers. If you really want to support "the family", you don't eliminate funding for education, and you make sure that everyone in the family has access to good food, clean air and affordable health care, but those things don't seem to be on the Republican agenda. So I would very much like to hear from Mr. Santorum on just how he is going to strengthen "the family".
I still wish that Governor Huntsman had more airtime, and I will be there front and center to see his debate with Speaker Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich lacks integrity and has too many personality flaws to be President. He is too combustible for my personal taste, and the very idea that he would pal up to someone like Donald Trump is revolting. Why has the Republican party nominated Donald Trump to be their de-facto "presidential endorser." Donald Trump? What's going on? What is it about Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain that embodies conservative values? I guess I just don't know what "conservative values" are, anymore. I'm certainly willing and eager to listen.
-
If we gaze at the earliest settlers in the colonies on our east coast, we can see why we need “government”. The idea of government is an exercise in teamwork based on the concept that a group of people can produce more than the same number of individuals working separately. This was essential for survival.
Lincoln rekindled this idea in his Gettysburg Address by defining a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Our government no longer defines itself in these terms. A politician I know told me once, that once he was elected his first priority was to get re-elected. That has become the norm, the standard and now we see politicians marching in lock-step in Congress, and nowhere do the best interests of the people enter into this contemporary equation. And where has this brought us:
- Government shutdowns and the threat of.
- Pre-emptive war.
- Rampant ethics violations in the name of campaign contributions and other.
- Foreign aid as an international bribe rather than actual aid.
- Disregard for those dependent on Social Security and Medicare/the elimination of a safety net.
- Anti-intellectualism.
- Then there is Universal Healthcare, an idea that draws buzzwords such as socialized medicine and prompts people to shout “Let him die” during a discussion of a hypothetical man without any healthcare.
I ask myself, what happened to America since Eisenhower warned us of the “military industrial complex”. Who is a candidate for President that speaks to these issues?
-
Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?
I'm here :)
-
When the House GOP’s enormous freshman class arrived on Capitol Hill in January, it wasn’t uncommon to hear them sound off on the mistakes their predecessors made in 1995. Despite having shut down the government — twice!
— House Republicans under Newt Gingrich had caved too easily, didn’t push hard enough, didn’t embody the true spirit of conservatism.
But the new House leadership wasn’t so sanguine. Many had lived through the Gingrich revolution and its aftermath. Others had been around long enough to hear tales of it. And so they mapped out a strategy specifically designed to avoid what they believe were the party’s ’90s-era mistakes.
In other words, the two factions — the newly energized backbenchers and the veteran leadership — were pulling each other in opposite directions. The tug of war left the House GOP’s strategic center of gravity stuck in an unstable position. The party was committed to fighting as hard as possible, but stopping short of its most conservative members’ slash and burn instincts.
The 2011 version of the House GOP, in not always easy coordination with Senate Republicans, would approve must-pass bills, but only after dragging negotiations down to the wire and extracting as many concessions as possible from Senate Dems and the White House each time. We saw that strategy play out over and over again this year, with mixed results for both parties and largely poor results for the country at large.
Here’s a quick lookback at a year of living dangerously — and the series of recurring crises that it produced.
APRIL: Government Shutdown
This fight set the tone for the remainder of the year. At the tail end of the last Congress, Republicans blocked a bipartisan effort to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September 2011. They’d made big gains and wanted an early bite at the apple in the new Congress. With government funding set to expire, House Republicans sought to make good on their pledge to cut $100 billion from domestic federal programs right away.
In addition, they sought to attack the Obama administration’s power to govern from the executive branch with scores of legislative riders meant to limit access to women’s health centers, weaken environmental regulations and so on. The administration and Senate Dems sought to limit the damage — but it wasn’t easy. In negotiations that lasted until minutes before the government shutdown, Republicans locked in billions of dollars in budget cuts, and even a few riders, including one that reinstated a ban preventing the District of Columbia from spending local tax dollars on abortion services.
AUGUST: Debt Limit
This is where House Republicans overplayed their hand — but also made, from a conservative point of view, the most substantive gains. Republicans held the country’s borrowing authority hostage. They implicitly threatened to let the country default on its debt obligations unless Democrats agreed to massive cuts to federal programs over the course of a decade. For a time, the White House genuinely saw this as an opening to strike a fiscal “grand bargain” with House Speaker John Boehner. But in an early indication of the limited room Boehner’s conference would give him to deal, those negotiations fell apart over the GOP’s reluctance to increase taxes on the wealthy. So Democrats reverted again to a “contain the damage” strategy. The damage was pretty severe: $1 trillion in cuts to defense and domestic discretionary spending over the next year, enforced through statutory budget caps; a downgrade to the country’s AAA rating by Standard & Poor’s; and, because the Super Committee the debt deal created would ultimately fail, the prospect of another $1.2 trillion in across the board cuts to national security programs, Medicare providers, and other parts of the budget, which are set to kick in on January 1, 2013, unless Congress finds savings elsewhere.
The good news for now is that the budget cuts are somewhat backloaded and won’t become too severe until later in 2012 and 2013. In the meantime, the country’s fiscal fate — whether we’re on a bumpy path toward unwinding the New Deal or toward shoring it up — now hinges on the outcome of the 2012 elections. If a Republican beats President Obama, the GOP will continue to put the squeeze on government revenue and pursue a course of swapping out the automatic defense and Medicare provider cuts with cuts to other key support programs.
SEPTEMBER: Disaster Relief
The debt limit fight was a political disaster, and an embarrassment for Dems who found themselves outmaneuvered throughout. But it also marked the point at which they adopted a new, more confrontational strategy with the GOP.
That manifested itself in a small skirmish over funding the government in the new fiscal year that began in October. Republicans attempted to use the expiration of government funds at the end of the fiscal year as leverage to force Democrats to offset the cost of federal disaster relief with cuts to a successful hybrid vehicle incentive program. Indeed, House Republicans they tried to jam Senate Dems and skip town. In the end, Democrats refused to budge, FEMA managed to squeak by with the disaster relief funds it had, and a shutdown was again averted.
NOVEMBER: Super Committee
The debt limit fight led to the creation of the Super Committee, and a whole new fight over reducing federal deficits. But this fight was completely different. With the threat of a debt default off the table, Democrats drew a
line: no cuts to entitlement benefits until Republicans agreed to break the stranglehold anti-tax conservatives have on their party. That break never really happened, and so the 12-member panel failed. As a result, major across the board cuts to defense, Medicare providers and other programs are set to kick in on January 1, 2013, unless Congress comes up with something better. That’s why the coming year and the presidential election are so high-stakes. They’re all about the nation’s priorities.
DECEMBER: Payroll Tax Cut
The GOP strategy of pushing negotiations to the brink of crisis finally caught up with them in the fight over extending the payroll tax cut, giving Democrats their most decisive victory of the year. Not only did Dems manage to turn the Republicans’ reluctance to renew the 2011 payroll tax cut into a huge political liability, they reset the consensus entirely. And in the process they left the House GOP conference — and the relationship between House and Senate Republicans — in shambles. In the end, Congress renewed the payroll tax cut for two months, and both parties have committed to extending it through the end of 2012. But Republicans will have to do so on Democrats’
terms. If they learned nothing from the last month, and try to pick another fight over payfors and unrelated riders, they risk a much more severe political embarrassment in the middle of primary season and, many observers have speculated, losing control of the House in 2013.
-
Although the campaign hasn't really begun, the GOP has shown it's cards. I like to think I have an open mind about the issues and that means I am looking to the candidates for solutions. Quite frankly, I haven't heard anything about solutions to problems, only a condemnation of the President.
I am looking to hear solutions on these issues (and more):
1. Jobs
2. Economic recovery
3. Debt management
4. Position on war
5. Position on social programs.
We are hearing cut, cut, cut but we are not hearing anything about the people who would be left out in the cold. As the campaign unfolds I hope to hear that the GOP is compassionate and not as callous as they now sound.
-
I fear we are becoming ungovernable.
In 2008, we elected a president who promoted unity and compromise. Our votes said that we no longer wanted red states or blue states of America, but that we wanted a United States of America. We told the world that we wanted a united government that would work for the good of all of us. We said we wanted bi-partisanship and Congresspeople who could work with their colleagues across the aisle.
So, what happened? "Compromise" has become a dirty word and has been replaced by words like "cave". There is no longer honor in compromise, only weakness. So what did we do in 2010? We elected the most intransigent group of representatives possible. We ourselves took away the tools necessary to promote this bipartisanship we claimed we wanted.
This is all our fault.
We have allowed money to dictate everything. Only people with money and connections can afford to run for Congress, yet we complain that they are "not like us." What do you expect? We complain about "elitism", yet the only candidates who can run are the moneyed folk.
We are schizophrenic.
-
A wise person once said, "The people get the government they deserve."
-
Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?
Im not a "liberal" so I guess that means Im "conservative".
lmunch :kickstart;
-
Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?
I'm here doc
-
Again, I would very much appreciate a definition of "conservative" by a self-proclaimed conservative. Also, how do you define "liberal"?
Can you voice these definitions with clarity and without invective?
Thank you.
-
Again, I would very much appreciate a definition of "conservative" by a self-proclaimed conservative. Also, how do you define "liberal"?
Can you voice these definitions with clarity and without invective?
Thank you.
No thanks.
-
No thanks.
Really? You surprise me. I was hoping to learn something from you.
How about if I rephrase the query. How about if you (or anyone else who cares to respond) list five things that you consider to be traditional "conservative values." Do you think these traditional values have changed in more recent election cycles?
-
Come on Moosemom, these are pretty clearly defined. I am not really at interested in debating this issue, but I will answer your question. For myself, the values of hard work, self-responsibility and individual freedoms based on self responsibility and paying your own way are at the heart of my "conservative" values. Hard to find any more, but that is what I grew up with and that is what I expected. My parents were not very wealthy at all in any stretch of the imagination. I worked hard at school, and as a doctor. I believe that is the American way.
In any case, as I stated, those are my personal beliefs not debatable by anyone else's personal beliefs. I have answered your question. Not interested in debating what so ever whether folks approve of my beliefs, but that is the basis of my personal "conservative" values in concert with my Christian faith.
Thank you,
Peter
-
I am not interested in debating. I was asking a valid question, and you are usually very good about giving a clear and thoughtful response to just about every question ever posed to you, and I was hoping you'd do so again. I have lived outside of the US for most of my adult life, and I was just trying to increase my understanding.
I disagree that "conservative values" is clearly defined. Or, maybe it is, and I'm just stupid.
I am not asking you to defend anything. What I am asking is, rather, that you define "conservatism", and if you would like, to also define your understanding of "progressive" or "liberal".
Thank you, anyway. Maybe someone else would care to respond. Or not...
I personally believe that people should be responsible for themselves and work hard to retain their freedoms and support their families, and in accordance with my own Christian faith, I believe that people should be compassionate toward those who are in need. I also believe that the personal freedom of others is as important as my own. I don't know if this makes me liberal or conservative.
-
Moose Mom, you are in fact a conservative.At least to my way of thinking you are. Good job!!!! Now, you need to decide who is going to go head to head with the 'Obama" machine, so we can get rid of him.
-
Here lies one of the BIG problems that I have with Conservatives. They talk about their Christian faith. I learned in church to give to the less fortunate. Members of the Conservative movement are trying to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. They do not care if the poor receives medical care. They want to decide what to give to which charity on their own and they do not want the government deciding this for them. The problem is that so many people do not receive the help the need without government mandated programs.
-
I'm firmly in the independent camp, having voted at various times for both sides. I think both sides have good points, and I try to vote for the person I think will do the best job in a position, regardless of party affiliation. Last time around, I voted for Obama, mostly because I thought the Republicans had plenty of time to fix some of the messes we were in and hadn't managed to do much of anything. I thought McCain would have done a decent job, actually, but his choice of running mate made me seriously question his judgment.
I don't think Obama has been as effective as I was hoping for, but I don't think he carries all the blame for that - he's been fought on every attempt to make any useful changes. (And no, I don't agree with every last thing he's tried to change, but it's hard to rebuild a condemned house when people keep stealing all your tools.)
So far, though, I'm finding most of the Republican candidates for 2012 more scary than anything else. That anyone, even for a second, considered Trump a viable candidate just frightens the living daylights out of me. Gringrich certainly doesn't strike me as any better. I want to shake all of the Republicans and yell, "Pick someone with more than half a brain and get yourselves organized!"
-
I believe in hard work and personal responsibility, which includes exercising responsibility toward one's community by not practicing this ludicrously third-world 'everyone for themselves' policy. That's not a community nor a country, that's a hot mess. Which is why I have no time for that loser Bush jr. who had everything purchased for him by daddy, including a baseball team and a presidency.
I strongly suggest no one try to define me as Republican or conservative, though. I'll define myself, thanks very much.
Have to disagree on Obama not being that effective. Shall we go over a sampling of his accomplishments? Taking down bin Laden - there's a 7-year Republican failure. Healthcare reform - hundreds have tried and promised, only he has done it, and with all the foaming-at-the-mouth, pants-on-fire opposition (death panels?? he's a Kenyan muslim??!!) that the Republicans could muster. Teaching those Somali pirates a lesson. Dragging an economy back from the brink. Ending that hideous war that was started on admitted lies, and much more. Sure, there's always going to me more that I wish he could have done, but the man is only human.
Moose Mom, you are in fact a conservative.At least to my way of thinking you are. Good job!!!! Now, you need to decide who is going to go head to head with the 'Obama" machine, so we can get rid of him.
:popcorn;
-
So many questions; so little time!!
The two-dimensional political abstract of left/right and/or conservative/liberal cannot be an accurate description of one’s personal political views. It is entirely too subjective. It is, however, a persistent description used by those who wish to associate themselves with certain voter blocks. This only leads to voter polarization. This is “slate” politics. Buy the entire package or suffer the name calling. In that environment, the so-called Independents suffer the most.
The question first raised was, “What is a Conservative?” Here is an error filled description of a Conservative as I see it: traditionalist, war hawk, big government, social conservative, one who uses labels to describe others, weak on economics.
By any description, prosperity was the rule during the Clinton administration. During that time the National Debt was slowly being paid down and we had several balanced budgets. Conservative elements during that time took an irrational tact of “family values” and used that to impeach the President. It wasn’t that far back in history when we had a President who should have been impeached but was not (Nixon). George W. Bush took eight years to bring the US economy to it’s knees using what was described as “conservative budget management”. The Fed during that time subscribed to the theories promulgated by Friedman despite wide criticism from Keynesian economists that “trickle down” economics will not work. During that same time period, George W. Bush invaded a sovereign nation without the benefit of a legitimate reason.
Now we see Conservatives who wish to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, both were supported in the past by the GOP. There is no mention of what happens to those who cannot house, feed or clothe themselves, nor is there mention of the children in this class of people. Not everyone can succeed as you might have, but Conservatives tend to look back over their shoulders and proclaim, “If I can do it, so can you.” Not even close to a realistic observation.
What we may be seeing is a sharp turn to the right (for lack of a better description) out of fear, or fear mongering, about debt at various stages of our economy. Yet, so-called Conservatives call for deregulation of the financial markets while turning their backs to the disastrous consequences of deregulation in 2008 (September 2008 DJI).
I miss the intellectual Republicans of old, those who could inspire thought via a provocative question. I can’t imagine these old-timers brining Congress to a halt and cutting off the funds required for government operations. Consider this: the National Debt burden rose most under the two presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The debt burden declined most under the Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
The GOP extremists are fond of calling anything left of them, liberal. This means to me that the GOP has labeled a group of Democrats rather than the left adopting it’s own label as the Republicans have. Extremism at either end of the political spectrum tends to boil down to special interests. Some call Democrats socialists. That is certainly incorrect but one wonders why “socialism” is considered a bad thing.
Bottom line: Conservatives need to redefine themselves. Contemporary descriptions are mostly negative. I believe the Independents/Moderates hold the key to a prosperous future. And we have to stop the constant warfare business.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
gl
l
-
Bottom line: Conservatives need to redefine themselves.
Yes, please! The only ones who seem to get any attention are the Tea Party and the Religious Fundamentalists. I know there are more Republicans than that, and that they have a much broader range of views - but it's hard to find anything else in the press.
Have to disagree on Obama not being that effective.
Sorry if my meaning didn't come across - I think he's done some really, really good things. I was just hoping he'd get more done than he has, and I believe he hasn't because of the idiotic fighting between parties. All the "Let's work together." ideals that everyone on both sides spewed during the election turned into vapor the minute Congress resumed.
-
Both parties have much to be ashamed of - the way things work in Washington is ridiculous and we should just keep on voting out the career politicians. And vote in a few all over the place who are also willing to lose some of their ridiculous benefits.
I do not like any of the Republicans and Paul scares me to death-Obama
is just as scary.
I don't understand how he gets all the credit for getting Osama when those intelligence guys had been working on getting him for years and they finally succeeded. Good for them. Lucky for Obama.
-
I think it is absolutely ridiculous how much effort is/was put into making sure that we all know that Obama had nothing to do with killing Osama. It happened under his term. He authorized it. He gets credit for it. How about a, "job well done?" I am sure it would kill anyone on the right to give Obama credit for anything. The Republican Party is so pitiful. They will do anything to get Obama out of office no matter how much it hurts the country. SHAMEFUL!
-
I think it is absolutely ridiculous how much effort is/was put into making sure that we all know that Obama had nothing to do with killing Osama. It happened under his term. He authorized it. He gets credit for it. How about a, "job well done?" I am sure it would kill anyone on the right to give Obama credit for anything. The Republican Party is so pitiful. They will do anything to get Obama out of office no matter how much it hurts the country. SHAMEFUL!
Well-said and agreed.
Like it or not, he said he would do it and he did it. If he had failed (as Bush did, completely) we would never have heard the end of it. He also said he would pass healthcare reform, and did. He has taken out dangerous terrorists quickly and efficiently. As Bill Mahr has said "Don't f*ck with Obama!" It's true. I would like to know precisely why Republicans hate Obama so much. What has he done? (This must be something he has actually done not some parroting of Fox News alternate reality....)
-
True, Obama has been victimized by a huge slander campaign (birthers, racists, religious right, etc.), but even with that he would have succeeded as an effective President if Congress would have treated him fairly.
Regarding Universal Healthcare; every President since World War II has proposed some form of universal healthcare, yet, only Obama has been labeled a socialist/communist.
Perhaps the right-wing is so outrageous that it draws the headlines. I suspect real America is elsewhere in their thinking.
-
I feel Obama is a propagandist, I think the only reason he got elected was because Bush did such a poor job that everyone wanted "CHANGE" and "HOPE". Personally I haven't seen any CHANGE... I also really don't like how Obama has a problem with putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance and I also have a hard time with the fact that Obama had such a hard time with showing his "birth certificate" (which I'm not sure is even real) I mean the American people have EVERY right to see his birth certificate and to know things about the person leading our country. I think Obama is a good guy but don't think he should be leading our country. All I know is Obama will NOT be getting my vote in 2012 election!!
-
I'm curious...what does someone's birth certificate and what they do with their left hand while saying the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with economic policy, foreign policy and healthcare policy which are the things that are really important? I have to wonder about your priorities, sorry.
Romney and Gingrich are also preaching "change", but they are not saying what kind of change they want. Mr. Gingrich wants the capital gains tax rate to be reduced to 0%, so I guess THAT is a change. I don't know what Romney is preaching because after having watched all of the debates, I am not sure what all of these nominees are standing for (although Ron Paul HAS been quite specific, I'll grant you that.)
But before another day passes, I demand that we see the birth certificates of ALL of the GOP contenders. I also want to see more tax returns for all of them, too. I am personally uncomfortable with Mr. Romney donating so much money to a "church" that many Christians don't see as being Christian at all.
Does anyone ever wonder why none of the GOP potential nominees have offered to show their birth certificates? No one has asked them, I bet. Why ever could that be?
Mr. Gingrich is a nasty piece of work who, when he is confronted by his past lewd and lascivious behavior, doesn't apologize to the nation and to his party. Instead, he pulls a bait and switch and turns it into a slang fest against John King. Mr. Gingrich is old school politics and is a sexual predator which is anathema to what the GOP base say they want. What we have in Mr. Gingrich is the king of the politics of resentment.
I resent the 4 year Republican campaign that seeks to cast our democratically elected President as "other" or "not one of us" or "unAmerican", and I feel that your comment about his birth certificate perpetuates that mindset. I can understand disagreement with policy, but this constant fight to personally degrade our President is nasty and is against what this country should be about.
It is a mistake to run the world's leading superpower as a business, which is why Romney is a poor choice.
It is also a mistake to run the world's leading superpower from a platform of resentment and loose personal morals, which is why Mr. Gingrich is a poor choice.
I would have liked to have heard more from Mr Huntsman, but the right wing base made sure he was discarded before the rest of us could get a good look at him.
I'll tell you why Mr. Obama got elected. Mr. Obama resonated with those people who were tired of partisan politics and wanted everyone to work together to solve this nation's problems. Interestingly, I have noticed that the likes of Romney and Gingrich are saying exactly the same things. I don't know if they are lying, but they are standing in front of this nation's people and are claiming that they will work for ALL Americans, not just those of one party. Mr. Obama, once elected, tried to give the voters what he had promised, ie bi-partisan support for legislation, but he was distinctly naive in this hope. That was his big mistake, and his followers have now taken him to task and have demanded that he be just as intrasigent as his opponents.
Hubbyhatesdialysis, what do you think Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Romney have to offer to the American people? What specific policies have they outlined that you support?
As you think that President Obama's birth certificate is not real, I feel the same about Mr. Romney's recently released tax returns. I think he is hiding something, a very big something, maybe even something illegal. I think he may have been evading taxes, so I want to see everything...all financial records. I want to know much, much more about his offshore accounts.
I also want to know if Mr. Gingrich has ever had an STD, seeing that he has had a hard time staying faithful to one partner at a time. I think a potential president's health records should be available for all to see.
Neither of these men will be getting my vote in 2012 because neither of them have a handle on what is true conservatism.
(some of this is written slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I'll leave you all to decide which bits...)
-
Hmmm...
-
None of us are perfect, but most of us aren't running for President, either.
OK, so Mr. Gingrich made a "mistake". But to make such a mistake AGAIN? And to blame it on working too hard because of the passion he feels for his country? What????
I truly do not think that Mr. Gingrich has the temperment for the office of the President. If he has some good ideas for job creation, let's hear them. I'm sure the President would love to hear anyone's ideas for how to create more jobs. But we cannot have someone like Newt Gingrich have a hand in the conduct of our foreign affairs in such a volatile world.
-
Hey Gerald Lively, I might consider myself an independent/moderates if I knew exactly what they stood for. Could you fill me in on that please? What exactly their differences from Democrats/Republicans. Thanking in advance.
lmunchkin
-
I am ill at the moment. I just got back from (you know where). I'll try later.
-
I understand totall, Gerald. Whenever you feel up to it. I just wondered what Ind/Mod would do differently to prosper than what Dem/Rep have done! If they know of something different, I would love to hear it. Or if anyone else out there wants to answer, please, be my guest. I would really like to know! Have heard people say they are Independent, but really don't know what they stand for that distinquishes them from a Demo or a Replic.
But really & trully, I have not seen to much in any of them to vote either way.
Thanks,
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
I'm curious...what does someone's birth certificate and what they do with their left hand while saying the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with economic policy, foreign policy and healthcare policy which are the things that are really important? I have to wonder about your priorities, sorry.
No kidding.
He showed everyone his birth certificate and I find it the height of paranoia (or sleazy politics for those who know better) that anyone thinks or claims that it is anything but genuine. This just proves that he was right all along: no matter what he does, people who want him out of office will stop at nothing, not even malicious, divisive, fear-mongering. He won in a landslide. The people have spoken. It's time to come to terms with the fact that your candidate lost. Even McCain had to defend Obama against his own fringey supporters in the end. Why would anyone want to set up one's own candidates to have to talk down some unkempt, muttering, desperately pitiful person? It did McCain no favours.
The thing about the pledge of allegiance is new to me, and I suspect totally false, but that's really beside the point. WHO THE HELL CARES? Sad that everything I hear from the Republican side I just have to automatically assume is the lowest form of fiction.
No one has offered to answer my question above, what specifically has Obama done that so enrages those of you that hate him? I hate George W. Bush and could give you all the reasons in the world, actual, specific, horrible things he has done, said, and authorized. Even still, I have been known to give him credit where it's due, which is almost never, but it has happened. Does no one on the anti-Obama side realise how fanatical you all appear when you can never, ever say a single, positive word about him? And trust me, this will be a question when it comes to the two-party (or more) debates. You know what the wrong answer would be to "What do you admire about your opponent?": Nothing. The Republican candidate will have to think of praise for Obama, because to fail to do so will be political suicide.
I love what you wrote, MM. Nicely done. Have to disagree about Huntsman, though. I see no loss there.
-
Munch:
Some context: I am a registered Democrat. I think of myself as a moderate but I haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate, ever. I am very much a liberal on social issues, a moderate on budget issues and a Keynesian on economics. I rarely vote for the candidate. I study the issues, then I determine who supports what. In this manner I determine who and how I vote for.
The Issues:
1. Budget! For 15 years I prepared a budget for local government based on my estimate of economic conditions, revenue forecasting, and by the seat of my pants. I never missed a revenue estimate by more than one-half of one percent doing a $200 million budget covering 3,000 employees. This experience tells me that the Republicans are suicidal on Congress. Prosperity, not frugality, should be the goal. Pay your debts when you have the bucks, skate when you don’t.
2. Tax Equity! There is a strong argument for a complete revision of the US Tax Code, but the opportunity to write in favors for special interests will defeat the best intentions of others. If your see yourself as a middle-income family and you pay (say) a 28% income tax, then the same should be true for everyone. One of the most frightening ideas confronting the GOP is a return to the Tax Code under the Reagan administration. Such a revision would almost immediately place the federal government on a solid financial footing.
3. I have never seen or heard such a blatant disregard for the elderly, poor, children and the disabled as I have during this campaign. What kind of crazy fool would advocate the demise of Social Security, Medicare and Veteran Healthcare?
4. The US has been at war since WWII. So much for world peace. We can’t kill ‘em all.
So, what is a moderate? This is a person who considers the issues based on their idea of what is best for America, has no ideological axe to grind, wants more information, and believes in moderation. The pressure against a moral government is increasing daily all because there are too many people in this world. (Malthus) Power is the modern goal of the candidate instead of what is best for you and me. I don’t think we should cut down the redwoods but I think a sound policy should be executed for our National Forests. I don’t think we should go to war everytime some radical in the middle east sends us an insult, but I do believe in clandestine projects to preserve our national interests (I did this for the military in 1958 thru 1960). I believe Congress is corrupt. I think campaign laws are insane. And I haven’t decided who I would vote for. I can say that the GOP is making an ass of themselves, yet, it is very early in the game.
I have witnessed a very sharp turn to the right in national politics. I rather like Nelson Rockefeller back in the day, but who is around that thinks as clearly as he did? Instead, the GOP has an front man who looks like a pig, is named after a lizard, and has the moral values of an alley cat. One cannot say they are a true moderate on a two-dimensional spectrum as skewed to the right we see in both the left and right without acquiring the label of a liberal.
Sorry folks, I have a very green stomach, am dizzy and I hate dialysis. I wanna die, and I am not thinking clearly. I am not going to proof this one, I’ll just go somewhere and barf. Sorry ‘bout that!
Gerald Lively
-
I am sorry you feel so awful. I hope you feel better. Thank you for answering even though you don't feel well.
-
Please forgive me for being so strident. My head is swirling and I don't know what is going on.
gl
-
I am currently reading a most fascinating book called "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" by Colin Woodard. It explores how and by what kind of people the various regions of the US were originally settled and how this has given rise to current political thinking. We all know that politically, the Deep South tends to vote one way while New England tends to vote another. Why? This book gives some insight into that history.
This book reinforces the idea that what we perceive to be the role of government is the central conflict, the universal American question. This debate is embedded in our DNA. We have always asked this question and probably always will.
My husband is a pretty staunch liberal, but last night he was complaining about the lengthy and complicated amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a city attorney, he has to translate this sort of legislation into practice. In him I heard the complaints of many Republicans about "too much regulation". It made me think about the role of the federal government in how businesses operate.
Since most of us here on IHD have experience with physical limitations, let me pose some hypothetical questions. These are not meant to be political questions but, rather, philosophical queries that you don't need to answer here but may be interested in asking yourself.
Do you think that the federal government should compel businesses and employers to obey certain rules that make life a bit easier for those with disabilities? Is it fair for a business to be compelled to spend money to make their premises wheelchair accessible? Should businesses be left to make these decisions for themselves? Should prospective employers be allowed to ask a prospective employee about their medical status? Is it any of their business if you have had a transplant? Or, maybe, should individual states implement their own Disabilities Act without interference from the Federal Government? If you think that is a better solution, would you be OK with this patchwork arrangement, especially if you may want to move to another state where you may not have these protections.
Do you think that broader social issues like desegregation or women's suffrage or marriage should be within the purview of the federal government? Should the southern states have been forced to desegretate their public schools?
What about the rescue of the auto industry just a few years ago? Only the federal government had the resources to save the industry. But business is business, and some businesses fail every day and do not get the benefit of a government rescue. Should the federal government have a role in this regard?
The government has an enormous role in dialysis care because it is Medicare that pays for it almost exclusively. Is that appropriate? Instead of a government program like Medicare paying for dialysis, should we instead take government out of it completely? Who should pay for keeping you alive? On a more general note, should government have any role at all in health care? Should the federal government pull out of all centrally funded medical research?
Should the government have any role in formulating a national energy policy? There is nothing about energy policy in the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers. Some states have oil reserves, some have lots of water for hydroelectric power, some states are better suited to harness wind and/or solar power, some have natural gas...should it be up to each individual state to find a way to provide energy to their residents and businesses? And if a particular state can't find a way to do this, well, that's just too bad. Businesses will just leave that state and set up shop where conditions are better.
So, how do you see the role of government in society and in our private lives? In your personal experience, has the federal government intruded in such a way that you feel is unconstitutional? How would you illustrate and/or define the difference between "spending" and "investment"?
-
Thank you for answering so promptly, Gerald! Hope you get to feeling better soon and get back to your "Lively" self again.
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
During my tenure in county and city government, I have always said that I needed two best friends; the City Attorney and the Auditor. I am pleased to hear that your husband is one of these.
The notion of “too much regulation” in government cannot be addressed unless we are more specific. Too many of us confuse the definitions of regulation and policy; one being the enabler of the other.
Most of the policy questions your raise are a derivative of the constitutional interpretation of equality, or anti-discrimination. Since this is from the Constitution, it must apply to all states. Yes, we fought a Civil War over this issue. Yes, women must have the right to vote. Ethnic Blacks are no longer 2/3rds of a person. A naturalized citizen has the same rights as a person born in any of the 50 states. (A government for the people, by the people and of the people)
The suggestion raised by Republicans today, when commenting on too many regulations, may better be described as “what are the limits of government involvement?” Reagan once said the FAA had too many regulations yet, we changed almost nothing in those regulations and during the past few years, there has been a real improvement in accident rates (for passenger flights). Does this validate regulations? As more flights develop, where are the limitations? Do we say “this many airplanes and no more?” Isn’t that private enterprise? Is the airspace above us, territory owned by our government?
So, where do we draw the line in government involvement in discrimination issues. Ron Paul is telling us that private businesses, such as restaurants, should not be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Really? Just exactly where is the line in the sand? Well folks, that is policy question and that is why you vote for one candidate over another.
The question of who makes these regulations might be raised. In general they are created by people, like your husband, who write regulation for the purpose of implementing a given policy. These government employees are appointed, not elected. So, who do you criticize? That’s right, you vote for policymakers, not the employees. Go ahead, run for Congress, employ a whole bunch of people to streamline regulations – and suffer the criticisms of enlarging government and creating regulations whose purpose is to deregulate.
There is a neo-con concept that is amazingly familiar to Alaskan Natives who, in ancient times, placed the elderly and the ill on ice flows. In this manner, the old folks and such were not a burden on an already stretched local economy. Or, otherwise stated, unless you contribute to the economy, you should not gain by it. Yes, it is true that compassion has become a policy matter (social conservatives). After WWII we had the GI Bill. We had the Veterans Administration. We had a President in Truman who tried to pass a universal healthcare bill. In this policy issue, we must ask ourselves what the limits are on compassion. Who do we take care of and who do we place on the ice flow?
Private lives? One cannot declare that government stops at my front door because the question of child abuse arises. Yet, sex is my business as long as it is with a consenting adult. And private enterprise should never be allowed to grow so large that its failure would damage the national economy. (AIG, General Motors) We have anti-trust laws, why not use them? And whatever happened to usury laws? And why can’t I grow Cannabis?
Holy Mackerel, what a can of worms?
-
I'm curious...what does someone's birth certificate ... have to do with economic policy, foreign policy and healthcare policy which are the things that are really important?
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the only reason the issue of a birth certificate is important for a presidential candidate is because it is a Constitutional requirement for the office just like having to be 35 years old. If someone 30 years old was running would that not be an issue? Would some say "Why does age matter?" Well, it matters because it would break the law.
Now place of birth makes no difference for any other office. So that is why it is an issue for President. This is not meant to question President Obama's place of birth or whether or not he is a "natural born" citizen. That is water under the bridge.
-
Willis, I understand that there are requirements for President as set out in the Constitution such as place of birth, etc. But apparently there are still people who don't believe that in President Obama's case, it is indeed water under the bridge.
Why do you think there are still people who believe the certificate may be fake? Why has no one demanded to see the birth certificates of the GOP potential nominees? Could there be a racial undertone here? Just asking. It's all part of the attempts to present the President as "other", and I don't think this serves us well.
-
Willis, I understand that there are requirements for President as set out in the Constitution such as place of birth, etc. But apparently there are still people who don't believe that in President Obama's case, it is indeed water under the bridge.
Why do you think there are still people who believe the certificate may be fake? Why has no one demanded to see the birth certificates of the GOP potential nominees? Could there be a racial undertone here? Just asking. It's all part of the attempts to present the President as "other", and I don't think this serves us well.
Please don't go there. My wife is brown skinned and all of my children have black hair and brown eyes. Race has nothing to do with this issue of the birth certificate or anything else. Despite the grand introduction of the birth certificate, there are still issues with his account and the certificate itself. Nevertheless, no one gives credence to these things and it is NO LONGER an issue politically.
If you want to bash conservatives and have a great time in doing so, so be it. But please don't spread inflammatory falsehoods. I am sick of the false accusation of being a racist simply because I strongly disagree with the Presidents politics. False inflammatory accusations are what don't serve us well and will lead to a political season dominated by protests and open blood shed in the streets. Haven't we seen enough of that around the world?
-
Hemodoc, just because you are a conservative and not a racist does not mean that the questioning of the birth certificate does not have racial undertones.
I thought this was interesting:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/01/gingrich-admits-abc-claim-was-false-112344.html
Gingrich is very scary.
-
So Newt's two daughters would not count as witnesses? ABC didn't want them as witnesses because from what I've read they have taken their father's side on most of these divorce issues. I'm not divorced, but I've had friends that got divorced for various reasons. I went to the child custody hearing for one friend and if that was all you knew about him based on his ex-wife's accusations you'd think he was a deadbeat child-molester with an IQ of 60. (He's an engineer.)
-
That is what you got from the clip? Really?
-
Please don't go there. My wife is brown skinned and all of my children have black hair and brown eyes. Race has nothing to do with this issue of the birth certificate or anything else. Despite the grand introduction of the birth certificate, there are still issues with his account and the certificate itself. Nevertheless, no one gives credence to these things and it is NO LONGER an issue politically.
If you want to bash conservatives and have a great time in doing so, so be it. But please don't spread inflammatory falsehoods. I am sick of the false accusation of being a racist simply because I strongly disagree with the Presidents politics. False inflammatory accusations are what don't serve us well and will lead to a political season dominated by protests and open blood shed in the streets. Haven't we seen enough of that around the world?
Of course racism plays a role in the birth certificate nonsense. John McCain was born in Panama - why was there no outcry there from the conservative side? Why did we never hear: where are the witnesses that his mother was on American military grounds when she gave birth? Hmmm, maybe because he looks the part of an American and a Presidential candidate? The birther movement is disgustingly racist and I apologise to no one for calling it like I (and many others) see it. That does not mean I believe all birthers are racist, but the leader, that Orly Taitz psycho, I have zero doubts. If no one "gave credence to these things" then we would not have comments like the one above that this still bothers people. I would personally not want to ally myself with such a hateful loon as Taitz, but that may just be me. Esquire did a terrifying article on this movement a few years ago if anyone wants to have a look inside the fringe. Interestingly, some of these same people also tried to abuse the law to oust George W. Bush. This makes me long for a British legal system where nuisance lawsuits are too risky to undertake. http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birthers-movement-part-one-080409 (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birthers-movement-part-one-080409)
Hemodoc, just because you are a conservative and not a racist does not mean that the questioning of the birth certificate does not have racial undertones.
Hemodoc, this is true. You seem to be quick to get defensive as of late and appear to be taking this conversation quite personally. You do not represent all conservatives and I have seen no indication that MM or anyone else was implying that they were talking about you. You have admonished people in a few different places over the past few months to not ask certain questions, and have come on to this thread in particular to say you do not want to talk about something, which is of course talking about it. I found MM's point to be relevant and I would request that you not try to shut down legitimate discussion by saying "don't go there". Why not? She is not talking about you, nor all conservatives.
Discussing racism, while often a maddeningly delicate issue, is one of the most important discussions we can have in this country. Blacks in this country suffer markedly poorer health outcomes than whites, even when you adjust for income, healthcare access, education, etc. Really, the only explanation left is racism, which causes stress which is code for an excess of stress hormones, which leads to a plethora of health issues. If we do not call out racism when we see it, we are doing an injustice to all people of color in America, including your wife, Hemodoc.
Seriously, would anyone who cares about minorities in this country, or just cares about this country in general, want Newt "Let Me Teach The Blacks How To Earn An Honest Wage" Gingrich in charge? I am so glad I am married to a Brit. At least I have an escape route....
-
Dear Cariad,
IHD appears to be a bastion for lambasting conservatives. So be it, I accept that. However, it is a point of fact that I strongly disagree with Obama based on his policies which I believe are destructive to this country and will only increase the power of the Federal government which is becoming more and more dictatorial all the time. How can a sitting president completely ignore Federal judge rulings such as with the moratorium on oil and just thumb his nose at them for instance? We are becoming a land of lawlessness starting right in the Oval office itself.
Bush likewise enacted the Patriot Act and other legislation that completely abrogates constitutional protections. It ain't just the democrats that I oppose.
I would further correct your poor short term memory. If you recall, McCain was born in Panama and many questioned his eligibility to be president. I suppose that is racial too Cariad!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
As far as the birther issue, have you forgotton that his own grandmother in Kenya states he was born there before her? This is a man who was not raised in the US for most of his early life and I strongly suspect that he has any love for this nation at all. Remember his apology tour throughout the world. In addition, they still have NOT released ANY of his school records nor college records nor explained how he went to Pakistan as an alleged US citizen when that was illegal. Even with the alleged birth certificate, there are many, many unanswered questions and suppressed documents that every other president made available without question.
Looking at the alleged birth certificate itself, all you need to do is to zoom in on the document and can see definite discrepencies. If you wish to believe that is a real copy of an ORIGINAL document so be it. In addition, it is NOT a political issue at all at this point in time. Obama has WON that gamesmanship which is quite questionable in the first place. After all, it was Donald Trump who played this card. My goodness, what kind of respectability and credibility does that man possess? Not much in my opinion.
Lastly, folks are really failing to recognize that the GOP and the DEMs are really just two segments of the same team both of whom are usurping more and more power from the people. Most folks have no clue that the Federal Reserve Bank has NOTHING to do with the Federal government except to tell the Feds what to do. I suspect most folks have failed to understand the outright bribery that members of congress are submitted to. Most recognize that congress is corrupt, but fail to take this into account when considering their politics.
I believe spouting the Democratic propaganda of the day is frankly ignorant, just as is spouting the GOP propaganda. We all laugh at the Russians and the outright propaganda that they believed as a people and as a nation, yet today we fail to even question the news media biased reporting. Remember Charles Schumers on mike conversation of the key words to stress about the GOP? Shucks folks, are we all really a bunch of lemmings that will come together in ferocious defense of any of these bozos that are manipulating the masses through vain political discourse so that you folks really believe that anyone that opposes Obama is a racist? If that is true, then this nation deserves the loss of all freedoms in the guise of national security, in the guise of "equality," in the guise of stamping out racism.
So go and protest the 1 percenters, go and protest against all these things and this nation shall fall into discord, confusion, inability to resolve even minor differences. If you feel I am a racist, so be it, not much I can do to change anyone's mind about anything. But it is sad to see this nation become one of sqaubling and bickering led by those that poison the airwaves with floods of propaganda that people ignorantly except as fact. If that is the level of political discourse in this nation, then we are simply doomed to be ruled by tryannical dictators and in addition we will deserve that outcome.
-
Hemodoc, I am not entirely sure what "issues" there still are with the birth certificate, but as you've pointed out, it's not an issue politically any longer...at least for most people. However, the original poster, in outlining what she disliked about the President, didn't explain policy positions, rather, she dragged out this particular dead horse and continued to beat it. I'd be interested to know why.
I wouldn't dream of thinking you are racist just because you disagree with the President's politics. In fact, I absolutely WELCOME any discussion about specific policies and why the opposition dislikes them. Furthermore, I'd like to know what conservatives would do instead. I am very open to other people's ideas. What I am NOT open to is political discussion that employs such canards as "The President hates America", "the President doesn't believe in America", "the President is a secret Muslim" and "the President wants America to fail." Why would anyone who hates this country choose to serve it for four years? AND drag his family through it all? Perhaps, though, no one loves his country as much as Newt as his passion for the USA drove him to infidelity.
As you have a brown skinned wife, I would think that you of all people would be particularly sensitive by this pervasive belief BY SOME PEOPLE that those who are not WASP are not "real Americans." I greatly resent the notion that any one of us gets to define "real America."
I still am struggling to get a grip on what the conservative electorate is looking for. I know they want to beat President Obama primarily, but I am becoming confused about certain policies. When Mr. Gingrich was on the Space Coast in FL yesterday, he announced that by the end of his second term, there would be an American permanent base on the moon. Now, I think that idea is rather cool, but the whole reason the shuttle program was shut down and not replaced was because of budget constraints (in this age of bloated federal spending, this is understandable); it is thought that the American rockets and boosters of the future would be developed by private entrepreneurs...I thought this was pretty much the current conservative thinking. So why is Mr Gingrich going on about how his administration would be putting a permanent station on the moon? Do you at least see where this would confuse me?
Mr. Romney is complaining about the budget cuts in the military and how they would make us weak, again because Mr. Obama hates America. It was actually just before 9/11 that the Bush administration began planning for a "leaner, meaner" military, but then when 9/11 happened, we instead grew our military to enormous proportions and at enormous cost. The President and his current military advisers are returning to the idea of reducing the size of the military but enhancing the role of special operations forces. A military that is overweight and bloated cannot respond quickly and flexibly to the smaller and more virulent pockets of violence. It is a matter of spending our money more wisely. So why would a conservative like Mr. Romney want to spend more money in the "old way"?
These are two very specific policy points that illustrate why I am unsure about these two candidates. I know that people will say just about anything to get elected, and maybe whoever the GOP nominee will be will present a more precise idea of how they want to lead the country in the right direction. I am very willing and even more eager to listen to what everyone in the race has to say, but please do not couch it in terms of "I am a real American, but he is not."
I cannot define the role that race plays in the way that some people view the President's agenda. I don't really think that just because one may oppose his healthcare plan makes them racist. I don't think "conservative" is a synonym for "racist". But just because I can't precisely define it doesn't mean that I can fairly deny that it exists.
I am ashamed to admit this, but several years ago when my mom was visiting me, just before the 2008 election, we were chatting and she suddenly said that she believed that if Obama was elected President, he'd flood his cabinet with Kenyans. I kid you not. I nearly fell out of my chair, but I thought, "Well, I love my mom, but she IS 80 years old and she isn't well, so I won't judge." I asked her why she thought that and who did she think he was going to choose to serve with him, and she suddenly looked confused and said she didn't know. My mother grew up in rural Mississippi, and maybe some of the old thinking was surfacing in her old age. But I was truly shocked beyond words. My mother was the nicest person that God ever created, and I'm not the only one who has said that about my mom. We hear stories about addled old people who say the most offensive things at the dinner table, but I did not see my mom as "addled", so I have no idea what was going on. But it made me realize that if SHE could be racist, then perhaps this is a sentiment that flows more deeply than we like to admit in this country.
-
I agree with you absolutely, Hemodoc, about the corruption in Congress and the low level of political discourse in this country. Nancy Pelosi and many of her fellow congresspeople have made money off of the very same practices that landed Martha Stewart in jail. In his SOTU, the President proposed closing that particular loophole; I wonder how congress will vote on THAT! :rofl; I think I can guess.
I agree that we do seem to be gradually losing our freedoms, but WE are the ultimate enablers. If we allow ourselves to be duped by the media mouthpieces of both sides, then we only have ourselves to blame when things go pear shaped.
BTW, and back to the book "American Nations" I'm reading, this bickering and general chaos has been with this country since before the War of Independence. I've learned that there were at least 3 major secessionist movements before the Civil War that very nearly came to fruition. I've learned that one of our esteemed Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, was eager to purchase the Lousiana territories so that slave states could push further westward. Our past is not hallowed, and strong protest is the American Way.
-
As far as the military, I guess you haven't spent much time learning about the China military buildup with a million man army and now they are challenging us in the Naval arms as well which is our most important military projection of power. This is a very unstable and dangerous world. Anyone that has spent anytime studying world history should understand the importance of military power to keep freedom and liberty.
I do not ascribe to all of our military interventions, but that is another topic. War mongering is not a GOP issue, look at the wars in the last 100 years to see all of the democratic wars. I spent 9 years in the US Army and know the people personally who fought these wars and suffered the immediate and lasting consequences. Unfortunately, a strong military is a necesarry evil to maintain freedom. Simply a fact of history. Consider Iran, North Korea, together with China, Russia and so many other nations all building up nuclear arms as well as conventional arms and we see another disaster coming forth should we put our heads in the sand. Sorry, that is just ignoring the sad facts of history which supercedes GOP or DEM policies. We ignore the lessons of history at our own peril.
Once again, if you wish to believe the propaganda about racism so be it. My brown skinned wife is perfectly comfortable up in Idaho which is about 95% WASP as you state and in fact prefers that to the overt racism brought on by those of brown skin here in CA. If you think that is an outragious statement, come and live in the middle of gang infested CA where we have brown skinned southern mexican gangs that will shoot on sight brown skinned northern mexicans because someone stole a pair of sneakers decades ago. A clearly ignorant action years ago has led to continued ignorant killings based on false racial disparities.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/220107mexicangangs.htm
And of course our brown skinned black gangs.
http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2007/012107raceharbor.html
And of course, our white skinned, hairless gangs as well.
http://www.adl.org/racist_skinheads/skinhead_groups.asp
So, yes, let's talk about racism and why my brown skinned wife feels safe with all of the WASPS up in Idaho and is fearful here in the land of CA where we have so much alleged racial concord. Falling into the false propaganda that people like me are racist is in my opinion ignorant. I preached in a maximum security prison for nearly 8 years and that entire environment is driven by racial divide. Most people do not realize how much of an influence these prison gangs have in the outside society today. Yes, racism exists and is evil and divisive and can be used by media propaganda to evoke an emotional response. Shucks if you folks feel I am a racist becaus I oppose the policies of Obama, then by golly, I must be a racist. After all, isn't that what MSNBC and Keith Olberman say. Is that really were we are at in this country folks?
Lastly, who says those of us with conservative tendencies are the least bit happy with Mitt or Newt? Why is it that the strongest and best potential candidates are not even running for election and we are stuck with the choice of a big business insider vs a big government insider both with baggage? And why would anyone want to subject their entire life to the barage of the liberal medial that spews mockery and disparaging remarks against cabable individuals to destroy them before they are even presented before the public. Has anyone once seen any comedian do an impersonation of Obama since he was elected? Remember Frank Caliendo? I have yet to hear any renownded comedian immitate Obama even one time. What is going on with that? Is that reverse racism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJchbYStUNY
How about the 5th grader kicked out of his school for simply saying a local newscaster picking up his kids looked like Obama. Racism, yes, yes, yes racism all right.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-a-5th-grader-kicked-out-of-his-elementary-school-for-saying-a-local-newscaster-resembles-barack-obama/
So, all of you please just call Peter Laird, MD a racist because I oppose Obama and believe he is hurtful to this nation. Is that rationale folks? Give me a break.
-
I agree with you absolutely, Hemodoc, about the corruption in Congress and the low level of political discourse in this country. Nancy Pelosi and many of her fellow congresspeople have made money off of the very same practices that landed Martha Stewart in jail. In his SOTU, the President proposed closing that particular loophole; I wonder how congress will vote on THAT! :rofl; I think I can guess.
I agree that we do seem to be gradually losing our freedoms, but WE are the ultimate enablers. If we allow ourselves to be duped by the media mouthpieces of both sides, then we only have ourselves to blame when things go pear shaped.
BTW, and back to the book "American Nations" I'm reading, this bickering and general chaos has been with this country since before the War of Independence. I've learned that there were at least 3 major secessionist movements before the Civil War that very nearly came to fruition. I've learned that one of our esteemed Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, was eager to purchase the Lousiana territories so that slave states could push further westward. Our past is not hallowed, and strong protest is the American Way.
Strong protest is the American way so to speak, but never before has the American people been so dumbed down with high illiteracy rates and profound propaganda controlled by people who choose to manipulate and move the masses where they want them to go. Why should we line up behind George Soros and his billions to protest the 1 percenters? Look at who is pulling the strings and you will find you are sick of all of them, left or right. What hypocrisy, what do you thing Obama is? One of the alleged 99% or is he not indeed one with and of the 1%. Why then has wall street poured millions and millions of dollars in his campagn chest?
Yes, protest in some instances is the right thing to do, but protests based on propaganda are plain and simply ignorant.
-
Shucks if you folks feel I am a racist becaus I oppose the policies of Obama, then by golly, I must be a racist.
So, all of you please just call Peter Laird, MD a racist because I oppose Obama and believe he is hurtful to this nation.
Peter, I have an appointment in a few minutes so need to keep this brief: What part of no one is saying nor believes for one moment that you are a racist was unclear to you? Yes, I am sure there are liberals who would paint you what that brush, but I don't see them writing here. Why are you so determined to find a personal attack in this discussion?
-
Shucks if you folks feel I am a racist becaus I oppose the policies of Obama, then by golly, I must be a racist.
So, all of you please just call Peter Laird, MD a racist because I oppose Obama and believe he is hurtful to this nation.
Peter, I have an appointment in a few minutes so need to keep this brief: What part of no one is saying nor believes for one moment that you are a racist was unclear to you? Yes, I am sure there are liberals who would paint you what that brush, but I don't see them writing here. Why are you so determined to find a personal attack in this discussion?
To simply point out how inflammatory that type of thinking is as expressed earlier and on other threads and is actually propaganda from the news media. Shouldn't we be rising above the propaganda of this campaign on both sides? No, I am not a racist but I am lumped into that accusation when people begin ascribing racist motivation for opposing Obama. Hmmm, why is it that Herman Cain was so popular in the GOP before he imploded upon himself with alleged moral shortcomings? Paradoxically, some believe that the support of Cain came from racism as well. Go figure.
Just remember we have serious propaganda issues here in the US. When you have Charles Schumer telling everyone the talking points to emphasize on mike by accident and then hear those same talking points repeated over and over again, what does that tell you?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/on-a-senate-call-a-glimpse-of-marching-orders/
-
Strong protest is the American way so to speak, but never before has the American people been so dumbed down with high illiteracy rates and profound propaganda controlled by people who choose to manipulate and move the masses where they want them to go. Why should we line up behind George Soros and his billions to protest the 1 percenters? Look at who is pulling the strings and you will find you are sick of all of them, left or right. What hypocrisy, what do you thing Obama is? One of the alleged 99% or is he not indeed one with and of the 1%. Why then has wall street poured millions and millions of dollars in his campagn chest?
Yes, protest in some instances is the right thing to do, but protests based on propaganda are plain and simply ignorant.
Just on this one point I'd like to know what American People you are referring to because illiteracy has historically been much higher http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#overview (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#overview)
Not to say that current illiteracy rates are completely accurate (I was a VISTA in the '80s, working on adult literacy) but I would say that historic literacy rates are understating the problem in the same way today's numbers do, so for comparison purposes they are apples to apples.
Looking a little deeper, at say knowledge of American history among teenagers, it has always, ALWAYS, been true that knowledge of our own history has been spotty.
I have to say Facebook has been an eye opener as has discussion boards like IHD. CKD is an equal opportunity disease, striking those on the right and the left equally. As a result I've gotten to 'know' a cross section of Americans, more so than I would have if my acquaintances had been limited to my neighbors in the blue heart of a blue state. As a result in order to explain why people disagree with my political views I can't say they are stupid or brainwashed or evil. I already know they are kind, funny, thoughtful and then I have to make sense of their political views in that context.
Peter you are the poster boy for this, I know you from your blogging and advocacy. From your interactions online and our interactions in meatspace. I also know your political views are 180 degrees from my own but those views don't trump my understanding of who you are, it just makes you more interesting. And in fact knowing you makes conservatives generally more interesting.
There is a lot I don't understand about the minds of the President's opponents, I question their goals, their strategy, and their tactics. I don't question the heart or intelligence of individuals but as a group they are failing badly, with success defined as achieving their political goals. That failure is interesting but perhaps those in the movement are too close to see it happening. At some point the right will find their David Cameron but I don't see that person coming forward until the whole Gingrich/Bush republican edifice blows itself apart.
Edited to add: for Obama impersonations try this (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+impersonation&oq=obama+impersonation&aq=f&aqi=g-s10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=7302l8642l0l10824l4l4l0l0l0l2l214l764l0.2.2l4l0).
-
Here is a little bit of good political news! It seems that there is a senate bill co-authored by Kirsten Gillibrand (D) and Scott Brown (R) that would ban the trading of corporate stocks by members of Congress based upon non-public political information. Notice that it is written by a democrat with a republican. President Obama said that he'd sign such a bill immediately. I think this is rather encouraging.
To be fair, I am not sure that the race in either party for the eventual nominee is ever the best place to find specific policy positions. I realize that the candidates are speaking to their bases, and they are saying what they perceive they want to hear. That's the nature of our politics. I am eager for the GOP to make their selection so that we can see him and the President debate specifics.
-
I would further correct your poor short term memory. If you recall, McCain was born in Panama and many questioned his eligibility to be president. I suppose that is racial too Cariad!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
What a combative and snide reply, Hemodoc. All of it, but I especially take umbrage with your attack on my memory. Would you please keep in mind that you are on a SUPPORT site for serious medical issues? One of those issues which I have been trying to find time to post about is a certain cognitive loss that I have been suffering from, NOT memory problems, but an issue of great concern to me that has only appeared since I underwent chemo, radiation, apheresis, and a dual stem cell and kidney transplant. Guess I'll be keeping those concerns to myself lest they be used to attack my opinions on future subjects. I really don't need any individual, not to mention someone who uses the label 'doctor', to mock my physical nor mental condition. It is out of line and painfully unfunny. By the way, the article you posted was from early 2008. Your use of the medical term 'short-term memory' is completely wrong. Short-term memory, as any one with a day of psychological training will tell you, is the memory that we form that lasts approximately 30 seconds and is then discarded. Long term memory functions and is stored in a totally separate fashion, but that is the term that you should have used in this instance. It can hardly be a failing of my short or long term memory because I never read that article you linked and heard nothing questioning McCain's legitimacy as a candidate. However, I asked for evidence that conservatives questioned this and you linked a New York Times article, which is not known for its republican leanings. I don't have time to read your massive posts plus links so I only skimmed the article and saw Republicans defending him. I believe he was born on the military base. Of course, I have yet to hear a current Republican candidate say in plain English "I believe Obama was born in America". That drivel you posted about the birth certificate being somehow false will not be dignified with a response.
I can assure you that there are people out there who refuse to put this issue to rest. If congressional Republicans would just say "No, let's stop being silly, he is as American as I am" it would be over. Yet they don't, they prefer the cutesy semantics games. McCain did say something to that effect, in my recollection, so good on him. (though perhaps that's just my poor memory talking) I believe that the birther movement was initiated in part because of racism. That says nothing about you, really nothing about your wife, and I have as much right as anyone else to put my views forward. I truly do not know how your wife's feelings about the world could possibly matter to this discussion. Where she feels comfortable is where she feels comfortable, and she does not represent all minorities, so that really does not tell us much. There is no such thing as 'reverse racism'. Racism is racism is racism, whether you are black, white, Asian, whatever. Racism is a tremendous problem in this country and I will not let you nor anyone else tell me that we cannot talk about it. You are under no obligation to participate in the discussion if you find it such a waste of time.
Remember Charles Schumers on mike conversation of the key words to stress about the GOP? Shucks folks, are we all really a bunch of lemmings that will come together in ferocious defense of any of these bozos that are manipulating the masses through vain political discourse so that you folks really believe that anyone that opposes Obama is a racist? If that is true, then this nation deserves the loss of all freedoms in the guise of national security, in the guise of "equality," in the guise of stamping out racism.
So go and protest the 1 percenters, go and protest against all these things and this nation shall fall into discord, confusion, inability to resolve even minor differences. If you feel I am a racist, so be it, not much I can do to change anyone's mind about anything. But it is sad to see this nation become one of sqaubling and bickering led by those that poison the airwaves with floods of propaganda that people ignorantly except as fact. If that is the level of political discourse in this nation, then we are simply doomed to be ruled by tryannical dictators and in addition we will deserve that outcome.
I never said that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? How dare you misrepresent my beliefs like that. It is really insulting that you think those of us who find the birther idiocy racist are so simplistic. You once again are either not reading what I've written or are not comprehending it. Show me where I have ever suggested you are a racist. If you cannot, then JUST STOP with the ludicrous claims of persecution.
I don't spout propaganda. Believe it or not, you are not the only individual here who can think for themselves. I read what I have both the time and desire to read and form my own opinions. My opinions happen to coincide with Obama's on a fairly regular basis, but not always. I have criticized him on this very forum. The only time I have written to the White House was to criticize him. The problem with the Republicans is that they will never criticize one of their own, they are like some destructive cult that demands mindless devotion to a leader. (Grover Norquist and his idiotic tax pledge, anyone?) Democrats are not like that, at least not the ones I know, but if the GOP continues on their ridiculously self-righteous path of perpetually crying persecution, it will only serve to force the Dems to become just as rigid in their politics or risk giving away too much while the Republicans refuse to admit ANY wrong doing. Whenever I criticize Obama honestly, I feel remorse, not because I don't sincerely believe that he was wrong, but because I will then see some rabid Republican strenuously contorting themselves to defend something hideous within their party. You linked an article about a Dem giving 'marching orders' to his colleagues. Yeah, I think it would take me all of 10 seconds to find numerous and quite disturbing examples of Republicans sending out 'instructions' on how to manipulate the media, but yet you chose to zero in on a Democrat example. What does that tell me indeed.
I have no problem rising above propaganda. I have no doubt that you and I have very different ideas of what does and does not constitute propaganda, so spare me the attempts to try to dismiss my opinions as parroting some non-existent party line while you somehow spout a purer and more valid set of beliefs.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
-
Hemodoc IS a doctor and has a very informative and advocative (is that a word? ) blog for dialysis/renal patients. Just today he posted about his self-cannulation technique and his own infection control protocols based on his own substantial medical knowledge. While we might not see eye to eye on every political issue, Hemodoc is a fervent dialysis patient advocate and has written many articles showing the same. Just sayin'!
-
Then his response and personal attack IS even more disturbing.
-
Strong protest is the American way so to speak, but never before has the American people been so dumbed down with high illiteracy rates and profound propaganda controlled by people who choose to manipulate and move the masses where they want them to go. Why should we line up behind George Soros and his billions to protest the 1 percenters? Look at who is pulling the strings and you will find you are sick of all of them, left or right. What hypocrisy, what do you thing Obama is? One of the alleged 99% or is he not indeed one with and of the 1%. Why then has wall street poured millions and millions of dollars in his campagn chest?
Yes, protest in some instances is the right thing to do, but protests based on propaganda are plain and simply ignorant.
Just on this one point I'd like to know what American People you are referring to because illiteracy has historically been much higher http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#overview (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#overview)
Not to say that current illiteracy rates are completely accurate (I was a VISTA in the '80s, working on adult literacy) but I would say that historic literacy rates are understating the problem in the same way today's numbers do, so for comparison purposes they are apples to apples.
Looking a little deeper, at say knowledge of American history among teenagers, it has always, ALWAYS, been true that knowledge of our own history has been spotty.
I have to say Facebook has been an eye opener as has discussion boards like IHD. CKD is an equal opportunity disease, striking those on the right and the left equally. As a result I've gotten to 'know' a cross section of Americans, more so than I would have if my acquaintances had been limited to my neighbors in the blue heart of a blue state. As a result in order to explain why people disagree with my political views I can't say they are stupid or brainwashed or evil. I already know they are kind, funny, thoughtful and then I have to make sense of their political views in that context.
Peter you are the poster boy for this, I know you from your blogging and advocacy. From your interactions online and our interactions in meatspace. I also know your political views are 180 degrees from my own but those views don't trump my understanding of who you are, it just makes you more interesting. And in fact knowing you makes conservatives generally more interesting.
There is a lot I don't understand about the minds of the President's opponents, I question their goals, their strategy, and their tactics. I don't question the heart or intelligence of individuals but as a group they are failing badly, with success defined as achieving their political goals. That failure is interesting but perhaps those in the movement are too close to see it happening. At some point the right will find their David Cameron but I don't see that person coming forward until the whole Gingrich/Bush republican edifice blows itself apart.
Edited to add: for Obama impersonations try this (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+impersonation&oq=obama+impersonation&aq=f&aqi=g-s10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=7302l8642l0l10824l4l4l0l0l0l2l214l764l0.2.2l4l0).
Bill, as always, we have been dialysis's odd couple in many ways, :Kit n Stik;not the least of which that with our different backgrounds and philosophy, we were in agreement nearly 100% of the time. There were days past where the Buckley's could debate openly and profoundly with Tip Oneal in a civil discourse with complete disagreement, yet remain committed to a common good for America and remain friends.
Now, it is all about inflammatory, propaganda driven rhetoric that does nothing but to inflame and divide. Without civil discourse, this union will not last. The issue of the GOP alleged racism is just one such inflammatory rhetoric not grounded at all in fact. Sure, you can find some creeps in the GOP who are blatant racists, just like I can do the same with the DEMS. Ignorant people are ignorant is all you can conclude.
I don't see a bright future for America any longer not the least of which is inability to even debate in a civil manner any longer. God put upon each man to bear his own burdens and in such a manner, but able to also share others burdens. Both are supported in the Scripture. Sorry, but I just don't look to the Feds to solve all of my problems, but I also don't want them standing in the way of me finding those solutions as well. For instance, since Obamacare passed, more people have no coverage and costs for insurance have risen dramatically. How did that happen?
I know of no historical account of nations that have prospered by accumulating massive debt and sending all of their jobs over seas. This ain't a GOP thing as falsely accused all the time. The person in charge of promoting American jobs is the CEO of GE who paid no income taxes last year and who have sent thousands of jobs over seas during the Obama administration. Corruption is corruption whether it is blue or red corruption, it is still corruption.
If we could ever dialogue the actual issues, I suspect without the media generated inflammatory rhetoric, we would find most of our goals and aims surprisingly in alignment. It is tactics and strategies that we differ on. From a historical perspective, deficit spending and Kenysian economics is a failure. You simply can't spend your way out of debt. If you wish an answer Moosemom, that is truly where the "conservative" comes from. Working hard, paying their bills, their taxes and providing through their own sweat and blood. There is satisfaction in providing for your family. Are we teaching that to our children any longer?
It is funny that we have to look to places like Puerto Rico to see how easy it is to be fiscally responsible and provide opportunity for the people of the land. Being a fiscal conservative is always unpopular at the start, but when the fruits of debt reduction are realized, then prosperity is the outcome for all involved.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/how-puerto-rico-stepped-back-from-an-economic-abyss/article2269657/?service=mobile
I suspect that we won't get anyone to do anything substantive until we have already gone across the cliff and it is too late, whether wearing red or blue. The America public demonstrates that they simply don't want austerity measures even if that would lead to a promising future. Oh well, the land of opportunity I grew up in will no longer be that for my grandchildren. Just the way it is since we can't even hold a rational conversation any longer in this nation. Just the way it is.
-
I would further correct your poor short term memory. If you recall, McCain was born in Panama and many questioned his eligibility to be president. I suppose that is racial too Cariad!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
What a combative and snide reply, Hemodoc. All of it, but I especially take umbrage with your attack on my memory. Would you please keep in mind that you are on a SUPPORT site for serious medical issues? One of those issues which I have been trying to find time to post about is a certain cognitive loss that I have been suffering from, NOT memory problems, but an issue of great concern to me that has only appeared since I underwent chemo, radiation, apheresis, and a dual stem cell and kidney transplant. Guess I'll be keeping those concerns to myself lest they be used to attack my opinions on future subjects. I really don't need any individual, not to mention someone who uses the label 'doctor', to mock my physical nor mental condition. It is out of line and painfully unfunny. By the way, the article you posted was from early 2008. Your use of the medical term 'short-term memory' is completely wrong. Short-term memory, as any one with a day of psychological training will tell you, is the memory that we form that lasts approximately 30 seconds and is then discarded. Long term memory functions and is stored in a totally separate fashion, but that is the term that you should have used in this instance. It can hardly be a failing of my short or long term memory because I never read that article you linked and heard nothing questioning McCain's legitimacy as a candidate. However, I asked for evidence that conservatives questioned this and you linked a New York Times article, which is not known for its republican leanings. I don't have time to read your massive posts plus links so I only skimmed the article and saw Republicans defending him. I believe he was born on the military base. Of course, I have yet to hear a current Republican candidate say in plain English "I believe Obama was born in America". That drivel you posted about the birth certificate being somehow false will not be dignified with a response.
I can assure you that there are people out there who refuse to put this issue to rest. If congressional Republicans would just say "No, let's stop being silly, he is as American as I am" it would be over. Yet they don't, they prefer the cutesy semantics games. McCain did say something to that effect, in my recollection, so good on him. (though perhaps that's just my poor memory talking) I believe that the birther movement was initiated in part because of racism. That says nothing about you, really nothing about your wife, and I have as much right as anyone else to put my views forward. I truly do not know how your wife's feelings about the world could possibly matter to this discussion. Where she feels comfortable is where she feels comfortable, and she does not represent all minorities, so that really does not tell us much. There is no such thing as 'reverse racism'. Racism is racism is racism, whether you are black, white, Asian, whatever. Racism is a tremendous problem in this country and I will not let you nor anyone else tell me that we cannot talk about it. You are under no obligation to participate in the discussion if you find it such a waste of time.
Remember Charles Schumers on mike conversation of the key words to stress about the GOP? Shucks folks, are we all really a bunch of lemmings that will come together in ferocious defense of any of these bozos that are manipulating the masses through vain political discourse so that you folks really believe that anyone that opposes Obama is a racist? If that is true, then this nation deserves the loss of all freedoms in the guise of national security, in the guise of "equality," in the guise of stamping out racism.
So go and protest the 1 percenters, go and protest against all these things and this nation shall fall into discord, confusion, inability to resolve even minor differences. If you feel I am a racist, so be it, not much I can do to change anyone's mind about anything. But it is sad to see this nation become one of sqaubling and bickering led by those that poison the airwaves with floods of propaganda that people ignorantly except as fact. If that is the level of political discourse in this nation, then we are simply doomed to be ruled by tryannical dictators and in addition we will deserve that outcome.
I never said that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist. Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? How dare you misrepresent my beliefs like that. It is really insulting that you think those of us who find the birther idiocy racist are so simplistic. You once again are either not reading what I've written or are not comprehending it. Show me where I have ever suggested you are a racist. If you cannot, then JUST STOP with the ludicrous claims of persecution.
I don't spout propaganda. Believe it or not, you are not the only individual here who can think for themselves. I read what I have both the time and desire to read and form my own opinions. My opinions happen to coincide with Obama's on a fairly regular basis, but not always. I have criticized him on this very forum. The only time I have written to the White House was to criticize him. The problem with the Republicans is that they will never criticize one of their own, they are like some destructive cult that demands mindless devotion to a leader. (Grover Norquist and his idiotic tax pledge, anyone?) Democrats are not like that, at least not the ones I know, but if the GOP continues on their ridiculously self-righteous path of perpetually crying persecution, it will only serve to force the Dems to become just as rigid in their politics or risk giving away too much while the Republicans refuse to admit ANY wrong doing. Whenever I criticize Obama honestly, I feel remorse, not because I don't sincerely believe that he was wrong, but because I will then see some rabid Republican strenuously contorting themselves to defend something hideous within their party. You linked an article about a Dem giving 'marching orders' to his colleagues. Yeah, I think it would take me all of 10 seconds to find numerous and quite disturbing examples of Republicans sending out 'instructions' on how to manipulate the media, but yet you chose to zero in on a Democrat example. What does that tell me indeed.
I have no problem rising above propaganda. I have no doubt that you and I have very different ideas of what does and does not constitute propaganda, so spare me the attempts to try to dismiss my opinions as parroting some non-existent party line while you somehow spout a purer and more valid set of beliefs.
Dear Cariad, my term short term memory comment was in reguard to political memory and the fact that few remember that they did the same exact thing to McCain. I do not know you in any manner as to your own personal issues and medical condition, so please forgive me if I have offended. I was NOT referring to any physical condition since I was not aware that you have that or any other specific difficulty. Please forgive me and I offer my humble apology if I have offended, my comments were not anything but referring to the political blindness some have in promoting a racial attribution to questioning where Obama was born and not remembering the very strong group of people who questioned McCain for the same exact cause.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
Great Comment YLGuy. I respond to someone declaring my politics racist and I am a troll. Great analogy my friend.
-
Hemodoc IS a doctor and has a very informative and advocative (is that a word? ) blog for dialysis/renal patients. Just today he posted about his self-cannulation technique and his own infection control protocols based on his own substantial medical knowledge. While we might not see eye to eye on every political issue, Hemodoc is a fervent dialysis patient advocate and has written many articles showing the same. Just sayin'!
Thanks Moosemom, I believe that IHD is a place to speak your mind which I actually don't do that much on this site but on rare occasions when outragious comments are propagated such as implying racist origins of conservative opposition to Obama. YLGuy took issue with my religious and political views long ago and if he thinks I am a troll, so be it. I couldn't care less.
-
Dear Moosemom, I haven't heard the Gingrich plan for a base on the moon, but are you aware of the technological breakthroughs of the space program that are now applied to dialysis and so many other industries? We have yet to develop all of the technologies invented in the 1960's such as sorbents for instance. Miniaturization for space craft has improved computers, plastics, metalurgy and a whole list of other breakthroughs that are applied in our daily lives without even realizing that today.
I am not sure that we could mount another space program today with our education system in complete ruin at present. If you recall, the kids of the 1960's scored the highest ever on SAT'S and it has been down hill since then. We would literally have to import engineers from India, China and the middle east to put such a program together today. So not sure where this proposal will ever go, but we are no longer the nation we were in the 1960's where innovation and science were part of the American core fabric of our society.
-
Bam, slam sock and knock. I won’t comment - - I won’t, I won’t . . . . . no, no, I won’t. I love politics.
Okay, folks. I was the Butte County Jail Administrator for four years during a lawsuit over jail conditions. By the way, Butte County is in California and California is not “gang infested,” whatever that means.
Since World War II, it has been the Republican Presidents that ran up the National Debt. It has been Eisenhower and the other Democratic Presidents that made payments against the National Debt.
The historical failure of most nations in World history, has been either defeat in war or the cost of continual warfare.
During at least three debates, a GOP candidate proposed the elimination of the Department of Education. In my opinion, education is the future.
The birther issue has absolutely no basis in fact. At least three Federal Court have said so.
Yes, Congress is corrupt. So, what are you going to do about it?
There are more than 200 federal appointments being held up by the GOP in committee. Why?
War is not an answer. It never is. We need to make a clear distinction between just war and jingoism. In my humble opinion WWII was a just unavoidable war. Every war since has been jingoism.
The Patriot Act is a violation of everyone’s civil rights.
At least one GOP candidate wants to eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That same candidate wants to return to the Gold Standard. Holy Moly!
No Presidential candidate that I have heard, speaks of the future.
I just got back from dialysis. I hate dialysis.
My dog ate my baseball, the one used to strengthen my fistula arm.
Obama has not been ballsy enough when facing Congress.
Why, after nearly bringing the government to a halt, did the new GOP members of the House, call in an economist to better understand economics?
When are we going to put bankers in jail?
Whatever happened to anti-trust laws?
If your credit card is charging over 10% interest, isn’t that usury?
Is America going to hell in a handbasket? Every old fart I know has said that. I believe it.
Gerald
Not a doctor but I want to play one on TV.
-
Posted on another forum:
Goldwater represents the kind of candidate we do not see today. While I saw him as a war-hawk, he did fairly and honestly make his case. Today, Gus, as you portrayed, we have a gang of power-hungry people seeking the presidency. No more do we see concern for the people. More often than not, I ponder the question; “Is the system broke?” We have become a reactive bunch, we do not do the thinking required for good government – per Adlai Stevenson. Who should we voted for? I haven’t seen anyone worthy of that civic gesture - - yet.
Gerald Lively
-
Bam, slam sock and knock. I won’t comment - - I won’t, I won’t . . . . . no, no, I won’t. I love politics.
Okay, folks. I was the Butte County Jail Administrator for four years during a lawsuit over jail conditions. By the way, Butte County is in California and California is not “gang infested,” whatever that means.
Since World War II, it has been the Republican Presidents that ran up the National Debt. It has been Eisenhower and the other Democratic Presidents that made payments against the National Debt.
The historical failure of most nations in World history, has been either defeat in war or the cost of continual warfare.
During at least three debates, a GOP candidate proposed the elimination of the Department of Education. In my opinion, education is the future.
The birther issue has absolutely no basis in fact. At least three Federal Court have said so.
Yes, Congress is corrupt. So, what are you going to do about it?
There are more than 200 federal appointments being held up by the GOP in committee. Why?
War is not an answer. It never is. We need to make a clear distinction between just war and jingoism. In my humble opinion WWII was a just unavoidable war. Every war since has been jingoism.
The Patriot Act is a violation of everyone’s civil rights.
At least one GOP candidate wants to eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That same candidate wants to return to the Gold Standard. Holy Moly!
No Presidential candidate that I have heard, speaks of the future.
I just got back from dialysis. I hate dialysis.
My dog ate my baseball, the one used to strengthen my fistula arm.
Obama has not been ballsy enough when facing Congress.
Why, after nearly bringing the government to a halt, did the new GOP members of the House, call in an economist to better understand economics?
When are we going to put bankers in jail?
Whatever happened to anti-trust laws?
If your credit card is charging over 10% interest, isn’t that usury?
Is America going to hell in a handbasket? Every old fart I know has said that. I believe it.
Gerald
Not a doctor but I want to play one on TV.
Gerald Lively, don't tell anyone, but I am quite certain that I am falling in love with you and your delightful style.... :guitar:
-
Dear Cariad, my term short term memory comment was in reguard to political memory and the fact that few remember that they did the same exact thing to McCain. I do not know you in any manner as to your own personal issues and medical condition, so please forgive me if I have offended. I was NOT referring to any physical condition since I was not aware that you have that or any other specific difficulty. Please forgive me and I offer my humble apology if I have offended, my comments were not anything but referring to the political blindness some have in promoting a racial attribution to questioning where Obama was born and not remembering the very strong group of people who questioned McCain for the same exact cause.
OK, thanks for the explanation and for the apology. I do truly appreciate that.
I cannot forget what I was never made aware of, so this has nothing to do with conveniently forgetting anything. I believe the birther movement's inception was grounded in racism. That is not calling you nor your politics racist, didn't you just say this was not a political issue anymore or something?. With McCain, I can remember one discussion I had with friends at the crisis line (all liberals) and when I asked where McCain was born, they said he was born in Panama, but it was on a military base, so he met the citizen requirement. That was all I ever heard on that subject.
Anyhow, I hope we can all just move on to friendlier discussion, without personal attacks and without assuming the worst in everyone's comments. I usually enjoy these discussions immensely and learn a lot from them, but we should be able to discuss racism or any other sensitive issue without deteriorating into bitter infighting. I think we all are coming from a place of sincerity and good intention.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
Great Comment YLGuy. I respond to someone declaring my politics racist and I am a troll. Great analogy my friend.
:banghead; How many times do you have to be told that the comment was NOT directed to you???
Here, let me help:
T h e c o m m e n t w a s s a y i n g t h a t t h e b i r t h e r m o v e m e n t h a s r a c i a l u n d e r t o n e s. I t d o e s n o t s a y y o u o r y o u r p o l i t i c s a r e r a c i s t
:banghead;
EDITED: Removed Bold Prompt- Sluff/Admin
-
All political differences aside: I do believe that the Great Depression my grandparents raised my parents in will happen for this generation also. My children & grand children will suffer because of our indulgences! I pray Jesus's return before then, but no one knows the moment in which he comes.
Bill &Hemodoc, I do love you both and sending :pray; to you along with :grouphug;. You and Bill have helped me in many ways with your posts, just want you both to know that!
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
All political differences aside: I do believe that the Great Depression my grandparents raised my parents in will happen for this generation also. My children & grand children will suffer because of our indulgences! I pray Jesus's return before then, but no one knows the moment in which he comes.
Bill &Hemodoc, I do love you both and sending :pray; to you along with :grouphug;. You and Bill have helped me in many ways with your posts, just want you both to know that!
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
Dear lmunchkin,
Bill has been there for a lot of us folks over the years. In fact that is how I started blogging by simply asking him a question about buttonholes. He is first dialysis patient with no medical background to be including in The Experts Panel a little over a year ago where he rubbed shoulders with the biggest academic nephrologists and he more than held his own. I believe that there is a manner of civil discourse that allows people to express their opinions and discuss issues instead of personalities. Some folks get it, some don't.
I hope all is well, God bless,
Peter
-
Dear Moosemom, I haven't heard the Gingrich plan for a base on the moon, but are you aware of the technological breakthroughs of the space program that are now applied to dialysis and so many other industries? We have yet to develop all of the technologies invented in the 1960's such as sorbents for instance. Miniaturization for space craft has improved computers, plastics, metalurgy and a whole list of other breakthroughs that are applied in our daily lives without even realizing that today.
Yes, absolutely! I was a child of the Space Age and the Apollo program. I grew up in Houston, so yes, I grew up learning about the techological breakthroughs made possible by working toward the goal of manned space flight! What an exciting time!
I am not sure that we could mount another space program today with our education system in complete ruin at present. If you recall, the kids of the 1960's scored the highest ever on SAT'S and it has been down hill since then. We would literally have to import engineers from India, China and the middle east to put such a program together today. So not sure where this proposal will ever go, but we are no longer the nation we were in the 1960's where innovation and science were part of the American core fabric of our society.
I agree...this is not the same country as it was back then. Maybe there was a benefit to the Cold War! This sense of having to 'beat the Russians"...maybe the competition was good for us. But I don't think that anyone seriously would support the expediture for a permanent station on the moon. As much as I absolutely adored the "space race", I'm not sure I'd like so much money being spent on such a project when so many dialysis patients are having to suffer with less than optimal treatment. I'd like to think that these resources would be spent on the miniaturization of portable, wearable dialysis machines and the sorbent technology that hopefully will be widely available soon.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
-
Lets just stay on Topic and no personal attacks. What may seem a personal attack could merely be unintended in some cases. If Political threads make you irritable or upset you, take a few deep breaths and carefully reread the thread before you take anything personal.
Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Sluff/Admin
-
This being the first campaign since Citizens United and the formation of SuperPacs, I am hearing more concern than ever about the amount of money being spent on these races. And they may pale into significance once the general election campaign is on! I was listening to the radio today and there was someone on who was saying that out of all of the congresspeople he has spoken to, not ONE of them is happy about the fact that now about 70% of their time is having to be spent on raising funds. (I'm sorry...I didn't catch the name of this particular reporter.) The amount of money being spent on lobbying and political ads is staggering, and there is no reason to believe that anything will change. This seems to be endemic across both parties. What do you all think of this? Do you think this pervasive purchase of political influence is really a problem, or is it just one more media-created kerfuffle?
-
Uh . . . . folks . . . er . . .ah . . . I have the answer.
I am running for President. Okay, part time President, I need a half day off for dialysis.
Uh, what? Hey, it could happen.
(Hemodoc-Dude: relax – I’ll back you up – if you vote for me)
(YLGuy – you are beginning to sound like a Giants fan. Be careful, there are big people out there)
(cariad – I’ll see you out back)
Let us return to the pretense of being civilized people.
-
OK guys. Be nice and stay on track.
Rerun, Moderator :police:
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
I don't really understand this response. I mean, I get that you are angry, but doing the very thing that you are admonishing YLGuy for doing is not going to bring the conversation back to the issues and away from personal sniping. I'm quite certain he would have understood your point if you had just stated what you found unacceptable about his post. I took YLGuy's post very differently, that he was saying the response, not the person, was troll-like. He was also speaking from a place of frustration since a few of us felt like we were being (repeatedly) called out for saying something that we were taking pains to make clear we were not saying. Anyhow, they are both big boys, I'm sure they can work this out between themselves if they care to.
All I can add to Sluff's excellent advice is that if debate posts are something that always seem to wind you (general you) up, there is nothing wrong with just ignoring them. I know for me, sometimes I feel so invested in these conversations that you would think the stakes were much higher than they actually are. (See comic below) It's not like we're all on CNN or something.
Oh, MM, Citizens United. One of my main pet peeves. I am just now catching up on Colbert and I have to say I think his campaign is brilliance itself. I only just watched the episode in which his satirical spot stated If corporations are people, then Mitt Romney is a serial killer. More than any other discussion, lecture, or debate, I really think his political satire will serve to point up how utterly contradictory, damaging, and all-around nonsensical this ruling is.
-
(cariad – I’ll see you out back)
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
Well, Gerald, you've got my vote!
-
HemoDoc:
After the contentious political thread this morning, I had a burning question for you but decided not to bring it up. So, I got on my little tractor, the one with the road-grader blade, and went out and graded the driveway – setting it up for the remainder of the Winter (a quarter-mile in length). The entire time I was working, I couldn’t get this off my mind. It’s just a simple clarification, so here goes:
Your creds say you are a Doctor (MD) and I assume you are a Nephrologist. I am aware that Medicare pays for the vast majority of dialysis treatments in the US, meaning, Medicare is the life-blood for Nephrologists. How then, can you be a Republican Conservative? The GOP congressional actions this past year demonstrates a GOP desire to abolish Medicare. No Medicare means death for many, many people.
I’ll listen. Listening is what I do best.
Gerald Lively
-
HemoDoc:
After the contentious political thread this morning, I had a burning question for you but decided not to bring it up. So, I got on my little tractor, the one with the road-grader blade, and went out and graded the driveway – setting it up for the remainder of the Winter (a quarter-mile in length). The entire time I was working, I couldn’t get this off my mind. It’s just a simple clarification, so here goes:
Your creds say you are a Doctor (MD) and I assume you are a Nephrologist. I am aware that Medicare pays for the vast majority of dialysis treatments in the US, meaning, Medicare is the life-blood for Nephrologists. How then, can you be a Republican Conservative? The GOP congressional actions this past year demonstrates a GOP desire to abolish Medicare. No Medicare means death for many, many people.
I’ll listen. Listening is what I do best.
Gerald Lively
Nope, internist with kidney failure.
-
Today it looks like an Obama shoe in.
:2thumbsup; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup;
-
HemoDoc:
After the contentious political thread this morning, I had a burning question for you but decided not to bring it up. So, I got on my little tractor, the one with the road-grader blade, and went out and graded the driveway – setting it up for the remainder of the Winter (a quarter-mile in length). The entire time I was working, I couldn’t get this off my mind. It’s just a simple clarification, so here goes:
Your creds say you are a Doctor (MD) and I assume you are a Nephrologist. I am aware that Medicare pays for the vast majority of dialysis treatments in the US, meaning, Medicare is the life-blood for Nephrologists. How then, can you be a Republican Conservative? The GOP congressional actions this past year demonstrates a GOP desire to abolish Medicare. No Medicare means death for many, many people.
I’ll listen. Listening is what I do best.
Gerald Lively
Dear Gerald, with low Medicare payments that don't even cover the cost of primary care visits and their overhead, the highest tax brackets with FEW tax shelters if any, heavy handed regulations of our practices, I don't believe it is any wonder that most, certainly not all docs want fewer regulations, lower taxes and for Medicare to at least cover their overhead. Not to get involved in another issue, but according to Joe Biden, I am very patriotic since I have paid over a million dollars in taxes already before anyone goes into the tax the rich mantra. I am by no means a wealthy man after spending 11 years in higher education before even beginning my career. Not complaining, just giving the perspective you asked for. I have paid much more in taxes than I can reasonably expect to receive back from SS or Medicare.
I have done my part and that is all the most in the GOP are asking other folks to do as well with the majority of folks in American being able bodied. Looking at my father's generation, a lifetime Democrat, that is what he expected of folks as well and that is how he taught me. In fact, my entire family is Democratic and I am the only outlier. But none in my family is looking for a handout, they all work, they all pay taxes. Our expectation from the government is not for them to care for us, but to allow us to provide by our own means. In such, my family is and has been fiscally conservative yet quite liberal in politics. That doesn't make much sense to me, but so be it.
Looking at all of the factors, the fact that docs support the GOP more than DEMS should not be surprising to anyone. I have additional reasons, but that will suffice on why most of my colleagues are GOP.
I am an internist with my own renal disease requiring dialysis. I am a bit concerned about your excessive dialysis symptoms. With daily dialysis, I can immediately do my errands after session and I never have cramps, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, SOB or ANY other symptom. It sounds as if you are getting too aggressive ultrafiltration from your symptoms you described. Have you looked into daily dialysis so that you might actually appreciate dialysis instead of hating it and rightfully so by your symptoms. Dialysis doesn't have to be a torture chamber. Once again, I never feel the way that you described in a post above. Longer, slower and more frequent eliminates all of those symptoms as well as the dialysis headaches after the long weekend.
Now, what about the 500,000,000,000 that Obama slashed from Medicare to fund Obamacare? Why don't you folks ever talk about that or the number of times people have raided the SS, Medicare piggy bank for general fund expenditures? I don't recall Romney and Newt talking about slashing Medicare, that was the Ryan plan which is not an active piece of legislation. In any case, I trust none of them whatsoever, except Ron Paul who also happens to be a retired military doctor. I don't agree with all of his issues, but Americans could learn a lot by what he tells about the Fed and how this one nongovernmental entity, it is a privately owned bank, controls so much of our economy and politics. I disagree with Ron Paul's isolationist approach, a strong military used with wisdom and restraint protects us without imposing colonialism on the rest of the world. I believe we have a lot to learn about restraint and we should, but that is not the real world politic that is dominated by clandestine ops whether DEM or Republican or so they all claim.
I further believe that constitution is the best political governing document man has created outside of the commandments of the Bible that is. The Lord will have His way soon enough, but the original document provided a framework to govern and allow the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Today, the government has essentially abrogated nearly every part of this document and they only pay attention to it when it suits them anymore. This is becoming a lawless nation even at the highest levels and the amount of corruption in high level politics is astounding. I am old enough to remember personally what made this nation a wonderful place to live, but that is crumbling before our eyes and I have little trust in congress to put aside personal gain long enough to craft simply documents that restore and protect our freedoms. Many people alive today, have no true concept of freedom after the indoctrination of our schools and colleges. I am not that old, well not according to my time scale, but it was no big deal to bring a rifle/shotgun and keep it openly in the back of a pickup truck to go hunting after or before school. I saw that many times and actually brought my shotgun to school several times myself and went duck hunting after it was over. Yet, we didn't have people shooting up the school or anything else.
Freedom requires responsibility which is something that a lot of folks run away from today. I can't speak for all who support the GOP, but that is some of the basic philosophies that are at the core values of why we are "conservative." To say the least, I am not impressed in the least with the new morality or the lack of work ethics among many in the younger generations. Call me old fashioned, but I see through history what works, what improves society and what builds society. Taking personal responsibility is a tall order that I believe more folks need to acquire and practice. Without able bodied people standing on their own, how pray tell will you be able to lift a hand to help others? Generosity comes from strength not weakness. To those ends, I believe that the GOP may offer a better philosophy than what I see in the occupy movement for certain. If you want to occupy something, buy and pay for it and then you have the right to occupy. That was my father's generation, once again a lifelong democrat. He worked up until two years before he died at the age of 82 and paid his taxes all along. What has happened to my father's generation of democrats?
-
Hemodoc, I understand that you fret about the lack of work ethic you perceive to be rife in younger generations today. I fret about greed and corruption. I can hear and understand when people in the GOP complain about too much regulation, but you know what? I've lost trust in the goodness of society today. I want to see regulation because I don't trust anyone anymore to do anything except look after their own personal interest/corporate interest.
The insurance industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the state in which I live, and I have to wonder why! Well, I learned why, much to my chagrin. When I first moved back to the US, I was not yet married, so I had to buy my own individual health insurance policy. One week before the policy expiration date, I ended up in the hospital with an infection that nearly killed me. I ended up with a bill of just over $20,000 for a 5 week stay..and that was the bill from just the hospital. I got billed by doctors that I didn't even remember talking to. Everyone got a piece of my pie.
All of these bills were submitted to my poxy insurance company, and from my hospitalization in August until the following March, they conjured out of thin air every excuse they could think of to deny my claims. I went through the appeals process, and they shut me down. Wouldn't even return my phone calls. Nothing. Then one day, they told me they were cancelling my policy retroactively. I had to appeal to the State Board of Insurance in TWO states, and the Board in the state where I had purchased the policy mandated that they reinstate my policy.
They did reinstate it (remember, it had already expired!), but still they refused my claim.
The kicker came when they said that I had actually been ineligible for coverage because I had not been resident in the US for 12 consecutive months. They then said I had to submit my "papers". Now, I happened to have worked in insurance in London as a broker, so I know how underwriters think, and what this company was trying to say was that I was actually an immigrant who had come to the US for medical treatment...
I sued. And I won. I won big.
So, this insurance company is what is wrong with this country, Hemodoc. It's not that people don't want to work or that they want government to pay for everything. It's not that people don't want to take personal responsibility for their lives and their families. No, Hemodoc, it is NOT that. It's that people DO want to work hard and they DO want to look after their own families and they WILL take personal responsibility, but despite ALL of that, there is always someone out there to screw them over so that they can reap their profit.
Tell me, Hemodoc, why an honestly run company with a good product or service to sell would so blatantly break a legal contract? Because all they want is profit.
Hemodoc, the dialysis industry is a microcosm of what is really wrong with our country. IHD members work hard to take care of their families and them BAM, they get sick and their lifesaving treatment debilitates them so that they CAN'T take responsibility for their own wellbeing. It's immoral, it's cruel, and it is the free market at work. We cannot trust ANYONE anymore to act out of anything other than greed and self-promotion, sacrificing all moral conduct along the way. Do you really think that LDOs and the big banks can be trusted to always act morally? NO!
Hemodoc, the sad truth is that America has not been a democracy for a long time, and the Constitution is a sham. It is an arcane, interesting historical document that is tossed by the wayside if there is enough profit in the tossing. The United States is a oligarchy, plain and simple. Hard work, honest work is not rewarded any longer. We have lost the desire to invest in our country because we are being told that there is no such thing as "investment", only "spending", and "spending" is to be avoided at all costs. Why invest yourself in a country that is not interested in investing in you nor in your children?
Our politics are corrupt because corporations and big monied interests have bought our politicians, and these interests have pressured our politicians to become corporate shivs. But oh, making lots of money is the American Way. Sure, if hard work brings you lots of money, that's terrific and THAT is the American Way. But hard work means little in the oligarchy that is now the US of A. If corporations are people, then they should be exercising more "personal responsibility" and work harder for the common good. And if the Bible is your true template, then this would be a much kinder society that worked much harder to support the weaker in society, but I don't see that happening. Why don't we just drop Medicare altogether and let lots of nice and charitable people and their churches pay for dialysis for everyone who needs it. What sort of sick society allows such profit to be made from sick people? What does the Bible say about that, Hemodoc? If you are seaching for people who revere hard work, I'm searching for people of good will who are honest and who are not looking to screw whomever they deem to be weak. I'm looking for people who don't merely talk about their faith but, rather, who work hard to LIVE it by making the world a better place for ALL of God's people.
-
Dear Moosemom, why are you identifying me with corporate America in your remarks since they are addressed to me? Am I supporting the status quo of the dialysis industry? I believe the for-profit health care should have no place in America, but that is not the reality we are dealt and I don't believe we will ever roll the clock back in time to when health care was run by charity. I would challenge you to find anyone today challenging the status quo in the dialysis industry any more than I am today.
As far as regulations, I would much rather control myself and operate in freedom under my duties and obligations to my fellow man as prescribed in the Bible. The mountains of regulations are actually simply a symptom of the sins of this nation. The Bible says so very clearly:
Proverbs 28:2 For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.
So if you are looking for more regulations and more princes to watch over every little detail of your life, that does not sound like freedom to me at all. I would rather look for a man of understanding and knowledge to prolong this state for certainly we are not on a sustainable path any longer I would advise you to read the founding fathers writings and what they had to say about the constitution and freedom. Here are some examples:
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry
The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but a swindling futurity on a large scale. – Thomas Jefferson
"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other." John Adams
Here is the problem in that we are no longer a moral and religious people. I don't need to expand upon that, just turn your TV on for a few minutes and you will have more than enough examples.
So, no, I don't see a of hope for this nation which continues to not only turn it's back to God, but thumb their nose at him as well putting it politely but recognizing it is much worse than that. The constitution was never designed to rule over such a people. Do I need to quote the admonitions against greed from the Bible? I believe one will be enough:
I Timothy 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
Yes, the Bible has much to say about the obligations of the rich, and the Bible has much to say about able bodied people who will not work even though they can.
Because people no longer want God to rule their lives, He has given us rulers that truly don't have our interest at heart. I for one cherish the freedoms we once had that now we must fight to preserve, but until the people of America turn back to the source of all of our freedoms, all shall be lost. I believe that with all of my heart. If you wish for more regulations, you won't have to wait long with the tens of thousands of new regulations each year by state, county, city, and Feds. I much prefer the freedoms and responsibilities of self governance over any one telling me what to do each and every day. If you folks prefer a tyrannical government overseeing tyrannical greed filled corporations, shucks that just doesn't sound like the nation I grew up in. That is not my idea of freedom whatsoever.
And why are you always focussing on the corporations and giving this corrupt government not only a complete pass, but you want more of it? Are you completely unaware of the bribery and corruption between our corporations and our government? So be it. How many people do you know personally who lie on their income tax forms every year? For the transgressions of the land, many are the princes thereof. That is where it all begins and ends frankly, personal responsibility and morality. Collectively, we are in deep trouble and there is only one remedy, but we won't go there I am sure.
II Chronicles 7:12 ¶ And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice.
13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;
14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
A house about to collapse upon itself cannot invest in anything. Do you really believe that propaganda you are espousing? No, this nation truly no longer deserves the freedoms we had if you can only consider the constitution as an interesting historical document. Well, lets just scrap it and produce a 20,000 page document to replace it and see how much better off you will be with that. I truly believe folks are completely ignorant today of what it was that the founding fathers gave us through their sacrifice of life, property and living. I suspect people truly have no more respect for that sacrifice and gift and in such, we truly don't deserve it's freedoms and protections any longer. Do you really believe that this corrupt political city will produce anything of value to anyone but their powerful cronies?
For me, i will go and hide out in Idaho as long as I can. People there still cherish and understand freedom. I am not sure how much of the rest of this nation does any longer.
-
HemoDoc:
As much as I wanted to find out what you think about Medicare, I failed to locate it in your response. Based on all of the other subjects you covered, I can make a good guess.
Your message of disentrancement with the US Federal Government is understood even though it is non-specific and has a sprinkling of propaganda. I get enough of this elsewhere. Here, on the IHD forum I wanted to focus on the narrower question of compassion by government.
1. Much of the administration of Medicare is in the hands of the various States. The Federal Government provides regulations that amount to guidelines but it is State law that says the door to the dialysis room must be locked. Yes, it is a small issue. Even so, it is illustrative.
2. Social Security is holding about $2 Trillion in IOU’s. There exists a system that immediately places Social Security revenues in the General Fund in exchange for an IOU. The payback is as needed to pay for program benefits. The only good I see in this system, is the supposed earned interest, which, so far, has never been paid. Instead, interest payments are just another IOU.
3. George W. Bush saw this obligation to Social Security and tried to “privatize” the fund. Ryan, tried to cut it altogether through a phase-out system. Boehner praised the package as brilliant new thinking. The GOP, rather than pay the debt would rather dismiss it.
I am only concerned here, about the care for the elderly, poor, children and those that cannot help themselves. To point to fraud in these programs is disingenuous. Yes, we should not have fraud, yet we need these programs. To declare that grandpa made it on his own is no answer. Grandpa died early as did his generation. WE are in the NOW, not yesterday. That is where I search for insight. That is why the GOP seems like a pariah on the very people they ask for votes. Perhaps in a few days, in calmer times, you can address those concerns. One more thing; the very nature of organized religion in government will change from your oligarchy to a dictatorship if mixed.
MooseMom: California insurance law already prohibits all of the insurance actions you describe. Much of that is included in the so-called Obamacare package.
Everybody calm down.
gerald
-
My dearest Hemodoc, you know I love you, so please take this in the generous spirit in which it is given...
Please show some mercy upon your good self and refrain from immediately taking things written on IHD so personally. :cuddle;
You KNOW that I was not directing my remarks about the greed and eval of corporate influence in our politics at you. I was responding TO you, not AT you. I do not disagree that there are people out there who are lazy toads who don't want to fend for themselves and their families. You have told me that you have encountered such people, so I believe you as I do not think you would lie. But I have to say that I have not encountered any of these people. That's not to say that they do not exist, rather, that perhaps they are not as numerous as you believe.
My point is that I do not feel that it is laziness that is at the root of the problem, rather, it is greed and corruption. Surely you agree this is a problem.
I don't have time to read the rest of your post properly so that I may digest it fully and add a response, but I did want to come on this discussion and assure you that my comments were not made to be taken as a personal slight. Actually, let me amend that. I was quite hopeful that you WOULD take my comments personally ON A CERTAIN LEVEL PRECISELY BECAUSE of your view that for-profit healthcare should have no place in America. I was using this analogy to illustrate my opinion because I knew that you PERSONALLY would understand.
I know that you would much rather control yourself, etc, but you are trustworthy. How about the others who are not? How do we keep an unscrupulous doctor or businessman from harming others and even depriving THEM of THEIR freedom? How do we, for instance, keep the LDOs in this country from harming vulnerable patients and from doing nothing to enhance the quality of life and freedom of their patients? What would happen to us if there were no regulations governing the business practices of LDOs and, say, drug companies? Do you trust these people to always act in the best interests of their patients? I don't! There has to be some mechanism to reign in their quest for profit, and sadly, the Bible isn't doing the trick. Jesus isn't going to descend from the heavens and smite Mr. Thiery and enforce a whopping fine if his clinics are crappy and aren't clean. So, does government play a role in this? Dialysis isn't mentioned in either the Constitution or the Bible, so what are we left with to make sure patients get out of there alive?
OK, that's it for now, sorry...out of time. Please, for the sake of your own emotional health, try not to find insult where there is none. I will try to be more clear from now on, though, in case it really did sound like I was "attacking" you personally. My apologies that I was not clear in that regard.
Gerald, I am calm! Texas and Illinois law also prohibits the kind of actions undertaken by my ex-ins company....that's why I won my lawsuit. But what would have happened if there had been no evil "regulations"? Again, are we supposed to just trust that everyone is going to act in an ethical manner? I think not.
-
My dearest Hemodoc, you know I love you, so please take this in the generous spirit in which it is given...
Please show some mercy upon your good self and refrain from immediately taking things written on IHD so personally. :cuddle;
You KNOW that I was not directing my remarks about the greed and eval of corporate influence in our politics at you. I was responding TO you, not AT you. I do not disagree that there are people out there who are lazy toads who don't want to fend for themselves and their families. You have told me that you have encountered such people, so I believe you as I do not think you would lie. But I have to say that I have not encountered any of these people. That's not to say that they do not exist, rather, that perhaps they are not as numerous as you believe.
My point is that I do not feel that it is laziness that is at the root of the problem, rather, it is greed and corruption. Surely you agree this is a problem.
I don't have time to read the rest of your post properly so that I may digest it fully and add a response, but I did want to come on this discussion and assure you that my comments were not made to be taken as a personal slight. Actually, let me amend that. I was quite hopeful that you WOULD take my comments personally ON A CERTAIN LEVEL PRECISELY BECAUSE of your view that for-profit healthcare should have no place in America. I was using this analogy to illustrate my opinion because I knew that you PERSONALLY would understand.
I know that you would much rather control yourself, etc, but you are trustworthy. How about the others who are not? How do we keep an unscrupulous doctor or businessman from harming others and even depriving THEM of THEIR freedom? How do we, for instance, keep the LDOs in this country from harming vulnerable patients and from doing nothing to enhance the quality of life and freedom of their patients? What would happen to us if there were no regulations governing the business practices of LDOs and, say, drug companies? Do you trust these people to always act in the best interests of their patients? I don't! There has to be some mechanism to reign in their quest for profit, and sadly, the Bible isn't doing the trick. Jesus isn't going to descend from the heavens and smite Mr. Thiery and enforce a whopping fine if his clinics are crappy and aren't clean. So, does government play a role in this? Dialysis isn't mentioned in either the Constitution or the Bible, so what are we left with to make sure patients get out of there alive?
OK, that's it for now, sorry...out of time. Please, for the sake of your own emotional health, try not to find insult where there is none. I will try to be more clear from now on, though, in case it really did sound like I was "attacking" you personally. My apologies that I was not clear in that regard.
Gerald, I am calm! Texas and Illinois law also prohibits the kind of actions undertaken by my ex-ins company....that's why I won my lawsuit. But what would have happened if there had been no evil "regulations"? Again, are we supposed to just trust that everyone is going to act in an ethical manner? I think not.
Dear Moosemom, it is not the Bible that has failed. That has always will stand now and forever. You have asked and others also why I am conservative. Please note, I don't call myself a Republican, but most of those that are conservative in politics are in the Republican party. That is the associciation, albeit loosely today unfortunately. In such, if you truly wish me to answer the question you have put forth, I spent a fair amount of time answering it so I would recommend you go back and look at that post once again. Many of the answers to your questions are in that post.
As far as a people who will not govern themselves, history tells us that that people will enter into slavery controlled by a tyrannical dictator. I believe the first option of controlling your own self so that others are not appointed to do so is a much better option. Many in America, in the conservative, "right wing" movement believe likewise. How many people were arrested and desecrated property at all of the Tea party gatherings put together? How about the so called occupy movement? Perfect illustration of people who wish to govern their own self vs someone calling upon government to govern them. One is lawful, the other is lawless. It appears that America as a majority is choosing the lawless approach. I truly don't want any part of that and once again, I will hide out in Idaho as long as I can until the lawless gang catches us up there as well.
Let me remind you of one item in my post above:
Proverbs 28:2 For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.
If you are going to live in a land of transgressions (sin) then you will have many rulers and princes. (i.e., regulations) The fact we are discussing this issue in the midst of the largest anti-God, anti-Bible times in America speaks for itself. This will ultimately end in slavery and tyrannical dictatorship. That is where I believe we are heading and not far from it. If you spend any time reading the founding fathers writings, they spoke of these very things and that is why they wrote the constitution the way that they wrote it. I believe that they would likewise call this a lawless nation today as well. You can't rule lawlessness without oppression. That is where we are heading and will head unless folks, one by one choose to live lawfully. Sadly, I see just the opposite happening.
As far as associating me with corporations and their excesses and me taking it personally, then I would have to ask why are you addressing my post with references to these things if you did not wish to associate my philosophy with them? Your references place a false ascription to allege my support of these entities which is not a representation of my views at all.
On the other hand, in the global economy of today, who is it that you will seek to find employment? If I am ever in need of a job in the future, hopefully not, but if I am, where would I turn to seek to provide for my family? Not all corportations are evil and wicked as some wish to ascert. In fact, the high standard of living that the majority of Americans have enjoyed was in the gainful employment of large and profitable corporations.
I worked for Kaiser, a large, non-profit corporation and I acted in that position to the best of my abilities placing the interests of my patients at the forefront of my decisions. Am I perfect in every encounter, God as my witness, no. But what I may have lacked in perfection came not from greed and profit. My compensation was never based on withholding care and saving moner and in fact, I was often in the hot seat for spending more on my patients than my peers. I did what I believed to the best of my abilities was the best I could for each patient in every encounter as if I had my mother before me. In this, I believe that I also prevented many complications and hospitalizations but I never recieved credit for that cost savings. So, is Kaiser "evil" simply because it is large and effective? If you were looking for a job in CA as a nurse, where would you apply understanding Kaiser pay scales compared to those in the community are often double what the community, private practice can afford to pay. Does that make Kaiser evil?
This whole slam the rich, slam the corporation propaganda is a short sighted and mistaken approach. If a CEO does harm to someone by his corporate actions, he should be held accountable. However, more likely, he will simply make a campaign contribution to his politician of choice and see nothing of that kind. Why are we looking at the GOP only when it comes to the so called "rich." Have you seen who Obama hangs out with lately? George Soros, Immelt, and Buffet to name only a few, yet, the GOP is the party labeled the 1 percenters. Immelt is tasked with growing jobs in America as Obama's job czar while he sends jobs to China for GE in a blistering pace. How is it that you look at the GOP association with corporations and completely over look Obama's ties including GE who just happened to own NBC during the 2008 campaign yet this relationship is not questioned. I believe that is hypocracy bread by the propaganda of the so called occupy movement which is very controlled. Who is pulling those strings and why? Is it the 99% as a grass roots movement? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.
So if you want to talk about corporations, yes, by all means, where did most of Obama's stimulus go for instance?
So if folks want a bigger, more encompassing government to cure all the ills of this society, then who will look over the shoulder of the government to keep them from corruption and greed and profiteering?
-
HemoDoc:
As much as I wanted to find out what you think about Medicare, I failed to locate it in your response. Based on all of the other subjects you covered, I can make a good guess.
Your message of disentrancement with the US Federal Government is understood even though it is non-specific and has a sprinkling of propaganda. I get enough of this elsewhere. Here, on the IHD forum I wanted to focus on the narrower question of compassion by government.
1. Much of the administration of Medicare is in the hands of the various States. The Federal Government provides regulations that amount to guidelines but it is State law that says the door to the dialysis room must be locked. Yes, it is a small issue. Even so, it is illustrative.
2. Social Security is holding about $2 Trillion in IOU’s. There exists a system that immediately places Social Security revenues in the General Fund in exchange for an IOU. The payback is as needed to pay for program benefits. The only good I see in this system, is the supposed earned interest, which, so far, has never been paid. Instead, interest payments are just another IOU.
3. George W. Bush saw this obligation to Social Security and tried to “privatize” the fund. Ryan, tried to cut it altogether through a phase-out system. Boehner praised the package as brilliant new thinking. The GOP, rather than pay the debt would rather dismiss it.
I am only concerned here, about the care for the elderly, poor, children and those that cannot help themselves. To point to fraud in these programs is disingenuous. Yes, we should not have fraud, yet we need these programs. To declare that grandpa made it on his own is no answer. Grandpa died early as did his generation. WE are in the NOW, not yesterday. That is where I search for insight. That is why the GOP seems like a pariah on the very people they ask for votes. Perhaps in a few days, in calmer times, you can address those concerns. One more thing; the very nature of organized religion in government will change from your oligarchy to a dictatorship if mixed.
MooseMom: California insurance law already prohibits all of the insurance actions you describe. Much of that is included in the so-called Obamacare package.
Everybody calm down.
gerald
Compassion by government. In what way is that manifested. Let's back that up a bit. Governments are composed of people. Yes, God commands compassion on those who cannot provide for their needs. What proportion of your monies goes to charities? It all starts and ends with the individual. I could state what mine are but I won't. America has historically been a compassionate nation giving more to charities and funding to people over seas for years. Now the governement wants to controll all of this by doing away with the tax write off for charitable giving granting the government control of this.
I don't believe it is the governments role to do those things that the individual should do himself. We are a very wealthy people in America. Even the poorest here live like kings compared to those in the Philippines for instance where many are sqautters living in card board boxes. We have lost sight here in America of our own status among the world. It is a skewed view. Who took care of the poor and needy before Medicare and the great society of Johnson in the 1960's when he waged war on poverty? As Ron Paul noted, we did a better job then, than today.
Medicare is a program here to stay unless of course we regain the 500 Billion Obama stole from to fund Obamacare. I am a member of Medicare. Not that I needed it but I was coerced essentially into getting it and turning it over or have added co-pays for each dialysis session. I have full lifetime health care by virtue of my employment. My co-pays are no better for hospitalizaiton or procedures with my Medicare as without it. No change for me, so my Medicare goes to Kaiser to defray their obligations to me under my own health plan. So be it, that is business.
As a Kaiser physician, a large percentage of my patients were Medicare Advantage and I saw the benefits that they derived from this program. The issue is not the program, but the issue is how will we fund it at the governmental level. Now, is it compassionate for government to rob social security and Medicare to fund the general fund? The reason that SS and Medicare are going broke is because your compassionate government robs that fund every year for the last several decades. Is that compassionate?
No, that is corrupt and that is the real issue of this huge government and its voracious appetite to spend every penny it can lay its hands on and deliver back to the people only a small percentage of real value. Is that compassionate? I believe it is corrupt and broken. I don't believe we fix this broken and corrupt monster we call the Federal government by feeding it more and more, it simply spits it out in wasteful unproductive spending. Is that compassionate? I don't think so.
What is the FDA doing about the pharmaceutical fraud brought on in the last 15 years with these so called drug shortages. Nearly every single old medication that was manufactured cheaply and efficiently is now costly and difficult to supply. What is the FDA doing to prevent this game where by common easy to make drugs here for up to a hundred years are now all of a sudden difficult to make and expensive? Give me a break, that is corruption. Is that compassionate?
Lastly, you stated my statements were sprinkled with propaganda when in fact they were all personal experiences in my family. Please specifically state what you believe is propaganda about my familiies personal experiences which I assure you are quite real. I have used the word propaganda tied to specific issues such as the allegations of racism as the underlying "birther" movement. Yet, that is not my motivation whatsoever in questioning some issues that Obama has continued to hide and not answer. It is propaganda to say that these questions are racially motivated. Was racial motivation for questioning McCains place of birth
I have used the term propaganda to describe this irrational hatred of corporations while giving Obama a pass for rubbing shoulders with his corporate giant friends. That is hypocracy and propaganda.
So, what specific issues do you feel are propaganda?
Lastly, the issue of Christianity and government is an old propaganda tool that us Christians want a theocracy. That is plain and simple falsehood. Remember, the kingdom of God is within. What did Jesus Himself say over this issue when Pilate confronted Him?
John 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
That is why John Adams stated: "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."
Theocracy baiting in the debate on where Christianity stands with our goverment is plain and simple propaganda that goes against Christian doctrine. Did the founding fathers who over saw a nation almost entirely composed of Christians turn that experiment into a theocracy? No. That is not what the Christian right is calling for. No, instead, the founding fathers used the tenants of Christianity to produce a government where the world saw religious and political liberty as never seen before, and sadly, will not see again for quite some time to come.
-
HemoDoc:
Back when JFK was running for President, I was the moderate in the neighborhood. I had spent my time in military intelligence and was made aware that all is not as it seems. Now, those veterans of that special military unit gather on a Yahoo Forum and discuss the politics of the day. There, no one is polite. In that environment I am the Liberal in the neighborhood, although I remain convinced of certain basic responsibilities of government. You see, not only was a private sector business owner, I had a career in government in the policy-making function. I believe that gives me some insight. And the entire politic of America has moved to the right, much too far in my opinion.
The very idea of government is a collective effort for the benefit of it’s members/citizens. None of us could survive alone among many others striving to survive alone. We take care of one another. It takes a village to raise a child. This requires compassion. Who needs help? I am here to say that we cannot ignore the poor and needy.
Comparing the US to another country is disingenuous as in apples and oranges. Some elderly woman down the street has no relationship to any other nation, she merely needs help. No private sector organization or church can reach all of the people all of the time. Only government can do that. I recall when Henry J formed Kaiser and I wondered as a kid what all the shouting was about, as in people condemning Kaiser’s effort as socialism and socialized medicine. Yep, we lived in government housing across the street from the Kaiser Shipyards.
Ron Paul was very wrong when he commented on pre-60’s healthcare. Starvation was epidemic in the deep south among blacks. The rest of the nation benefitted from a relatively low population and doctors rendered healthcare in your home. But he didn’t have a dialysis machine. He sometimes bartered. He was wrong on occasion. Paul’s gaze back is a fantasy, tradition, and is the essence of conservatism in these United States. Yesterday carries no solutions for a nation with a burgeoning population and evolving viruses. Research has left the good-old days in the dust. And who will bring a CT scan to your home?
God did not rescue my sister from renal failure. The State of Texas tried. Even in that bastion of conservative throw-backs, someone there did their best. I fail to see that compassion in your messages. Edward Lively, my ninth great grandfather, who was a translator for the King James Bible, died of the flu. Even as religious as he was, no God answered his prayers. God is not the answer to the healthcare needy. Again, only government can fulfill that niche.
When the Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations are “people”, that was in the context of campaign financing and the First Amendment. Perhaps you need to be reminded that the Supreme Court is conservative. If corporations are “people” then they should pay the same taxes as people.
The “founding fathers” were not particularly religious. In documents they produced, the language of the time was used. God was often mentioned. These were not church going, Bible thumping members of any church, these were independent thinking rebels. And if you wish to quote Presidents, we can be at this all day long.
Conservative America is wrong when they criticize Medicare, Obamacare (or its intent), or Social Security. Those three programs and Veteran’s Healthcare reach more people than any health program in history. The conservative option is as Ron Paul characterized it; leave them alone. That, Sir, is not an option.
Gerald Lively
-
HemoDoc:
Back when JFK was running for President, I was the moderate in the neighborhood. I had spent my time in military intelligence and was made aware that all is not as it seems. Now, those veterans of that special military unit gather on a Yahoo Forum and discuss the politics of the day. There, no one is polite. In that environment I am the Liberal in the neighborhood, although I remain convinced of certain basic responsibilities of government. You see, not only was a private sector business owner, I had a career in government in the policy-making function. I believe that gives me some insight. And the entire politic of America has moved to the right, much too far in my opinion.
The very idea of government is a collective effort for the benefit of it’s members/citizens. None of us could survive alone among many others striving to survive alone. We take care of one another. It takes a village to raise a child. This requires compassion. Who needs help? I am here to say that we cannot ignore the poor and needy.
Comparing the US to another country is disingenuous as in apples and oranges. Some elderly woman down the street has no relationship to any other nation, she merely needs help. No private sector organization or church can reach all of the people all of the time. Only government can do that. I recall when Henry J formed Kaiser and I wondered as a kid what all the shouting was about, as in people condemning Kaiser’s effort as socialism and socialized medicine. Yep, we lived in government housing across the street from the Kaiser Shipyards.
Ron Paul was very wrong when he commented on pre-60’s healthcare. Starvation was epidemic in the deep south among blacks. The rest of the nation benefitted from a relatively low population and doctors rendered healthcare in your home. But he didn’t have a dialysis machine. He sometimes bartered. He was wrong on occasion. Paul’s gaze back is a fantasy, tradition, and is the essence of conservatism in these United States. Yesterday carries no solutions for a nation with a burgeoning population and evolving viruses. Research has left the good-old days in the dust. And who will bring a CT scan to your home?
God did not rescue my sister from renal failure. The State of Texas tried. Even in that bastion of conservative throw-backs, someone there did their best. I fail to see that compassion in your messages. Edward Lively, my ninth great grandfather, who was a translator for the King James Bible, died of the flu. Even as religious as he was, no God answered his prayers. God is not the answer to the healthcare needy. Again, only government can fulfill that niche.
When the Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations are “people”, that was in the context of campaign financing and the First Amendment. Perhaps you need to be reminded that the Supreme Court is conservative. If corporations are “people” then they should pay the same taxes as people.
The “founding fathers” were not particularly religious. In documents they produced, the language of the time was used. God was often mentioned. These were not church going, Bible thumping members of any church, these were independent thinking rebels. And if you wish to quote Presidents, we can be at this all day long.
Conservative America is wrong when they criticize Medicare, Obamacare (or its intent), or Social Security. Those three programs and Veteran’s Healthcare reach more people than any health program in history. The conservative option is as Ron Paul characterized it; leave them alone. That, Sir, is not an option.
Gerald Lively
Did I criticize Medicare? Sorry, that is news to me. All I said was quit stealing its funding and it will work well for all of us. You say I lack compassion. Sorry, my patients would disagree with you strongly. Five years after I retired, many patients still ask about me to my old nurses. Recently, I saw one of my old patients who works in the pharmacy where I get me meds and she said someone was talking about their doctor who retired and was the most caring and compassionate doctor that they ever had. Sorry, but I will dismiss your incorrect characterization that I am not caring and compassionate.
Ron Paul never said leave the folks alone, far from it. He has spent a lifetime in medical practice as well and instead believes in helping, but not by the heavy handed control of the government that in many instances impeeds good medical care by their heavy hand reguations. When did I say we don't need any government? You may need a village to raise a child, but my parents did fine up in Alaska all by themselves with two of us with doctoral degrees and the other two with masters, my parents did OK even if we didn't think so then and only seldom did so with the use of babysitters on rare occasions. Four kids in one house for all those years. It is a wonder that my parents kept their sanity, but they did. On the other hand, the "village" that we lived in sure did stir up a whole lot temptations and vices that caused a great deal of difficulty for our parents by our involvement in those activities. No, our parents did just fine getting us through the village temptations much to my surprise looking back at all that me and my brothers put them through. Lots of good influences from my parents, lots of really rotten influence from that "village."
We still have poverty in this nation after the trillions of dollars spent against the war on poverty. How did that happen?
In dialysis, the good old days were better than these days with mortality less than 10% and by the way, when you go to the dialysis unit, with a few exceptions you are using 1960's technology with a few modifications to those basic systems. The artificial kidney is from 1968, fistulas, 1960's etc. What has kept dialysis from advancing when so many other areas of medicine are marching forward? Is there a connection between the socialized medicine intervention of the ESRD program and our lack of progress? I ask a rhetorical question, but what is the reason that we see no progress in the last 20 years. I look at treatment of heart attacks in the last 20 years when an MI had a 10% mortality. Now with the developments of the last 20 years, it is now as low as 2% for an acute heart attack. Is it possible that our funding and control by CMS has stiffled and stymied improvements? I have spoken to many in the industry, names you would know who almost universally state it is our reimbursement system that is holding back innovation and improvements in dialysis.
Without betraying confidences, I heard similar sentiments very recently from one of the most influential leaders in dialysis. Yet to make changes in dialysis practice, it takes literally an act of congress. Yet prior to the advent of the 1973 ESRD program, Dr. Scribner was able to take an inspiration directly to practice and save lives over night. That is not possible today with the mountains of regulations that hold up innovative improvements to the dialysis that you hate so much. I know that there are people today with the power to invoke change who are lobbying congress and CMS to allow these changes. CMS is the stumbling block to so many of our issues today, yet people ask for more such control over our lives in other areas. I believe that there are things that we could do tomorrow that would greatly impact all dialysis patients in America and save countless dollars for the taxpayors at the same time, yet we are all holding our breath to see if someone in congress will support these changes. Is that compassion?
I can assure you that overnight, we could alleviate your suffering and pain at dialysis sessions if only CMS would break down the wall between part A and part B of Medicare. Is that compassion?
If you feel that I have no compassion, then I don't believe you have read any of my articles since 2008 on Bill Peckham's site or on my own all because I advocate that we should live within our means. If we go bankrupt and cannot pay for any medical care, is that compassion? Sorry, but I will use the intractable movement of CMS in the last 40 years to first of all protect all of the ESRD patients that they have been charged with protecting and caring for, yet this system has 2.5 times the mortality of other developed nations who spend less on dialysis but have better outcomes. People who have had the power in the dialysis industry have urged CMS to incentivize outcomes and reduced hospitalization and death, yet CMS remains immovable. We all focus on the LDO's which do own their share of the blame absolutely, yet completely give a pass to CMS who is the one that tells the LDOs how to practice and sets up our perverse payment systems that do not protect our dialysis patients.
I have spent my entire career inside of two integrated health care systems. First in the military and second with Kaiser. There are many things that we could do tomorrow that would set America once again as the mecca of dialysis healthcare in the world that we once were BEFORE the ESRD program. Since the ESRD program, our outcomes have plummeted and we are now the worst performing dialysis provider in the developed world yet as of today, despite all that we know on how to make things better, where is CMS or congress in moving beyond the impass of the last two decades alone. The integrated system is the only type of system where there is an incentive for a nephrologist to capture savings by spending more at the point of service in the dialysis unit to reduce pain, suffering and expense in the hospital. Where is the leadership by CMS to do such a deed, for certainly nothing shall change until CMS changes it. Is that compassion?
As far as corporations paying their taxes, yes absolutely. When Gerald did I ever state to let those SOBs out of paying taxes. I have paid my fair share and beyond, yes make them pay their fair share. Let's start first with GE if only Obama will require it of his good friend who gave him so much favorable news coverage on his propaganda MSNBC station during the 2008 election and until today. Is that quid pro quo perhaps? Yes, Gerald, turn your angst againt GE and it's CEO and I will line up with you, and chase after the cronyism so apparent in the GE,Immelt, Obama connection. Yes, by all means, get GE to pay its taxes. In fact, tell them to turn in their 3 billion dollar tax credit!! Yes, let's start with the Obama/GE tax debacle.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558#.TySmzhzU-10
-
Dear Hemodoc,
1. I do not think the Bible has "failed", but I do think that in our history, we have believed as we have wanted to believe, and as a result, we have a history of destroying other peoples for our own benefit and have used the Bible as justification. The slave lords of the Deep South convinced themselves that slavery was holy and that the white man was superior to all other peoples. Actually, that mindset evolved into thinking that the gentleman plantation owner was superior to ALL other Americans, and they had their Bible teachings to prove it. These days, all one has to do is say that their beliefs, no matter how abhorrent, are supported by the Bible, and this seems to excuse and explain away everything.
2. Again, I am not ascribing "corporate evil" to you. I'm not sure what more I can say to convince you otherwise.
3. I understand that we all of us base our philosophies and opinions on our life's experiences, but in saying that, I would hope that you understand that not everyone has had experiences just like yours.
4. I am not sure that the idea that the Tea Party supporters didn't engage in any property damage somehow makes their raison d'etre more "moral" than that of the occupy movement. I know that there has been trouble at some OWS sites, but there was a whole heap of trouble in the efforts to rid this nation of the moral stain of slavery, and that "trouble" certainly didn't make the cause unworthy. It is just intellectual laziness to refuse to look past the "trouble" and refuse to hear the message. I am not aware of anyone in the OWS movement wanting government to do everything for them. They are protesting the growing income equality and the destruction of the middle class. On the other hand, the Tea Party movement has undermined the very foundation of our nation in that they will not compromise, and they are intransigent in a way that goes against the way our government is supposed to work. They have had their day; people are tired of their screeching and do not like how their representatives in Congress have made that institution grind to a virtual halt. There is a reason that Congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of approval ratings, and the Tea Party is behind that. They may not be "lawless" as you use the word, but they are divisive and destructive in their own way.
5. Surely there is a middle ground between having mountains of regulation and allowing our country to become a lawless free-for-all, screw-you-as-long-as-I-get-mine, ruthless society.
6. I believe that corporations CAN work for the common good, and many do, but many do not. What do we do about the ones who do not? I agree that the ones who do not should be held accountable, but again, apply this to the LDOs. How do we make them operate with their patients' welfare the highest priority?
7. I can understand why you would believe that the OWS movement is not grass roots in origin. I believe the same about the Tea Party movement, so you and I are pretty much in agreement there.
8. I know that President Obama hangs out with big money donors, and I don't like it any more than I like it when GOP leaders do the same.
9, I for one don't look to the government to cure the ills of society. I don't know anyone who believes that. Why do you say that? That's hyperbole, don't you think? But I DO think that government has a role, and it is this role that is debatable now like it has been since the 1700s.
10. If you were omnipotent and could start from scratch, how would you craft a plan for access to health care and the payment for same? How would dialysis be paid for in Hemodocland? For obvious reasons, I am very concerned about access to healthcare in this country. Do you know what sort of plan the GOP has for, say, people with catastrophic illness and/or pre-existing conditions? Do you think that all people have a right to access healthcare in this country? When you use the term "socialized medicine" (as in the socialization of ESRD by CMS), what exactly do you mean? How do you define "socialized medicine"?
-
Dear Hemodoc,
1. I do not think the Bible has "failed", but I do think that in our history, we have believed as we have wanted to believe, and as a result, we have a history of destroying other peoples for our own benefit and have used the Bible as justification. The slave lords of the Deep South convinced themselves that slavery was holy and that the white man was superior to all other peoples. Actually, that mindset evolved into thinking that the gentleman plantation owner was superior to ALL other Americans, and they had their Bible teachings to prove it. These days, all one has to do is say that their beliefs, no matter how abhorrent, are supported by the Bible, and this seems to excuse and explain away everything.
2. Again, I am not ascribing "corporate evil" to you. I'm not sure what more I can say to convince you otherwise.
3. I understand that we all of us base our philosophies and opinions on our life's experiences, but in saying that, I would hope that you understand that not everyone has had experiences just like yours.
4. I am not sure that the idea that the Tea Party supporters didn't engage in any property damage somehow makes their raison d'etre more "moral" than that of the occupy movement. I know that there has been trouble at some OWS sites, but there was a whole heap of trouble in the efforts to rid this nation of the moral stain of slavery, and that "trouble" certainly didn't make the cause unworthy. It is just intellectual laziness to refuse to look past the "trouble" and refuse to hear the message. I am not aware of anyone in the OWS movement wanting government to do everything for them. They are protesting the growing income equality and the destruction of the middle class. On the other hand, the Tea Party movement has undermined the very foundation of our nation in that they will not compromise, and they are intransigent in a way that goes against the way our government is supposed to work. They have had their day; people are tired of their screeching and do not like how their representatives in Congress have made that institution grind to a virtual halt. There is a reason that Congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of approval ratings, and the Tea Party is behind that. They may not be "lawless" as you use the word, but they are divisive and destructive in their own way.
5. Surely there is a middle ground between having mountains of regulation and allowing our country to become a lawless free-for-all, screw-you-as-long-as-I-get-mine, ruthless society.
6. I believe that corporations CAN work for the common good, and many do, but many do not. What do we do about the ones who do not? I agree that the ones who do not should be held accountable, but again, apply this to the LDOs. How do we make them operate with their patients' welfare the highest priority?
7. I can understand why you would believe that the OWS movement is not grass roots in origin. I believe the same about the Tea Party movement, so you and I are pretty much in agreement there.
8. I know that President Obama hangs out with big money donors, and I don't like it any more than I like it when GOP leaders do the same.
9, I for one don't look to the government to cure the ills of society. I don't know anyone who believes that. Why do you say that? That's hyperbole, don't you think? But I DO think that government has a role, and it is this role that is debatable now like it has been since the 1700s.
10. If you were omnipotent and could start from scratch, how would you craft a plan for access to health care and the payment for same? How would dialysis be paid for in Hemodocland? For obvious reasons, I am very concerned about access to healthcare in this country. Do you know what sort of plan the GOP has for, say, people with catastrophic illness and/or pre-existing conditions? Do you think that all people have a right to access healthcare in this country? When you use the term "socialized medicine" (as in the socialization of ESRD by CMS), what exactly do you mean? How do you define "socialized medicine"?
Dear Moosemom,
Let's start with the Bible and slavery issue. Yes, it is reported that some used the Bible as justification for slavery. Those people were dumb, ignorant and evil, plain and simply and did not follow the tenants of the Bible at all. How about all the cults that use the Bible erroneously as well, that is not a failure of the Bible. Indeed, if you want to hear a slave traders story, how about listening to the story of John Newton and you might want to listen to his song as well. You already know the song even if you might not recognize his name. There is something called repentance. His story is that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvB4xmtMD3c&feature=related
http://www.anointedlinks.com/amazing_grace.html
You asked what God will do to Kent Thiery, the answer is that whatever happens here and now, Kent like every man that has walked this earth will stand before God and give account of everything that they have done in their body whether good or bad. That is what we shall all do likewise. CEO's in the past were motivated by this date with destiny, but too few folks believe in any of the Bible teachings to think of these things. Yet, God shall judge all things and all people.
The Tea Party movement is an example of lawful assembly and protest. The occupy movement is an example of anarchy and lawlessness. I believe that the Oakland police are in a big battle with them as we speak. Anarchy or lawful protest, you pick. The Tea Party simply wants to end the corruption of congress by restoring our original principles in a Godly manner. Nothing evil about that at all, but many will call their good evil. Since the senate also has an amazingly low rating and very few Tea Party Members, is that blamed on the Tea Party as well. So far you keep demonizing conservatives. Why would that be? Did you hear that on MSNBC or Keith Olberman?
As far as regulations, because God did create man and the earth we live in, those that refuse to live in obedience to His grace and mercy shall be given over to those that will rule over them by oppression. Just watch what happens to America as it drifts further and further away from God and curses Him outright. As God turns His back on us, just see how much you enjoy a godless America. Good luck is all I can say. I would rather enjoy the blessings and freedoms of living a godly life instead of having every Tom Dick and Harry tell me how to cut my lawn, water my lawn and how to flush my toilet. Sorry, I prefer the first choice.
The healthcare system that is best to emulate would be that of Sweden which has non-profit health care with private corporations that compete for the healthcare monies. Not sure if you would consider that a perfect system, but much better than what we have today. In addition, those that are integrated offer the best coordinated care and cost savings. Once again, the Kaiser model. Not a perfect system, but better than anything else I have used while a dialysis patient.
Now, how would you do these things. I have submitted to a whole bunch of questions, I have listened to demonizations of conservatives as racially motivated, lacking compassion and a whole bunch of other demonizing qualities on the news and by late night comedians, how will you fix these things? Once again, I have answered a whole bunch of questions, how are you folks going to fix all of this mess?
-
1. I will pick the anarchical protest of Wall Street's greedy behavior and of the oligarchical path we are taking above the "lawful" protest of a group that seeks to divide the "us" from the "them".
I am not demonizing conservatives, but I will demonize Tea Partiers. I have seen too many of them screaming with disrespect and marching with racist signs. It may be legal, but that doesn't make what they say any more moral or true. Once they start behaving with more respect, and once they lose the posters showing President Obama with a bone through his nose, perhaps I will then change my mind. I don't like the politics of resentment and hate. You find it hard to look past the lawlessness, and I understand that as I find it hard to look past the hatred.
There are more Tea Partiers in the House than I would like, and I'd bet you the north forty that Speaker Boehner agrees.
2. It is not just "reported" that the Bible was used to justify slavery. Political leaders in the Deep South were happy to point out that slavery was never denounced by the Son of God in His documented teachings. Indeed, the Baptist and the Methodist faiths were split into northern and southern factions because the southerners preached that Africans were descended from Ham, who was condemned to serve his white masters. The same type of justification was used in the obliteration of the Native American populations.
But these people were not "dumb". No, far from it. In fact, they decried hard work because they founded their society upon classical Greek thinking. Hard work was for the slaves to tend to why they used their time in finer pursuits. These were the aristocrats of America, the most educated and learned thinkers, but they were blind to the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people. These men were not about to "repent". Instead, they duped the population into thinking that their "way of life" was under threat. Where have we heard THAT before? They dragged this nation into the bloodiest conflicts this nation has ever seen. But they were convinced that they were entitled by God. But God had His hand in destroying their way of life after all, didn't He. Slavery is no more. Yes, God did speak to these men, but He did not say what they expected to hear.
3. To answer some of your questions, I agree with you in that I'd look seriously at other health care models, ie the Swedish model. I'd also look closely at how they do things in France. But I wouldn't be allowed to say this in public because we cannot be seen to "Europeanize" America, right? The Tea Partiers might not like that.
4. I would take the money out of politics and declare that if you want "freedom of speech", write a damn letter. I would outlaw financial political contributions of any kind and I would refute the claim that such contributions amounted to "freedom of speech". With the prevalence of social media, politicans can use that to get their messages across. No more superPacs, no more TV ads for any candidate.
5. I would outlaw the public advertisement of prescription drugs. The US is one of the few countries that allow this, and this is how Big Pharma creates demand out of thin air.
6. I would remove the onus of providing access to health care from employers. Your access to health care should not be dependent upon your employment status. I would set up a health care fund for people to draw upon if they are diagnosed with a catastrophic illness such as ESRD. I don't understand why we insist upon the status quo when we claim to care so much about creating a pro-business environment. I don't understand why President Obama is being accused of being "anti-business" when he has tried so hard to take this particular burden off the shoulders of businesses.
7. I would work hard to craft a quick path to citizenship for those who are here illegally because I think we need as broad a tax base as possible.
I have lots of other ideas, but I'll start with these.
-
I haven't read all of the above following my post but I have read enough to see that my words are being twisted to mean something else. I deal with that on another forum. I will not post on this thread any longer.
Gerald Lively
-
1. I will pick the anarchical protest of Wall Street's greedy behavior and of the oligarchical path we are taking above the "lawful" protest of a group that seeks to divide the "us" from the "them".
I am not demonizing conservatives, but I will demonize Tea Partiers. I have seen too many of them screaming with disrespect and marching with racist signs. It may be legal, but that doesn't make what they say any more moral or true. Once they start behaving with more respect, and once they lose the posters showing President Obama with a bone through his nose, perhaps I will then change my mind. I don't like the politics of resentment and hate. You find it hard to look past the lawlessness, and I understand that as I find it hard to look past the hatred.
There are more Tea Partiers in the House than I would like, and I'd bet you the north forty that Speaker Boehner agrees.
2. It is not just "reported" that the Bible was used to justify slavery. Political leaders in the Deep South were happy to point out that slavery was never denounced by the Son of God in His documented teachings. Indeed, the Baptist and the Methodist faiths were split into northern and southern factions because the southerners preached that Africans were descended from Ham, who was condemned to serve his white masters. The same type of justification was used in the obliteration of the Native American populations.
But these people were not "dumb". No, far from it. In fact, they decried hard work because they founded their society upon classical Greek thinking. Hard work was for the slaves to tend to why they used their time in finer pursuits. These were the aristocrats of America, the most educated and learned thinkers, but they were blind to the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people. These men were not about to "repent". Instead, they duped the population into thinking that their "way of life" was under threat. Where have we heard THAT before? They dragged this nation into the bloodiest conflicts this nation has ever seen. But they were convinced that they were entitled by God. But God had His hand in destroying their way of life after all, didn't He. Slavery is no more. Yes, God did speak to these men, but He did not say what they expected to hear.
3. To answer some of your questions, I agree with you in that I'd look seriously at other health care models, ie the Swedish model. I'd also look closely at how they do things in France. But I wouldn't be allowed to say this in public because we cannot be seen to "Europeanize" America, right? The Tea Partiers might not like that.
4. I would take the money out of politics and declare that if you want "freedom of speech", write a damn letter. I would outlaw financial political contributions of any kind and I would refute the claim that such contributions amounted to "freedom of speech". With the prevalence of social media, politicans can use that to get their messages across. No more superPacs, no more TV ads for any candidate.
5. I would outlaw the public advertisement of prescription drugs. The US is one of the few countries that allow this, and this is how Big Pharma creates demand out of thin air.
6. I would remove the onus of providing access to health care from employers. Your access to health care should not be dependent upon your employment status. I would set up a health care fund for people to draw upon if they are diagnosed with a catastrophic illness such as ESRD. I don't understand why we insist upon the status quo when we claim to care so much about creating a pro-business environment. I don't understand why President Obama is being accused of being "anti-business" when he has tried so hard to take this particular burden off the shoulders of businesses.
7. I would work hard to craft a quick path to citizenship for those who are here illegally because I think we need as broad a tax base as possible.
I have lots of other ideas, but I'll start with these.
Oh give me a break Moosemom. The word slavery is not in the King James Bible and the word slave appears only once in the old testament. In the New Testament, Paul addresses Philemon, a man saved by Paul's preaching and a slave of his named Onesimum who ran away to follow Paul. Paul reminded Philemon of what Philemon owed Paul by virtue of learning of the faith of Christ. He commanded Onesimus to return to his master but when Paul was in Rome, who do you think was there with him, yup Onesimus. Here is an example of where the gospel of Christ freed a slave. Please, if you are going to make an accusation against my Lord and saviour like that, please show me where, anywhere Jesus ever supported slavery. The people in the south were cruel, evil and wicked. Go learn more about John Newton and then come back and we will talk about the wickedness of slavery and all those of true Christian faith who opposed it all along. You truly amaze me at times in the outright demonization of people like me. So please, be very careful what you attribute to Jesus Christ. You are plain and simply wrong.
Let's go and listen to Chuck Schumer and how they demonize the Tea Party folks through a concerted and planned effort at the highest levels of the Democratic party. I guess no one listens to the book 1984 with the caucus instructing Schumer and what to say. Mind control through words. Shucks, that could never happen could it?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4616225/fallout-over-sen-schumers-open-mic-gaffe/
So, really, if you are going to continue to demonize and spout talking point propaganda, what shall be any semblance of a conversation. I am a conservative, willing to speak in a very liberal political thread. If you wish to learn from my experience please do so, but so far all I have heard is just unbelievable platitudes.
Folks this nation is in extreme trouble that will undergo draconian changes simply because folks have lossed the ability to listen and learn from each other. Good grief, do we have to fight the civil war all over again just to discuss GOP polititic. WOW.
-
Dear Moosemom,
Here is the latest on your Occupy movement. Is this really something that you support and appaud?
(CNN) -- Occupy activists tossed pipes, bottles, burning flares and other objects Saturday at Oakland police, who responded by using tear gas and smoke grenades and arresting more than 100 demonstrators, city and police officials said.
Oakland has been a flash point of the Occupy movement since October when police used tear gas to break up demonstrators who refused to leave downtown. One demonstrator, a Marine veteran of the war in Iraq, suffered a skull fracture after being hit with a police projectile, according to a veteran's group. Police said they acted after the crowd threw paint and other objects at officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/us/california-occupy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
This is NOT civil protest, this is anarchy. Is that what you folks want? You demonize the Tea Party folks that simply want congress to follow the laws of this land and respect the constitution which gave us our liberties and protections and you call them draconian and extreme. What do you call these lawless anachists in Oakland?
-
Oh give me a break Moosemom. The word slavery is not in the King James Bible and the word slave appears only once in the old testament. In the New Testament, Paul addresses Philemon, a man saved by Paul's preaching and a slave of his named Onesimum who ran away to follow Paul. Paul reminded Philemon of what Philemon owed Paul by virtue of learning of the faith of Christ. He commanded Onesimus to return to his master but when Paul was in Rome, who do you think was there with him, yup Onesimus. Here is an example of where the gospel of Christ freed a slave. Please, if you are going to make an accusation against my Lord and saviour like that, please show me where, anywhere Jesus ever supported slavery. The people in the south were cruel, evil and wicked. Go learn more about John Newton and then come back and we will talk about the wickedness of slavery and all those of true Christian faith who opposed it all along. You truly amaze me at times in the outright demonization of people like me. So please, be very careful what you attribute to Jesus Christ. You are plain and simply wrong.
Once again, Hemodoc, I am not demonizing "people like you." I'm not even sure what that means. And I am not making an accusation against God that He supported slavery. Quite the contrary. It was the slave lords of the Deep South that interpreted Jesus' lack of outright condemnation of slavery as praise for it. They did not stop to think that Jesus just might not have been happy with their disgusting, evil treatment of another human being. Remember, these slaveholders didn't even think that slaves had a soul. As you said, "we will talk about the wickedness of slavery and all those of TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH WHO OPPOSED IT ALL ALONG." Well you see, those slave lords in the Deep South believed that THEIRS was "the true Christian faith", and they distorted the word of Jesus Christ to justify their inhumanity. Far from demonizing you, I am agreeing with you that true Christians never attributed the glorification of slavery to Jesus Christ. But I am also pointing out that just because an evil man claims to be Christian doesn't make him so if he in fact enslaves another human being.
So, really, if you are going to continue to demonize and spout talking point propaganda, what shall be any semblance of a conversation. I am a conservative, willing to speak in a very liberal political thread. If you wish to learn from my experience please do so, but so far all I have heard is just unbelievable platitudes.
Folks this nation is in extreme trouble that will undergo draconian changes simply because folks have lossed the ability to listen and learn from each other. Good grief, do we have to fight the civil war all over again just to discuss GOP polititic. WOW.
I appreciate your willingness to speak in a "liberal political thread". That's one of the things I like about you. And I am trying very hard, as always, to listen to your point of view. I make it a point to listen and learn from you. I do not feel the need to fight the civil war all over again, but since you mourn the unwillingness of people today to live in a godly manner, I would like to make the point that our history is littered with people who believed they were living in a godly manner as they were enslaving one population and destroying another, so maybe we should be very careful when we define what it is to live in a "godly manner." Since you are a man of faith, I submit that it would be a good thing if those in government and those in power, political or financial, would heed the word of God and behave in ways that benefit us. Is this sentiment an "unbelievable platitude"?
-
Dear Moosemom,
Here is the latest on your Occupy movement. Is this really something that you support and appaud?
(CNN) -- Occupy activists tossed pipes, bottles, burning flares and other objects Saturday at Oakland police, who responded by using tear gas and smoke grenades and arresting more than 100 demonstrators, city and police officials said.
Oakland has been a flash point of the Occupy movement since October when police used tear gas to break up demonstrators who refused to leave downtown. One demonstrator, a Marine veteran of the war in Iraq, suffered a skull fracture after being hit with a police projectile, according to a veteran's group. Police said they acted after the crowd threw paint and other objects at officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/us/california-occupy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
This is NOT civil protest, this is anarchy. Is that what you folks want? You demonize the Tea Party folks that simply want congress to follow the laws of this land and respect the constitution which gave us our liberties and protections and you call them draconian and extreme. What do you call these lawless anachists in Oakland?
No, I do not support this behaviour, just as I do not support the racist and disrespectful posters and chants spewed forth by some of the Tea Party supporters. But I do not intend to ignore the message just because I abhor the hangers on in both groups who are more interested in causing trouble or venting their racist hatred than in speaking up about what they feel is right. I am more than happy to decry the violence and otherwise daft behaviour of any OWS protester, but are you happy to do the same about the racism and disgusting disrespect shown by some TPs to our democratically elected President?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html
How could you possibly support these people? You claim that we have lost the ability for civil discourse. You are so right, and here is the evidence. You stand by these people and their blatant racist disrespect? Or are you going to hide behind the "first amendment rights" argument? No, I refuse to believe that of you. I have more faith in you than that.
-
Well, maybe making a little bit of progress. No, not everyone that calls Him Lord shall be with Him.
Matthew 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The Lord knows those that are His.
What it is to live in a godly manner is found right after this passage:
Matthew 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
You will not condone slavery by hearing and doing the sayings of Jesus. Those that will ungodly amongst God's church shall find the worst condemnation:
Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . .
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
-
Well, maybe making a little bit of progress. No, not everyone that calls Him Lord shall be with Him.
Matthew 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The Lord knows those that are His.
Exactly.
What it is to live in a godly manner is found right after this passage:
Matthew 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
You will not condone slavery by hearing and doing the sayings of Jesus. Those that will ungodly amongst God's church shall find the worst condemnation:
Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . .
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
So my philosophical question would be...if bodies such as, say, our federal government, large dialysis providers and CMS were to act in a godly manner, what do you think that would look like?
-
Dear Moosemom,
Here is the latest on your Occupy movement. Is this really something that you support and appaud?
(CNN) -- Occupy activists tossed pipes, bottles, burning flares and other objects Saturday at Oakland police, who responded by using tear gas and smoke grenades and arresting more than 100 demonstrators, city and police officials said.
Oakland has been a flash point of the Occupy movement since October when police used tear gas to break up demonstrators who refused to leave downtown. One demonstrator, a Marine veteran of the war in Iraq, suffered a skull fracture after being hit with a police projectile, according to a veteran's group. Police said they acted after the crowd threw paint and other objects at officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/us/california-occupy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
This is NOT civil protest, this is anarchy. Is that what you folks want? You demonize the Tea Party folks that simply want congress to follow the laws of this land and respect the constitution which gave us our liberties and protections and you call them draconian and extreme. What do you call these lawless anachists in Oakland?
No, I do not support this behaviour, just as I do not support the racist and disrespectful posters and chants spewed forth by some of the Tea Party supporters. But I do not intend to ignore the message just because I abhor the hangers on in both groups who are more interested in causing trouble or venting their racist hatred than in speaking up about what they feel is right. I am more than happy to decry the violence and otherwise daft behaviour of any OWS protester, but are you happy to do the same about the racism and disgusting disrespect shown by some TPs to our democratically elected President?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html
How could you possibly support these people? You claim that we have lost the ability for civil discourse. You are so right, and here is the evidence. You stand by these people and their blatant racist disrespect? Or are you going to hide behind the "first amendment rights" argument? No, I refuse to believe that of you. I have more faith in you than that.
Oh give me a break again. Back to the racist Tea Party accusations that got me into this thread in the first place. I thought we were making progress, but I guess we haven't made any progress at all. Hermain Cain if he had his moral house in order would likely be leader of the pack at this time with his ability to motivate and articulate. If you didn't notice, he is a black man and he has defended the false allegations of racism against the Tea Party. Here is a statement from Black conservatives who make up part of the Tea Party. One of the greatest interviews I ever heard was some idiot who called into Herman Cain's radio show to rant about the Tea Party racism and didn't even know Cain is a black man.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-TeaParty_030411.html
I guess you haven't seen the fake Tea Party candidates that the DEMs put forth and are now being prosecuted for. Moosemom, take a look at the deliberate smear campaign against the regular Joe Six Pack that just is asking for a government to be honest and abide by its own laws. You truly have a very distorted view of the Tea Party movement. Absolutely distorted. Not sure I can correct that since we are right back to square one with accusations of racism. This is where we started a few days ago Moosemom.
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/17/dems_tea_party_charges/singleton/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40699.html
Moosemom, let me show the real face of Tea Party people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBIc7FeUA
Listen to that clip with a whole bunch of white folks who came to a listen to a black talk about how to recover America and ended in that manner. That Moosemom IS the Tea Party movement. I fear that you have no clue to what it is that motivate Tea Party people like me because you have filled your mind with so much propaganda driven brainwashing about us that you simply have no clue the pure and simple motivations of me a Tea Party Supporter. i will let the last man singing be my answer to you now and in the future. The next time you come up with some absurd Tea Party accusation, I will answer you again and again with that clip until you at least understant what motivates us. Not asking you to agree, but only to understand which I am afraid you have a LOOOONNNNNGGG way to go.
-
Well, maybe making a little bit of progress. No, not everyone that calls Him Lord shall be with Him.
Matthew 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The Lord knows those that are His.
Exactly.
What it is to live in a godly manner is found right after this passage:
Matthew 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
You will not condone slavery by hearing and doing the sayings of Jesus. Those that will ungodly amongst God's church shall find the worst condemnation:
Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . .
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
So my philosophical question would be...if bodies such as, say, our federal government, large dialysis providers and CMS were to act in a godly manner, what do you think that would look like?
Like Scribner.
-
OK, I understand your claim that there is no racism underpinning this hatred for our President. In fairness, would you be so kind as to read this article and at least try to imagine why some might think you are wrong? Could you perhaps be fair enough to look at the tea party from a different perspective? It may not be YOUR perspective, but that doesn't make it invalid. Just be fair and read this; tell me why the author's observations are wrong.
Thank you for your time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/02/race_and_the_tea_partys_ire_107805.html
That's it for me tonight. Thanks for another interesting few hours of discussion! I'm going to lollygag in bed and watch the men's final at the Australian Open. I've been sleep deprived for days because of the tennis! Good night!
-
OK, I understand your claim that there is no racism underpinning this hatred for our President. In fairness, would you be so kind as to read this article and at least try to imagine why some might think you are wrong? Could you perhaps be fair enough to look at the tea party from a different perspective? It may not be YOUR perspective, but that doesn't make it invalid. Just be fair and read this; tell me why the author's observations are wrong.
Thank you for your time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/02/race_and_the_tea_partys_ire_107805.html
You already know the answer, you have stated in prior comments that the GOP is not happy with the Tea Party. Neither is the Tea Party happy with the GOP but they are the only conservative game in town. Yes, take it back under a representative government and clean out the corruption and cronyism that polutes this nation. Is it a long shot, you bet. Is it something we should do? You bet.
I have spent a LOT of time with veterans while on active duty and since having a bunch in my medical practice. There are millions of Americans who have willingly sacrificed for this nation in military service willing to give their life for an idea: freedom. That is real. All of us that entered the military swore an oath to defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. We need to do some more work on the domestic enemies of the constitution who wish to destroy that which many have given freely their lives. We need to understand this in America since it is about to dry up and blow away in an apathetic, gimme, gimme new generation of people who know nothing of sacrifice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL1RtJFqBRw
-
Here is where the race will focus once the GOP primaries are over. It will all be about Obama and his trail of broken promises. How about his promise to control the debt. What happened with that one?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/30/as-debt-ceiling-skyrockets-obama-no-longer-calling-bush-increases-unpatriotic/
-
What do you all think about the timbre of the GOP race? I can't remember much about the Obama/Clinton race (I wasn't well during that period of time), but I do remember people being generally horrified when Mr. Obama made some sort of remark to Hillary about her being "likeable enough"....remember that? And I do remember her saying to him "Shame on You!!" ,and the media went nuts. Everyone was talking about this being such a bitter race, etc. And I guess it was...4 years ago.
Am I misremembering things, or would we be correct in saying that this GOP race is particularly nasty? I think it is. Now, I don't think it's a function of Democrats being nicer than Republicans or anything like that. I suspect that it is either a function of the new powerful superPacs, or maybe it is the media creating more friction and conflict for ratings sake, or (and this is my personal opinion) it could be because Newt Gingrich is fundamentally not a very nice man. LOL! (See...no name calling! haha!)
What do y'all think? And do you think that the bitterness will continue and worsen? What do you all predict?
-
What do you all think about the timbre of the GOP race? I can't remember much about the Obama/Clinton race (I wasn't well during that period of time), but I do remember people being generally horrified when Mr. Obama made some sort of remark to Hillary about her being "likeable enough"....remember that? And I do remember her saying to him "Shame on You!!" ,and the media went nuts. Everyone was talking about this being such a bitter race, etc. And I guess it was...4 years ago.
Am I misremembering things, or would we be correct in saying that this GOP race is particularly nasty? I think it is. Now, I don't think it's a function of Democrats being nicer than Republicans or anything like that. I suspect that it is either a function of the new powerful superPacs, or maybe it is the media creating more friction and conflict for ratings sake, or (and this is my personal opinion) it could be because Newt Gingrich is fundamentally not a very nice man. LOL! (See...no name calling! haha!)
What do y'all think? And do you think that the bitterness will continue and worsen? What do you all predict?
I think the GOP race will rap up soon. Romney did appear presidential in his address today and did not even give much time to Gingrich at all. Gingrich is showing that he is quite profane and that will turn off anyone that supports him after a while. Romney is saying all the right things tonight from GOP point of view. Gingrich has isolated himself with his spiteful attacks while in the house and on this campaign. The majority of the "evangelical" vote is predominantly protestant or Baptist (no they are not the same) so the idea that they would prefer a Catholic candidate over a Mormon candidate makes no sense to me. Besides that, Bush kept claiming to be a born again Christian, but geez, I have a real hard time finding the fruits of Christianity in his actions, oh well, only God knows, but I wasn't impressed to say the least. I am actually quite skeptical of a lot of politicians who claim to be born again Christians. I don't know Ron Pauls spiritual status, but if he said he was a born again Christian, I would believe it because he is a man of conviction and integrity. I will have to look that one up to see. No matter what you think of his politics, much of which I don't agree, he appears honest, not after filthy lucre and has a genuine concern for this nation. I believe that is real. Bush, not convinced at this point, but that is between him and God.
In any case, good question, I think the GOP race was essentially decided tonight and people are going to start lining up behind Romney. If nothing else, his wife has a much better testimony than Newt's third wife and would be a much better representative of the people than a person who appears to be a social climber. With her disability from MS, Mrs Romney could be an important ally for dialysis patients.
In any case, good question Moosemom. It is late and I have to drive to LA for an iron infusion tomorrow. I hate going to LA but that is my only option for a one time infusion that will last me several months. Almost one year since my last one and my iron is REALLY low right now, less than 15% sat. Been a bit of a zombie lately.
Have a good night.
God bless,
Peter
-
One of my husband's colleagues has a wife who has MS, and she suffers quite badly from it. She is an executive at Sears, and she is going to have to decide soon whether or not to leave her job as the stress exacerbates her symptoms. They have a teen aged boy and a new baby, so her stress levels must be stratospheric. She has been hospitalized several times lately with severe headaches. It doesn't seem that Mrs. Romney is nearly this badly affected, so I don't feel quite so bad in agreeing that her own experience with chonic illness might serve us well. I hope that doesn't sound too mercenary.
I tend to agree with you about Mr. Romney. I always expected Speaker Gingrich (see, I'm trying to be respectful!) would self distruct sooner or later.
I agree that Ron Paul does seem to have the courage of his convictions, and I admire that mightily. I am not aware of him claiming to be a born again Christian as he does seem to steer clear of that topic.
I trust you will not be driving yourself to LA as that is not a good idea if you are a zombie. Zombies are notoriously bad drivers. I hope you get to feeling better soon. Not much going on politically in Feb, but you must return to feeling super for Super Tuesday! I would be interested to know how much time usually elapses between you getting an iron infusion and you feeling better.
Take care,
MM
-
I was for Bush the first term and was quite ready for him to leave by the end of his 2nd term, literally. But I will say this to his shagren, that when he won the first election he was late on getting on board because of the Hanging Chad's Debocale in Fla. Then when he got in there he had to restructure everything, but then Boom, 911 happened, and he had to be in a total Different mindset.
He really hadnt had time to get his whole staff in place! Clinton (whom I voted in the first term) had shut down alot of our military bases and downsized the spending for the Defense budget. I mean, looking back at it, Bush wasn't really given the opportunity to show the american people of the President he Wanted to be due to 911. And he should have gone to Afhganistan instead of Iraq, but with the intellegence he was given, he went with what HE thought was right at that time. Over time, we will soon find out whether that was a good decision or not. I also know, that God has a plan, and we all are in it whether we want it or not.
I remember he was the only president whom ever sent me money calling it "Tax Rebate" I think! Then when 911 happened, I just trully believe, thank goodness, he had to go on the defensive. But I do believe he was given bad information from CIA & FBi and whoever else. But we must also remember, Clinton had cut that back too. No body was communicating with anybody at that time. So Bush really did the best he could do with what he had. I do also feel that the war went on way too long and Ben Laden should have been found alot sooner! But then again, that wasnt Bushes fault, that was the intelligence we had at that time.
I do believe Bush tried the best he could starting out, but he, like the rest of us believer's, fell so short. I think he wishes he had done things somewhat differently, but 911, I loved his responses, and backed him 100%. He was there for us all when those towers fell, and often wonder, had Al Gore been in office, what he would have done? One never knows. But I do believe Bush to be a Christian. Like me, he just fell from grace, but bounces back to reality!
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
Am I misremembering things, or would we be correct in saying that this GOP race is particularly nasty? I think it is. Now, I don't think it's a function of Democrats being nicer than Republicans or anything like that. I suspect that it is either a function of the new powerful superPacs, or maybe it is the media creating more friction and conflict for ratings sake, or (and this is my personal opinion) it could be because Newt Gingrich is fundamentally not a very nice man. LOL! (See...no name calling! haha!)
What do y'all think? And do you think that the bitterness will continue and worsen? What do you all predict?
I don't think this race is any nastier than any other race. Remember when Clinton made the offhand suggestion that someone might assassinate a President Obama? Or when George Bush Sr. called Reagan's economic policies "voodoo economics?" In the end, the Republicans will rally behind Mitt Romney and all this ugliness will be forgotten.
-
Dear Moosemom,
Here is the latest on your Occupy movement. Is this really something that you support and appaud?
(CNN) -- Occupy activists tossed pipes, bottles, burning flares and other objects Saturday at Oakland police, who responded by using tear gas and smoke grenades and arresting more than 100 demonstrators, city and police officials said.
Oakland has been a flash point of the Occupy movement since October when police used tear gas to break up demonstrators who refused to leave downtown. One demonstrator, a Marine veteran of the war in Iraq, suffered a skull fracture after being hit with a police projectile, according to a veteran's group. Police said they acted after the crowd threw paint and other objects at officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/us/california-occupy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
This is NOT civil protest, this is anarchy. Is that what you folks want? You demonize the Tea Party folks that simply want congress to follow the laws of this land and respect the constitution which gave us our liberties and protections and you call them draconian and extreme. What do you call these lawless anachists in Oakland?
It would be easier to take the tea party at their word if they had they been around during the Bush administration while we were amassing record debt and watching our civil liberties erode.
The Occupy protesters want money out of politics. The tea party should be embracing that.
-
I do believe Bush tried the best he could starting out, but he, like the rest of us believer's, fell so short. I think he wishes he had done things somewhat differently, but 911, I loved his responses, and backed him 100%. He was there for us all when those towers fell, and often wonder, had Al Gore been in office, what he would have done? One never knows.
True, one can never know for sure, but I do believe Gore would have listened to Clinton's administration in August 2001 and 9/11 would never have happened. That is not to say that terrorists would not have eventually found inroads and done something destructive, but we would not be calling it 9/11 because it would have been delayed and taken a different form.
I also feel in no way, shape or form was Bush 'there for me'. Ick. His immediate response was to continue to read a children's book rather than politely excuse himself and deal with the crisis. The man is dumber than dirt. The name of the children's book I've often thought would make a great trivia question. Anyone? I know what it is because I have tried to think of decent questions for those rare occasions when I win that game.
-
I disagree about Gore. I believe his response to 911 would be for everyone to "Hug A Tree"! After all, He did invent the "Internet". What a joke! Yea, Cariad, guess we will never know! He was Senator for my state and did NOTHING productive! I highly doubt the Presidency would have made any difference. He certainly didn't do much when Vice-President. His father, on the other hand, did have some backbone.
He came to my fathers aide in 1969 when one of my brothers was blown up by a land mine in Viet Nam. Dad was having a hard time getting the paperwork up to go over seas to a hospital in Japan to see his son. Gore Sr. made it happen.
I believe Obama is a good family man, but I do not believe he is a leader. A motivational speaker, Yes! But I just don't see where he has done anything that WOW's me. But I do believe he loves his family and is a good father! I doubt that I can convince any of you who support him to change your mind, just as my mind probably will not be change either!
Im sure some on here would agree with me about how he handled 9/11. He was shocked! It certainly shocked me. I couldn't say how I would react if I were in his shoes.
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
HemoDoc:
Let us not argue, discuss or debate. Just let us know where you stand:
1. Do you support the idea of Universal Healthcare for all citizens?
2. Do you wish to see Medicare continued?
3. Do you wish to see Social Security continued at the present level of benefits?
4. Do you agree that we should be in Afghanistan fighting “a” war there?
5. Should the defense budget be reduced?
6. Do you agree with the Buffett rule that those earning over $1 million should be taxed at 30%?
7. Shall we abolish the Patriot Act?
Gerald
-
1. Do you support the idea of Universal Healthcare for all citizens?
Answer: Not in the form of Obamacare. The majority of Americans, I believe 85-90% were already satisfied with their private health care plans. We are talking about taking a sledge hammer to a problem. For those LIKE ME who can afford to pay for my own health insurance, why should the government pay for my health care and at the same reduce my choices. What we are talking about is what to do with the 10-15% with poor access to healthcare.
I would point out, my wife comes from a country where there is no health insurance, no social security and no safety net whatsoever, the Philippines. Over there, if you are homeless, well you can get a cardboard box and live in it or you can die. Americans are spoiled to no end and fail to understand that EVERY person who walks through an emergency room door WILL be treated no questions asked period. In such, we already have universal health care today for all emergency and urgent matters. The underinsured costs are subsidized by the insured patient and that is why a band aide in the hospital can cost $100.
The majority of the 10-15% that have no insurance or are under insured have access to Medicaid and other state and Federal programs.
So, which percentage of universal health coverage do you wish to talk about?
Sweden has a universal health law requiring all citizens to buy health insurance. All health providers are non-profit and compete for members in privately owned health plans. There are constitutional issues with the individual mandate, but if that is upheld, throw the heavy handed Obamacare out the door with their terrible government control of individual health decisions and put in the Swedish model.
Otherwise, fix the problem of the 10-15% and let everyone else that can buy and afford their own health care to compete in a free open market. A socialized medical system like the NHS is completely obnoxious to me as a patient and as a physician being the place to make medical decisions, not in congress or parliament like the NHS is today.
After seeing how messed up the ESRD program is and having to lobby congress and CMS to make changes to dialysis that we should never have entered into and instead kept the protocols worked out by the dialysis pioneers such as thrice weekly nocturnal home dialysis as the gold standard treatment. The ESRD program in my mind is the pure example of why socialized medicine fails in the long run. Sure, everyone gets treated, but EVERYONE gets sold short with a median survival of 36-38 months.
I have spoken with several in the industry and they keep telling me the biggest problem with dialysis outcomes in America is in the reimbursement structure of CMS. I have spoken to these leaders that have lobbied CMS to change the system allowing incentives for keeping people out of the hospital and rewarding nephrologists in that type system. To date, CMS and congress shrug their shoulders and do nothing. Once again, it is the prime example of what happens when you have to literally get an act of congress to approve a medical treatment. Truly stupid system in my opinion.
The nephrologists continue to debate the merits of daily and extended dialysis regimens. If CMS and congress changed the reimbursement and gave bonuses for keeping patients alive and out of the hospital which would result in huge cost savings, the American nephrologist would immediately embrace optimal dialysis practices and you would no longer feel like a train wreck every time you come home from dialysis.
I jut got my iron infusion today on the 5th anniversary of starting dialysis on 2-1-2007. It is about 5 hours since my session ended. I ran at 350 blood flow, 500 ml ultrafiltration which is pretty usual for me. Yet, leaving the unit, I got my endotoxin rush, a headache and feeling lousy until I just ate a sugary pecan pie a few minutes ago. With NxStage, they have ultra-pure dialysate so I never get the butterfly feeling in my gut I always get with in-center dialysis that has a much higher endotoxin concentration in the dialysate. (Endotoxins are bacteria cell walls that are metabolically active even after the bacteria are dead) They won't let me do iron infusions at home, so I still have to submit to this torment about once a year or so. Europe and other nations have much more stringent standards.
To change the endotoxin standards in America, we will need an act of congress. Endotoxins I am sure contribute to your run over by a truck feeling.
So, no, I oppose the heavy handed Obamacare approach on many levels. Should we care for all those in need, absolutely.
My colleagues in OB/GYN had to take panel patients (the uninsured) on a regular basis. It was demanding, it was very unappreciated work at high risk with essentially no compensation for their efforts. They have an 18 year tail in their malpractice since a malpractice lawsuit in OB care can be filed up until the child is 18 years old. I heard nothing but complaints over and over again by my colleagues of the number of times these people getting free care threatened to sue or did sue for trivial matters. My colleagues were the highest level of care in the Valley with several of them very prominent medical school professors publishing papers all the time. It was high quality care that many of these people were completely ungrateful.
Obviously there were many who were grateful, but too many were simply sources of aggravation and danger to my colleagues. Just as many people that abuse the section 8 housing like the family that lived 3 doors over from us, had about 25 people in a house meant for 4-6 people, sold drugs in front of my house, committed burglaries, gang activity, had fights almost daily in front of my house at the end of school across the street and violated just about every HUD regulation in the book. Did the Feds, State, County or town do anything to remedy this serious criminal infringement upon the life of my neighborhood for over 4 years? NO NOT ONE DAMN TIME. The only thing that saved our neighborhood was the housing crises and the owner foreclosed. The bank sold the house and that was the only reprieve we had. One section 8 house filled with criminal activity by people who abused the system and government did nothing in fulfillment of their mandated regulatory oversight no matter how many of the thugs were arrested, no matter how many violations such as their pit bill attacking a severely injuring a man, his wife and two kids just walking down the road. Even with that, the government took NO ACTION.
So, would I trust the Feds with my health care to manage like they manage HUD. Absolutely not my friend. The closest I would accept is the Swedish mandate and non-profit private companies that compete for patients with a government sponsored insurance for those that couldn't afford it.
2. Do you wish to see Medicare continued?
Answer: Yes. So why has Obama gutted Medicare to pay for Obamacare to the tune of 500 billion dollars? If he is reelected, Medicare will be replaced with Obamacare for everyone. Obamacare is only a stepping stone to a national health system like the Brits. He has so stated.
3. Do you wish to see Social Security continued at the present level of benefits?
Yes. Make the govnt' quit stealing from the trust fund and it will work fine. Increase LEGAL immigration if we don't have enough American born workers to support the system.
4. Do you agree that we should be in Afghanistan fighting “a” war there?
Time to get out.
5. Should the defense budget be reduced?
No, there are many other nations building huge armies and navies today: Iran and China to name two that are not countries that we would want to have more power than we do.
6. Do you agree with the Buffett rule that those earning over $1 million should be taxed at 30%?
No. I paid 35% and I didn't earn anywhere near 1 million dollars. You are not separating the facts. Many of those that earn over a million dollars do it with capital gains which has a 15% rate. The tax the rich, I am going to pay your mortgage is a dangerous class warfare that will not do this nation any good at all. If you want to tax capital gains at a higher rate, that is not smart for employment of folks like you and me looking to put food on the table. Obama now has I believe 42 million on food stamps in 3 years. It was 28 million under Bush. Is that your idea of prosperity?
As far as income tax, those folks are already at 35% just like me. Buffet I am sure is making a whole lot of money in govn't contracts with Obama for his weird ideas that are only blatant propaganda. If he wants to donate money to the govn't, good for him. Not my choice. If he wants to talk about capital gains taxes, that is a separate issue from income tax. Don't conflate the two issues.
7. Shall we abolish the Patriot Act?
Yes and throw in the NDAA and several other acts including the income tax act and the Federal reserve act as well. Throw in the Military commissions act, the John Warner defense bill as well all of which I believe are unconstitutional.
-
Gerald, I know Im not Hemodoc but I would like to answer my stance on this if I may:
1- I think the health care syste should be State runned and not Federally. The care & nurturing should come from the area in
which we live. I do believe that the Health care industry needs to be over hauled. Now, I am not sure on how that should
be done. It can be done without the Federal Gov't intervention but doubt that it ever will.
2- Yes, for those hard working citizens who paid into it through their payroll.
3- I think people should have had the choice long ago to either save for retirement with Fed. Govt (It has always been mandatory)or made to invest the portion taken out by Social Securty into a Savings, mutual or whatever to earn interest. Social Security was not meant to be a retirement check, it was intended to supplement your retirement. I just think people should have the freedom to choose.
4. I believe we should have taken it wherever Obama Ben Laden was at. But no one knew where he was. We heard all different places. But I do not believe he was in Irag, but another dictator was, but personally, I don't think he posed a threat to the US like Bin Laden who acted on his plan and did it successfully, and masterfully.
5. No, I don't think they need to reduce defense spending. We have got to stay on top Militarily for the future of our children and their childrens children. We need to defend our country and if we don't stay on top of technology that allows that, then God help this country.
6. It is none of my business what Warren makes or pays in taxes. I know that if he chooses to pay more, then let him do it by donating or maybe pay down our national debt. I do not want the wealthy to help me at a mandate. Let them do what they wish! Anyway you look at it, they are still paying more in taxes than any one with a lower income! Example: 10% of 10,000 = $1,000 / 10% of 100,000 = $10,000. They still pay more than those in middle to low income. I am totally not on board with class warfare.
7. I think it has its good and bad points, so I really don't know about the Patriot Act. Maybe for uncertain times yes, but during peace, maybe not.
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
1- I think the health care syste should be State runned and not Federally. The care & nurturing should come from the area in
which we live. I do believe that the Health care industry needs to be over hauled. Now, I am not sure on how that should
be done. It can be done without the Federal Gov't intervention but doubt that it ever will.
I am not sure about this, lmunchkin. I understand that it sounds good to have your "care and nurturing" dictated by where you live, but this would put an awful lot of financial pressure on states that are already having budgetary problems. I don't think it is fundamentally fair to have the quality of care you'd get be determined by your zip code. If you happen to live in a poor state, would you be happy getting a lower quality of care than someone who lives in a richer state?
Also, we have some states that are quite large where residents resent power being concentrated in the capital. So for many people, there would still be this resentment that healthcare decisions were being made by the state.
-
Indredible! In may neighborhood I am a moderate. You guys make me look like an extremist.
1. Do you support the idea of Universal Healthcare for all citizens?
In government, the more complex the system, the more likely it will fail. I believe government sponsored healthcare is a right. That is my opinion. So, why not a direct single payer system such as what is used by Medicare? Then, why not combine veterans healthcare, Medicare, aspects of Social Security dealing with health issues, and the various state health programs into one Universal Healthcare system? In my view, the 10% to 15% identified by HemoDoc cannot be ignored and cannot be forced to buy any insurance policy. Compassion, Folks. Also HemoDoc, I had to laugh at this - - “Verbose”.
2. Do you wish to see Medicare continued?
See above.
3. Do you wish to see Social Security continued at the present level of benefits?
I have a contract with government and I expect them to hold up their end of the deal. As for the financial manipulation of Social Security, this came from a 1983 law sponsored by none other than Ronald Reagan. Since then Congress could not resist the windfall of bucks.
4. Do you agree that we should be in Afghanistan fighting “a” war there?
We should never have entered Afghanistan militarily. I am most definitely anti-war.
5. Should the defense budget be reduced?
Absolutely. The current defense budget per capita is higher than it has been since World War II. There is no need for that.
6. Do you agree with the Buffett rule that those earning over $1 million should be taxed at 30%?
Equity. There are too many tax loopholes to justify the current low tax rate for the wealthy. If our tax rate is 28%, should should everyone’s tax rate be at that level.
7. Shall we abolish the Patriot Act?
Yes. Taking away citizen rights guaranteed in the US Constitution is a sure road to fascism. We are not at war and we are not in danger of any kind of invasion.
-
Yes, I really would like for the medical needs be obtained locally. But the likelyhood of that happening in todays enviroment is practically null. Iam old enough to remember the days when local county hospitals took care of those in their county's. Neighbors would help each other out and so on. If I can remember that, then it wasnt that long ago, lol! :rofl;
But over the years, I do believe that our choices are being taken away which really in a sense, is our freedoms. I just want to go back to that time, but sadly, we are too dependent on Federal Government! Do I think we can go back, yes absolutely! People didnt make that much money either, but they worked so hard for a good life. Family was important and God was at the center of it.
Yes, MM, I do want that and I think if the Fed. Govt. would let the state's handle it, it would be run so much better. I believe Drs, patients, insurance companys would all work together for the common good of their needy, poor, widowed or any other afflictions people have.
Whats lost here in my opinion, is the heart of a people, who quite frankly, do not want to be bothered. Im that way sometimes myself! But I don't like to be that way and I do not believe the Lord wants us to be that way. Iam human though and I have to ask forgiveness daily!
I just believe that more things could be managed much better on a local basis rather than a National basis. But all the money is going into Federal Govt with trickle down to the states. I just feel that is not right. The Federal Govt knows not what my family needs nor do they care, but I think people closer would! I don't know the answers, but I do wish we could go backwards and stiill believe it is possible.
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
I understand your concern, lmunchkin, and I, too, wish that our medical needs could be met in our communities. But with health care so expensive, often because of how corporations and pharmaceutical companies have inflated their prices, I don't want to see our communities bankrupted by my medical needs.
It would be wonderful if our neighbors and our churches could help provide for care, but who could possibly rely on charity to pay for something like dialysis? I have no doubt that people would WANT to help their neighbor who has ESRD, but they couldn't pay for such an expensive treatment that lasts for years.
I had my annual PAP smear and mammogram done this past week. I didn't have to pay anything out of pocket because I'm lucky enough to have insurance. But just today, I read an article about how much these simple procedures cost...about $500 each. I had no idea that these tests cost so much. Most of the expense of health care is hidden from us, the patients, so when we say that we would like to see more "community care", beware of what you wish for because then the community would have to bear these enormous costs.
I personally am uncomfortable with the entire concept of anyone making money off sick people. There is something fundamentally immoral about that, but then people will tell me that capitalism is good, that making profit is desirable, but I'm not sure that Jesus Christ would agree. To think that dialysis providers make so much money yet deliver such crappy inclinic dialysis seems so very sinful to me. I don't know which is worse...having health care decisions made by the fed govt or having them made by some insurance company bureaucrat. Remember how my insurance company tried to get out of paying my claims by just making stuff up (like how I was not an American citizen so was not eligible for coverage after all!)...I wasn't profitable enough to them.
-
Yes, greed or the love of money is wrong, but there are those that just harden their hearts and hold that money. They will receive what they justly deserve. Dialysis, Im not sure of, because it is prolonging life with a machine, so I don't have answers to that. Other illnesses like cancer, alzhimers, parkinsons, MS, MD and the dozens of others I havent mentioned are just out right expensive, and I think the states could handle these as well. They were doing it not to long ago, why can't they do it now?
What if the Fed's were not here? What if there was no Medicare? I mean, I like to think we are pretty resiliant and caring enough that we could work through it with Lords help!
I don't know the answers to this country's problems, but this I do know, its late and Im going to bed!
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
lmunchkin
-
lmunchkin, a couple of things occurred to me today, and I'd love to get your opinion. Be warned...I don't have answers, just questions that I'm going to throw out into the stratosphere.
I have been thinking about the idea of "community-based care" and getting the federal government out of healthcare altogether. Then I heard about the Susan G. Komen charity's decision to defund Planned Parenthood. In case you have not heard, traditionally SGK had helped Planned Parenthood fund mammograms for women who couldn't otherwise afford it. Now, PP has been sort of demonized for being abortion providers, but the vast majority of their work goes to providing basic health care, including mammograms. One can see how SGK would want to support PP in funding mammograms.
Now, suddenly, SGK has pulled this funding in what PP is calling a political move. One of SGKs vice presidents ran for office in Alabama (or was it Georgia) and made a campaign promise to defund PP. Of course, SGK is denying this, and they are saying that since PP is "under investigation", they are prohibited from continuing funding. I am not sure that we will ever know the truth.
Now, SGK is the largest non-profit charity funding research and support for breast cancer patients and their families. They are the largest grass-roots organization of its kind. They are, in fact and in practice, "The Community." They are us. But they have made a decision, as a community, that restricts your access to healthcare, so if you are a poor woman who relies on Planned Parenthood for your pap smear and your mammogram, "the community" is going to make that much harder. Is that fair? Have you ever heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority"? Why does "the community" have a say in which services you are able to access?
Now, you may hate abortion with a passion, and you may hate birth control just as much, but the fact is that as of today, having access to safe abortion is legal and is a protected right. The Community may not like that, but it's the law. Birth control is legal, too...The Community should not bar your access to it.
Three years ago, I had uterine fibroids that began bleeding. It got worse and worse, and when I next went to my neph, we were all horrified to see my hemoglobin drop to 7.9. Despite my CKD, I had never been anemic. I was very ill, and I eventually had to have a hysterectomy. But the most crucial thing was to stop the bleeding immediately, so my gyn put me on high doses of birth control pills to stop it. My health was in danger, and those hormonal drugs were crucial. Now, what if I lived in a community that was very conservative and did not believe that using birth control should be allowed? What would have happened to me? Can we really trust "the Community" to always have our best interests at heart, or must we be buffeted by their whims?
In reading a bit more about the SGK/PP controversy, I followed a link to an editorial from a Kansas City newspaper. The article, written by a man, decried the decision. What was interesting, though, was to read the comments that followed. The were almost ALL comments from men, and they almost ALL agreed with SGK because of all kinds of reasons they made up, such as claiming there was a link between abortion and higher risks of breast cancer. It begs the question...would you want Men of The Community getting to decide how your "female" health care is made available, or not?
What do you think?
-
“Brad Pitt should play me in movies.” – Newt Gingrich.
Screw the context. That is funny.
gl
-
“Brad Pitt should play me in movies.” – Newt Gingrich.
Screw the context. That is funny.
gl
Newt is on his way out. Won't have to worry about him much longer my friend. What are you going to say about Romney. Boy is he rich, what an evil man.
-
My main concern about Governor Romney is his seeming assertion that he will run the government like a business, and I don't know if that's a good thing. I understand that the economy is the most important issue in the minds of the voters, but we must remember that it is not the ONLY important issue. Businesses exist to make profit, but that is not the reason that government exists. I do agree that governments, local, state and federal, need to exercise prudence in their fiscal affairs, but the federal government is responsible for so much more than economic growth.
I look forward to the time where the GOP has chosen their nominee so that that person can speak more about issues other than the economy. I don't think we will hear much about specifics from either party until closer to the general election.
I am all for people becoming rich because they've made innovations and provided services that people want. Far from demonizing people who have become rich, I'd like to see everyone become rich! But there is something about how Mr. Romney has become rich that I do question. He seems to be quite good at working the system to benefit himself, and I'd like to know more about this. I don't think he has done anything illegal, but I do suspect that he has had a hand in determining what is illegal and what is not. For instance, he has given his sons each millions of dollars, but has any tax been paid on these gifts? I know that as of 2 years ago, the tax-free ceiling was $10,000...it may be more now, but I don't think it is a million dollars. I am sure there are many rich Democrats who take advantage of such policies, too, and it all feeds into my conviction that we are now an oligarchy.
My main concern is the very real possibility that whoever wins this election will have done so merely by outspending the other candidate. Even if President Obama gains re-election, I will still wonder if the election has, in effect, been bought. These people who are donating millions of dollars to a specific candidate must feel like they are buying something, wouldn't you think? What are our candidates selling?
-
My main concern about Governor Romney is his seeming assertion that he will run the government like a business, and I don't know if that's a good thing. I understand that the economy is the most important issue in the minds of the voters, but we must remember that it is not the ONLY important issue. Businesses exist to make profit, but that is not the reason that government exists. I do agree that governments, local, state and federal, need to exercise prudence in their fiscal affairs, but the federal government is responsible for so much more than economic growth.
I look forward to the time where the GOP has chosen their nominee so that that person can speak more about issues other than the economy. I don't think we will hear much about specifics from either party until closer to the general election.
I am all for people becoming rich because they've made innovations and provided services that people want. Far from demonizing people who have become rich, I'd like to see everyone become rich! But there is something about how Mr. Romney has become rich that I do question. He seems to be quite good at working the system to benefit himself, and I'd like to know more about this. I don't think he has done anything illegal, but I do suspect that he has had a hand in determining what is illegal and what is not. For instance, he has given his sons each millions of dollars, but has any tax been paid on these gifts? I know that as of 2 years ago, the tax-free ceiling was $10,000...it may be more now, but I don't think it is a million dollars. I am sure there are many rich Democrats who take advantage of such policies, too, and it all feeds into my conviction that we are now an oligarchy.
My main concern is the very real possibility that whoever wins this election will have done so merely by outspending the other candidate. Even if President Obama gains re-election, I will still wonder if the election has, in effect, been bought. These people who are donating millions of dollars to a specific candidate must feel like they are buying something, wouldn't you think? What are our candidates selling?
Buying political favors is as old as dirt unfortunately. With all the election reform of the last twenty years, it has only gotten worse. I don't see anything changing in this election. We can hope and wish for the perfect world, but that won't be this side of heaven.
Nothing wrong with earning an honest wage, putting together a successful business. The issue comes back to personal integrity and candor of those running the business. If it is dominated by greed and lust filled ambitions, it will bring hurt and destruction. Many people don't know the stories of some of the successful retail stores in the last century.
Many people who have had money also have had great character. Mr. Welch of Welch's grape juice; J. C. Kraft of Kraft Cheese; Henry P. Kroll of Quaker Oats; William Colgate of the Colgate Soap Company; Walter Johnson, the founder of Holiday Inn; J. C. Penney of the J. C. Penney stores; and R. G. LeTourneau of LeTourneau University and all the LeTourneau equipment. These are men who put God first in their businesses. Starting out, they gave to God a tithe, maybe 15 percent. Some of them got up to 90 percent. But when you give back to God 90 percent of what He gives to you, what do you have left? Surprisingly, you don't have 10 percent left; you have it all left, because when you can pass the test of character, God knows He can entrust you with everything.
http://www.backtothebible.org/index.php/Stewardship-Resources/God-s-Gift-of-Wealth.html
-
HemoDoc;
I have asked all the questions I needed to ask. It appears you missed the point once again.
I wanted to know who and what you are. I have asked enough questions to gain an accurate picture of your views, and while I do not agree with very much of what you say, I do see you clearly.
Your verbose habits are interesting, your propensity toward religious preaching is unwelcome, your right-wing thinking is semi-hate filled toward the President and you seem incapable of handling one issue at a time. The best interpretation I have of you is that of an ideologue.
You may be suffering from the “Doctors are Elite” syndrome, but I am not certain. Something or someone in your personal history has caused you to think in harsh terms, very judgmental.
I just wanted to know; now I know.
gerald
-
HemoDoc;
I have asked all the questions I needed to ask. It appears you missed the point once again.
I wanted to know who and what you are. I have asked enough questions to gain an accurate picture of your views, and while I do not agree with very much of what you say, I do see you clearly.
Your verbose habits are interesting, your propensity toward religious preaching is unwelcome, your right-wing thinking is semi-hate filled toward the President and you seem incapable of handling one issue at a time. The best interpretation I have of you is that of an ideologue.
You may be suffering from the “Doctors are Elite” syndrome, but I am not certain. Something or someone in your personal history has caused you to think in harsh terms, very judgmental.
I just wanted to know; now I know.
gerald
Gerald, you mean you have met my ex-wife. Yes, you are my best friend indeed.
-
HemoDoc;
I have asked all the questions I needed to ask. It appears you missed the point once again.
I wanted to know who and what you are. I have asked enough questions to gain an accurate picture of your views, and while I do not agree with very much of what you say, I do see you clearly.
Your verbose habits are interesting, your propensity toward religious preaching is unwelcome, your right-wing thinking is semi-hate filled toward the President and you seem incapable of handling one issue at a time. The best interpretation I have of you is that of an ideologue.
You may be suffering from the “Doctors are Elite” syndrome, but I am not certain. Something or someone in your personal history has caused you to think in harsh terms, very judgmental.
I just wanted to know; now I know.
gerald
Alinski Rule #13:
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
The only thing that is frozen is your delusional thinking that you can know any man from an absurd politically construed conversation which I use quite loosely since this bears no resemblance to any sensible conversation. Inquisition is a better term thank you for agreeing.
I think you need so more work on rule #13, you don't have the Obama touch yet Gerald.
You are my friend, I am not your enemy.
Have a good day.
Peter
-
Your defensivness is showing.
Which part of what I said is incorrect?
-
Your defensivness is showing.
Which part of what I said is incorrect?
You are doing good Gerald, but you need a bit more training on rule #13. :boxing; :Kit n Stik; :puke; :puke; :puke; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken;Your target doesn't appear to care a hoot about your false accusations. You need to become a bit more irritation to become more effective. I would recommend some extra-curricular reading to improve your tactics.
Compare with this excerpts from “Group Decision and Social Change” by Kurt Lewin:
"A change toward a higher level of group performance is frequently short lived: after a “shot in the arm”, group life soon returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of a planned change in group performance as the reaching of a different level. Permanency of the new level, or permanency for a desired period, should be included in the objective. A successful change includes therefore three aspects:
UNFREEZING (if necessary) the present level...
MOVING to the new level . . . and
FREEZING group life on the new level."
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/kurt-lewin-change.htm
-
Once again, you ducked the question. YL is right.
-
Once again, you ducked the question. YL is right.
Sorry, I didn't know that there was a question in your long diatribe of delusional thinking against me. Sorry, what is the question?
-
Once again, you ducked the question. YL is right.
Sorry, I didn't know that there was a question in your long diatribe of delusional thinking against me. Sorry, what is the question? :sarcasm; :secret; ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
I really don't want to read 7 pages of this crap but it has been turned in twice as having personal attacks. So cool it, because if it gets turned in again I'm telling Sluff and he will come read this. Keep it on TOPIC and no personal attacks or name calling.
Rerun, Moderator :police: >:(
-
I really don't want to read 7 pages of this crap
Cannot blame you there, Officer Rerun!
Thanks for the work that you do, especially the annoying bits. :)
-
Today it looks like an Obama shoe in.
:2thumbsup; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup;
True!
:yahoo; :yahoo; :yahoo; :yahoo;
-
I really don't want to read 7 pages of this crap but it has been turned in twice as having personal attacks. So cool it, because if it gets turned in again I'm telling Sluff and he will come read this. Keep it on TOPIC and no personal attacks or name calling.
Rerun, Moderator :police: >:(
Second Mod chiming in here, folks. Tone it down or tune it out, but end the personal attacks. If you are typing any sentence that has another IHD member as the subject, keep in mind that Epoman's rules of civil behavior apply. We can, we have, and we will issue temporary bans to members who can't discuss these things without getting downright rude.
jbeany, Moderator
-
Hey MM, just pulled up site and noticed your question? Sorry hadnt gotten to you but Ive been running all day.
Yea, in regards to the SGK uproar, Im thinking do people not search the charities they want to give to. Ive known since 2006 that they distribute contributions to PP in part. That is the very reason I stopped donating to them because PP is against what I believe in. Not just the Abortion issue, but the contraceptive issue and the absences of men's issues too. Women are not the only one's in this Universe and I believe that there is alot of biase towards men. I really do not understand why either.
I had some very dear friends and a Sister In Law that had breast cancer. SIL died in 2006, some friends did too. We looked into donating at that time to an organisation looking for cures. We were told about SGK and got an address to send donation to, with a request for a list of what they distribute to. I believe it may have been3-4 months that we sent contributions, when we received a list from SGK. PP was on that list, so we stopped our contributions.
When all this came out recently about this shocking revelation that they were giving distributions to PP, I thought, where has every one who gave these contributions been? Hopefully, this will teach people to research the charity's they donate there hard earned money to.
It's a choice to me and should be to others. Im sure that PP will continue to get support from people. And I think it is good that SGK chooses not to continue distributing to PP. PP has a massive following of people who will gladly keep them going Im sure.
Even though SGK has stopped funding to PP, I will not send our money to them. We have found some very good causes locally to contribute to.
I think you asked about the Politics of SGK decision? Oh Im sure there was some political ponderence. But in 2006, theyre was nothing political of our decision to stop contribution. It was principle for us.
Thanks for the Reminder Rerun! I want to apologize to anyone that I may have attacked personally. That was not my intent.
God Bless,
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
You can debate and argue and pontificate here, but there will be NO personal attacks of members.
Sluff has already posted a warning.
The next step will be a temporary ban.
For those of you who are uncomfortable reading these political differences of opinion I suggest you avoid this section.
The admin team's time is better spent focusing on the other 99% of the forum.
okarol/admin
-
lmunchkin, I am totally in agreement with you about how men's health seems to be ignored whenever there is talk about "women's issues". Whether or not one agrees with abortion and/or birth control, the fact remains that these issues concern not only men but also whole families. I don't know why more people don't understand this.
So, I did a bit of research and found this link on PPs site...
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/men-4285.htm
By what I can tell, all PP locations may not offer all of these services for men, but at least some do. Men need their screenings, too. You are absolutely right.
If you have decided not to send donations to SGK because of their involvement with PP, that is certainly your right! I'm just glad that you have redirected those monies to another worthy cause. God Bless You for doing that. :cuddle;
I am curious, though, and I hope you don't mind me asking. I promise not to be judgmental! :rofl; I've told you why I needed to take birth control pills for a short time...to stop the hemorrhaging that I was experiencing. Both my neph and my gyn were in agreement that this needed to stop. My gyn prescribed the pills (one month's worth) and my neph prescribed epo. How do you feel about the use of birth control pills under this kind of circumstance?
-
Oh I have no problem with the use of it for Medical purposes. And totally understand that sometimes it can be taken for various reasons for the lessing of menstural (?) bleeding & pain. The only thing that I object to is for the use of it to avoid pregnancy!
I have never known you to be judgemental. I have always found you to be open & fair!
Going to bed now! Work comes in the morrow!!!
God Bless,
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
Foutrh moderator comment (is this some kind of record?!)... What ReRun, Jb & karol said.
I am hesitant to even comment in this thread - many of your discussions here are very US-centric, and it's not even my country to comment on, but I do know one general rule in life - discussing religion and politics are generally bad karma - and both have come up in this thread. I feel we need to all respect eachother's views and beliefs, and if you can't accept someone else's then it's best to move out of the forum/thread - nothing tends to divide opinions and people more strongly than such topics (well maybe sports too :) ) so we need to be careful IMHO.
Oh and I heard the Newt Gingrich's comment and he at least said it with a laugh and that "in my fantasy world" - I thought that was pretty funny.
-
Foutrh moderator comment (is this some kind of record?!)... What ReRun, Jb & karol said.
I am hesitant to even comment in this thread - many of your discussions here are very US-centric, and it's not even my country to comment on, but I do know one general rule in life - discussing religion and politics are generally bad karma - and both have come up in this thread. I feel we need to all respect eachother's views and beliefs, and if you can't accept someone else's then it's best to move out of the forum/thread - nothing tends to divide opinions and people more strongly than such topics (well maybe sports too :) ) so we need to be careful IMHO.
Oh and I heard the Newt Gingrich's comment and he at least said it with a laugh and that "in my fantasy world" - I thought that was pretty funny.
RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.
I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.
Thank you again,
God bless,
Peter
-
Oh I have no problem with the use of it for Medical purposes. And totally understand that sometimes it can be taken for various reasons for the lessing of menstural (?) bleeding & pain. The only thing that I object to is for the use of it to avoid pregnancy!
May I ask another question? You probably know this already, but the body of a pregnant woman actually makes more blood than that of a non-pregnant woman, and as a result, there is a greater workload on the kidneys. So, if you have CKD, pregnancy can be a dangerous proposition. When I was pregnant with my son, I had fsgs and didn't yet know it, and it nearly cost me my life. I was in the hospital for 6 weeks. Once I was biopsied and discovered my CKD, my neph told me that I really shouldn't get pregnant again. Since I believed that I now had a responsibility to my new son to stay healthy, I had to make sure not to get pregnant, so for a short while, I used birth control pills and then had a tubal ligation. So, my question is how do you feel about birth control for a married woman for whom a pregnancy may be dangerous?
If you don't care to answer this, as it is a rather personal question, please feel free to ignore me! If you do choose to reply, thanks!!
(I know this doesn't have anything to do with the GOP debates, but you know how these discussions can veer way off topic! LOL!)
-
Oh I have no problem with the use of it for Medical purposes. And totally understand that sometimes it can be taken for various reasons for the lessing of menstural (?) bleeding & pain. The only thing that I object to is for the use of it to avoid pregnancy!
May I ask another question? You probably know this already, but the body of a pregnant woman actually makes more blood than that of a non-pregnant woman, and as a result, there is a greater workload on the kidneys. So, if you have CKD, pregnancy can be a dangerous proposition. When I was pregnant with my son, I had fsgs and didn't yet know it, and it nearly cost me my life. I was in the hospital for 6 weeks. Once I was biopsied and discovered my CKD, my neph told me that I really shouldn't get pregnant again. Since I believed that I now had a responsibility to my new son to stay healthy, I had to make sure not to get pregnant, so for a short while, I used birth control pills and then had a tubal ligation. So, my question is how do you feel about birth control for a married woman for whom a pregnancy may be dangerous?
If you don't care to answer this, as it is a rather personal question, please feel free to ignore me! If you do choose to reply, thanks!!
(I know this doesn't have anything to do with the GOP debates, but you know how these discussions can veer way off topic! LOL!)
Not sure I want to open up that can of worms here in a public IHD forum. In short let it suffice that I have prescribed birth control pills throughout my practice.
-
RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.
I cannot speak for the others, but for me personally - as I wrote above this discussion is very US-centric, and as such I have not been reading it - it's hardly my place to comment when I live in another country (and we have our own political stuff to deal with :) ). I am here now because this, and some other, threads have been brought to our attention.
As you can probably appreciate there are many threads on this board - we simply can't read them all every day and find offensive posts. On the other hand if you felt there were things that offended you last week why did you not report them yourself?
I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.
what the???
How about we ALL use some common sense, courtesy and manners when responding to any and all threads.
I am going to refuse to "take sides" in this - I understand you've been upset by comments posted, and others have also been upset. As a moderator it is not my position(I feel) to make a judgement call one way or the other - hence the general call.
Aren't we adults here? Why is it some of these threads almost seem like they are in the playground?
As for the "Alinsk rules" - *personally* (just me, not moderator hat) I feel any political discussions in a non political forum are rife to upset people in one way or another, just as religion is another sure way to fire someone up. I've done a little bit of reading on this Alinsky chap and it seems to me that suggesting ANY rules, conventions etc from a politically motivated (or do I mean "community organisation") person can just lead to questions of bias and thus igniting the arguments all over again, so as a serious response to your serious question I say "None." - use common sense and treat people with respect - that goes for everyone here - you, me, other posters, etc.
Is that too difficult?
-
Oh I have no problem with the use of it for Medical purposes. And totally understand that sometimes it can be taken for various reasons for the lessing of menstural (?) bleeding & pain. The only thing that I object to is for the use of it to avoid pregnancy!
May I ask another question? You probably know this already, but the body of a pregnant woman actually makes more blood than that of a non-pregnant woman, and as a result, there is a greater workload on the kidneys. So, if you have CKD, pregnancy can be a dangerous proposition. When I was pregnant with my son, I had fsgs and didn't yet know it, and it nearly cost me my life. I was in the hospital for 6 weeks. Once I was biopsied and discovered my CKD, my neph told me that I really shouldn't get pregnant again. Since I believed that I now had a responsibility to my new son to stay healthy, I had to make sure not to get pregnant, so for a short while, I used birth control pills and then had a tubal ligation. So, my question is how do you feel about birth control for a married woman for whom a pregnancy may be dangerous?
If you don't care to answer this, as it is a rather personal question, please feel free to ignore me! If you do choose to reply, thanks!!
(I know this doesn't have anything to do with the GOP debates, but you know how these discussions can veer way off topic! LOL!)
Not sure I want to open up that can of worms here in a public IHD forum. In short let it suffice that I have prescribed birth control pills throughout my practice.
You're probably right that I shouldn't have asked. So, lmunchkin, if you'd like to reply, just PM me! (I should have used the pm function to ask in the first place. Apologies. I don't want to "open a can of worms", rather, I'm really interested in people's opinions, as you know! LOL!)
-
I know I should probably apologize for calling Newt Gingrich a "manslut", but I....just.....can't. :P :rofl;
-
RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.
I cannot speak for the others, but for me personally - as I wrote above this discussion is very US-centric, and as such I have not been reading it - it's hardly my place to comment when I live in another country (and we have our own political stuff to deal with :) ). I am here now because this, and some other, threads have been brought to our attention.
As you can probably appreciate there are many threads on this board - we simply can't read them all every day and find offensive posts. On the other hand if you felt there were things that offended you last week why did you not report them yourself?
I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.
what the???
How about we ALL use some common sense, courtesy and manners when responding to any and all threads.
I am going to refuse to "take sides" in this - I understand you've been upset by comments posted, and others have also been upset. As a moderator it is not my position(I feel) to make a judgement call one way or the other - hence the general call.
Aren't we adults here? Why is it some of these threads almost seem like they are in the playground?
As for the "Alinsk rules" - *personally* (just me, not moderator hat) I feel any political discussions in a non political forum are rife to upset people in one way or another, just as religion is another sure way to fire someone up. I've done a little bit of reading on this Alinsky chap and it seems to me that suggesting ANY rules, conventions etc from a politically motivated (or do I mean "community organisation") person can just lead to questions of bias and thus igniting the arguments all over again, so as a serious response to your serious question I say "None." - use common sense and treat people with respect - that goes for everyone here - you, me, other posters, etc.
Is that too difficult?
Dear RicharMel,
I was not trying to provoke you. Far from it. However, the entire discussion has recently centered on Alinski and the rules for radicals which I have spoken out against. Ridicule and sarcasm are at the center of his rules for radicals. I would hope that we can all agree that they rules for radicals engenders strife and hurt feelings.
After nearly two weeks of the Alinski rules used in post after post to my replies, I simply used them myself which prompted an outpouring of moderators.
This is unfortunately the political climate that the current administration especially has fostered in a class warfare. I speak this not to have you choose sides, but instead to show what we are facing here in the US, especially on the conservative side of the issues where anyone that rises to a high enough level to be noticed by the opposition becomes an immediate target by the late night comedians where ridicule and sarcasm abound.
It appears that ridicule and sarcasm are perfectly acceptable political discourse except when applied to anyone personally. After two weeks of unabated personal attacks against me, which by the way truly didn't bother me in the least or I wouldn't have even joined the discussion in the first place and I understood what was to come, I would hope all the folks that support the rules for radicals would ask how fair it is to be the subject of the Alinski rules themselves.
I will tell you quite personally that many comments were hard to ignore and resort to the same tactics many times over. In the last two days, I have used these tactic deliberately to provoke a confrontation where people would complain about the sarcasm and ridicule applied. However, where has this outrage been for the last two weeks I must ask with these attacks against me?
Like I said, I knew what was coming before I joined the thread and spoke out against false accusations of racism and other outrageous false allegations, innuendos and associations.
Sadly, the nation that brought forth political freedom is now becoming a land infested with talks of revolution and radicalism at the highest level of our government and indeed, is accepted political discourse. We are on a course of destruction in this nation. What a sad commentary from the highest "leaders" in America.
Thank you RichardMel for your comments. I guess that pretty much sums up the Alinski rules for radicals as something too radical for IHD since acting nice and polite won't work well with sarcasm and ridiclule.
By the way, I agree completely with you RichardMel.
Thank you again,
Peter
-
I know I should probably apologize for calling Newt Gingrich a "manslut", but I....just.....can't. :P :rofl;
Ah back to Alinski rule #6
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." :sarcasm; :oops; :Kit n Stik; :yahoo; :yahoo; :yahoo; :yahoo; :yahoo;
-
RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.
This is simply untrue, people have said nothing but the opposite. In clear, plain language.
I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.
Huh?
I can only assume this is directed at me. I have not been using the Alinsky rules openly or covertly or any other way against you or anyone else. I told you directly that I was not prepared to even comment on the rules, let alone use them, because I had not got there in the book. Plus, I only got the book yesterday. Until Newt opened his mouth, I don't know that I could have even said why this man was famous. What on earth made you feel it was appropriate to use this 'new' (book was published in 1971) 'radical method of discourse' on IHD? You said yourself you never even read the book, so how can you claim that you know HOW to use the rules, but beyond that, this is a SUPPORT forum not the beginning of a community organization campaign. You are taking things that have already happened and seeing how Alinsky's rules fit with the argument. That is all well and good, but that does not mean those rules are being used against you, it means that much of what he says is just codifying how change has effectively been brought about in the past and can be in the future.
-
what the???
How about we ALL use some common sense, courtesy and manners when responding to any and all threads.
I am going to refuse to "take sides" in this - I understand you've been upset by comments posted, and others have also been upset. As a moderator it is not my position(I feel) to make a judgement call one way or the other - hence the general call.
Aren't we adults here? Why is it some of these threads almost seem like they are in the playground?
As for the "Alinsk rules" - *personally* (just me, not moderator hat) I feel any political discussions in a non political forum are rife to upset people in one way or another, just as religion is another sure way to fire someone up. I've done a little bit of reading on this Alinsky chap and it seems to me that suggesting ANY rules, conventions etc from a politically motivated (or do I mean "community organisation") person can just lead to questions of bias and thus igniting the arguments all over again, so as a serious response to your serious question I say "None." - use common sense and treat people with respect - that goes for everyone here - you, me, other posters, etc.
Is that too difficult?
Thanks, Richard. :-* Not too difficult in the slightest.
-
RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.
This is simply untrue, people have said nothing but the opposite. In clear, plain language.
I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.
Huh?
I can only assume this is directed at me. I have not been using the Alinsky rules openly or covertly or any other way against you or anyone else. I told you directly that I was not prepared to even comment on the rules, let alone use them, because I had not got there in the book. Plus, I only got the book yesterday. Until Newt opened his mouth, I don't know that I could have even said why this man was famous. What on earth made you feel it was appropriate to use this 'new' (book was published in 1971) 'radical method of discourse' on IHD? You said yourself you never even read the book, so how can you claim that you know HOW to use the rules, but beyond that, this is a SUPPORT forum not the beginning of a community organization campaign. You are taking things that have already happened and seeing how Alinsky's rules fit with the argument. That is all well and good, but that does not mean those rules are being used against you, it means that much of what he says is just codifying how change has effectively been brought about in the past and can be in the future.
Actually Cariad, you were not the person I was thinking of. Sorry, I guess you didn't read the last two days where I did show each type of rules for radicals used.
In any case, if folks want to deal with sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse, fine with me, but please don't get all bent out of shape if it comes back at you. Is that really how you want to discuss issues not only here at IHD, but here in America's political arena as well. Cariad, you are the one promoting the Alinski book. That is exactly the language and demeanor you are promoting.
If that is what you want, it looks like it is no longer tolerated here at IHD and for that I agree. Sadly, it is the language of politics today and we shall all reap the rewards of the loss of civility.
In any case, I have already spoken out against the rules for radicals, which you embrace, but are put off when applied to you and others personally. Don't you see what that is?
in any case, if I never hear of Alinski ever again that wouldn't be too soon. You may however want to just look at any news report in the next year during this election and apply which Alinski rule applies. I already did that earlier when Obama told the Christians how they should consider debt in America. He was profoundly wrong on Bible doctrine as related to the finances of a nation. If he is a Christian as he claims and a scholar by trade, could he have been that wrong by accident?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/?hpt=hp_t2
No, he was instead applying Alinski rule #4
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
Those that despise the Bible and Christians will accept his false proclamation of Bible truths today. Jesus would instead tell him to quit borrowing and placing this nation in debt. This is pure and simple class warfare at a dangerous level that will inevitably lead to bloodshed in the streets of the US. Yes, Alinski is dangerous to America. What did Jesus say about taxes?
Matthew 17:24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Jesus explained two thousand years ago why GE paid not a dime of tax in 2010. Kings of the earth do not take tribute from their own children which in this example was his friend at GE. Nor will the corporate friends of Obama suffer under his tax the rich mantra. Who will pay, the strangers of course. Those without a direct line into the oval office are the strangers who will be asked to pay.
This is pure class warfare following the rules of Alinski which Obama taught as a community organizer. It is indeed very dangerous.
-
Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:
Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]
"Where there are no men, be thou a man."
-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky
Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength" - Saul Alinsky #ocra #tcot #Alinsky
http://twitter.com/#!/AlinskyDefeater/status/157544960076427264
-
Rub raw the sores of social discontent
“The despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We’ll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We’ll start with specific issues — taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution — and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the board rooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people, they’ll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power. We’ll not only give them a cause, we’ll make life goddamn exciting for them again — life instead of existence. We’ll turn them on. – Saul Alinsky
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/rubbing-raw-the-sores-of-discontent-then-galvanize-them-independent-voters-educate-yourself-to-the-ideology-trying-to-take-hold-in-america/
-
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Is that what you folks want, a dictatorship?
-
Excellent review of The Rules for Radicals. What is the revolution and what are their plans to replace the current system. What is their end?
http://www.redstate.com/delawarewindjammer/2012/01/13/obama-hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-and-rules-for-radicals/
-
Here is another excellent review of the Obama connection to Alynski. Nearly 50 pages, but very succinct and well written. If you haven't understood why Obama does what Obama does, you will after this short treatise.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/27/obama’s-rules-for-revolution-the-alinsky-model/
Do you Democrats really want a utopian communist society? Really?
-
This is not a criticism, but I think we can all agree that Gov. Romney can't sing. :P Did Saul Alinsky ever address the use of song to irritate the enemy? LOL!
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, he was being a troll.
-
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Is that what you folks want, a dictatorship?
This is pretty low, Hemodoc. If you read the book as you claim, then you know perfectly well he was broadly and simplistically summarizing Marxism and not promoting it one way or the other.
This is why I go to the source whenever possible. This is why I encourage all of you to do the same.
The part about rejecting rigid dogma makes a lot of sense to me.
-
Actually Cariad, you were not the person I was thinking of. Sorry, I guess you didn't read the last two days where I did show each type of rules for radicals used.
In any case, if folks want to deal with sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse, fine with me, but please don't get all bent out of shape if it comes back at you. Is that really how you want to discuss issues not only here at IHD, but here in America's political arena as well. Cariad, you are the one promoting the Alinski book. That is exactly the language and demeanor you are promoting.
If that is what you want, it looks like it is no longer tolerated here at IHD and for that I agree. Sadly, it is the language of politics today and we shall all reap the rewards of the loss of civility.
In any case, I have already spoken out against the rules for radicals, which you embrace, but are put off when applied to you and others personally. Don't you see what that is?
in any case, if I never hear of Alinski ever again that wouldn't be too soon. You may however want to just look at any news report in the next year during this election and apply which Alinski rule applies. I already did that earlier when Obama told the Christians how they should consider debt in America. He was profoundly wrong on Bible doctrine as related to the finances of a nation. If he is a Christian as he claims and a scholar by trade, could he have been that wrong by accident?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/?hpt=hp_t2
No, he was instead applying Alinski rule #4
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
Those that despise the Bible and Christians will accept his false proclamation of Bible truths today. Jesus would instead tell him to quit borrowing and placing this nation in debt. This is pure and simple class warfare at a dangerous level that will inevitably lead to bloodshed in the streets of the US. Yes, Alinski is dangerous to America. What did Jesus say about taxes?
Matthew 17:24 ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Jesus explained two thousand years ago why GE paid not a dime of tax in 2010. Kings of the earth do not take tribute from their own children which in this example was his friend at GE. Nor will the corporate friends of Obama suffer under his tax the rich mantra. Who will pay, the strangers of course. Those without a direct line into the oval office are the strangers who will be asked to pay.
This is pure class warfare following the rules of Alinski which Obama taught as a community organizer. It is indeed very dangerous.
I never said I 'embrace' anything. I have no interest in promoting Rules for Radicals, I have only said that I am enjoying reading it (still am), that it is exceedingly smart and entertaining writing, and that I will wait until I finish the book to comment on the rules. It is all there in black and white. You are trying to put words in my mouth and take advantage of the fact that you have so clogged up this discussion and the other with cut and paste crap that no one has the time nor energy to read carefully and critically. If you are reading what I've written and not deliberately misinterpreting it, as you have done with Saul Alinsky's work, then you would never say I am promoting this book, especially not as a way to interact with others on a support forum.
-
Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:
Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]
"Where there are no men, be thou a man."
-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky
Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?
Did the devil change his name to Irene?
Yup, this is completely false.
He put that quote along with a few other quotes at the front of the book, not as a dedication. It is an interesting quote that I took to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but then I am taking my time to read this book properly and see what Newt Gingrich finds so threatening about it.
-
MM, this is a very legitimate question, but it does need its own topic. Please start it in Dialysis General Discussion and you could title it something about contraception or CKF Pregnancy?
Thank you for your question.
Rerun, Moderator
-
MM, this is a very legitimate question, but it does need its own topic. Please start it in Dialysis General Discussion and you could title it something about contraception or CKF Pregnancy?
Thank you for your question.
Rerun, Moderator
That's a good idea; thank you for the suggestion. You're right...this isn't the place.
-
Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:
Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]
"Where there are no men, be thou a man."
-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky
Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?
Did the devil change his name to Irene?
Yup, this is completely false.
He put that quote along with a few other quotes at the front of the book, not as a dedication. It is an interesting quote that I took to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but then I am taking my time to read this book properly and see what Newt Gingrich finds so threatening about it.
Dear Cariad, I read the book last night for free by the way, I truly didn't want to pay for this, due to the central role he has played in the 2008 election and now in this one. ACORN is nothing more than the expression of his "community organizatin" on a nationwide basis. I could care less about "winning" an internet argument.
Yes, he is against "dogma" and "ideology" which is just another expression of Marxism and their war against Christianity. I took a very interesting course on Marxism while in college a long time ago in a Catholic college from a Jesuit preist who laid out the Catholic churches complaints against Marxism. He also happened to have been Rhodes scholar during his student years. Very interesting details on why Marx feared the "opium of the masses" in countering communism.
Marxism is based on a reversed Hegelian dialectic. It essentially states that that which is spiritual is a illusion and that which is material is reality. Marxism by necessity of its design MUST exclude Christianity. If we look at the dedication page of Alinski, he didn't choose Lucifer by accident. It is a natural progression by Marxists since that is so central to their philosophy.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
So, if you wish to read every part of this book, so be it. I never said not to read it. But I would also recommend that you do some extracurricular reading to put his work in context. If you can ever read a treatise against the philosophy of Marxism written from a Christian apologist, I believe you will see that Alinski's allusions to dogma and ideology is none other than a direct attack on Christianity just like we see in rule number 5:
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
In such, this only proves what the Bible states about rulers in high places:
Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
This is a real manifestation of wickedness in high places. I won't tell you what to read Cariad, never have, I would advise you to walk carefully when ever you see someone dedicate the book to Lucifer.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, he was being a troll.
Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.
-
Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:
Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]
"Where there are no men, be thou a man."
-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky
Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?
Did the devil change his name to Irene?
Yup, this is completely false.
He put that quote along with a few other quotes at the front of the book, not as a dedication. It is an interesting quote that I took to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but then I am taking my time to read this book properly and see what Newt Gingrich finds so threatening about it.
Hmmm, I don't believe that is correct especially looking at some of his other statements about Christianity, hell and other issues. By the way, he is a bit wrong in the history of Lucifer who started as the chief of the angels who stood over the thrown of God. By pride he was lifted up against God from his own beauty and intelligence. What Alinski fails to mention is that Jesus defeated him on the cross. In essesnce, Alinski dedicated his book to a failed rebel who is already defeated.
Once again, when he is using the terms dogma and ideology, he is following classic Marxist anti-God, anti-Christian doctrine. Nothing new at all in this book that is only a rehash of Marxism masquerading as community organizations. Do we really want a Marxist government leading us to their new Utopia by passage through dictarship? Really?
Maybe Idaho can secede from the union. If we go in that direction, Montana already has that as a state constitutional right. Pretty sure Texas is going to do the same. No thanks, I wish to have no part of a Marxist state.
-
For those that would take issue with my summation of the Marxist war against Christianity, here is a quote from a supporter of this philosophy:
Julian Huxley, the head of UNESCO in 1947, wrote a book titled, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.” His book was a blueprint for a New World Order that called for a single ‘new’ spirituality—-a mixture of Buddhist materialist-pantheism, Liberalized ‘pantheistic’ Christianity, Gnosticism, and other occult traditions—- one language, and one way of thinking. He believed a global order could be brought about through the universal implementation of Hegel’s Dialectic process.
Huxley observed, “The task before UNESCO…is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.” Huxley spoke of two opposing worldviews—-one founded on supernatural creation and the other on atheist evolutionism—confronting each other from the West and the East. In describing them he said, “You may categorize the two philosophies as…individualism versus collectivism or as the American versus the Russian…or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? I believe…this can happen…through the inexorable dialectic of evolution.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21033
In addition, you can't really understand the politics of America today with out understanding the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
-
In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure.
The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision for the future.
Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html
Those that embrace Marxism will only bring upon themselves a "dictorship of the proletariat." It is the complete anti-thesis of freedom which made this nation great. Marxism is at war with Christianity making the introduction of religion not by the right, but by the left in veiled attacks with politically correct names such as community organizors when in fact it is nothing more than blatant Marxist doctrine. That has worked really well in China, Russian and Cuba hasn't it. If that's what you folks want, then don't be surprised when you get it.
Yes, rules for radicals is a very dangerous book and those that follow his teachings are very dangerous men engaging the people to voluntarily give up their freedoms for the illusory promise of utopia. Give me a break, that is grand delusion and a massive scale.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, he was being a troll.
Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.
Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter. She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, he was being a troll.
Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.
Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter. She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.
You will not get an apology from me- besides calling him a troll you questioned whether he was "truely a doctor" inferring that maybe he wasn't?
In any case- I am done with this thread-
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, he was being a troll.
Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.
Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter. She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.
Dear YLGuy, sorry, never admitted to being a troll, but so what I if were to be a troll. Does that make you feel all fuzzy inside or something. Why not focus on the message instead of the messenger. Sorry, but I don't admit or concur with you whatsoever.
No my friend, I an American fed up by false accusations and allegations masquerading as political discourse. If you believe that someone standing up and confronting false allegations is a troll, so be it my friend.
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, he was being a troll.
Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.
Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter. She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.
Dear YLGuy, sorry, never admitted to being a troll, but so what I if were to be a troll. Does that make you feel all fuzzy inside or something. Why not focus on the message instead of the messenger. Sorry, but I don't admit or concur with you whatsoever.
No my friend, I an American fed up by false accusations and allegations masquerading as political discourse. If you believe that someone standing up and confronting false allegations is a troll, so be it my friend.
Yes, you did. ::)
-
I really question Hemodoc's responses. It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes. I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed. If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.
I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass? You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE? You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.
Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
So, he was being a troll.
Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.
Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter. She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.
You will not get an apology from me- besides calling him a troll you questioned whether he was "truely a doctor" inferring that maybe he wasn't?
In any case- I am done with this thread-
Dear Glitter, please don't bother wasting any time on this issue. It is interesting the aspects of Freudian pyschology especially in those defense mechanisms involving projection. I remember when my father was trying to lose weight. Everyone he looked at he commented on how fat they were, yet in all the years I knew him, I had never heard those sort of things.
I appreciate your sentiment, but i won't worry the least about a troll calling me a troll. Besides that I couldn't care less what people call me. I am grounded enough to really not care or I wouldn't have entered a left wing GOP bashing party.
Have a great night,
God bless,
Peter
-
:rofl;
-
Okay People; It’s time to give it up.
There are no merits given to the person with the last word. Stop this nonsense or I will be force to dip into my vast resource of expletives.
gerald
-
Mitt Romney maintains that Obama has 'hurt' economic recovery
"This recovery has been slower than it should have been; people have been suffering for longer than they should have had to suffer.... We got good news this morning on job creation in January. I hope that continues, we get people back to work. But this president has not helped the process. He's hurt it.
"Sometimes I got the impression that ... you don't think you have a friend in Washington. And I can assure you that if I'm the president, I will see what you do as being a very good thing. A patriotic and good thing, which is employ people and putting them to work."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-nevada-jobs-report-20120203,0,5536191.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
-
What color is "Troll"? I picture some kind of ivy or forest green. A good complement to "Moby Whale Pale." :P
-
Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse.
Yesterday, when receiving Donald Trump's endorsement, Romney said:
“He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”
And today, according to NBC's Garrett Haake, he said something similar:
"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either. He made it worse. He made it worse because instead of focusing his energy on the economy and getting people back to work, he used his mandate being elected-- he used that to put through a series of programs that he and his base and his friends thought were important but frankly made it harder for our economy to recover. And so we've suffered."
However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.
For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.
In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it.
And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls.
Looking solely at quarterly Gross Domestic Product, it's gone from -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009 and -0.7% in the second quarter of '09, to positive territory ever since -- including 2.8% the past quarter.
And looking at monthly payroll statistics, the numbers have gone from a loss of 818,000 jobs in Jan. 2009 -- when Obama took office -- to 16-straight months of positive job growth, including a preliminary gain of 243,000 jobs in Jan. 2012.
The one metric that might support Romney's claim that Obama made the economy worse is the unemployment rate. When Obama took office, the unemployment rate stood at 7.8%, and it was 8.3% in his first full month as president.
The unemployment rate later rose to a high of 10.0% in Oct. 2009, and it remained at or above 9.0% for all of 2010 and most of 2011. But beginning in the fall of 2011, it began to decline, and it now sits at 8.3% -- the same percentage as it was in his first full month as president, before his policies went into effect.
When First Read reached out to the Romney campaign to provide additional data to support the claim that Obama has made the economy worse, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: "The economy grew only 1.7% in [all of] 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. This is worse than growth in 2010 and is worse performance over time."
Also: "In Oct. 2009, 58.51% of the American population had a job. Today, 58.46% of the American population has a job. All that has changed is that fewer Americans are even trying to find a job –- the percentage of Americans in the labor force has declined from 65.0% to 63.7%."
And Saul adds that Obama's economic advisers -- before he took office -- said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.0%. And, of course, it still remains above that level.
Interestingly, back in June 2011, Romney used this same Obama-made-the-recession-worse rhetoric. But when NBC asked Romney why he made that claim -- when the data didn't support it -- he replied: "I didn't say that things are worse."
He went on to say:
What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% -- and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since. That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later.
MSNBC
.
-
What color is "Troll"? I picture some kind of ivy or forest green. A good complement to "Moby Whale Pale." :P
I am not sure, I will have to go look at some old family photos and post them here. No green kids, just brown with black hair.
-
Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse.
Yesterday, when receiving Donald Trump's endorsement, Romney said:
“He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”
And today, according to NBC's Garrett Haake, he said something similar:
"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either. He made it worse. He made it worse because instead of focusing his energy on the economy and getting people back to work, he used his mandate being elected-- he used that to put through a series of programs that he and his base and his friends thought were important but frankly made it harder for our economy to recover. And so we've suffered."
However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.
For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.
In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it.
And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls.
Looking solely at quarterly Gross Domestic Product, it's gone from -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009 and -0.7% in the second quarter of '09, to positive territory ever since -- including 2.8% the past quarter.
And looking at monthly payroll statistics, the numbers have gone from a loss of 818,000 jobs in Jan. 2009 -- when Obama took office -- to 16-straight months of positive job growth, including a preliminary gain of 243,000 jobs in Jan. 2012.
The one metric that might support Romney's claim that Obama made the economy worse is the unemployment rate. When Obama took office, the unemployment rate stood at 7.8%, and it was 8.3% in his first full month as president.
The unemployment rate later rose to a high of 10.0% in Oct. 2009, and it remained at or above 9.0% for all of 2010 and most of 2011. But beginning in the fall of 2011, it began to decline, and it now sits at 8.3% -- the same percentage as it was in his first full month as president, before his policies went into effect.
When First Read reached out to the Romney campaign to provide additional data to support the claim that Obama has made the economy worse, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: "The economy grew only 1.7% in [all of] 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. This is worse than growth in 2010 and is worse performance over time."
Also: "In Oct. 2009, 58.51% of the American population had a job. Today, 58.46% of the American population has a job. All that has changed is that fewer Americans are even trying to find a job –- the percentage of Americans in the labor force has declined from 65.0% to 63.7%."
And Saul adds that Obama's economic advisers -- before he took office -- said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.0%. And, of course, it still remains above that level.
Interestingly, back in June 2011, Romney used this same Obama-made-the-recession-worse rhetoric. But when NBC asked Romney why he made that claim -- when the data didn't support it -- he replied: "I didn't say that things are worse."
He went on to say:
What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% -- and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since. That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later.
MSNBC
.
Tell that to the people of California. Not a real metric measured, but I go into LA at least once a month, often in rush hour traffic. That used to be a great long parking lot barely moving. Today, I often drive right into the middle of LA in midmorning going 55-65 mph. This city is not prospering in any manner. Folks are still hurting. One of my neighbors is giving up and instead of going through foreclosure, he will do a short sale in a couple of months. I spoke to him yesterday. The recession is not over, people are hurting greatly throughout this land. By the way, you failed to note that the CBO has a very gloomy 1% growth for this year and increasing unemployment throughout the rest of this year and into 2013. In addition, the CBO you are quoting also notes that the "real" unemployment rate is about 1.5% higher than the "official" numbers. Most folks forget that Obama and his administration changed how unemployment is calculated about a year and a half ago.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/os_legacy_unemployment_rate_now_meaningless.html
Just keep believe everthing is better while the number of folks on food stamps under Obama has nearly doubled. How is all that oil flowing there in the gulf by the way. Yeah, we are really booming today folks. Just can't contain all that hope and change.
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2012/01/12/obama-the-food-stamp-president/
-
Take look at Obama's deficits compared to %GDP. You have to have a measuring stick since inflation renders some of the metrics meaningless:
Obama's Deficit Spending to GDP Compared to Other Recent Presidents
Topics: Political News and commentaries
President Obama had the chutzpah to infer in his recent speech that we'd be in great financial shape if only every other president had been as responsible on deficit spending as he has been (try to restrain your laughter - no rolling on the floor, please).
Fortunately for those foolishly naive Americans that actually fall for the utter nonsense our president so often spiels, Jeffrey Anderson provides a nifty, handy-dandy, chart that even they can understand.
As one can see, Obama's actual track record versus other recent presidents (detailed more fully here).
It's also worth noting, since Obama's fallback defense is always that the economy made him do it, that annual deficit spending even during the Great Depression never reached so much as 6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). You can see how that compares with Obama's tallies below:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php
-
It seems like you are both saying the same thing. Times are tough, Obama didn't make things any better but the GOP doesn't have anyone better. Bush was only in office 9 months when 9/11 hit so he didn't have a chance to do what he wanted. He had a war on his hands.
You can't blame Bush, war is expensive. No one has hit our Nation since. Obama got the bastard Osama.
The question is what do we do next?
-
Take look at Obama's deficits compared to %GDP. You have to have a measuring stick since inflation renders some of the metrics meaningless:
Obama's Deficit Spending to GDP Compared to Other Recent Presidents
Topics: Political News and commentaries
President Obama had the chutzpah to infer in his recent speech that we'd be in great financial shape if only every other president had been as responsible on deficit spending as he has been (try to restrain your laughter - no rolling on the floor, please).
Fortunately for those foolishly naive Americans that actually fall for the utter nonsense our president so often spiels, Jeffrey Anderson provides a nifty, handy-dandy, chart that even they can understand.
As one can see, Obama's actual track record versus other recent presidents (detailed more fully here).
It's also worth noting, since Obama's fallback defense is always that the economy made him do it, that annual deficit spending even during the Great Depression never reached so much as 6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). You can see how that compares with Obama's tallies below:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php
One of the things I do with children is teach them how to assess whether Internet (or other) sources are objective. A good start is to look for words that indicate bias. This little blurb is full of them, giving it a very low score on the objective scale. Most of my students would know to be skeptical of a link provided by such a blatantly biased source.
I am further confused by the inclusion of this post, which seems to use ridicule as a way to manipulate the judgement of the reader. The poster previously took a position against the use of ridicule in arguments. Granted, the poster is "only" copying what is written by someone else, but doing so in defense of a position. one would be inclined to assume that by providing this information, the poster is agreeing with the approach, especially since there was no disclaimer.
It would make for more coherence of argument if those beliefs so passionately extolled were supported with a similar passionate adherence to the principles espoused.
Aleta
-
In message #208, the poster placed a quote for all to read. I had just finished reading something on the subject, so I cut and pasted that article so to expand the subject for the interested reader.
ALETA: If your message is addressed to me, perhaps you should re-read the two posting in question. What followed was the posting of someone else. And, you seem to make a giant leap of faith using guilt by association, in this case , a posting does not necessarily mean that the poster agrees with anything, especially when it is just information.
gerald
-
Where did you find a message # aka 208?
:stressed;
-
Reply #208 on: Today at 01:28:54 AM
above
-
Gerald, I was responding to the quoted post that I pasted into mine.
Now, I need to go back to post #208....
Aleta
-
Reply #208 on: Today at 01:28:54 AM
above
That is reply #209 for me.
-
HemoDoc said: "Yes, rules for radicals is a very dangerous book and those that follow his teachings are very dangerous men engaging the people to voluntarily give up their freedoms for the illusory promise of utopia. Give me a break, that is grand delusion and a massive scale."
I am beginning to think that you have never read Alinsky's book. Say. why does Dick Aremy pass out copies of Rules for Radicals to Tea Party members?
And, didn't William F. Buckley praise Alinsky?
gerald
-
HemoDoc said: "Yes, rules for radicals is a very dangerous book and those that follow his teachings are very dangerous men engaging the people to voluntarily give up their freedoms for the illusory promise of utopia. Give me a break, that is grand delusion and a massive scale."
I am beginning to think that you have never read Alinsky's book. Say. why does Dick Aremy pass out copies of Rules for Radicals to Tea Party members?
And, didn't William F. Buckley praise Alinsky?
gerald
Actually I read the entire book, three book reviews on the book and several other articles that I posted links for all two days ago. Rehashed Marxism and anti-Christian propaganda, that is all it is.
Dick Army I am sured passed out the book so that people can know their enemy. That was the same reason I read it two days ago. Don't you know folks still read Mein Kampf as well. The Rules For Redicals is the play book of the left, not the Tea Party. What a joke trying to imply the Tea Party embracing Marxist doctrine. :yahoo; :yahoo; :yahoo; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :clap; :clap; :clap; :clap; :clap; :clap; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken;
-
Take look at Obama's deficits compared to %GDP. You have to have a measuring stick since inflation renders some of the metrics meaningless:
Obama's Deficit Spending to GDP Compared to Other Recent Presidents
Topics: Political News and commentaries
President Obama had the chutzpah to infer in his recent speech that we'd be in great financial shape if only every other president had been as responsible on deficit spending as he has been (try to restrain your laughter - no rolling on the floor, please).
Fortunately for those foolishly naive Americans that actually fall for the utter nonsense our president so often spiels, Jeffrey Anderson provides a nifty, handy-dandy, chart that even they can understand.
As one can see, Obama's actual track record versus other recent presidents (detailed more fully here).
It's also worth noting, since Obama's fallback defense is always that the economy made him do it, that annual deficit spending even during the Great Depression never reached so much as 6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). You can see how that compares with Obama's tallies below:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php
One of the things I do with children is teach them how to assess whether Internet (or other) sources are objective. A good start is to look for words that indicate bias. This little blurb is full of them, giving it a very low score on the objective scale. Most of my students would know to be skeptical of a link provided by such a blatantly biased source.
I am further confused by the inclusion of this post, which seems to use ridicule as a way to manipulate the judgement of the reader. The poster previously took a position against the use of ridicule in arguments. Granted, the poster is "only" copying what is written by someone else, but doing so in defense of a position. one would be inclined to assume that by providing this information, the poster is agreeing with the approach, especially since there was no disclaimer.
It would make for more coherence of argument if those beliefs so passionately extolled were supported with a similar passionate adherence to the principles espoused.
Aleta
Did you get a car wash? Maybe at least a shower? :secret;
Well, if you don't like that source of the unsustainable deficits, perhaps you will accept Bernacke:
US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that an EU-type economic crisis is headed for the US economy if it fails to curb its debt issue, Press TV reports.
“Risks remain that developments in Europe or elsewhere may unfold and could worsen economic prospects here at home,” Bernanke said this week, a Press TV correspondent reported.
The Fed chief also suggested that eventually the government's increasing debt would inhibit the growth of the country's economy.
Experts think the US economy will dip into another recession in 2012 as the US Treasury report to congress forecasts the government's debt will rise to 19.6 trillion dollars by 2015.
The Congressional Budget Office reported that the US federal budget deficit will exceed USD 1 trillion at the same time as the US debt which is now more than USD 15 trillion and growing daily. The country's annual economic output now equals about the same as the debt level.
There are fears that more delays in resolving the eurozone debt crisis, which began in Greece in late 2009 and infected Italy, Spain and France last year, could push not only Europe but also much of the rest of the developed world back into recession.
Meanwhile, the US unemployment rate remains above 9 percent. Many economists, however, believe that the true unemployment rate is around 20 percent.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224849.html
-
"Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders."
HemoDoc: I do believe that you do not know of what you speak.
gerald
-
"Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders."
HemoDoc: I do believe that you do not know of what you speak.
gerald
You have no clue what a Tea Party person is. There is NO membership, NO leadership and scattered organizations across this nation with a Tea Party name. The reason why you can't zero in on the "Tea Party" is because it is within the people themselves who have a deep and abiding love of this nation. By the way, the term Tea Party only represents what has always been here in this nation. In such, with no membership, no organization, no leaders, it is a movement of the people, by the people and for the people.
I know hundreds of folks who are Tea Party people who have never heard of Alinsky. I could care less what some weirdo in NY or where ever you said this happened. Not sure what you thing that proves since their is no "Tea Party" in the first place. It is mindset Gerald, not an organization. Never heard of FreedomWorks before. In any case, Tea Party people are those who share the same common beliefs. It is NOT an organization which is why you cannot touch it with your false allegations of racism and all this other nonsense like we follow Alinsky.
Good try my friend but you need to find out what Tea Party people really are first. You still have no clue do you?
-
I gave you some well documented facts. You deny by implication. This says that you don't deal in facts, so, don't talk to me.
gerald
-
I gave you some well documented facts. You deny by implication. This says that you don't deal in facts, so, don't talk to me.
gerald
Gerald, you quoted a conservative group that IDENTIFIES with the "Tea Party." It is NOT the TEA PARTY. Please show me where I can register anywhere in America as a Tea Party member? Please, just one registry of Tea Party people in the "TEA PARTY."
When you figure out that there is no such entity as the Tea Party except in the hearts and minds of people with shared beliefs, you can then apologize to me for your ignorant and uniformed accusation against me.
-
The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[5][6][7] It endorses reduced government spending,[8][9] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[9] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[8] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[10]
The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor.[11] Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the backronym "Taxed Enough Already".[12][13]
The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.[15]
The Tea Party's most noted national figures include Republican politicians such as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Eric Cantor, and Michele Bachmann, with the elder Paul described by some as the "intellectual godfather" of the movement.[16][17] The Tea Party movement is not a national political party; polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans,[18][19] and the movement's supporters have tended to endorse Republican candidates.[20] Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far".[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
-
HemoDoc said, "you quoted a conservative group that IDENTIFIES with the "Tea Party." It is NOT the TEA PARTY."
Then you went to a Wikipedia website and extracted certain quotes. What you left out is in the following which shows that the Tea Party is not a registered political party (nobody said it was) but it is an organization. See the following:
The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.
Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far"
The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[83][89][90] A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[91][92] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[93][94] However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.[
82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power
FreedomWorks, an organization led Dick Armey. Like Americans for Prosperity, the group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates. It makes local and national candidate endorsements. Dick Armey distributes Alinsky for use as a tactical manual.
..........................
Not only does the Tea Party exist, it has a radical racist membership. (see above)
gerald
-
HemoDoc said, "you quoted a conservative group that IDENTIFIES with the "Tea Party." It is NOT the TEA PARTY."
Then you went to a Wikipedia website and extracted certain quotes. What you left out is in the following which shows that the Tea Party is not a registered political party (nobody said it was) but it is an organization. See the following:
The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.
Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far"
The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[83][89][90] A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[91][92] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[93][94] However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.[
82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power
FreedomWorks, an organization led Dick Armey. Like Americans for Prosperity, the group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates. It makes local and national candidate endorsements. Dick Armey distributes Alinsky for use as a tactical manual.
..........................
Not only does the Tea Party exist, it has a radical racist membership. (see above)
gerald
Dear Gerald, am I racist as well since I identify with the "Tea Party?"
-
It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist. To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.
gerald
-
It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist. To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.
gerald
Dear Gerald, which ORGANIZATION is that my friend? There are dozens of conservative organizations that identify with the Tea Party, including some in congress as well, but there is not now, nor likely every will be any Tea Party to join. Get your facts straight my friend, you are once again in error.
I am a born again Christian, I am a military man who swore an oath to defend and protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. I have seen men literally die for this oath. That may not mean much to you, I hope it does, but I suspect it won't have much meaning (if I am error, accept my apologies). When I first joined the military, I was a Boston liberal and agnostic who couldn't really care less about that oath. I took it not really appreciating what I was really agreeing to uphold.
Since that time, I have come to appreciate the constitution, with all of its flaws of course, not as a perfect document by any means, but as a document that has given me here in this nation freedoms that the world in all of its history has seldom if ever seen. The majority of the constitution is derived from English Common Law which according to Blackstone was derived from Christianity.
I have now come full circle in accepting the constitution, the English Common law since I am now a born again Christian.
Yes, I identify with the stated goals of the Tea Party, but I have never joined any organization, I am not a member of one today or eve and I am beginning to question how this new entity called the Tea Party is likely a fraud, not because of our beliefs as the grass roots level, but because of how it now becomes a target for the left to apply rule #13.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
-
CHARLES GRANDISON FINNEY[1]
1792 - 1875
America evangelist and educator, Charles Finney was born at Warren, Connecticut, but two years later his family moved to upstate New York where he received his early education in frontier schools. As a young man he studied law and set up practice at Adams, New York. While reading Blackstone's Commentaries On Law, he noted continuous references to the Holy Scriptures; Blackstone repeatedly mentioned the Bible as the highest authority. This moved Finney to buy a Bible and he soon was reading it more than law. The Word of God brought deep conviction to his soul, and on October 10, 1821, out in the woods, he was converted to Christ.
http://www.jonsquillministries.org/CharlesFinney.htm
THE LINK TO ENGLISH COMMON LAW
The supremacy of God's law was generally recognized in the English common law. Sir William Blackstone, the preeminent English legal authority widely followed by the American founders, recognized the binding legal nature of the law of God as understood in its basic principles. Blackstone maintained that English law (and therefore, American law) had its roots in the laws of God.
Blackstone recognized that "law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action." He identified the essential legal relationship that exists between God and his creation by observing, "Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being."20 God was acknowledged as the lawgiver and therefore the one who laid down certain immutable rules of action, that is, of right and wrong conduct.
Recognizing the relevance of the creation and the Bible, Blackstone noted that "pon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."21 In other words, the law of God whether written in God's creation (nature) or in the Bible (revelation), spoke with a unified voice. Moreover, this law is absolute: any law of man to the contrary is of no effect.
http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12a.htm#4
Blackstone's commentaries influenced American law in other ways. For example, the Supreme Court cited Blackstone in Marbury V. Madison in its opinion of this case.
Blackstone's theories influenced the writers of the United States Constitution. Especially in the first ten amendments to this historic document. Two examples of this are in the impeachment clause and in the second amendment.
The impeachment of a public official argument uses his commentaries to explain and define what high crimes and misdemeanors means in American Constitutional law. In his essay, What Rises to the Level of an Impeachable offense, David Barton argues that the Founders understood the fundamental understanding of impeachment. He goes on to say that the impeachment process and language in the United States Constitution is based upon the long traditions of British legal history as found in the commentaries.
The second amendment right to keep and bear arms is a tradition based upon Blackstone's Commentaries. In his sources for his article on the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms in state constitutions, Professor Eugene Volokh, cites Blackstone's commentaries as a source. This source reads in part "... to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."
http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1121.shtml
-
The constitution is founded mainly on the principles of English Common Law. I have listed Blackstone's contribution as one of the foremost scholars on English Common Law during the time of the writing of the constitution. While the constitution is not in any sense a religious document, it is not in conflict with the Bible either as are many of the laws of today here in America.
As a young military officer embued with liberal political ideology, I didn't have any understanding of why people would become teary eyed simply saluting the flag. I was ignorant of the sacrifices of millions of men in our history who fought for the flag in what it represents, freedom and justice. Freedom and justice do not just appear in the world out of nothing. They are very precious virtues that the world has seen far too little. The experiment of America and the principles that guided the founding fathers are on the other hand that of recognition of God, our Creator which is mentioned in our documents. Most of the colonies were founded upon religious freedom and these documents were wholely reflective of the Bible itself. Some colonies simply made pacts that the Bible would be their guiding principle in all matters.
Today, freedom of religion is now egregiously thought of as freedom from religion. That was not at all the origninal intent of the constitution. The Federal constitution did not in any sense abrogate the state constitutions in effect at the time it was adopted. Going to the early docuements such as in Massachusets, we see some very intereting findings:
CHAPTER II.--EXECUTIVE POWER
Section I,--Governor
Article I. There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be styled "The governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts;" and whose title shall be "His Excellency."
Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.
http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm
The current EVOLVED interpretation of the first amendment would find the MA constitution "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." However, at the time it was written, the first amendment had not been adultered by interpretation and its original intent was to protect the church from the government. It DID NOT overturn the MA state constitution in any manner. Folks today fail to understand the Christian influence on our government and fail to acknowledge the underlying truth that America was a Christian nation.
America today no longer could be called a Christian nation much to our shame. Nevertheless, since becoming a Christian myself, I have gained an entirely new understanding of the Federal Constitution for which I took an oath to uphold and protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]
Ii would urge folks to understand the true nature of our American history which is ebbing away in historical revisioinism.
I am still under my commission which you do not resign when you leave active military service. If it were not for my renal disease, I could still be called back to active duty at any time until the age of 60. The above oath that I took so many years ago is still in effect as an obligation I freely took. However, today, despite my ignorance of its true meaning all those years ago, today, I understand it very well and would gladly reafirm it today.
-
It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist. To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.
gerald
I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.
-
With reference to earlier mentions of attacks and abuse that if you find any post offensive to you, or to another member(ie: an attack) there is a "report to moderators" link at the bottom of each message (you can even use it on this post!) and this will alert all moderators and asmins to a potential issue.
-
It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist. To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.
gerald
I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.
Hemodoc, really.
You protest that you think Gerald is trying to read your mind, but then you simply turn around and do the same to him.
In reading the quote you pasted above, it seems to me that Gerald was simply offering an explanation of why one might make an assumption by association. Granted, I cannot read his mind. But first he says that it is possible that you are among the 26% of Tea Partiers who are not racist. You have claimed to identify with the Tea Party rather vehemently. To me the raised eyebrow reflects exactly the meaning of this idiom:
Idiom: raise an eyebrow (raise one's eyebrows)
To show surprise, interest or disbelief.
(with an emphasis on the first two, but shades of the third) If you strongly identify with the Tea Party, it would cause me to raise an eyebrow at the over-arching implications.
You may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, but your admitted identification with them would cause others to wonder.
It just seems that you doth protest too much.
Aleta
-
It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist. To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.
gerald
I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.
Hemodoc, really.
You protest that you think Gerald is trying to read your mind, but then you simply turn around and do the same to him.
In reading the quote you pasted above, it seems to me that Gerald was simply offering an explanation of why one might make an assumption by association. Granted, I cannot read his mind. But first he says that it is possible that you are among the 26% of Tea Partiers who are not racist. You have claimed to identify with the Tea Party rather vehemently. To me the raised eyebrow reflects exactly the meaning of this idiom:
Idiom: raise an eyebrow (raise one's eyebrows)
To show surprise, interest or disbelief.
(with an emphasis on the first two, but shades of the third) If you strongly identify with the Tea Party, it would cause me to raise an eyebrow at the over-arching implications.
You may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, but your admitted identification with them would cause others to wonder.
It just seems that you doth protest too much.
Aleta
Please explain why affiliation, association or agreement with some or all of the tenants of the Tea Party causes you such distress?
-
Please explain why affiliation, association or agreement with some or all of the tenants of the Tea Party causes you such distress?
Funny, I never said it caused me distress. Where in the world did you get that idea? Are you putting words in my mouth?
Aleta
-
It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist. To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.
gerald
I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.
Hemodoc, really.
You protest that you think Gerald is trying to read your mind, but then you simply turn around and do the same to him.
In reading the quote you pasted above, it seems to me that Gerald was simply offering an explanation of why one might make an assumption by association. Granted, I cannot read his mind. But first he says that it is possible that you are among the 26% of Tea Partiers who are not racist. You have claimed to identify with the Tea Party rather vehemently. To me the raised eyebrow reflects exactly the meaning of this idiom:
Idiom: raise an eyebrow (raise one's eyebrows)
To show surprise, interest or disbelief.
(with an emphasis on the first two, but shades of the third) If you strongly identify with the Tea Party, it would cause me to raise an eyebrow at the over-arching implications.
You may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, but your admitted identification with them would cause others to wonder.
It just seems that you doth protest too much.
Aleta
Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"
-
Wow! I am not a part of this discussion either. It seems like I posted here eons ago.
gl
-
Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"
For the same reason that it might cause anyone who is not racist to raise an eyebrow. When an individual professes to be associated with a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism, a certain amount of disapproval is bound to happen.
Gerald's suggesting that you might be part of the remaining 26% minority speaks volumes to his graciousness.
Since you have proclaimed that you are not racist, it settles the point. On the other hand, those who do not know you, and learn of your association with the Tea Party may also come to the conclusion that you support a racist attitude along with the majority of Tea Partiers. That would be guilt by association, and perhaps not warranted, but part of the risk of proclaiming support/alliance/identification with a movement.
Aleta
-
Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"
For the same reason that it might cause anyone who is not racist to raise an eyebrow. When an individual professes to be associated with a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism, a certain amount of disapproval is bound to happen.
Gerald's suggesting that you might be part of the remaining 26% minority speaks volumes to his graciousness.
Since you have proclaimed that you are not racist, it settles the point. On the other hand, those who do not know you, and learn of your association with the Tea Party may also come to the conclusion that you support a racist attitude along with the majority of Tea Partiers. That would be guilt by association, and perhaps not warranted, but part of the risk of proclaiming support/alliance/identification with a movement.
Aleta
Well-said, Aleta!
-
... a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism...
I'd like to know where that number came from. And how "racism" is being defined as it is being used to describe Tea Party members in this context. (BTW - I'm not a Tea Party member and have never been to any sort of Tea Party gathering or townhall meeting.)
-
... a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism...
I'd like to know where that number came from. And how "racism" is being defined as it is being used to describe Tea Party members in this context. (BTW - I'm not a Tea Party member and have never been to any sort of Tea Party gathering or townhall meeting.)
I was responding to previous quotes by Gerald Lively, taken form Wikipedia, I believe.
-
The 74% number mentioned and questioned, came from a survey/poll taken by the University of Washington. The purpose of the survey was to determine the pollitcal makeup of the Tea Party. If I remember it correctly, 25% of the Tea Party membership were outright racists, the 74% took racist views on issues but did not think of themselves as racist. I hope that clears things up.
gerald
-
Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"
For the same reason that it might cause anyone who is not racist to raise an eyebrow. When an individual professes to be associated with a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism, a certain amount of disapproval is bound to happen.
Gerald's suggesting that you might be part of the remaining 26% minority speaks volumes to his graciousness.
Since you have proclaimed that you are not racist, it settles the point. On the other hand, those who do not know you, and learn of your association with the Tea Party may also come to the conclusion that you support a racist attitude along with the majority of Tea Partiers. That would be guilt by association, and perhaps not warranted, but part of the risk of proclaiming support/alliance/identification with a movement.
Aleta
Dear Aleta, you believe you know who the Tea Party folks are, their motivations, their shortcomings and have accepted a blatant media propaganda set forth by rule number 13 that Tea Party folks are racist. After two weeks of giving example after example proving that false accusation wrong, please think of us as racists just as Thadeus Matthews accused Charlotte Bergmann of being a racist as well if that is what you wish to believe. The absurdity of that association only shows the depths to which those that want power will go. The absurdity that people like me and those that I know within the Tea Party are racist only shows how gullible you folks are to this propaganda. So be it.
If you wish to judge me and Tea Party folks as racists, then that puts you folks in the same category as Thadeus Matthews in the end analysis. Where were all your protestations of racism against that man. Crickets is all that we heard. In the end analysis, the guilt by association, raised eyebrows all convey the simple meaning that I am among those that you feel are racist which is right back to the original issue I entered this discussion two weeks ago. It has not been a vain exercise in that the original premise is what was suspected in the first place.
In any case, my wife finds these implications about people like me and our many friends who likewise would be called Tea Party folks absurd to no end. I guess the lesson learned here is that reason and evidence will not undo the biases people have against folks like us. If the Lord should choose to overcome what has come against this land, that will be by His hand and not by any political activism.
I would hope folks do read enough of Alinsky and those that buy into his premises to understand that the goal is not to bring forth more social programs, but to use the social programs to crash this system and bring in a new "utopian" society first through a dictatorship of the proletariat. Remember that you do need to be careful what you ask for. Yes, Alinsky has been very "successful" in America, but who in the end will he have lied to the most?
-
The 74% number mentioned and questioned, came from a survey/poll taken by the University of Washington. The purpose of the survey was to determine the pollitcal makeup of the Tea Party. If I remember it correctly, 25% of the Tea Party membership were outright racists, the 74% took racist views on issues but did not think of themselves as racist. I hope that clears things up.
gerald
Gerald, you seem to be a very analytical and reasonable man. I suspect most of our political and religious views are 180 degrees out of phase but that's OK. Maybe we can have a beer sometime. :beer1;
Now that I've buttered you up...are you so quick to accept weak data from possibly biased sources when it comes from conservative organizations? Didn't think so.
Unless we can examine the actual poll questions and how it was administered we should be very suspicious of the results. This applies to left or right. (Back when Noah was building the ark I used to teach statistics, sampling, and survey development and administration so I know how easy it is to create a biased survey either intentionally or not.)
What criteria was used to define "racist"? I believe I could write a question that if anyone answered it truthfully their answer could be used to call them racist. What is a racist? Substantially, it means someone of one race who believes that their race is superior to others. I live in the South and I think--at least among anyone younger than 60--that such a view is virtually extinct. I think most of what is called "racism" today has more to do with cultural differences than actual racism. Opposition to an issue or policy proposed by President Obama, for example, can be due to any number of reasons inherent in the issue itself and not the pigmentation of the President's skin. Yet too often the alternate positions are dismissed without due consideration based on an emotional response arising from the "race" of the parties involved. This can certainly be prejudice or bigotry, but we are all prejudiced about many things...that does not equate to racism.
-
That's a good point, Willis. In fact, I intend to do further research on this exact issue.
And I do appreciate that you refrained form labeling anyone such as "you folks" and "people like me" which calls to mind a tribal mentality. When I see arguments resorting to tribalism "people like me" against "you folks" it actually reminds me of the kind of prejudice of which you speak.
In order to be clear, Merriam-Webster defines tribalism thus:
1: tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups
2: strong in-group loyalty
Arguments that resort to this approach are weakened, and often make it more difficult for all parties to move beyond prejudice in order to listen to the content.
While I enjoy hearing (and learning from) a variety of points of view, I often dismiss "arguments" that are heavily laden with pejoratives.
Aleta
-
That's a good point, Willis. In fact, I intend to do further research on this exact issue.
And I do appreciate that you refrained form labeling anyone such as "you folks" and "people like me" which calls to mind a tribal mentality. When I see arguments resorting to tribalism "people like me" against "you folks" it actually reminds me of the kind of prejudice of which you speak.
In order to be clear, Merriam-Webster defines tribalism thus:
1: tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups
2: strong in-group loyalty
Arguments that resort to this approach are weakened, and often make it more difficult for all parties to move beyond prejudice in order to listen to the content.
While I enjoy hearing (and learning from) a variety of points of view, I often dismiss "arguments" that are heavily laden with pejoratives.
Aleta
Dear Willis, I know you wish to interject in a calm and reasoning voice, but I truly don't believe that is where "these folks" are at that wish to skewer the right wing Christians people like "you and me" who often identify with the Tea Party. In any case, they say that they wish to talk in open and friendly terms and how much that they hate "pejoratives," yet at the same time that they say they are against this type of verbal and personal attack, in the very post that they say they are against pejoratives, they threw another one my way. Perhaps they need a lesson on what pejoratives are.
Definition of PEJORATIVE: a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase.
I will simply state that this is just the tactics of obtuse irrelavent inflammatory comments used in their so called debates by taking my statement of people like me who support the Tea Party and you folks who are against it. If they can turn that into a false allegation of a pejorative, since it was only a description of the debating sides, I can now add another false allegation to the growing list of racism and closed mindedness a new pejorative about me: tribalism.
In any case Willis, good luck, you will need it.
-
Dear Aleta, lest I need to remind others on IHD of the pejoratives you were recently warned for personal attacks, making clear whose side you are on is a strategy utilized by the left. Listen to Christ Matthews on this issue when discussing Alinsky. Your apology is expected for one more pejorative against me once again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvng7TVf-wo
-
Dear Aleta, lest I need to remind others on IHD of the pejoratives you were recently warned for personal attacks, making clear whose side you are on is a strategy utilized by the left. Listen to Christ Matthews on this issue when discussing Alinsky. Your apology is expected for one more pejorative against me once again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvng7TVf-wo
What?
-
Dear Aleta, lest I need to remind others on IHD of the pejoratives you were recently warned for personal attacks, making clear whose side you are on is a strategy utilized by the left. Listen to Christ Matthews on this issue when discussing Alinsky. Your apology is expected for one more pejorative against me once again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvng7TVf-wo
What?
Oh, sorry, did you forget so quickly?
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=25300.msg413888#msg413888
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=25300.msg413922#msg413922
-
Really? Right after you just get done calling her absurd and gullible?
-
Really? Right after you just get done calling her absurd and gullible?
Thank you, YLGuy! :cuddle;
-
Is there really someone called "Christ Matthews"?
"You folks" are a giggle. I'm glad I"m not going to heaven.
-
Is there really someone called "Christ Matthews"?
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
"You folks" are a giggle. I'm glad I"m not going to heaven.
You either, huh? Don't worry, Saul Alinsky will teach us the ropes wherever we end up, galvo....
-
As the American political system progressed midway through the GOP primaries, we are heavily immersed in the issues of Birtherism, the comments of Rush Limbaugh, contraceptives, recreational sex, how many sponsors Limbaugh has lost, and who can sit on the grass at the US Supreme Court. I have read many conservative commentaries that claim the 2012 general election is the most important in the history of this nation. We also know that the GOP is controlling the national discourse since this, after all, their primary season. Strange days!
Early on we all heard from the right-wing that the U.S. Constitution is sacred but then we heard GOP candidates who wish to change a few constitutional issues such as the right of privacy and legislate personal medical care, instruct you on what sort of sex you may have, reinterpretations of the First Amendment, we have even heard that the Ninth District of the Federal Court system be abolished. Where oh where are the hypocrisy police. If that doesn’t dazzle you, how about mixing religion and government as suggested by at least one major GOP candidate.
Why haven’t we heard about the real issues of the day; war, the economy, or the state of education through its entire spectrum (K-12 and four years of college)?
Perhaps the answer to that rests with the Democrats who have not yet entered the national discussion. But that answer suggests the GOP has nothing realistic to say. Can that be true?
Who has the answers to federal budgeting, sticking with commitments, the war in Afghanistan and the temptation to war in Iran and Syria? And why are we not talking about that? What about an analysis of the GOP refusal in the last House session to adopt any economic measures and the why of it all?
The highly fractured right-wing is a disservice to Americans. We haven’t heard from the Democrats but we have heard from the Republicans and the tone and subject matter is a collection of fringe politics. Imagine this, “Birthers” gaining a national stage from which to shout, a Christian litmus test for any GOP candidate, and women as sub-citizens.
If the GOP controlled headlines do not change soon, their party may be on a suicidal path. Perhaps a brokered convention would give the rank and file a chance to speak out. Perhaps not. But someone on the right has to get their head screwed on correctly or the game is over before it has even began.
-
The game is already over Gerald. Perhaps you haven't read that yet. Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread. The concept of freedom of religion is being trampled by the latest Obama/Alinsky attack on the church over the contraceptive issues. You truly have a skewed viewed of what conservatives represent. Truly amazing but no sense trying to convince you otherwise of all your delusional thinking about conservatives.
The Alinsky rules for radicals are quite effective to say the least, but the end result will be destruction for this nation. You Gerald are part of that. But, for the record, you will get your godless America soon. We are almost there today. The majority of people enjoy the ridicule and mockery of any semblance of family values seen on all the late night comics shows around America. That in my opinion is sad and nothing to be applauded.
Do be careful what you ask for, you will most likely get every single issue you are asking for right now Gerald. Free sex, well actually paid in part by tax money, open debauchery accepted as public discourse as evidenced even here on many IHD threads, further entitilements to all Americans so none of us will have to ever work again and good old Uncle Sam will pay for everything and regulate everything. Yes, what a great and brave new world you are building.
Sounds like a real utopia to me. :bandance; :bandance; :bandance; :bandance; Well, that is until someone has to pay the bill to keep the lights on. I wonder who will pay the bills after all the 1%ers pack up and leave as they have already begun to do?
-
You overlooked my point entirely, and that is; that the GOP’s failing to engage in the important issues of the day, is a disservice to voting Americans. There is little doubt that GOP politics today are extreme.
We see a Limbaugh who is willing to slander people and justifies this by using insults of public figures by the democrats when we all know that public figures are held to a different standard per malice and slander. We see a Santorum who says any sex for a purpose other than procreation is immoral. And we see the twisted argument on contraceptives that this will cost the taxpayers’ money when it will do no such thing regardless of a ban or not. What we have out there is a group from the fringe elements moving toward fascism.
Your penchant for bringing Alinsky into every discussion is bullshit. That means to me that you have no answers to a rational comment.
gerald
-
I still don't get where taxpayes are paying for "dildoes and other perversions" when the issue re contraception was about employer-sponsored health insurance paying for contraception. Since when do taxpayers pay for my employer-sponsored health insurance??? Granted, I work for a private company, not the government. But, if the employee pays any part of their health insurance premium, then their employer should not dictate what healthcare they receive. I feel that way about any and all healthcare that a patient may need.
Does this mean I was a slut when I was taking the pill while I was on dialysis to control renal anemia??? According to rush limbot I was. I read the transcript of what Sandra Fluke read to congress. I thought she had very good points, and none had to do with young women having wonton sex with lots of men. I don't understand where everyone gets that idea.
Then there's this sad blog written by the mother of a 16 year-old girl who takes the pill to control her painful, life-interrupting periods. Because of a field trip she went on with the school band, and a policy of Rx meds being handled by a doctor-parent-chaperone on the trip, some mean girls at her school started a war on her and called her a slut at school repeatedly, all because their moms "listen to that man on the radio who said so, and he's right about everything". Um WTF????? Here is the link if you care to read it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search)
This country is turning into Jerry Springer because of blowhards like limbot. He crossed a line and went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If I were a Republican, I'd be mad as hell at him and thinking he was working for President Obama, because it is obvious that this is taking away from the real issues at hand, and making the Republicans look like chumps.
Edited to add: The transcript from Sandra Fluke's testimony to Congress. Yeah, it reads like a Penthouse erotica letter ::) http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
KarenInWA
-
You overlooked my point entirely, and that is; that the GOP’s failing to engage in the important issues of the day, is a disservice to voting Americans. There is little doubt that GOP politics today are extreme.
We see a Limbaugh who is willing to slander people and justifies this by using insults of public figures by the democrats when we all know that public figures are held to a different standard per malice and slander. We see a Santorum who says any sex for a purpose other than procreation is immoral. And we see the twisted argument on contraceptives that this will cost the taxpayers’ money when it will do no such thing regardless of a ban or not. What we have out there is a group from the fringe elements moving toward fascism.
Your penchant for bringing Alinsky into every discussion is bullshit. That means to me that you have no answers to a rational comment.
gerald
Great rational answer. BS. Yes, yes, yes Gerald.
This is indeed a classic Alinsky move by Obama. Rule #13:
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
Come on Gerald, you are over 70 and are you going to tell me you are shocked that Catholic church opposes abortion and contraception? This is a pure and simple Alinsky pick the target, CONSERVATIVES. Freeze it, that is all folks like you are talking about and ingnoring the entire center of the GOP postulates. Personalize it. "War on my uterus," how much more personal can you get than that? The Catholics haven't suddenly added a new issue, this has been their stance for centuries. Nothing new. Polarize it. I don't believe you can find any issue today BROUGHT UP and CREATED by OBAMA that is more polarizing than this issue.
If you wish to be manipulated by the Obummer, go ahead. I find that pitiful myself, but not my issue.
By the way, Limbaugh is not running for office. He is an entertainer just like the liberal talk show host that called Laura Ingrham a slut a while back. Too bad you didn't take umbrage to that insult as well, nor did any on the liberal side. Yes, yes, yes, the new rules are you can call conservative white women sluts as long as they are conservatives. I disagree with that language for anyone and Limbaugh was wrong and is paying the price for opening his mouth incorrectly on that issue. So be it.
Fighting to preserve religious liberty is not fascism Gerald. The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion. If you are so concernced about facism, how about commenting on the NDAA and Holder's defense of killing US citizens. Did you catch the comments by the head of the FBI to see if these rules applied within the US? Sure, you are concernced about facsism when the Catholics simply state that they are against contraceptives, not anything new, and abortion but you seem to overlook what Obama is doing right before our eyes.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1496349721001/fbi-unclear-on-targeted-killing-rule-within-us
What am I missing Gerald, Please explain?
-
You overlooked my point entirely, and that is; that the GOP’s failing to engage in the important issues of the day, is a disservice to voting Americans.
Your penchant for bringing Alinsky into every discussion is bullshit. That means to me that you have no answers to a rational comment.
gerald
I got tired of a completely different question being answered than the one I asked. :stressed; Good luck with that! :rofl;
-
I still don't get where taxpayes are paying for "dildoes and other perversions" when the issue re contraception was about employer-sponsored health insurance paying for contraception. Since when do taxpayers pay for my employer-sponsored health insurance??? Granted, I work for a private company, not the government. But, if the employee pays any part of their health insurance premium, then their employer should not dictate what healthcare they receive. I feel that way about any and all healthcare that a patient may need.
Does this mean I was a slut when I was taking the pill while I was on dialysis to control renal anemia??? According to rush limbot I was. I read the transcript of what Sandra Fluke read to congress. I thought she had very good points, and none had to do with young women having wonton sex with lots of men. I don't understand where everyone gets that idea.
Then there's this sad blog written by the mother of a 16 year-old girl who takes the pill to control her painful, life-interrupting periods. Because of a field trip she went on with the school band, and a policy of Rx meds being handled by a doctor-parent-chaperone on the trip, some mean girls at her school started a war on her and called her a slut at school repeatedly, all because their moms "listen to that man on the radio who said so, and he's right about everything". Um WTF????? Here is the link if you care to read it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search)
This country is turning into Jerry Springer because of blowhards like limbot. He crossed a line and went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If I were a Republican, I'd be mad as hell at him and thinking he was working for President Obama, because it is obvious that this is taking away from the real issues at hand, and making the Republicans look like chumps.
Edited to add: The transcript from Sandra Fluke's testimony to Congress. Yeah, it reads like a Penthouse erotica letter ::) http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
KarenInWA
That was part of a comment on another thread by Gerald Karen.
As far as calling people sluts, I agree that is over the top and should not be acceptable. I believe that is what you believe as well. I guess you will join in criticism against Ed Shultz for calling Laura Ingraham a slut as well?
UPDATE: MSNBC announced Wednesday evening that Schultz is going on one week of unpaid leave as a result of these comments.
Original Post: Ed Schultz called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" on his Tuesday radio show.
Schultz was criticizing Ingraham for what he saw as her hypocritical criticism of President Obama for drinking beer in Ireland while a tornado was destroying Joplin, Missouri:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/ed-schultz-laura-ingraham_n_866909.html
-
You overlooked my point entirely, and that is; that the GOP’s failing to engage in the important issues of the day, is a disservice to voting Americans. There is little doubt that GOP politics today are extreme.
We see a Limbaugh who is willing to slander people and justifies this by using insults of public figures by the democrats when we all know that public figures are held to a different standard per malice and slander. We see a Santorum who says any sex for a purpose other than procreation is immoral. And we see the twisted argument on contraceptives that this will cost the taxpayers’ money when it will do no such thing regardless of a ban or not. What we have out there is a group from the fringe elements moving toward fascism.
Your penchant for bringing Alinsky into every discussion is bullshit. That means to me that you have no answers to a rational comment.
gerald
Great rational answer. BS. Yes, yes, yes Gerald.
This is indeed a classic Alinsky move by Obama. Rule #13:
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
Come on Gerald, you are over 70 and are you going to tell me you are shocked that Catholic church opposes abortion and contraception? This is a pure and simple Alinsky pick the target, CONSERVATIVES. Freeze it, that is all folks like you are talking about and ingnoring the entire center of the GOP postulates. Personalize it. "War on my uterus," how much more personal can you get than that? The Catholics haven't suddenly added a new issue, this has been their stance for centuries. Nothing new. Polarize it. I don't believe you can find any issue today BROUGHT UP and CREATED by OBAMA that is more polarizing than this issue.
If you wish to be manipulated by the Obummer, go ahead. I find that pitiful myself, but not my issue.
By the way, Limbaugh is not running for office. He is an entertainer just like the liberal talk show host that called Laura Ingrham a slut a while back. Too bad you didn't take umbrage to that insult as well, nor did any on the liberal side. Yes, yes, yes, the new rules are you can call conservative white women sluts as long as they are conservatives. I disagree with that language for anyone and Limbaugh was wrong and is paying the price for opening his mouth incorrectly on that issue. So be it.
Fighting to preserve religious liberty is not fascism Gerald. The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion. If you are so concernced about facism, how about commenting on the NDAA and Holder's defense of killing US citizens. Did you catch the comments by the head of the FBI to see if these rules applied within the US? Sure, you are concernced about facsism when the Catholics simply state that they are against contraceptives, not anything new, and abortion but you seem to overlook what Obama is doing right before our eyes.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1496349721001/fbi-unclear-on-targeted-killing-rule-within-us
What am I missing Gerald, Please explain?
-
My post is not about Alinsky despite your preoccupation with whoever he is. And, you have the law wrong on slander with malice. A public figure is held to a different standard than a private citizen. Limbaugh , with obvious malice, slandered Fluke. She should sue. The other incidents were all about public figures and were perfectly legitimate under very long-standing legal precedent. Why you failed to read this in my previous message is a mystery.
The First Amendment does provide for freedom of religion and you incorrectly stated that it does not offer freedom FROM religion. You could not be more wrong. I do not have to join a religion to be a citizen of the United States. Worse, I oppose any religious organization for the simple reason that religious beliefs are very private – as in: none of your business. The very day the Catholic Church begins to establish the law in America, is the day we turn fascist. Already we have a mix of corporations and government because the US has failed to utilize anti-trust laws as intended. Limiting personal freedom in the next step to fascism. Too bad you didn’t know this.
If you cannot address the issues of war, economics and still find a need to quote the Bible or Alinsky, this conversation is over.
gerald
-
A little over three years ago, birth control pills saved my life.
Yes, you read that right and no, it is not hyperbole. I will spare you all the gory details because it was gruesome, but it is a fact that birth control pills saved my life.
I would not have been responsible for the fallout if someone had denied me this medication because of their "morals". :boxing;
So, I resent this underlying assumption that contraception is only for the prevention of pregnancy due to constant, slutty sex. It's just not true.
I believe that having access to affordable birth control IS a pro-family position. I believe that a husband and wife should have the ability to determine and control the size of their family if this is what they choose to do. I do not see anything wrong with wanting to take personal responsibility for the size of your family.
This debate about whether or not employers should be forced to cover any medication or services they might not "agree with" wouldn't be happening if we had single payer, universal health care. Your employer should not have the right to infringe upon the decisions made by you and your doctor. What if your employer decided he wasn't going to pay for your dialysis because you're diabetic, and he thinks that it's your fault that you couldn't be arsed to eat properly or lose weight or do whatever he ignorantly thinks would have prevented your ESRD? Really, should your employer have that much power over your life?
Why do we expect business owners to provide health insurance? If we are really that interested in businesses and their economic health, why do we insist they shoulder this particularly heinous expense? I thought the Republicans were supposed to be Pro-Business, but this notion of making businesses provide insurance doesn't seem pro-business to me. Can someone explain this to me?
I am a patient gal, and I will wait until the GOP select their nominee. After that, I want to see what that nominee has to say. I want to see what his plan will be for the economy, for taxation, for an energy policy, for an immigration policy and for a foreign policy.
I will give President GW Bush one thing, and that is he attempted to craft a comprehensive immigration policy that included a path to citizenship. I think that was a good path to be on, but it does not look like any of the current nominees are thinking along those same lines. This concerns me as I don't know what else should be done with the millions of people who are here illegally. Can you imagine how much it would cost to identify, round up, detain and then deport 12 million people? It can't be done, so what do we do instead? If a GOP nominee utters a compassionate word about this group of people (like Rick Perry did in one of the debates), they're thrown to the wolves. Little did I know I'd ever stick up for Rick Perry!! LOL!
And Iran...OMG, what's going to happen there! We all know that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have broken our economy. Even if you agreed with the basic premises of those wars, you still cannot say that they have done anything but ruin our economy. And the GOP nominees are advocating entering another war with a country that's not the backwater like Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we forget so quickly the tremendous cost of warfare? And this is to protect Israel? Why are we going to war to protect Israel? Are we going to let another nation pull us into war? This really, really scares me, and I can't tell if Romney et al really want to do this or if they are just saying what they perceive their base wants to hear.
I understand the appeal of, say, Mr. Romney to those people who see his business experience as a conduit to the eventual financial health of the US. But again, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that government should be run as a business, and this is what Mr. Romney seems to be saying. All of us with CKD/ESRD would be the first ones to be fired because we are not good for America's profit margin.
The love of family, of country, of business, of faith, of innovation and of fair play are not solely conservative values. The desire to send your kids for higher education is not "snobbish". Investing in America means investing in AMERICANS and in all of those who want to live here, learn here and work here.
I know that the role of religion in making policy has been a subject of debate. I am no theologian, but I'm sitting here looking at my copy of the Constitution, and there is no mention of "God". Now, in the Declaration of Independence, first paragraph, there is reference to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", but whose God? Why are we assuming any and all references to "God" in any of our historical documents are to a Christian God? It is my understanding that Muslims, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God; the differences come in the interpretation of the role of Jesus Christ, and I can't find any reference specifically to "Jesus Christ" anywhere. I was watching an Indian movie the other day that took place in the Punjab, and even THEY were talking about "God". My point is that I am not sure what is meant by the phrase "people of faith." When Rick Santorum said that to think there is no place for "people of faith" in the public square made him want to throw up, does he mean to imply that devout Muslims and devout Hindus have a place in our government, maybe even in the Oval Office? If the President was a devout Muslim, wouldn't he, too, be a "person of faith"? Or does that kind of faith not count? Whose faith is the proper faith?
It was proper that Ed Schultz was removed from the air when he called Laura I. a "slut". I've looked at his apology several times, and he spent almost nine minutes apologizing for a comment that took 1 second to make. Rush L. went on a tirade that lasted three days. He's been married 4 times and he doesn't know how birth control works. To even jokingly suggest that Sandra Fluke post sexually explicit videos of herself in return for her birth control is just too pervy and gross. Ewwwww....
-
Why haven’t we heard about the real issues of the day; war, the economy, or the state of education through its entire spectrum (K-12 and four years of college)?
At least one candidate--Ron Paul--has consistently and emphatically discussed those very issues among many others such as the ridiculous "war on drugs." Now if we met face-to-face and had a nice friendly chat about politics you might wind up considering me a right-wing extremist. But there is a significant part of the conservative Right--Libertarian actually--that just wants the government to follow the Constitution and quit spending Other Peoples Money until we go bankrupt. Otherwise, we just don't care if someone is gay or smokes dope or doesn't believe in God. Just leave us the hell alone. These are the true conservatives and they are damn few in number as Ron Paul's delegate count is proving.
I must add very emphatically too that most of the entrenched Republicans in office and what little right-leaning press there is do their best to ignore Ron Paul. It's like he's a figment of everyone's imagination..."don't pay attention to that old fart standing next to Santorum."
Imagine this, “Birthers” gaining a national stage from which to shout, a Christian litmus test for any GOP candidate, and women as sub-citizens.
Now with this I must turn things around and call B.S. on you...I can tell that you are smart enough to know propaganda when you hear it (form both sides) and it doesn't do your arguments any justice to be spreading silly canards and opinions based on 15-second sound bites.
But either way Gerald...here's to ya! :beer1;
-
Why is it that Republicans believe in foisting their moral views on other people all the time? We talk about fundamentalism in the Middle East, but we need to be VERY careful that the same does not happen in this country too.
-
I'm going to have to agree with GL and MM about the left-wing media personalities calling right-wing media personalities or politicians "sluts" or "whores". There is a huge difference of doing that to public figures (especially, in the case of Ed Schultz, when it's personality to personality) than doing that to a private citizen who is speaking his/her voice. Granted, that private citizen is putting him/herself out there, but that does not mean that some radio blow-hard can go on a tirade about said person for literally *days* about something he doesn't even know anything about! Yes, Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, but he didn't do it repeatedly for days on end. I saw him do his apology on tv, and I too, believed it was well done and humble. And he did this on his own show's airtime. And, I think it's safe to say that he isn't going to do that again!
I do feel that those who call others names like that deaden the point of view that they're trying to get a across. It's immature, no matter what side is represented. But, once it's out there, it's out there, and the person who spoke it has to eat crow. Ed Schultz ate his, rush limbot barely ate a feather, especially when you compare calling someone a slut vs his whiney tirade. And that's what it was, nothing but a whiney tirade from a big, overgrown child of a male being. Just the thought of him is enough of a contraceptive! (although, not enough to control periods or help with ovarian cysts....)
MooseMom, as always, you get your point of view across very eloquently, and I feel like you speak my mind when I read your posts. Thank you for that! :)
KarenInWA
-
My post is not about Alinsky despite your preoccupation with whoever he is. And, you have the law wrong on slander with malice. A public figure is held to a different standard than a private citizen. Limbaugh , with obvious malice, slandered Fluke. She should sue. The other incidents were all about public figures and were perfectly legitimate under very long-standing legal precedent. Why you failed to read this in my previous message is a mystery.
The First Amendment does provide for freedom of religion and you incorrectly stated that it does not offer freedom FROM religion. You could not be more wrong. I do not have to join a religion to be a citizen of the United States. Worse, I oppose any religious organization for the simple reason that religious beliefs are very private – as in: none of your business. The very day the Catholic Church begins to establish the law in America, is the day we turn fascist. Already we have a mix of corporations and government because the US has failed to utilize anti-trust laws as intended. Limiting personal freedom in the next step to fascism. Too bad you didn’t know this.
If you cannot address the issues of war, economics and still find a need to quote the Bible or Alinsky, this conversation is over.
gerald
Yeah, yeah. Yes. It is over Gerald, agree to disagree. You are simply wrong as always.
-
I still don't get where taxpayes are paying for "dildoes and other perversions" when the issue re contraception was about employer-sponsored health insurance paying for contraception. Since when do taxpayers pay for my employer-sponsored health insurance??? Granted, I work for a private company, not the government. But, if the employee pays any part of their health insurance premium, then their employer should not dictate what healthcare they receive. I feel that way about any and all healthcare that a patient may need.
Does this mean I was a slut when I was taking the pill while I was on dialysis to control renal anemia??? According to rush limbot I was. I read the transcript of what Sandra Fluke read to congress. I thought she had very good points, and none had to do with young women having wonton sex with lots of men. I don't understand where everyone gets that idea.
Then there's this sad blog written by the mother of a 16 year-old girl who takes the pill to control her painful, life-interrupting periods. Because of a field trip she went on with the school band, and a policy of Rx meds being handled by a doctor-parent-chaperone on the trip, some mean girls at her school started a war on her and called her a slut at school repeatedly, all because their moms "listen to that man on the radio who said so, and he's right about everything". Um WTF????? Here is the link if you care to read it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search)
This country is turning into Jerry Springer because of blowhards like limbot. He crossed a line and went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If I were a Republican, I'd be mad as hell at him and thinking he was working for President Obama, because it is obvious that this is taking away from the real issues at hand, and making the Republicans look like chumps.
Edited to add: The transcript from Sandra Fluke's testimony to Congress. Yeah, it reads like a Penthouse erotica letter ::) http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
KarenInWA
Dear Karen, when you are outraged by the Ed Shultz comments as well, then your dialogue will have more meaning than simply falling in line with Democratic presidential propaganda. I already stated I disagree with calling anyone that name, Period.
As far as insurance coverage, you pay for what you get. Insurance companies have various levels of coverage. Some just the bare bones, others pay for every aspect. The price of those coverages reflects what you buy.
Not to defend Rush, but the analogy he tried and failed to make is that if they are asking the government to pay for contraceptives, that is tantamount to paying for sex which would make her a prostitute and a slut. No one seems to quote it in the context he stated. I would not have stated that, but that is what he stated in a hypothetical that has obviously failed. Fluke knowingly went to a university that publicly opposes contraception. No one forced her to go there. She could have chosen a thousand secular schools, but instead she chose to go there with their very public no contraception policy. Now Obama is stirring up a hornets nest for his own poltical gain over a settled Catholic issue. That would be like going to BYU and asking where's the Starbuck's coffee shop? Ain't going to happen at BYU if you know what I mean.
This is a deliberite crises created by Obama to win the female vote in November. No one is stating limits on existing policies. He is instead trying to force religious institutions to go against their religious teaching which you or anyone else is free to dismiss and go to school somewhere else.
I personally believe we should get a Starbucks on every corner of Mormon schools and campuses, it is my right to have coffee anywhere I wish in this nation. After all, that is my right!!
Sorry, we have a right to privacy. I suspect folks don't understand that you are turning over your rights to privacy by insisting on government sponsored contraception. That gives the goverment the right to REGULATE that entitlement.
But if that is what you folks want, go for it. No skin off of my nose.
-
Why is it that Republicans believe in foisting their moral views on other people all the time? We talk about fundamentalism in the Middle East, but we need to be VERY careful that the same does not happen in this country too.
Dear Amanda, actually, it is the other way around on this issue quite blatently of forcing the Catholics to support contraception against their teachings. Abortion is the law of the land against millions of innocent children in the womb who have all of their rights aborted with their young lives. Who shall speak for their innocent blood?
By the way, look up the history of this nation and you will see it WAS and I emphasize, WAS a Christian nation that it was founded upon. We are long ways from being a Christian nation any longer much to our own demise.
-
I still don't get where taxpayes are paying for "dildoes and other perversions" when the issue re contraception was about employer-sponsored health insurance paying for contraception. Since when do taxpayers pay for my employer-sponsored health insurance??? Granted, I work for a private company, not the government. But, if the employee pays any part of their health insurance premium, then their employer should not dictate what healthcare they receive. I feel that way about any and all healthcare that a patient may need.
Does this mean I was a slut when I was taking the pill while I was on dialysis to control renal anemia??? According to rush limbot I was. I read the transcript of what Sandra Fluke read to congress. I thought she had very good points, and none had to do with young women having wonton sex with lots of men. I don't understand where everyone gets that idea.
Then there's this sad blog written by the mother of a 16 year-old girl who takes the pill to control her painful, life-interrupting periods. Because of a field trip she went on with the school band, and a policy of Rx meds being handled by a doctor-parent-chaperone on the trip, some mean girls at her school started a war on her and called her a slut at school repeatedly, all because their moms "listen to that man on the radio who said so, and he's right about everything". Um WTF????? Here is the link if you care to read it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search)
This country is turning into Jerry Springer because of blowhards like limbot. He crossed a line and went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If I were a Republican, I'd be mad as hell at him and thinking he was working for President Obama, because it is obvious that this is taking away from the real issues at hand, and making the Republicans look like chumps.
Edited to add: The transcript from Sandra Fluke's testimony to Congress. Yeah, it reads like a Penthouse erotica letter ::) http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
KarenInWA
Dear Karen, when you are outraged by the Ed Shultz comments as well, then your dialogue will have more meaning than simply falling in line with Democratic presidential propaganda. I already stated I disagree with calling anyone that name, Period so no need to display all of your public sexuality. None of my business, nor anyone elses.
As far as insurance coverage, you pay for what you get. Insurance companies have various levels of coverage. Some just the bare bones, others pay for every aspect. The price of those coverages reflects what you buy.
Not to defend Rush, but the analogy he tried and failed to make is that if they are asking the government to pay for contraceptives, that is tantamount to paying for sex which would make her a prostitute and a slut. No one seems to quote it in the context he stated.I would not have stated that, but that is what he stated in a hypothetical that has obviously failed. Fluke knowingly went to a university that publicly opposes contraception. No one forced her to go there. She could have chosen a thousand secular schools, but instead she chose to go there with their very public no contraception policy. Now Obama is stirriing up a hornets nest for his own poltical gain over a settled Catholic issue. That would be like going to BYU and asking where's the Starbuck's coffee shop? Ain't going to happen at BYU if you know what I mean.
This is a deliberite crises created by Obama to win the female vote in November. No one is stating limits on existing policies. He is instead trying to force religious institutions to go against their religious teaching which you or anyone else is free to dismiss and go to school somewhere else.
I personally believe we should get a Starbucks on every corner of Mormon schools and campuses, it is my right to have coffee anywhere I wish in this nation. After all, that is my right!!
Sorry, we have a right to privacy. I suspect folks don't understand that you are turning over your rights to privacy by insisting on government sponsored contraception. That gives the goverment the right to REGULATE that entitlement.
But if that is what you folks want, go for it. No skin off of my nose.
Hemodoc, I still don't get how or why you think this has anything to do with government paying for contraception?!?! Again, this whole issue is around employer-sponsored health insurance. In the case of Fluke, it was University-sponsored health insurance that the students had to pay full premiums for. Nowhere in her testimony did she say anything about herself having sex. She did say, however, that the insurance in question would pay for birth control pills for medical reasons. They would call patients who were prescribed this to make sure it was for a legitimate medical reason. They did not pay for her friend's birth control because they apparently did not believe her - even though said friend was a lesbian, and therefore, would have no need to take birth control pills for contraception. As a result, she could not afford the $100 a month her doctor-prescribed pills cost each month, and she ended up having surgery, which has resulted in more medical issues. Can you not see what is wrong with that???
Also, I'm a bit confused. At what point in my above quoted post did I display my public sexuality??? Is it the fact that I was on the pill to help regulate renal anemia a part of my sexuality??? Really??? I looked at it as a way to lessen my periods so I wouldn't have to deal with a dip in my hgb each month. When I started those pills, along with my epo shots at D, my hgb stabilized and I was even able to take periodic breaks from epo. Before that, I was stuck at under 10. My quality of life improved, and I was better able to do my job, drive my car, and live my life. I worked FT all throughout my time on D, and was lucky in that I experienced little to no side effects. And I did the horrible in-center, 3 times a week D. I was going to look into doing HHD, but a family member donated her kidney to me, so I didn't.
If rush limbot had called Sandra Fluke a slut once, and that was it, this whole issue would have died a much sooner death that what has transpired. He didn't do that, he harped on it for *DAYS*. That is why I am outraged over what he did vs what Ed did. Also, Ed did a formal apology *on his own show's airtime* and had a week of unpaid administrative leave. There is no way that you can compare Ed to rush. Ed said a word and did a big apology. Rush had a whiney-boy tirade for days and barely burped to the media. If I were a conservative, I'd be ashamed and embarassed over his behavior, and I'd be mad as hell for him doing what he did in helping to make the Republican party a joke. More so if I was a fan of his.
KarenInWA
-
Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.
This is where I got the quote "dildoes and other perversions".
-
A little over three years ago, birth control pills saved my life.
Yes, you read that right and no, it is not hyperbole. I will spare you all the gory details because it was gruesome, but it is a fact that birth control pills saved my life.
I would not have been responsible for the fallout if someone had denied me this medication because of their "morals". :boxing;
So, I resent this underlying assumption that contraception is only for the prevention of pregnancy due to constant, slutty sex. It's just not true.
I believe that having access to affordable birth control IS a pro-family position. I believe that a husband and wife should have the ability to determine and control the size of their family if this is what they choose to do. I do not see anything wrong with wanting to take personal responsibility for the size of your family.
This debate about whether or not employers should be forced to cover any medication or services they might not "agree with" wouldn't be happening if we had single payer, universal health care. Your employer should not have the right to infringe upon the decisions made by you and your doctor. What if your employer decided he wasn't going to pay for your dialysis because you're diabetic, and he thinks that it's your fault that you couldn't be arsed to eat properly or lose weight or do whatever he ignorantly thinks would have prevented your ESRD? Really, should your employer have that much power over your life?
Why do we expect business owners to provide health insurance? If we are really that interested in businesses and their economic health, why do we insist they shoulder this particularly heinous expense? I thought the Republicans were supposed to be Pro-Business, but this notion of making businesses provide insurance doesn't seem pro-business to me. Can someone explain this to me?
I am a patient gal, and I will wait until the GOP select their nominee. After that, I want to see what that nominee has to say. I want to see what his plan will be for the economy, for taxation, for an energy policy, for an immigration policy and for a foreign policy.
I will give President GW Bush one thing, and that is he attempted to craft a comprehensive immigration policy that included a path to citizenship. I think that was a good path to be on, but it does not look like any of the current nominees are thinking along those same lines. This concerns me as I don't know what else should be done with the millions of people who are here illegally. Can you imagine how much it would cost to identify, round up, detain and then deport 12 million people? It can't be done, so what do we do instead? If a GOP nominee utters a compassionate word about this group of people (like Rick Perry did in one of the debates), they're thrown to the wolves. Little did I know I'd ever stick up for Rick Perry!! LOL!
And Iran...OMG, what's going to happen there! We all know that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have broken our economy. Even if you agreed with the basic premises of those wars, you still cannot say that they have done anything but ruin our economy. And the GOP nominees are advocating entering another war with a country that's not the backwater like Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we forget so quickly the tremendous cost of warfare? And this is to protect Israel? Why are we going to war to protect Israel? Are we going to let another nation pull us into war? This really, really scares me, and I can't tell if Romney et al really want to do this or if they are just saying what they perceive their base wants to hear.
I understand the appeal of, say, Mr. Romney to those people who see his business experience as a conduit to the eventual financial health of the US. But again, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that government should be run as a business, and this is what Mr. Romney seems to be saying. All of us with CKD/ESRD would be the first ones to be fired because we are not good for America's profit margin.
The love of family, of country, of business, of faith, of innovation and of fair play are not solely conservative values. The desire to send your kids for higher education is not "snobbish". Investing in America means investing in AMERICANS and in all of those who want to live here, learn here and work here.
I know that the role of religion in making policy has been a subject of debate. I am no theologian, but I'm sitting here looking at my copy of the Constitution, and there is no mention of "God". Now, in the Declaration of Independence, first paragraph, there is reference to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", but whose God? Why are we assuming any and all references to "God" in any of our historical documents are to a Christian God? It is my understanding that Muslims, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God; the differences come in the interpretation of the role of Jesus Christ, and I can't find any reference specifically to "Jesus Christ" anywhere. I was watching an Indian movie the other day that took place in the Punjab, and even THEY were talking about "God". My point is that I am not sure what is meant by the phrase "people of faith." When Rick Santorum said that to think there is no place for "people of faith" in the public square made him want to throw up, does he mean to imply that devout Muslims and devout Hindus have a place in our government, maybe even in the Oval Office? If the President was a devout Muslim, wouldn't he, too, be a "person of faith"? Or does that kind of faith not count? Whose faith is the proper faith?
It was proper that Ed Schultz was removed from the air when he called Laura I. a "slut". I've looked at his apology several times, and he spent almost nine minutes apologizing for a comment that took 1 second to make. Rush L. went on a tirade that lasted three days. He's been married 4 times and he doesn't know how birth control works. To even jokingly suggest that Sandra Fluke post sexually explicit videos of herself in return for her birth control is just too pervy and gross. Ewwwww....
Dear Moosemom,
This is a NEW entitlement fomented by Obama to help buy his reelection, just like all of his mortgage proposals as well. This is being forced on those with longstanding doctrines against contraception and expecting them not to react to this new proposal is a bit absurd to say the least. we have free choice in this nation and the Catholics state that they are against this due to their religious convictions. This is an attack on religious liberty. Contraceptives are widely available most are not expensive at all. Most insurance companies already cover these medications in their policies.
This is only a very small subset of religious affiltiated organizations. This is not about individual liberty since no one is stopping you from buying these things yourself. You were free to do that yesterday, today and tommorow. This is about forcing religious institutions to go against their doctrine which you personally have every right to personally state you don't wish to follow. This is coercing the religious institution.
The media has turned this story inside out. NO ONE is preventing anyone from getting contraceptives. No one.
Husbands and wives have the right to privacy right now. NO ONE is stating different. Give me a break!!
As far as Islam, Jews and Christians worshipping the same God, no. Allah has no son. The God of the Bible does have a Son named Jesus Christ and I can find those referrences in the OT and the NT. Not the same God at all.
If you don't like the policies of Catholic employer, you have the right to work some where else that agrees with your views instead of you forcing your views on the Catholics. That is what is happening in this new Obama created crises to manipulate the masses into complete hysteria which he has.
Rick Perry is actually a very good governor, we just found out he can't talk his way out of a wet paper basket. Not a skill everyone has.
As far as Israel goes, don't worry, God has His hand of protection on them even though the Bible states all nations shall soon come against them. Many folks have made the wrong assumption that God does not exist. I know that to be quite wrong. In such a case, Israel is the most important nation on earth as it is God's chosen nation. The Bible discusses the blessings to Israel noted by Moses for their obedience and that he would cast them out of their land for their disobedience. This all happened. What most folks and it looks like you included is failing to understand that God sent many different prophets to state He would not utterly cast them away for ever, but would bring them back into the land and no one would ever displace them again.
That happened on May 14th, 1948 in fulfillment of prophecy to the exact day prophesied 2520 years prior to that. The fact that Israel exists is the greatest proof of the truth of the Bible in many ways. Moses wrote of their entire history over 3000 years ago. Read Leviticus chapter 26 for instance and see how God promised all things that they have experienced in the last 3000 years. One promise God made to Abraham was to bless those that bless him and to curse those that curse him. Since God is real, His word is forever, those are heady reasons for us to continue our support of Israel as a nation.
Sadly, the Bible states that ALL nations shall one day come against it, so that is coming true as the support for Israel erodes here in America. If you don't want to support Israel, don't worry, the Bible already states that America will be one of those coming against Israel one of these days, but that won't be a pretty day for Israel or all of the other nations coming against it.
I truly feel deep sorrow for people that deny God's existence and go further than that in many ways to deny His existence. I have no doubt that He is real, His teachings are forever, and His judgements are forever. We may not like death and taxes, but that is part of life. Folks may not like the idea of God, but I have no doubt that we shall all stand before Him one day and give an account of everything we have done in our bodies, whether good or bad. Sadly, most folks won't get to know God before they meet God. Not the way to do it, but oh well, free country, each to his own.
-
KarenInWA
Premium Member
Sr. Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 552
Re: GOP Presidential Debate
« Reply #275 on: Today at 10:39:57 PM »
Quote from: Hemodoc on Today at 04:14:47 PM
Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.
This is where I got the quote "dildoes and other perversions".
This is the thread started by Gerald that got lost in that discussion.
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=25999.msg419116#msg419116
-
I still don't get where taxpayes are paying for "dildoes and other perversions" when the issue re contraception was about employer-sponsored health insurance paying for contraception. Since when do taxpayers pay for my employer-sponsored health insurance??? Granted, I work for a private company, not the government. But, if the employee pays any part of their health insurance premium, then their employer should not dictate what healthcare they receive. I feel that way about any and all healthcare that a patient may need.
Does this mean I was a slut when I was taking the pill while I was on dialysis to control renal anemia??? According to rush limbot I was. I read the transcript of what Sandra Fluke read to congress. I thought she had very good points, and none had to do with young women having wonton sex with lots of men. I don't understand where everyone gets that idea.
Then there's this sad blog written by the mother of a 16 year-old girl who takes the pill to control her painful, life-interrupting periods. Because of a field trip she went on with the school band, and a policy of Rx meds being handled by a doctor-parent-chaperone on the trip, some mean girls at her school started a war on her and called her a slut at school repeatedly, all because their moms "listen to that man on the radio who said so, and he's right about everything". Um WTF????? Here is the link if you care to read it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search)
This country is turning into Jerry Springer because of blowhards like limbot. He crossed a line and went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If I were a Republican, I'd be mad as hell at him and thinking he was working for President Obama, because it is obvious that this is taking away from the real issues at hand, and making the Republicans look like chumps.
Edited to add: The transcript from Sandra Fluke's testimony to Congress. Yeah, it reads like a Penthouse erotica letter ::) http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf)
KarenInWA
Dear Karen, when you are outraged by the Ed Shultz comments as well, then your dialogue will have more meaning than simply falling in line with Democratic presidential propaganda. I already stated I disagree with calling anyone that name, Period so no need to display all of your public sexuality. None of my business, nor anyone elses.
As far as insurance coverage, you pay for what you get. Insurance companies have various levels of coverage. Some just the bare bones, others pay for every aspect. The price of those coverages reflects what you buy.
Not to defend Rush, but the analogy he tried and failed to make is that if they are asking the government to pay for contraceptives, that is tantamount to paying for sex which would make her a prostitute and a slut. No one seems to quote it in the context he stated.I would not have stated that, but that is what he stated in a hypothetical that has obviously failed. Fluke knowingly went to a university that publicly opposes contraception. No one forced her to go there. She could have chosen a thousand secular schools, but instead she chose to go there with their very public no contraception policy. Now Obama is stirriing up a hornets nest for his own poltical gain over a settled Catholic issue. That would be like going to BYU and asking where's the Starbuck's coffee shop? Ain't going to happen at BYU if you know what I mean.
This is a deliberite crises created by Obama to win the female vote in November. No one is stating limits on existing policies. He is instead trying to force religious institutions to go against their religious teaching which you or anyone else is free to dismiss and go to school somewhere else.
I personally believe we should get a Starbucks on every corner of Mormon schools and campuses, it is my right to have coffee anywhere I wish in this nation. After all, that is my right!!
Sorry, we have a right to privacy. I suspect folks don't understand that you are turning over your rights to privacy by insisting on government sponsored contraception. That gives the goverment the right to REGULATE that entitlement.
But if that is what you folks want, go for it. No skin off of my nose.
Hemodoc, I still don't get how or why you think this has anything to do with government paying for contraception?!?! Again, this whole issue is around employer-sponsored health insurance. In the case of Fluke, it was University-sponsored health insurance that the students had to pay full premiums for. Nowhere in her testimony did she say anything about herself having sex. She did say, however, that the insurance in question would pay for birth control pills for medical reasons. They would call patients who were prescribed this to make sure it was for a legitimate medical reason. They did not pay for her friend's birth control because they apparently did not believe her - even though said friend was a lesbian, and therefore, would have no need to take birth control pills for contraception. As a result, she could not afford the $100 a month her doctor-prescribed pills cost each month, and she ended up having surgery, which has resulted in more medical issues. Can you not see what is wrong with that???
Also, I'm a bit confused. At what point in my above quoted post did I display my public sexuality??? Is it the fact that I was on the pill to help regulate renal anemia a part of my sexuality??? Really??? I looked at it as a way to lessen my periods so I wouldn't have to deal with a dip in my hgb each month. When I started those pills, along with my epo shots at D, my hgb stabilized and I was even able to take periodic breaks from epo. Before that, I was stuck at under 10. My quality of life improved, and I was better able to do my job, drive my car, and live my life. I worked FT all throughout my time on D, and was lucky in that I experienced little to no side effects. And I did the horrible in-center, 3 times a week D. I was going to look into doing HHD, but a family member donated her kidney to me, so I didn't.
If rush limbot had called Sandra Fluke a slut once, and that was it, this whole issue would have died a much sooner death that what has transpired. He didn't do that, he harped on it for *DAYS*. That is why I am outraged over what he did vs what Ed did. Also, Ed did a formal apology *on his own show's airtime* and had a week of unpaid administrative leave. There is no way that you can compare Ed to rush. Ed said a word and did a big apology. Rush had a whiney-boy tirade for days and barely burped to the media. If I were a conservative, I'd be ashamed and embarassed over his behavior, and I'd be mad as hell for him doing what he did in helping to make the Republican party a joke. More so if I was a fan of his.
KarenInWA
Yes, well let's have Obama give back the million dollars from Bill Maher's PAC as well if we are going to go down that road, and perhaps we should. Late night comics routinely attack Republican women with vile comments all of the time, yet that is excepted and probably felt justifiable in many people's eyes since there is never any call for their resignations nor indignation from NOW or any other feminist organizations. Yes, stop it all.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/03/08/pro-obama-pac-wont-give-back-mahers-money
-
Hemodoc, I am not entirely sure how to square the biblical idea of Israel with the political state of present day Israel. Frankly, I think most people think that theirs is the chosen nation of God or of whichever deity they worship.
I am not sure that the nation of Israel acts in a Godly way at all times to all of their neighbors. I am uncomfortable with the idea that Israel, as God's chosen nation, can therefore behave in any way they like because, well, God has chosen them. Israel has to live on this Earth just like the rest of us, chosen or not, and they cannot run over the rights of others because God told them to. I suspect that the Palestinians' God told them much the same thing.
Yes, there are rogue nations that have stated that they do not recognize Israel's right to exist, but so what? Israel exists whether or not Somewherestan "recognizes" it or not.
I'd like to ask you...if Israel were to strike Iran militarily, do you think the United States should follow them into armed combat? Do you think that American protection of Israel trumps good fiscal policy and the rescue of the American economy? Do you think that following Israel into war against Iran is worth going deeper into debt? Do you think our Congress should, if circumstances presented a choice, protect God's chosen nation with armed force, knowing that it will break our own nation? If Israel were to attack Iran, could Congress constitutionally declare war on Iran? Do we go to war because the Bible tells us to since Israel is the most important nation?
I've just downloaded a new book called "A Single Role of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy with Iran" by Trita Parsi. He was on the Daily Show talking about it, and from what little he said (as it was not a long interview), there are a LOT of players in this theater, including Turkey and Brazil! It's a lot more complicated than most of us realize, so I am hoping to learn more. I just have this horrible feeling that we'll all be bopping along this election season, immersed in frivolities like who is the latest worst name-caller, and then suddenly Wolf Blitzer starts screaming that Israel has just attacked what is believed to be an Iranian nuclear facility, and we're all caught off guard and are suddenly facing a REAL war. I'm afraid that we will get dragged into a conflict that's started by an Israel that can't finish it, and we'll be responsible for that. And then our fragile economic recovery will be well and truly thrashed. It feels like Netanyahu is itching for war. I know that many Israelis are opposed to that, but which way does God want them to go? What is God telling Mr. Netanyahu?
-
I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*. He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials. However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.
Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/) His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.
KarenInWA
-
Hemodoc, I am not entirely sure how to square the biblical idea of Israel with the political state of present day Israel. Frankly, I think most people think that theirs is the chosen nation of God or of whichever deity they worship.
I am not sure that the nation of Israel acts in a Godly way at all times to all of their neighbors. I am uncomfortable with the idea that Israel, as God's chosen nation, can therefore behave in any way they like because, well, God has chosen them. Israel has to live on this Earth just like the rest of us, chosen or not, and they cannot run over the rights of others because God told them to. I suspect that the Palestinians' God told them much the same thing.
Yes, there are rogue nations that have stated that they do not recognize Israel's right to exist, but so what? Israel exists whether or not Somewherestan "recognizes" it or not.
I'd like to ask you...if Israel were to strike Iran militarily, do you think the United States should follow them into armed combat? Do you think that American protection of Israel trumps good fiscal policy and the rescue of the American economy? Do you think that following Israel into war against Iran is worth going deeper into debt? Do you think our Congress should, if circumstances presented a choice, protect God's chosen nation with armed force, knowing that it will break our own nation? If Israel were to attack Iran, could Congress constitutionally declare war on Iran? Do we go to war because the Bible tells us to since Israel is the most important nation?
I've just downloaded a new book called "A Single Role of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy with Iran" by Trita Parsi. He was on the Daily Show talking about it, and from what little he said (as it was not a long interview), there are a LOT of players in this theater, including Turkey and Brazil! It's a lot more complicated than most of us realize, so I am hoping to learn more. I just have this horrible feeling that we'll all be bopping along this election season, immersed in frivolities like who is the latest worst name-caller, and then suddenly Wolf Blitzer starts screaming that Israel has just attacked what is believed to be an Iranian nuclear facility, and we're all caught off guard and are suddenly facing a REAL war. I'm afraid that we will get dragged into a conflict that's started by an Israel that can't finish it, and we'll be responsible for that. And then our fragile economic recovery will be well and truly thrashed. It feels like Netanyahu is itching for war. I know that many Israelis are opposed to that, but which way does God want them to go? What is God telling Mr. Netanyahu?
No, you have all wrong Moosemom. It is Israel that is threatened by ALL of their surrounding nations. Look at how big Israel is and compare that to all of its immediate enemies and you will get the picture. It is a promise that God made even though most of the people in Israel today are quite secular just like in America. It is His promise and I have no doubt He will keep it Himself.
If all of Israel's enemies put down their guns, there would be peace over night.
If Israel puts down its guns, it will be wiped out over night.
As far as Israel acting in the eyes of God, never said that. I said God promised that they would never be driven out of their land ever again and soon, all the nations of the world shall come against Israel, but they will not prevail.
Zechariah 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3 ¶ And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. . .
9 ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. . .
8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.
-
I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*. He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials. However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.
Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/) His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.
KarenInWA
Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.
-
At least one candidate--Ron Paul--has consistently and emphatically discussed those very issues among many others such as the ridiculous "war on drugs." Now if we met face-to-face and had a nice friendly chat about politics you might wind up considering me a right-wing extremist. But there is a significant part of the conservative Right--Libertarian actually--that just wants the government to follow the Constitution and quit spending Other Peoples Money until we go bankrupt. Otherwise, we just don't care if someone is gay or smokes dope or doesn't believe in God. Just leave us the hell alone. These are the true conservatives and they are damn few in number as Ron Paul's delegate count is proving.
I can understand Mr. Paul's point, but I sense that he doesn't quite understand the interconnectedness of society today. It's great if you have the health and the resources to want to be left the hell alone, but too many people in this country can't be left the hell alone...those of us who need a lot of medical care, for instance. I was not impressed with his non-answer about what to do with someone who decided not to buy insurance yet fell ill. That was a valid, important question, and the answer simply could never be "leave me the hell alone." I also am not sure this is a good foreign policy, either, especially in the case of situations like Rwanda (where we did nothing and 800,000 people died) and Bosnia (where we finally DID do something, but rather too late, and still hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered...by CHRISTIANS, no less!). As the world shrinks via fast travel and communication, it is not so easy to separate "us" from "them", especially if you are a nation that sees itself as morally superior.
-
Hemodoc, so you think that Congress will base their decision to risk plunging the American economy MUCH further into DEBT by going to war with Israel against Iran upon Bible verses? Maybe they will, I don't know...I'm asking you.
You have often spoken against the massive government spending that you see is driving us into penury. There is nothing that is more costly than war. So I am asking you straight up....do we go to war against Iran should Israel strike first? Yes or no?
-
I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*. He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials. However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.
Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/) His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.
KarenInWA
Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Well, yeah, that is the big issue here. Public airwaves during the day vs pay-cable channel with no commercials at night. Insulting a public political figure vs insulting a private citizen. Saying a comment during a show vs making comments "be* the show not for a day, but for DAYS.
Can you honestly not see the difference??? If it were the other way around, *I* would be embarrased. I certainly wouldn't be defending him (or her). I'd be angry at the radio host for taking away from the real argument at hand. That's what rushie has done. No other way to call it.
But, you did not reply to my comment about how I feel what Obama should do with Maher's money. I think he should either give it back, or put it towards a worthy non-profit. Preferably one that helps Americans.
KarenInWA
-
In my very humble opinion, Mr. Obama should not give Bill Maher's money back because legally, Mr. Obama didn't receive it and cannot tell the superPac what to do with it. There is not supposed to be ANY coordination between a candidate and a superPac. Those are the new rules, so like it or lump it. And I'd say the same if Rush Limbaugh gave a hunk of money to any of the GOP nominees. Citizens United has given free rein to anyone that wants to donate anything. It's a brave new world, folks.
-
Hemodoc, so you think that Congress will base their decision to risk plunging the American economy MUCH further into DEBT by going to war with Israel against Iran upon Bible verses? Maybe they will, I don't know...I'm asking you.
You have often spoken against the massive government spending that you see is driving us into penury. There is nothing that is more costly than war. So I am asking you straight up....do we go to war against Iran should Israel strike first? Yes or no?
Sorry, America is a very secular nation now nearly completely ignoring every aspect of the Bible. I seriously doubt that there is more than a handful of people in congress that understand these prophecies and I seriously doubt you will hear that in a debate. Nevertheless, this is God stating what will happen, not how it will happen. A hundred years ago, Jerusalem was an abandoned town with few inhabitants. Today, world peace hangs at the hands of what happens in and around Jerusalem. It will only get more so in the coming years. This is only one of many prophecies that are true today.
As far as war, I don't see America going against Iran by themselves, but in a more complex set of Bible prophecies, yes, I believe America will go into Syria and Iran. If you want to know why I believe that, please send me a PM.
A nuclear Iran is a destabilising influence in the region and such nations as Saudi Arabia are calling for military intervention. Will America go into Iran in an election year? I seriously doubt that.
-
As far as war, I don't see America going against Iran by themselves, but in a more complex set of Bible prophecies, yes, I believe America will go into Syria and Iran. If you want to know why I believe that, please send me a PM.
A nuclear Iran is a destabilising influence in the region and such nations as Saudi Arabia are calling for military intervention. Will America go into Iran in an election year? I seriously doubt that.
Actually, I have heard some "experts" say that we will probably go into Iran precisely BECAUSE it is an election year. So I don't know what to think! LOL!
Yes, I'd be very interested to know why you believe America will go into Syria and Iran and which complex set of prophesies illustrate this. I'd send you a PM, but I'm going to bed now, so take your time if you'd care to reply, and feel free to do so via either PM or email. I look forward to hearing from you, as always. Have a wonderful, restful night!
-
I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*. He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials. However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.
Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/) His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.
KarenInWA
Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Well, yeah, that is the big issue here. Public airwaves during the day vs pay-cable channel with no commercials at night. Insulting a public political figure vs insulting a private citizen. Saying a comment during a show vs making comments "be* the show not for a day, but for DAYS.
Can you honestly not see the difference??? If it were the other way around, *I* would be embarrased. I certainly wouldn't be defending him (or her). I'd be angry at the radio host for taking away from the real argument at hand. That's what rushie has done. No other way to call it.
But, you did not reply to my comment about how I feel what Obama should do with Maher's money. I think he should either give it back, or put it towards a worthy non-profit. Preferably one that helps Americans.
KarenInWA
Karen, Fluke is represented by Obama's old advisor Anita Dunn and who left early in his administration over her comments I believe about Mao. Sorry, this is a pure propaganda/Alinsky where Obama has out Roved Carl Rove on this issue. Sure we don't have propaganda or Alynski rule in America.
One more note, under Title 10 from the 1970's, contraceptives are available to everyone who requests them:
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/
This is a totally made up non-existent crises by Obama to manipulate the masses, especially the woman to improve his ratings among woman. This political ploy has worked.
-
As far as war, I don't see America going against Iran by themselves, but in a more complex set of Bible prophecies, yes, I believe America will go into Syria and Iran. If you want to know why I believe that, please send me a PM.
A nuclear Iran is a destabilising influence in the region and such nations as Saudi Arabia are calling for military intervention. Will America go into Iran in an election year? I seriously doubt that.
Actually, I have heard some "experts" say that we will probably go into Iran precisely BECAUSE it is an election year. So I don't know what to think! LOL!
Yes, I'd be very interested to know why you believe America will go into Syria and Iran and which complex set of prophesies illustrate this. I'd send you a PM, but I'm going to bed now, so take your time if you'd care to reply, and feel free to do so via either PM or email. I look forward to hearing from you, as always. Have a wonderful, restful night!
After 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, America is war weary and why shouldn't we be? Should we go into Iran, well that is a different question entirely, but please note that it is Iran and Syria that call for the complete destruction of Israel, not the other way around. Did you know that those countries don't include Israel on their maps?
-
We will make them put Israel on the map, or we will bomb the heck out of them.
HemoDoc, you are easy.
gl
-
I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*. He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials. However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.
Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/) His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.
KarenInWA
Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Well, yeah, that is the big issue here. Public airwaves during the day vs pay-cable channel with no commercials at night. Insulting a public political figure vs insulting a private citizen. Saying a comment during a show vs making comments "be* the show not for a day, but for DAYS.
Can you honestly not see the difference??? If it were the other way around, *I* would be embarrased. I certainly wouldn't be defending him (or her). I'd be angry at the radio host for taking away from the real argument at hand. That's what rushie has done. No other way to call it.
But, you did not reply to my comment about how I feel what Obama should do with Maher's money. I think he should either give it back, or put it towards a worthy non-profit. Preferably one that helps Americans.
KarenInWA
Oh, Karen, of course anyone can see the difference. Back when I had satellite television I watched that apology from Ed Schultz. I remember it seemed to take forever and he labored to chastise himself over and over and over. Laura Ingram basically said she couldn't care less what Ed Schultz said about her. She mocked his show for only drawing a small audience. Also, there is most certainly a difference between calling someone a right-wing slut, which clearly refers to her being willing to change her rhetoric for the highest bidder, and what Limbaugh was saying, which was calling Sandra Fluke a literal, sexual slut. Ed Schultz was calling her a type of media whore, not referring to her sexuality, that was completely obvious. He said it in an offensive way, was rightly called out for it and immediately corrected it rather than embarrassing himself for days and days as Limbaugh did. Limbaugh only apologised when advertisers started fleeing, as they should. Who the hell wants to be associated with that monstrously hypocritical specimen?
It is frightening how many Republicans seem to fully agree with Rush Limbaugh. What number wife is he on now? How much illegal viagra has he taken overseas without his wife? Didn't he promise to move to Costa Rica if Obamacare passed? That was a cruel lie! Oh, and O'Reilly? Anyone follow his sexual harassment lawsuit? If you haven't, you must! Warning, you will likely have to stop eating falafel - the image he evokes is just too upsetting and may never leave your brain. It's been 4 years and I'm still trying to forget....
I like Bill Maher and I completely get where he is coming from in defending Limbaugh. I certainly think he is wrong in this instance. He has consistently defended people like David Letterman against lowlifes like Palin, and he has no doubt been on the receiving end of campaigns to sack him or convince his advertisers to drop him. He is of the school that I agree with in principle - political discourse is a waste of time when people play these gotcha games. In the cases of David Letterman and Ed Schultz, clearly the intent did not matter, all they cared about was trying to topple them. In Rush Limbaugh's case, no one should waste their flipping time trying to argue that he was not judged precisely on the spirit and meaning of what he was saying and wanted to say. Bill Maher is a comedian, and therefore takes the stance that you shouldn't lose your job over a bad joke. However, Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian (if he thinks he is I am very embarrassed for him indeed) and was not making a joke. He was whipping himself up into a self-righteously hypocritical frenzy.
-
The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.
You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.
-
The game is already over Gerald. Perhaps you haven't read that yet. Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.
It is not being funded by the tax payer, the contraception issue was about private insurance, and you know it. You just wish it weren't so.
So, you're calling Desert Dancer a pervert. Nice.
Sorry, America is a very secular nation now nearly completely ignoring every aspect of the Bible.
Wrong again! America is known to be one of the most religious nations in the industrialized world.
-
http://www.gocomics.com/robrogers/2012/03/09
-
The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.
You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.
OK, let's read directly to see what it says:
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.
The First Amendment is doing BOTH, i.e., protecting the free exercise of religion ("freedom OF religion") and prohibiting any government sponsored "establishment" of religion ("freedom FROM religion").
So you are both only half right.
-
The game is already over Gerald. Perhaps you haven't read that yet. Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.
It is not being funded by the tax payer, the contraception issue was about private insurance, and you know it. You just wish it weren't so.
So, you're calling Desert Dancer a pervert. Nice.
Sorry, America is a very secular nation now nearly completely ignoring every aspect of the Bible.
Wrong again! America is known to be one of the most religious nations in the industrialized world.
Cariad, you are wrong once again. I NEVER called anyone a pervert. Get your facts straight please. I was referring to the American population in general that eats up pornography, vile lifestyles as the new norm and all manner of sexual perversions in literature, film and TV. That is the American way. Please refrain from false allegations against me if you can. It is rather unbecoming.
As far as America STILL being a religious nation, many churches today are quite secular in manner. The majority of people take issue with old fashioned Christian values. If that were not true, we wouldn't even have this debate right now on IHD.
-
cariad
Premium Member
Elite Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2785
What's past is prologue
Re: GOP Presidential Debate
« Reply #293 on: Today at 10:46:26 AM »
Quote from: Hemodoc on March 08, 2012, 07:16:34 PM
The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.
You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.
Dear Cariad, the First amendment is to protect freedom of religion. If you go back into history, England and europe had established, state religions that became heavily involved in politics of those nations. There is NOTHING in the first amendment or the constitution that excludes Christian influences from the government. It was a one way wall of separation keeping the governments hands off of religion.
Today, many falsely believe that the original intent was freedom FROM religion to exclude Christian influences from the government. If your view is true, then all of the state constitutions with Christian tests of office would have been unconstitutional at the moment the constitution and the bill of rights was ratified. That didn't happen Cariad, because the original intent of the constitution and bill of rights was for freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. This was expanded upon in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States - 143 U.S. 457 (1892) where it was noted that this is a Christian nation.
In 1962, with no precedent and over turning all prior Supreme court rulings, the secularization of the government began with a new interpretation of the first amendment and incorporation of the 14th amendment to preclude any government institution, Federal, state, county or local from any religious expression. This first such case was Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Today, it has gone so far that many people state that their should not be any private religious expression in public. This is 100% in opposition to the original intents of the first amendment. Today, Obama can force religious institutions to go against their long standing principles and TRY to force them to provide abortion and contraceptives in the guise of his health care bill. I suspect, that since Obama has already had his bump in the polls for woman, he won't push this to a constitutional, first amendment challenge and in the end will back down since that is where this issue is heading. He won't prevail, but once again, this has been a political, reelection ploy since you already have Title 10 contraception coverage since 1970.
In other words, this is a totally made up crises utilizing the Alinsky rules for radicals to bring about political gain for Obama. The fact that Fluke is directed by Anita Dunn's public relations firm and the fact that Title 10 already provides contraception to all who request it and several charitable organizations are well, this is only an extremely organized and orchestrated event.
-
I happened to catch the tail end of an interesting conversation on the radio yesterday about what it means to be Christian. It was in the context of whether or not Mormonism is really "Christian". I wish I could remember all of the details, but I'll do my best to post what I recall. One person said that to be defined as Christian meant that you had to believe in 6 things...the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the deity of Jesus Christ, the crucifixion being for our sins, and two other things that I just can't remember, sorry. The other radio host said that he had always been taught that to get into Heaven, one only had to look at Matthew 25 which outlines "good works". I grew up going to churches of many different denominations (long story behind that), and it is this second "definition" of Christianity that was consistently taught to me.
My point is that I am confused by such terms as "secular" and "religious" and "old fashioned Christian values." I don't know what it means for a church to be "quite secular in manner." Are some churches more "Christian" than others, and if so, who decides that? How can one possibly defend oneself against a charge of not being the "right" kind of Christian or not Christian 'enough"?
It is all very interesting to have theological debates, but I personally am more interested in how these ideas translate into the world we inhabit here, today. For instance, government forces in Syria are bombarding innocent civilians. As Christians, what do we do about that? We cannot claim ignorance; this isn't 1776 where we can't know about the slaughter of innocents half a world away. This is the age of Facebook and CNN where we can see almost instantaneously the brutality that man inflicts upon man. As Christians, are we not obliged to do something?
In our own country, there are people who are "food insecure" and people who have chronic medical conditions but no insurance; going to the ER is not really an option. As Christians, what is our obligation to them, our fellow humans that God created? Jesus says that in clothing the poor, we clothe Him and are righteous. But we have so many people who begrudge any benefit to anyone else. Texas is severely narrowing their requirements for Medicaid assistance, leaving 130,000 women without primary health care. Is this Christian? If you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and all of those tenets that define you as Christian, does that feed or clothe anyone? Instead of being eager to help, we have too many people who are eager to let these people fall by the wayside because they "are not exercising personal responsibility." Since when has personal responsibility trumped the Christian responsibility we have for each other? This is the fundamental thing that I simply cannot understand about our politics today.
Mr. Santorum feels that one's religious faith should guide public policy. Ok, that's fine. I agree. If you are a Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, then we should have policies in place that make sure that no one is ever hungry, that no one is ever thirsty, that every prisoner is visited (yes, that's in the Bible, Matthew 25), and that everyone is clothed. We should make sure that every child like Isabella Santorum has equally good access to medical care, no matter how rich or poor her parents might be. If you want to be righteous and enter the Kingdom of Heaven, this is what the Bible says we must do.
I don't see the current form of the GOP advocating for these kinds of policies.
I have one question regarding going to war alongside Israel against Iran. I could be wrong, but I get the impression that the section of the population that consider themselves to be evangelicals/born-again Christians are by and large lower down on the income ladder. These are the people who will bear the brunt of any economic catastrophe brought upon us by entering yet another war. Do you all think that this constituency would sacrifice their financial self interest for the sake of Israeli security? How does this group (would this group be defined as "Tea Party constituents?) view the role of Israel in their lives? Anyone know?
-
Dear Moosemom, I will answer by PM since as Gerald states, religion is a private matter.
-
I just had a long chat with Dad. I asked him if the first amendment includes freedom from religion. His answer, in his always taciturn way, was 'yes'.
He received his law degree in 1968 and practiced for 12 years before becoming a 'job-creator' which he continues to be to this day.
Tell me, Peter, when did you receive your law degree?
-
The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.
You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.
OK, let's read directly to see what it says:
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.
The First Amendment is doing BOTH, i.e., protecting the free exercise of religion ("freedom OF religion") and prohibiting any government sponsored "establishment" of religion ("freedom FROM religion").
So you are both only half right.
Willis, I am not sure how this translates to me being only half right when I said in the discussion of contraception and CKD "freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion". I was saying exactly what you are saying. Peter came onto this discussion to say the opposite. He is wrong. Of course freedom of religion MUST include freedom to not have someone else's beliefs forced upon you via the government.
Of course, when churches are given tax-free status and then they turn around and donate to a cause such as the support of Prop 8 in California, this should be a direct violation of the First Amendment. Political contributions are NOT tax-deductible and should never, ever be tax-free. That is religion interfering with our government.
Anyhow, Willis, no matter if you disagree with me or state that I am only half right - I will always be a sucker for you and your calm, reasonable statements. Thanks for offering the opinion! :)
-
The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.
You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.
OK, let's read directly to see what it says:
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.
The First Amendment is doing BOTH, i.e., protecting the free exercise of religion ("freedom OF religion") and prohibiting any government sponsored "establishment" of religion ("freedom FROM religion").
So you are both only half right.
Willis, I am not sure how this translates to me being only half right when I said in the discussion of contraception and CKD "freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion". I was saying exactly what you are saying. Peter came onto this discussion to say the opposite. He is wrong. Of course freedom of religion MUST include freedom to not have someone else's beliefs forced upon you via the government.
Of course, when churches are given tax-free status and then they turn around and donate to a cause such as the support of Prop 8 in California, this should be a direct violation of the First Amendment. Political contributions are NOT tax-deductible and should never, ever be tax-free. That is religion interfering with our government.
Anyhow, Willis, no matter if you disagree with me or state that I am only half right - I will always be a sucker for you and your calm, reasonable statements. Thanks for offering the opinion! :)
Dear Cariad,
If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.
Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.
-
The whole idea of freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion has to do with the government's role. It has nothing to do with the owners of this website or Cariad or HemoDoc or me. Hell, like some on here I can pound away fruitlessly post after post stirring the pot with religious (or irreligious!) fervor and the government has no right to stop me. Yet the moderators can kick me out of here on a whim and I have no recourse. This is their site and they can do with it what they want.
Now this shows the fine line of government interference. Most would agree that this site has the right to allow people to say whatever they want or to stop people from talking about anything they (the owners) don't want them to talk about. That is a true right. The only obligation the government has in this case might be protecting people from actual physical violence or public financial fraud. But even that can be dangerous since it is the government itself that defines its own boundaries of behavior.
If a government decrees that the owners of web forums (or churches or corporations) must allow all speech or tolerate all religious/irreligious points of view then those people no longer really own their organizations. They become mere slaves of the State. Even if an organization publishes the most racist or abhorrent of material and the discussion forums are not fit for civilized people, and the government subsequently intervenes ONLY because they do not like the content then that is the sort of government interference the 1st Amendment was trying to preclude.
Likewise, when a government does the opposite and decrees which specific content or actions are permissible and institutes punitive measures against those religious organizations (or web sites, etc) who do not follow the guidelines then that's an even more egregious example of government interference. The current situation involving Christian organizations who do not want to pay for things that violate their religious tenets (such as abortion or contraceptives) are clearly within their rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to be free from government interference in their religion. It doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree. If the right to make such decisions is taken away from any organization then that organization has simply become another tentacle on the octopus called "government."
I would also add--and someone already pointed out this hypocrisy--that any religious organization (or private college or corporation for that matter) who accepts money from the government directly through grants or favored loans or indirectly through tax exemptions or free land or whatever have willingly given up their independence. The government now has a dog in the hunt and they are going to demand a say in how things are run--and rightfully so! There are mighty few churches or private religious colleges that do not feed on the government teat! The government has repeatedly and surreptitiously violated the First Amendment for more than a hundred years by slowly instituting such "favors" to the point that to reject such aid puts an organization at financial and competitive risk. Now having wrested power from places where the government never belonged (I will insert the 9th and 10th Amendment arguments here too), we are all virtually slaves of the government.
In my own personal life I have to admit that I'm tethered to the government now so tightly that the vaporous "they" have control over my life or death. Want more EPO? Sorry, the guidelines say Hgb between 9-10.5 and even if I could afford it they won't allow it. Going outside the system or sticking up for yourself in other assertive ways can get you branded as "non-compliant" and they have ALL the power to end my life if I don't submit. Without Medicare paying for my dialysis and without insurance I'd already be dead. So yes, I'm a hypocrite. It wasn't always so and private and religious organizations once provided the "general welfare" that has now been subordinated by the government. It's like the "Borg" of Star Trek fame--"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated." I don't think THAT is what our Founders foresaw when they drafted the language of the original Bill of Rights.
-
The proposition here was not about government interference in this forum or that religion; it was about the separation of government and state. There has been much posting that amounts to sidelining this point.
HemoDoc has an opinion but that does not make him correct, he is only using his rights under that same First Amendment that this forum permits. Further, no reasonable person would make the claim that we all must have religion. It is a well established legal principle that one has a right to have no religion, or, freedom from religion. I don’t have to listen to someone preach and I can ask them to be more polite about preaching. It is the same as second hand smoking, I don’t want to breathe in your habit.
Of further interest is the avoidance of the key issues of the day.
-
Dear Cariad,
If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.
Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.
Willis already went over this, but I'll reiterate some of what he said: I do not own the forum but if I did, I could absolutely stop you from talking about religion. Now, I like the freedom of this forum so I don't really care that this is allowed, but I have the freedom, which I exercise all the time, to ignore your posts the minute the bible quotes come out. However, when accessing government services - my city's public schools for example - we have full right to freedom from religion. In fact, a friend of mine who works as a teacher for the state told me that if I really wanted to aggressively seek remedy to a problem I've been having with my son, I could go straight to the superintendent with a complaint about the school observing Valentine's Day. She was not suggesting I do this, she just said that I could use it as ammunition if I so desired, because this is celebrating 'St. Valentine' and thus has a religious aspect. Personally, I think that's going too far and is not something I wish to bring up as I try to resolve this issue.
No, I do not need to discuss this further with my father. I trust him and his legal experience and his intellect much more than I trust your take on this.
Willis, I disagree that the government protecting women's access to healthcare is a violation of the first amendment. They are ensuring that someone else does not impose their religious beliefs on women and try to interfere with their access from A THIRD PARTY. These women are paying for this. But this was all argued out in the other thread. Karen made excellent points and its all there for you to read if you choose.
The founders would be lost in our current society and clearly they understood that society was going to change beyond what they could envision and so the document needed to be flexible enough to change with the times. I think it's safe to say that they did not expect Americans in the next millennium to be using the exact same laws and exact same interpretation of those laws over two hundred years later. The founders were all white males. They were also falliable - they owned slaves for heavens sake. It creeps me out when interpreting the Constitution begins to take on the air of interpreting the Bible. There is a difference, even to an atheist such as myself, between asking What Would Jesus Do (he is, after all, supposed to be divine and all-knowing) and what would Thomas Jefferson do. Who cares what Jefferson would do!
The Bill of Rights gives the right to a trial by a jury of our peers - they recognised in their own limited way that there are certain things that you need context and experience to evaluate. Anyone who knows what its like to carry a baby for 8 months or longer and then give birth, go ahead and raise your hand. :waving; You are the people that know what a disgusting statement it is that Santorum cavalierly suggests that we take pregnancy via rape as a 'gift' from a god that I do not even believe exists. This is where the government needs to step in and ensure my access to my basic right to control my own body.
-
I would also add--and someone already pointed out this hypocrisy--that any religious organization (or private college or corporation for that matter) who accepts money from the government directly through grants or favored loans or indirectly through tax exemptions or free land or whatever have willingly given up their independence. The government now has a dog in the hunt and they are going to demand a say in how things are run--and rightfully so! There are mighty few churches or private religious colleges that do not feed on the government teat! The government has repeatedly and surreptitiously violated the First Amendment for more than a hundred years by slowly instituting such "favors" to the point that to reject such aid puts an organization at financial and competitive risk. Now having wrested power from places where the government never belonged (I will insert the 9th and 10th Amendment arguments here too), we are all virtually slaves of the government.
Actually that was me in a prior thread. The church of today is not separated from the world as Abraham was who took no money from the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah when he rescued them and Lot, for the Lord's sake. Lot sought earthly power through the politics of Sodom to bring about change. The churches of America today are seeking the same thing through GOP politics and it will end as badly for them as it did for Lot. Taking money from the Feds is not what God calls us to do through these so called faith based Federal grants.
John sums it up well in the NT:
III John 1:7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.
Unfortunately, the churches of today no little of the power of God and instead seek the power of GOP politics to bring about preservation of their liberty. They are wrong to seek power from anyone but God alone.
As far as freedom FROM religion, if that was an individual right, I would not be able today in this anti-Christian atmosphere publicly state these Bible verses. This is the law in many nations around the world today of freedom FROM religion. We are not to that point YET in the US, but it is coming Gerald. You will get your way soon. In many nations, I would have been arrested for what I have in this comment alone. Thank the Lord for Freedom OF religion.
-
Dear Cariad,
If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.
Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.
Willis already went over this, but I'll reiterate some of what he said: I do not own the forum but if I did, I could absolutely stop you from talking about religion. Now, I like the freedom of this forum so I don't really care that this is allowed, but I have the freedom, which I exercise all the time, to ignore your posts the minute the bible quotes come out. However, when accessing government services - my city's public schools for example - we have full right to freedom from religion. In fact, a friend of mine who works as a teacher for the state told me that if I really wanted to aggressively seek remedy to a problem I've been having with my son, I could go straight to the superintendent with a complaint about the school observing Valentine's Day. She was not suggesting I do this, she just said that I could use it as ammunition if I so desired, because this is celebrating 'St. Valentine' and thus has a religious aspect. Personally, I think that's going too far and is not something I wish to bring up as I try to resolve this issue.
No, I do not need to discuss this further with my father. I trust him and his legal experience and his intellect much more than I trust your take on this.
Willis, I disagree that the government protecting women's access to healthcare is a violation of the first amendment. They are ensuring that someone else does not impose their religious beliefs on women and try to interfere with their access from A THIRD PARTY. These women are paying for this. But this was all argued out in the other thread. Karen made excellent points and its all there for you to read if you choose.
The founders would be lost in our current society and clearly they understood that society was going to change beyond what they could envision and so the document needed to be flexible enough to change with the times. I think it's safe to say that they did not expect Americans in the next millennium to be using the exact same laws and exact same interpretation of those laws over two hundred years later. The founders were all white males. They were also falliable - they owned slaves for heavens sake. It creeps me out when interpreting the Constitution begins to take on the air of interpreting the Bible. There is a difference, even to an atheist such as myself, between asking What Would Jesus Do (he is, after all, supposed to be divine and all-knowing) and what would Thomas Jefferson do. Who cares what Jefferson would do!
The Bill of Rights gives the right to a trial by a jury of our peers - they recognised in their own limited way that there are certain things that you need context and experience to evaluate. Anyone who knows what its like to carry a baby for 8 months or longer and then give birth, go ahead and raise your hand. :waving; You are the people that know what a disgusting statement it is that Santorum cavalierly suggests that we take pregnancy via rape as a 'gift' from a god that I do not even believe exists. This is where the government needs to step in and ensure my access to my basic right to control my own body.
Dear Cariad, I am not sure if you know it or not, but more than one of the owners of IHD is a Christian and is often offended by the divisive anti-Christian remarks on threads such as this. You are simply ignorant that they are tolerating you here today. You might want to consider your statements in light of those facts.
I see no one has noticed Title 10 contraception coverage. Here, take a look:
The Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/
The entire contraception issue is a manufactured crises by Obama to gain the uterus vote. It looks like his ploy has worked.
-
Dear Cariad,
If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.
Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.
Willis already went over this, but I'll reiterate some of what he said: I do not own the forum but if I did, I could absolutely stop you from talking about religion. Now, I like the freedom of this forum so I don't really care that this is allowed, but I have the freedom, which I exercise all the time, to ignore your posts the minute the bible quotes come out. However, when accessing government services - my city's public schools for example - we have full right to freedom from religion. In fact, a friend of mine who works as a teacher for the state told me that if I really wanted to aggressively seek remedy to a problem I've been having with my son, I could go straight to the superintendent with a complaint about the school observing Valentine's Day. She was not suggesting I do this, she just said that I could use it as ammunition if I so desired, because this is celebrating 'St. Valentine' and thus has a religious aspect. Personally, I think that's going too far and is not something I wish to bring up as I try to resolve this issue.
No, I do not need to discuss this further with my father. I trust him and his legal experience and his intellect much more than I trust your take on this.
Willis, I disagree that the government protecting women's access to healthcare is a violation of the first amendment. They are ensuring that someone else does not impose their religious beliefs on women and try to interfere with their access from A THIRD PARTY. These women are paying for this. But this was all argued out in the other thread. Karen made excellent points and its all there for you to read if you choose.
The founders would be lost in our current society and clearly they understood that society was going to change beyond what they could envision and so the document needed to be flexible enough to change with the times. I think it's safe to say that they did not expect Americans in the next millennium to be using the exact same laws and exact same interpretation of those laws over two hundred years later. The founders were all white males. They were also falliable - they owned slaves for heavens sake. It creeps me out when interpreting the Constitution begins to take on the air of interpreting the Bible. There is a difference, even to an atheist such as myself, between asking What Would Jesus Do (he is, after all, supposed to be divine and all-knowing) and what would Thomas Jefferson do. Who cares what Jefferson would do!
The Bill of Rights gives the right to a trial by a jury of our peers - they recognised in their own limited way that there are certain things that you need context and experience to evaluate. Anyone who knows what its like to carry a baby for 8 months or longer and then give birth, go ahead and raise your hand. :waving; You are the people that know what a disgusting statement it is that Santorum cavalierly suggests that we take pregnancy via rape as a 'gift' from a god that I do not even believe exists. This is where the government needs to step in and ensure my access to my basic right to control my own body.
Dear Cariad, I am not sure if you know it or not, but more than one of the owners of IHD is a Christian and is often offended by the divisive anti-Christian remarks on threads such as this. You are simply ignorant that they are tolerating you here today. You might want to consider your statements in light of those facts.
Huh? ???
-
Yes, true, many of the owners/moderators on IHD are personally offended by the nature of many of the anti-Christian comments as they have told me in person by PM on more than one occasion. Yet they tolerate your right to your own opinions according to the first amendment. Imagine that.
-
Yes, true, many of the owners/moderators on IHD are personally offended by the nature of many of the anti-Christian comments as they have told me in person by PM on more than one occasion. Yet they tolerate your right to your own opinions according to the first amendment. Imagine that.
Uh, as Willis very clearly pointed out, the first amendment does not give me any right to break the rules of a privately held forum. My understanding is that both admins identify as Christian. I did my research thoroughly (this cannot be overstated) before joining this forum and only made the jump when I happened upon a post from Epoman that took pride in accepting people of all ideologies. This did not come off as merely 'tolerating' - he welcomed it and was justifiably proud of his refusal to censor posts in any but the most extreme circumstances. Nothing to do with the first amendment. Also, nothing to do with this discussion. Trying to scare me into thinking I'll be banned for expressing my opinion? Yet another tactic to try to silence people with opinions different from yours. I know this is not the first time you have implied that someone will be banned for expressing atheist/rationalist viewpoints.
If Sluff or Karol want to ban me, it is well within their rights. As Willis said, they would not even owe me an explanation (legally) although I consider Karol a friend and Sluff a friend I've never met, so I would hope that on a personal level they would feel I had some right to an explanation if they chose to ban me.
-
The entire contraception issue is a manufactured crises by Obama to gain the uterus vote.
Wow. Just wow. The uterus vote. Referring to women by one of their reproductive organs? That sets a new low for disrespect, and it's been quite the week for sexism.
This is just plain gross.
-
Cariad, I agree. I find that statement deeply offensive.
-
Thanks for speaking out, Amanda.
-
The entire contraception issue is a manufactured crises by Obama to gain the uterus vote.
Wow. Just wow. The uterus vote. Referring to women by one of their reproductive organs? That sets a new low for disrespect, and it's been quite the week for sexism.
This is just plain gross.
Yes, yes, yes. You are offended because I repeated what the liberal bloggers have been mashing away with for the last month. One more case of righteous indication because I repeated the liberal mottos. Go figure.
Reality Check: The Uteri Who Vote Edition
http://www.beachpeanuts.com/2012/02/reality-check-wednesday-the-uterus-edition.html
Occupy the Uterus?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/17/1055708/-Occupy-the-Uterus-
One uterus, one vote.
http://machinegunkeyboard.com/shao/?p=269
Nan Hayworth joins the GOP’s ‘War on the Uterus’
http://nyaltnews.com/2012/02/nan-hayworth-joins-the-gops-war-on-the-uterus/
Republican Retard Club
Georgia, birthplace of the uterus police! [1]
http://republicanretardclub.blogspot.com/2011/05/georgia.html
New song parody from South Florida Raging Grannies, inspired by Florida's crazy "uterus controversy" that has made national news headlines; annoyed, amused and activated countless more women (and men) into opposing the corporate-loving, women-bashing Republican Party of FL; and made an instant celebrity/hero out of FL State Representative (D-Orlando) Scott Randolph, who dared utter the "U-word" while speaking on the House floor about the hypocrisy of the 18 anti-Choice bills that the GOP has advanced during this 2011 legislative session.
If you want to sing "The Uterus Song at a demonstration, rally or hell, a birthday party near you, here are the sensational, stinging lyrics...
The Uterus Song
(Tune: "Bye-Bye Blackbird")
Lyrics © by Vicki Ryder
If you're a Republican, it's okay to screw everyone,
Just don't say "uterus!"
You can send our kids to war while watching your investments soar,
But don't say "uterus!"
Taking bribes used to be thought just awful;
Now fat cats pay for your campaigns, that's lawful...
You can take our rights away and torture folks, that's still okay.
Just don't say... that word.
You take funds from Planned Parenthood; you'd take all our rights if ya could,
But don't say "uterus!"
You think abortion is a sin, but what's that fetus growin' in?
Shh! Don't say uterus!
You can get away with bloody torture,
Just don't say where you were when the stork brought ya.
We're glad you're lookin' out for us, so stamp your feet and make a fuss
When you hear... that word!
Since when is it a dirty word to say the "u" word? That's absurd!
We'll say "uterus."
We'll sing it strong and sing it loud; it's a part of us that makes us proud
So we'll say "uterus."
We're not ashamed to call our parts their right names,
We're just ashamed of men who play these mind games.
So end the wars and feed the poor; do what you were elected for,
And shout out loud... that word!
Uterus and uterus, uterus and uterus, uterus, uterus!
Uterus and uterus, uterus and uterus, uterus, uterus!
Uterus and uterus and uterus,
Uterus and uterus and uterus,
Uterus and uterus, uterus and uterus, uterus, uterus!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpBO3euQQPY
-
Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.
-
For all those that believe that they have freedom FROM religion, please take that case to a lawyer and see how far you get with that idea. No such thing in America as of today anyway. Maybe you could lobby your congressman to introduce a freedom FROM religion bill. See how he responds. Simply nonsense, that is of today anyway.
You certainly have the freedom to read and choose what you wish, but that does not abridge the right to freedom OF religion in any manner.
-
Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.
Nope, not the first and even if I was the first to use that term uterus vote, I didn't come up with that phrase that I am quite sure most have already heard several other places already. In any case, just one more example of false righteous indignation especially since this is a liberal motto, not GOP at all. Anyway, go figure.
-
Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.
Nope, not the first and even if I was the first to use that term uterus vote, I didn't come up with that phrase that I am quite sure most have already heard several other places already. In any case, just one more example of false righteous indignation especially since this is a liberal motto, not GOP at all. Anyway, go figure.
I've never heard it before. I don't agree with every blogger and could not care less what random strangers on the Internet say. It is offensive to use a body part as a stand in for women, just as it would be very offensive for me to talk about the d*** vote. I do not care whether that has been used by every blogger from coast to coast, it is wrong and I have too strong a moral centre to hide behind the 'everyone's doing it' excuse.
I love how you say you're not the first to use it, or maybe you are, or no, it's suddenly a 'liberal motto'. That's news to me.
-
Oh dear...the uterus vote. Am I a terrible person for thinking that is kinda funny? Worse still, I do not have one anymore. Does my vote still count? Lol
-
For all those that believe that they have freedom FROM religion, please take that case to a lawyer and see how far you get with that idea. No such thing in America as of today anyway. Maybe you could lobby your congressman to introduce a freedom FROM religion bill. See how he responds. Simply nonsense, that is of today anyway.
You certainly have the freedom to read and choose what you wish, but that does not abridge the right to freedom OF religion in any manner.
I have freedom from religion in government institutions such as public schools, as I've already pointed out. I did take the case to a lawyer. My father. Law Review, 1966. He knows what he's talking about.
-
Oh dear...the uterus vote. Am I a terrible person for thinking that is kinda funny? Worse still, I do not have one anymore. Does my vote still count? Lol
Of course you're not a terrible person. More like a lovely person. :) I have no doubt that if you used that term and I told you how much it wigs me out and shows an appalling lack of respect for women, that you would at least respect my feelings enough to stop.
-
Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.
Nope, not the first and even if I was the first to use that term uterus vote, I didn't come up with that phrase that I am quite sure most have already heard several other places already. In any case, just one more example of false righteous indignation especially since this is a liberal motto, not GOP at all. Anyway, go figure.
I've never heard it before. I don't agree with every blogger and could not care less what random strangers on the Internet say. It is offensive to use a body part as a stand in for women, just as it would be very offensive for me to talk about the d*** vote. I do not care whether that has been used by every blogger from coast to coast, it is wrong and I have too strong a moral centre to hide behind the 'everyone's doing it' excuse.
I love how you say you're not the first to use it, or maybe you are, or no, it's suddenly a 'liberal motto'. That's news to me.
Well, I guess you better get busy blasting away at all of the liberal bloggers using these terms. Once again, I didn't come up with the term, nor did I hear it from the GOP. Shucks, I didn't realize how offended you would be with liberal bloggers only a few of whom I quoted. Are you going to tell me you are offended by the Uterus Song as well, or since they are blasting the GOP it might be OK. Good grief, getting in trouble for using the liberal terms blasting away on the internet. I guess you will likewise get mad at all of those folks stating the so called albeit fake "war on the uterus" as well?
-
Oh dear...the uterus vote. Am I a terrible person for thinking that is kinda funny? Worse still, I do not have one anymore. Does my vote still count? Lol
Ah shucks, you have lost your vote Moosemom. Better go dig it up again to fit in. LOL.
-
Yes, true, many of the owners/moderators on IHD are personally offended by the nature of many of the anti-Christian comments as they have told me in person by PM on more than one occasion. Yet they tolerate your right to your own opinions according to the first amendment. Imagine that.
Hemodoc: This is a perfect example of directing a personal attack toward me and our team. I have never told you such a thing, as you well know.
You can argue all you want but don't drag others into it to prove your point.
Watch it.
Jeeez I hate this section of IHD. I wish you all would go somewhere else.
okarol/admin
-
Yes,the uterus song is offensive too.
-
Yes, true, many of the owners/moderators on IHD are personally offended by the nature of many of the anti-Christian comments as they have told me in person by PM on more than one occasion. Yet they tolerate your right to your own opinions according to the first amendment. Imagine that.
Hemodoc: This is a perfect example of directing a personal attack toward me and our team. I have never told you such a thing, as you well know.
You can argue all you want but don't drag others into it to prove your point.
Watch it.
Jeeez I hate this section of IHD. I wish you all would go somewhere else.
okarol/admin
Fair enough Karol, that wasn't my impression by our prior PM's as well as those of other moderators and admin, but out of respect for you and IHD, I will never participate on any political threads ever again. Let them blast away at all of the Christians as much as they wish, I won't defend that position ever again on IHD. I apologize for my mistaken impression of your prior PMs.
God bless,
Peter
-
Oh dear...the uterus vote. Am I a terrible person for thinking that is kinda funny? Worse still, I do not have one anymore. Does my vote still count? Lol
Ah shucks, you have lost your vote Moosemom. Better go dig it up again to fit in. LOL.
That damned thing nearly killed me, so I had to get rid of it. But I DO have an official voters registration card, so that will just have to do.
-
I do not want to blast away at anyone. I don,t even want to argue. I have certain views, but I am certainly no expert in any field, and I like hearing from people who may know more thsn me. Where can i go on ihd to have an interesting chat and an exchange of ideas? I Want to talk with ihders who hold opinions different from my own!
None of the current GOP nominees seem to be particularly beloved, so if you had had your druthers, who would you have liked to see run, and why? For Dems, who do you see as the party,s rising star i 2016?
Any thoughts re VP?
-
To the owners, moderators and others, I confess that I incited HemoDoc. I did it because he is easy, he is radically right-wing, and I lived politics as a City Manager. I still love the game.
However, this election (2012) is more important than any game. The extremism we see today comes from an ideology that is clearly anti-intellectual. It is all too easy to substitute ideology for thinking, and there is little doubt that the electorate has become apathetic. By raising these issues, others can see how the political positions shape up. For that reason I have challenged HemoDoc. I am not sorry in the least.
Back in the old days, I was a speaker on Women’s rights. As a nation, we have forgotten that the Constitution was written for everyone. I recall regretting seeing the 1960’s movement split into a less potent multi-issue theme, and I went with women’s rights. I wanted it all. But history takes unanticipated twists and turns, and now we have a Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Palin and Romney pretending to be great thinkers of our time.
We cannot afford to ignore the issues of the day. We cannot support extremism unless the logic is there for all too see, and the answer is not to take away the rights of citizens. We have the shame of the Patriot Act, an electorate with 40% who believes the President is a Muslim, not that it matters. On another forum I am arguing with strident “birthers”, hot-headed war hawks who want to go to war in Syria and Iran, and those who believe men can decide the rights of women without asking.
The shame is in us because we have not worked hard enough to save this Republic, this democratic experiment. Hitch up your suspenders and get to work.
Gerald Lively
Old-Time Moderate.
-
Well, I guess you better get busy blasting away at all of the liberal bloggers using these terms. Once again, I didn't come up with the term, nor did I hear it from the GOP. Shucks, I didn't realize how offended you would be with liberal bloggers only a few of whom I quoted. Are you going to tell me you are offended by the Uterus Song as well, or since they are blasting the GOP it might be OK. Good grief, getting in trouble for using the liberal terms blasting away on the internet. I guess you will likewise get mad at all of those folks stating the so called albeit fake "war on the uterus" as well?
Most of the examples given were not using the word 'uterus' as a stand-in for women. That is what is offensive. Remarkable that anyone could misunderstand that, but then, this is what I mean by needing to live something before you can claim to be some sort of expert. I have been on the ugly end of sexism and I will continue to call it out when I see it. The uterus song was about using the word uterus - who cares. Wholly different from what I was talking about. We have people on here, I am one of them, who say they do not want to be treated like just a kidney, well I do not wish to be referred to as a uterus. That is despicably sexist.
I don't waste my time trying to police the Internet. There is such a thing as the spirit behind the statement. If two black people want to jokingly refer to themselves using racial epithets, I certainly don't delude myself into thinking that this means it's all the same if I were to call them those words. This is why I said in Gerald's discussion that I don't think sexism is viewed as anywhere near as serious as racism. Women like me who have seen Republicans casually declare that I should be stripped of my body autonomy, I should have to submit to institutionalized rape if I want a perfectly legal abortion in Virginia, I should be denied insurance coverage of drugs that "only" prevent pregnancy (which is not even true) and on and on and on - we know how deadly serious sexism really is. You are free to follow your religion, and I am free to follow no religion and receive medical care based on science not theology. When you are female in America, this is very, very personal, so I find it bizarre that you think we're following Alinsky's "rules' written 40 years ago. The GOP candidates have said that the government should be allowed to take control of my body. This is as personal as it gets. It is absolutely a sexist attack on freedom.
-
Well, I guess you better get busy blasting away at all of the liberal bloggers using these terms. Once again, I didn't come up with the term, nor did I hear it from the GOP. Shucks, I didn't realize how offended you would be with liberal bloggers only a few of whom I quoted. Are you going to tell me you are offended by the Uterus Song as well, or since they are blasting the GOP it might be OK. Good grief, getting in trouble for using the liberal terms blasting away on the internet. I guess you will likewise get mad at all of those folks stating the so called albeit fake "war on the uterus" as well?
Most of the examples given were not using the word 'uterus' as a stand-in for women. That is what is offensive. Remarkable that anyone could misunderstand that, but then, this is what I mean by needing to live something before you can claim to be some sort of expert. I have been on the ugly end of sexism and I will continue to call it out when I see it. The uterus song was about using the word uterus - who cares. Wholly different from what I was talking about. We have people on here, I am one of them, who say they do not want to be treated like just a kidney, well I do not wish to be referred to as a uterus. That is despicably sexist.
I don't waste my time trying to police the Internet. There is such a thing as the spirit behind the statement. If two black people want to jokingly refer to themselves using racial epithets, I certainly don't delude myself into thinking that this means it's all the same if I were to call them those words. This is why I said in Gerald's discussion that I don't think sexism is viewed as anywhere near as serious as racism. Women like me who have seen Republicans casually declare that I should be stripped of my body autonomy, I should have to submit to institutionalized rape if I want a perfectly legal abortion in Virginia, I should be denied insurance coverage of drugs that "only" prevent pregnancy (which is not even true) and on and on and on - we know how deadly serious sexism really is. You are free to follow your religion, and I am free to follow no religion and receive medical care based on science not theology. When you are female in America, this is very, very personal, so I find it bizarre that you think we're following Alinsky's "rules' written 40 years ago. The GOP candidates have said that the government should be allowed to take control of my body. This is as personal as it gets. It is absolutely a sexist attack on freedom.
Dear Cariad, since you are addressing me directly, I will answer you directly. You seem taken aback by use of a liberal blogger term and say you take personal umbrage that I would refer to women in such a manner using an anatomical term to represent women. I find that quite colorful especially since you seem to relish using anatomical terms for GOP conservative candidates, or perhaps you have forgotten your own venture into that realm. Perhaps I should remind you once again what you said a few days ago:
cariad
Premium Member
Elite Member
Re: Is This "Hate Women Week"? Not in my home!
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2012, 09:09:43 PM »
Hate Women Week? No. Try century. At least.
I was defining 'misogynist' to my boys just last night. It seems a word that they would need to use sooner than later. It does not carry anywhere near the weight as 'racist' does in my opinion, and I was telling them that sexism is every bit as horrible and destructive as any other bigotry.
I could not tell them what Rush Limbaugh said because they would want me to define the words and it would just be too messy.
Quote from: billybags on March 07, 2012, 10:02:07 AM
Is it the one with the most money that wins, or the one who gives out daft statements?
It would seem so.... However, I say keep talking, gentlemen (term used loosely). Barack Obama must wake up laughing.
Quote from: billybags on March 07, 2012, 10:02:07 AM
They seem to want you to follow their rules. No sex before marriage, no abortions, your Santorum sounds a right ahole.
A-hole is being demure. You have googled 'Santorum' right? If that does not work, try 'Santorum definition'. (Make sure you are not eating.)
So while you prance about with your false sense of modesty because I only echoed the terms used by liberal bloggers and media, you thought it was demure to call Rick Santorum an A-Hole as you put it. Yes, yes, yes, you do indeed know how to flag the false sense of propriety don't you Cariad. Maybe applying your own sense of outrage to your own comments with anatomical references to Santorum as an A-Hole, which was too reserved for your tastes and you instead recommend a vile and disgusting reference on the internet instead:
santorum (san-TOR-um) n.
1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.
http://spreadingsantorum.com/
Yes, yes, yes, the outrage Cariad of using liberal media terms. Ohhhhh, Hurumphhhhh, OOhhhh, Ahhhhhh, what outrage. Yes, Yes, Cariad, you truly are an arbiter of moral turpitudes alright. Yes, yes, the outrage.
-
Well, I didn't and I am offended too as I have already stated.
-
Well, I didn't and I am offended too as I have already stated.
Dear Amanda, the political threads are often ones that go bump in the night and not easy to engage in. Sorry, but I am only echoing what is become a campaign slogan for the left. Take a look:
http://www.zazzle.com/no_uterus_no_vote_sticker-217560625362150658
If you are offended, you will need to voice your concern to those on the left in the media since you will likely hear this all the rest of this year until the election. Sorry, not my term, but it is in the political discourse of the media this year. Yes, I don't use that term in my own life, but this is a political thread after all looking at current political trends and this is indeed where it is at today in many news outlets daily. All you have to do is Google the term and the war on the uterus to see that displayed. If you don't like the terms used, which frankly I don't blame you, please take it up with those on the left that are using these terms.
-
derf Toon- Republican War against the Uterus
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101617896
-
Well, I didn't and I am offended too as I have already stated.
Dear Amanda, the political threads are often ones that go bump in the night and not easy to engage in. Sorry, but I am only echoing what is become a campaign slogan for the left. Take a look:
http://www.zazzle.com/no_uterus_no_vote_sticker-217560625362150658
If you are offended, you will need to voice your concern to those on the left in the media since you will likely hear this all the rest of this year until the election. Sorry, not my term, but it is in the political discourse of the media this year. Yes, I don't use that term in my own life, but this is a political thread after all looking at current political trends and this is indeed where it is at today in many news outlets daily. All you have to do is Google the term and the war on the uterus to see that displayed. If you don't like the terms used, which frankly I don't blame you, please take it up with those on the left that are using these terms.
This is childish. Take responsibility for your actions. YOU said it on this forum.
-
Fair enough Karol, that wasn't my impression by our prior PM's as well as those of other moderators and admin, but out of respect for you and IHD, I will never participate on any political threads ever again. Let them blast away at all of the Christians as much as they wish, I won't defend that position ever again on IHD. I apologize for my mistaken impression of your prior PMs.
Well, since you have literally stated that you would leave a thread dozens of times, I knew full well you could be counted upon to break your word yet again. Funny, you didn't mention that your respect for IHD ends if someone returns to express their views? You were being insulting and I wasn't going to let it stand.
Since when is a-hole a 'liberal' term? Santorum is most definitely an a-hole, Billy was right. That is not replacing a body part for the word 'men'. It is saying that that particular person is an outright ghastly specimen. Dan Savage's definition is beyond gross. Again, he is insulting one person for doing what Santorum does - tries to strip away everyone's freedoms but his own. As much as I find Savage's definition nauseating, when he's right, he's right.
You whine across no less than three threads that any comment about birthers or tea partiers or republicans is a direct attack on you, then you say that liberals are trying to personalize something? The hypocrisy is simply staggering. You say dildos are a perversion after DD implies that she has one (or more) and then you claim that that is not calling her a pervert.
I don't need to personalize a direct attack on my freedoms. It could not be more personal no matter what I say or do.
Yes, yes, yes, the outrage Cariad of using liberal media terms. Ohhhhh, Hurumphhhhh, OOhhhh, Ahhhhhh, what outrage. Yes, Yes, Cariad, you truly are an arbiter of moral turpitudes alright. Yes, yes, the outrage.
What on earth....? Is that meant to be some sort of grunting or something? Try to pull yourself together. I have seen many temper tantrums in my life, though none from anyone over the age of 5.... till now.
derf Toon- Republican War against the Uterus
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101617896
Ah, just one more, eh? Until the next one, no doubt. And the next. And the next....
YLGuy is right. Your speech reflects upon you and you alone. It is your responsibility entirely, yet you are pitifully trying to justify your actions by saying that someone who may or may not identify as liberal does this, so it's OK. Many horrifying people identify as conservative. I would never use their rhetoric. But then, I am not a mindless follower of any one else.
Why don't you go out and police the internet yourself if it bothers you so much? Don't try to tell me what to do with my time.
-
I'm sure everyone here realizes that this discussion has become a microcosm of what we're complaining about in the first place, that important issues are being ignored while we blather on about whether "uterus" is a bad word in such and such a context.
I used to hope that the GOP nomination process should go on and on because of its entertainment value, but now I am wishing for it all to stop and for the nominee to be quickly determined. These nomination processes seem to be geared to the base of whichever party is looking for their nominee, so it makes me wonder if the discussions/debates become skewed either far left or far right. I don't think the vast majority of people are quite so politically minded, and they will not become actively engaged until around Labor Day. Then, the two contenders will have to be much more forthcoming with their plans for our country's future. And the world may be a very different place by then. Maybe Greece will have defaulted, Syria will have ceased to exist as we know it, Israel will have attacked Iran and Iran will have responded by closing the Straits of Hormuz. I hope if that's the case, we won't be arguing about whether or not Rush Limbaugh should be booted off the radio airwaves.
Since this is supposed to be a democracy, we get the government we deserve. If we can't sort through the divisive rhetoric and pay attention to what's important, who knows what kind of government we're going to get? Are we becoming ungovernable? You'd think so, listening to the media. And this will be the first general election since Citizen's United. What do you all think will be the outcome? No matter who wins, will you wonder if the election has been bought, and if so, what do you think has been actually purchased?
The economy, the EU and whether or not it will become a two-tiered organization (and how will that affect the US), the Arab Spring, the environment, the weaning off of fossil fuels, a crumbling infrastructure, the funding of education, immigration, possible war with Iran, relations with Israel, fair trade with China, bringing American wealth and business back into America, healthcare...these are the days that test our resolve.
-
Well, MM, much as I take your point, I consider the attempts to strip away women's reproductive freedom to be deadly serious. I also have been trying to make a point that I think others are making for me: sexism is considered a silly joke compared to some of the other bigotry in the world. We all have our issues, and this is one that is of particular importance to me. Probably not difficult to guess why!
-
Well, MM, much as I take your point, I consider the attempts to strip away women's reproductive freedom to be deadly serious. I also have been trying to make a point that I think others are making for me: sexism is considered a silly joke compared to some of the other bigotry in the world. We all have our issues, and this is one that is of particular importance to me. Probably not difficult to guess why!
And I absolutely take YOUR point. I'm still trying to figure out why contraception has suddenly become a big issue! I thought we had had this one worked out. LOL! I guess not!
I am not sure that the debate has been clearly defined, though. One person's fight for reproductive freedom may be another's fight against what they see to be immoral sexual behaviour. Frankly, that's what I think this is REALLY about...it's about sex. And anything that is about sex seems to be exclusively about women. "Immorality" or promiscuity seem to be accusations thrown exclusively into the faces of women. Men are entirely left out of the equation. I don't understand why more men aren't fighting to keep their right to limit the size of their families.
We have a schizophrenic attitude about sex in this society. It's fine to be entertained by boobies and other bits if they are on TV or on a video game. Using sex to sell products is a time worn tactic, and no one blinks an eye. But when it comes to sex between a real man and a real woman, then there are suddenly all sorts of rules, mostly aimed toward keeping wimmin in check.
What I find to be most galling is the rate of sexual assault against women in our military. I find it to be beyond appalling that ANY soldier would EVER harm another soldier, another man or woman who was serving our country and risking sacrificing their life. If a man in the military cannot have respect for a fellow female soldier, then all is lost. I'm enraged that our military, which is supposed to be comprised of our best people, is tainted by this and has done little to redress the situation. If our soldiers do not know how to look after each other, then how can we trust them to look after us.
Violence against women is a horrible problem throughout the world, and I am not sure why that is so. It has always been that way.
I can't help but feel that this current debate on contraception is just one more manifestation of our society's lack of respect and value for women. I suspect that most women at one time or another have felt devalued simply because of their gender. Maybe, cariad, you should start a new thread in which each of us could post our own "You're just a woman" story. I know I have one. Actually, I have two, one from here in the US and one from the UK, so I can prove that this dismissive attitude is international!! LOL! Go ahead...start the thread, and I'll happily post my stories!
-
Okay, listen up! I am all in favor of women being on top.
-
Well, MM, much as I take your point, I consider the attempts to strip away women's reproductive freedom to be deadly serious. I also have been trying to make a point that I think others are making for me: sexism is considered a silly joke compared to some of the other bigotry in the world. We all have our issues, and this is one that is of particular importance to me. Probably not difficult to guess why!
Dear Cariad, no one is stripping away women's rights at all. This entire Obama created chaotic discourse is a fraud right from the start. Title 10 covers contraceptives for all that ask with preference to those of low income. Fluke should have advised her friend to seek Title 10 coverage. What kind of a law student is Fluke who states she is a woman's rights advocate that is so desperately ignorant of the laws of the land that cover contraceptives for all that ask since 1970. If her friend was too poor for contraceptives, then she would have been eligible for this program. I have listed the link several times, but you still overlook that issue, which doesn't surprise me really. I don't believe you folks are interested in discussing the issues, only denigrating the GOP.
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
If you wish to discuss the contraceptive issue from a GOP perspective, this is about moral objections to contraceptives mainly by the Catholics who don't wish to pay for that coverage as a result of their long standing religious objection to contraceptives. Moral conscience is a recognized right based on the first amendment that has been honored in this country for 400 years going back to our colonial days. That is the issue since we have universal access to contraceptives in this nation already.
So, if you want your access to contraceptives and you can't afford 9 dollars a month, go to the Title 10 folks and they will provide it or go to one of the many family planning charities that will also do the same. You are completely wrong that this is a woman's reproductive issue, it is a first amendment religious issue to preserve the right to adhere to the teachings of your own religion. Obama will drop this in the face of the many legal suits against this policy and then claim victory as an advocate of woman's rights. Complete scam that the country is falling for.
-
Fair enough Karol, that wasn't my impression by our prior PM's as well as those of other moderators and admin, but out of respect for you and IHD, I will never participate on any political threads ever again. Let them blast away at all of the Christians as much as they wish, I won't defend that position ever again on IHD. I apologize for my mistaken impression of your prior PMs.
Well, since you have literally stated that you would leave a thread dozens of times, I knew full well you could be counted upon to break your word yet again. Funny, you didn't mention that your respect for IHD ends if someone returns to express their views? You were being insulting and I wasn't going to let it stand.
Since when is a-hole a 'liberal' term? Santorum is most definitely an a-hole, Billy was right. That is not replacing a body part for the word 'men'. It is saying that that particular person is an outright ghastly specimen. Dan Savage's definition is beyond gross. Again, he is insulting one person for doing what Santorum does - tries to strip away everyone's freedoms but his own. As much as I find Savage's definition nauseating, when he's right, he's right.
You whine across no less than three threads that any comment about birthers or tea partiers or republicans is a direct attack on you, then you say that liberals are trying to personalize something? The hypocrisy is simply staggering. You say dildos are a perversion after DD implies that she has one (or more) and then you claim that that is not calling her a pervert.
I don't need to personalize a direct attack on my freedoms. It could not be more personal no matter what I say or do.
Yes, yes, yes, the outrage Cariad of using liberal media terms. Ohhhhh, Hurumphhhhh, OOhhhh, Ahhhhhh, what outrage. Yes, Yes, Cariad, you truly are an arbiter of moral turpitudes alright. Yes, yes, the outrage.
What on earth....? Is that meant to be some sort of grunting or something? Try to pull yourself together. I have seen many temper tantrums in my life, though none from anyone over the age of 5.... till now.
derf Toon- Republican War against the Uterus
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101617896
Ah, just one more, eh? Until the next one, no doubt. And the next. And the next....
YLGuy is right. Your speech reflects upon you and you alone. It is your responsibility entirely, yet you are pitifully trying to justify your actions by saying that someone who may or may not identify as liberal does this, so it's OK. Many horrifying people identify as conservative. I would never use their rhetoric. But then, I am not a mindless follower of any one else.
Why don't you go out and police the internet yourself if it bothers you so much? Don't try to tell me what to do with my time.
Yes, yes, the outrage about echoing liberal media terms. Yes, yes. But you will call whoever you want much worse and stand up proudly to defend your "right" to do so. Give me a break. That is called hypocrisy Cariad. Thank you for defending your prior comments and relishing in the foul language attacks on GOP by Bill Maher and other late night comedians. Yes, yes, the outrage.
-
If you wish to discuss the contraceptive issue from a GOP perspective, this is about moral objections to contraceptives mainly by the Catholics who don't wish to pay for that coverage as a result of their long standing religious objection to contraceptives. Moral conscience is a recognized right based on the first amendment that has been honored in this country for 400 years going back to our colonial days. That is the issue since we have universal access to contraceptives in this nation already.
Wait a minute...I though Gov Romney enacted a mandate requiring that ALL employers in Massachusettes offer free contraception coverage, and he's a Republican. So, I don't think this is really a "GOP" position unless you define that as being necessarily an "anti-Obama" position.
As for people getting contraception via Planned Parenthood, I'm afraid that organization may not be around for much longer as there is a GOP push to completely defund it. So, the slack will have to be picked up by other entities since defunding Planned Parenthood may result in less than universal access. If the Catholic Church really does not want to be forced to provide contraception coverage (and they are NOT being forced to do so even now), then it would be in their interest to make sure PP remains viable.
This has nothing to do with freedom of religion, sadly, but has everything to do with one more time disagreeing with anything that our President is trying to do. He could issue a statement that the sky is blue, and a GOPer somewhere will argue that no, Mr. Obama is trampling over our freedom to believe that the sky is really red.
If you want to believe that President Obama created this chaos, feel free, but like I've said to you before, it has been GOPers Blunt, Issa and now Boehner who have allowed this chaos to be perpetuated. How could they be so incredibly stupid? I don't see Mr Obama talking about anything but jobs, manufacturing and jobs.
-
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
If you wish to discuss the contraceptive issue from a GOP perspective, this is about moral objections to contraceptives mainly by the Catholics who don't wish to pay for that coverage as a result of their long standing religious objection to contraceptives. Moral conscience is a recognized right based on the first amendment that has been honored in this country for 400 years going back to our colonial days. That is the issue since we have universal access to contraceptives in this nation already.
So, if you want your access to contraceptives and you can't afford 9 dollars a month, go to the Title 10 folks and they will provide it or go to one of the many family planning charities that will also do the same. You are completely wrong that this is a woman's reproductive issue, it is a first amendment religious issue to preserve the right to adhere to the teachings of your own religion. Obama will drop this in the face of the many legal suits against this policy and then claim victory as an advocate of woman's rights. Complete scam that the country is falling for.
Not all birth control pills are $9 a month!!! Just because one pill may be that low (and do we know if that is a co-pay amount, or the actual amount? I have never seen that be investigated) does not mean that it is the pill that will work for any particular woman in her particular situation. If a pill that will fix a female-only medical problem is $100 a month, and that is what her dr is prescribing based on the patients particular condition, other conditions, etc, then that is the pill that she will need. This is why BC pills are Rx and not OTC. Like with anything, taking BC pills does have some risk, and it is up to the dr and the patient to determine which pill has the least risks/most benefits for the patient and her situation. It is not that easy!!!! I would think, HemoDoc, that as a doctor, you of all people would understand this. I don't get why you're using uneducated rhetoric that you can find on any political message board or article comment these days. Frankly, with your competent intelligence in all things ESRD, I expect more of you.
Whenever I've been on the pill, I paid a small co-pay for it, just like any other drug I have been prescribed. If it were fully covered by my insurance, sure, I'd like that! Who wouldn't? But, I have no problem paying a co-pay for it, either. What I do have a problem with is my insurance company not covering it at all because of a religious belief I do not subscribe to, *especially* when it is for a valid medical reason!!!! Until these Catholic bishops spend any time with uncontrollable bleeding from their crotches, what they have to say about the issue means absolutely nothing to me.
In regards to Title X, that will remain a viable option for people as long as there is funding for it. If the GOP wins this election season, then we can all kiss that funding bye bye and say hello to women with horrible periods and other female problems, along with a lot of unplanned pregnancies, which will lead to a bigger need for services, more kids in schools that the GOP doesn't want to fund, and the list goes on and on and on....
Do you really want to live in *that* country???
KarenInWA
-
I have a great deal of respect for people who love their faith and are true to it. And I am extremely disappointed when I say that the Catholic Church as a man-made institution has been so abysmally inadequate in certain areas that I have little respect for its view on anything. I believe that there is a profound difference between "the Catholic Church" and "Christianity", and the former does not always successfully represent the latter.
The Catholic Church has always been a misogynist institution that has historically been corrupt and probably still is. I know a fair number of Catholics who believe the same way and were/are still horrified by the child sex abuse cases that have become so numerous that the Church is fodder for late-night talk show hosts. I am innately suspicious of men in costumes.
I extend my apologies to anyone who finds offense in my comments. Again, I am respectful of the Catholic faith but not necessarily in the institution. I give little credence to any of their arguments. I believe in God but I do not believe in bishops.
If they want to believe that this is about religious freedom, to them, perhaps maybe it is, but that doesn't mean that that is how the debate is defined for the rest of us.
Why aren't the Catholic bishops complaining about how the wages they pay to their employees could conceivably (haha...pun alert!) be used to buy birth control? Catholic employers are forced to pay wages, and if they are used to pay for pills, well, why isn't THAT a problem? How far is this religious freedom supposed to go?
-
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
If you wish to discuss the contraceptive issue from a GOP perspective, this is about moral objections to contraceptives mainly by the Catholics who don't wish to pay for that coverage as a result of their long standing religious objection to contraceptives. Moral conscience is a recognized right based on the first amendment that has been honored in this country for 400 years going back to our colonial days. That is the issue since we have universal access to contraceptives in this nation already.
So, if you want your access to contraceptives and you can't afford 9 dollars a month, go to the Title 10 folks and they will provide it or go to one of the many family planning charities that will also do the same. You are completely wrong that this is a woman's reproductive issue, it is a first amendment religious issue to preserve the right to adhere to the teachings of your own religion. Obama will drop this in the face of the many legal suits against this policy and then claim victory as an advocate of woman's rights. Complete scam that the country is falling for.
Not all birth control pills are $9 a month!!! Just because one pill may be that low (and do we know if that is a co-pay amount, or the actual amount? I have never seen that be investigated) does not mean that it is the pill that will work for any particular woman in her particular situation. If a pill that will fix a female-only medical problem is $100 a month, and that is what her dr is prescribing based on the patients particular condition, other conditions, etc, then that is the pill that she will need. This is why BC pills are Rx and not OTC. Like with anything, taking BC pills does have some risk, and it is up to the dr and the patient to determine which pill has the least risks/most benefits for the patient and her situation. It is not that easy!!!! I would think, HemoDoc, that as a doctor, you of all people would understand this. I don't get why you're using uneducated rhetoric that you can find on any political message board or article comment these days. Frankly, with your competent intelligence in all things ESRD, I expect more of you.
Whenever I've been on the pill, I paid a small co-pay for it, just like any other drug I have been prescribed. If it were fully covered by my insurance, sure, I'd like that! Who wouldn't? But, I have no problem paying a co-pay for it, either. What I do have a problem with is my insurance company not covering it at all because of a religious belief I do not subscribe to, *especially* when it is for a valid medical reason!!!! Until these Catholic bishops spend any time with uncontrollable bleeding from their crotches, what they have to say about the issue means absolutely nothing to me.
In regards to Title X, that will remain a viable option for people as long as there is funding for it. If the GOP wins this election season, then we can all kiss that funding bye bye and say hello to women with horrible periods and other female problems, along with a lot of unplanned pregnancies, which will lead to a bigger need for services, more kids in schools that the GOP doesn't want to fund, and the list goes on and on and on....
Do you really want to live in *that* country???
KarenInWA
Yes, yes, Karen, the GOP boogyman is going to take away all of your reproductive rights. Yes, yes, vote Dems to keep your uterus rights intact.
Let me point out a few facts you are overlooking. The Title 10 benefits have been in place since 1970. Since 1970 we have had 3 GOP presidents for 5 terms of office. Funding is still intact and will remain intact. Planned Parenthood is an NGO that also offers abortion. Many rightly believe that should not be government funded.
How much do they cost, well look at USA Today and they are one of the sources quoting $9.00 a month. If you can't afford that, seek Title 10 assistance. Is USA an "uneducated" source Karen? Save your ad hominem attacks for someone else.
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-03-09/Birth-control-prices-range-widley-from-100-to-1000/53434126/1
Do you want to live in that country? No, I don't want to live in a country where the president of the United States creates a false crises for political gain and then exploits a law student who is working with one of Obama's prior White House advisors, Anita Dunn, and her PR corporation to bring about angry calls by female voters based on absolute lies and duplicity. No, I don't want any part of that kind of country, but since I am not a 1percenter i am stuck with the country I have.
I am glad you brought up the medical issues of the alleged "friend" of Fluke who suffered such a thing. Ovarian cysts are a very common condition easily treated with a variety of medications, including OCPs as well as other medicines. In many cases, especially if the case involves endocrine abnormalities of the multiple ovarian cysts, a common diabetes medication is the drug of choice and not birth control pills. The cost for generic metformin is about $37.00 for a three month supply. Not knowing the basis of the alleged woman's underlying medical conditions who allegedly suffered a ruptured ovarian cyst (NO NAME WAS GIVEN), then it seems rather unlikely that the Catholic universities prohibition of contraceptives is the cause of her allegedly losing an ovary. Very shaky documentation that is based completely on unsubstantiated hearsay evidence. (I thought Fluke was a law student). Why didn't this other woman testify herself?
And the whole world of American women are suddenly on fire because of this alleged tragedy.
Sorry, you are being manipulated by a president who follows the rules of Alinsky to create polarizing situations and then exploit them. No, I don't want any part of that kind of country.
-
I have a great deal of respect for people who love their faith and are true to it. And I am extremely disappointed when I say that the Catholic Church as a man-made institution has been so abysmally inadequate in certain areas that I have little respect for its view on anything. I believe that there is a profound difference between "the Catholic Church" and "Christianity", and the former does not always successfully represent the latter.
The Catholic Church has always been a misogynist institution that has historically been corrupt and probably still is. I know a fair number of Catholics who believe the same way and were/are still horrified by the child sex abuse cases that have become so numerous that the Church is fodder for late-night talk show hosts. I am innately suspicious of men in costumes.
I extend my apologies to anyone who finds offense in my comments. Again, I am respectful of the Catholic faith but not necessarily in the institution. I give little credence to any of their arguments. I believe in God but I do not believe in bishops.
If they want to believe that this is about religious freedom, to them, perhaps maybe it is, but that doesn't mean that that is how the debate is defined for the rest of us.
Why aren't the Catholic bishops complaining about how the wages they pay to their employees could conceivably (haha...pun alert!) be used to buy birth control? Catholic employers are forced to pay wages, and if they are used to pay for pills, well, why isn't THAT a problem? How far is this religious freedom supposed to go?
Dear Michelle,
I think I understand what you are stating and yes, I do believe that there is a line of division between true Christianity based only on the teachings of the Bible and the doctrines and creeds of Catholicism based in large part upon tradition and extra-biblical sources. The American founding fathers rightly gave us freedom OF religion understanding that true Christianity is based on choice alone. God has given us the Bible as a large part of the evidence that He truly exists and has a great love for the people of the earth. He is also a righteous judge that sent His only begotten Son to pay the righteous penalty for our sins. People are free to believe and choose to follow His Son or to reject Him. Free choice. Either Jesus pays for your sins, or you do.
It is also a well established legal and ethical doctrine that religious objection to moral issues is covered by our freedom OF religion. There are of course limits on that expression especially in the cases of parents refusing medical care to their children who are not old enough to make that choice for themselves for instance. While I don't personally support many of the doctrines and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, I do support their moral convictions and their first amendment rights to adhere to those policies. No one is forced to work at a Catholic institution. You are free to apply and accept that position. No one forces a student to attend a Catholic university. You are free to apply and attend if extended that invitation.
Anyone that would place themselves in that situation voluntarily and then demand that the religious institution which has the right to engage in higher education must change their religious convictions to meet the demands of a person at that institution freely of their own accord is an endangerment to freedom OF religion in this nation. Once again, if the alleged person in this alleged and undocumented story was that poor to not be able to afford generic OCP's or generic Metformin depending on the underlying condition, then she would have been eligible for Title 10 coverage which has been the law and will continue to be the law since 1970.
The revelation that Sandra Fluke is working with Anita Dunn who was a member of Obama's White House and how Obama has played on this whole discourse that is unconstitutional and won't stand up to legal challenge makes just one in a long list of political ploys by this president.
-
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
You mean my female friends? This is really creeping me out the way you seem fixated on mentioning women's reproductive organs in every response to me, even though I have made it clear that I find this disrespectful. You have been told repeatedly that your smarmy comments are not appreciated in the least yet you seem to revel in the thought of personally offending me and at least one other woman on this site. You do not know a single thing about me and have no place professing to be some sort of expert on the veracity of my feelings. There is something so unsettling in the image of a grown man googling 'uterus' in a desperate attempt to win an online argument in the most obnoxious manner possible. It reminds me of the callers who would ring up my parents' home because they knew young girls lived there, say a few dirty words, then hang up.
You seem to have all the respect for women such as myself as you have for IHD:
Fair enough Karol, that wasn't my impression by our prior PM's as well as those of other moderators and admin, but out of respect for you and IHD, I will never participate on any political threads ever again. Let them blast away at all of the Christians as much as they wish, I won't defend that position ever again on IHD. I apologize for my mistaken impression of your prior PMs.
Oh well, I guess it's pretty good company to be in!
Maybe, cariad, you should start a new thread in which each of us could post our own "You're just a woman" story.
I think one is being written right before our eyes, MM. :P
I have to get my two little boys to bed, but I do want to take at a stab at the other topics that you brought up. I am about to drop, though, and I have to pack up the family to SoCal in the near future, so it may have to keep. I need to actually engage my brain to talk to you, so that takes more effort. I did see a headline that North Korea was suspending their nuclear program or something, which, based on the book I just finished was supposed to be next to impossible. This author really did not think that America would ever understand their culture clearly enough, and that the North Koreans had boxed themselves into an ideological corner that would not allow them to drop the program and save face. I'll have to read up on what transpired before commenting further.
-
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
You mean my female friends? This is really creeping me out the way you seem fixated on mentioning women's reproductive organs in every response to me, even though I have made it clear that I find this disrespectful. You have been told repeatedly that your smarmy comments are not appreciated in the least yet you seem to revel in the thought of personally offending me and at least one other woman on this site. You do not know a single thing about me and have no place professing to be some sort of expert on the veracity of my feelings. There is something so unsettling in the image of a grown man googling 'uterus' in a desperate attempt to win an online argument in the most obnoxious manner possible. It reminds me of the callers who would ring up my parents' home because they knew young girls lived there, say a few dirty words, then hang up.
You seem to have all the respect for women such as myself as you have for IHD:
Fair enough Karol, that wasn't my impression by our prior PM's as well as those of other moderators and admin, but out of respect for you and IHD, I will never participate on any political threads ever again. Let them blast away at all of the Christians as much as they wish, I won't defend that position ever again on IHD. I apologize for my mistaken impression of your prior PMs.
Oh well, I guess it's pretty good company to be in!
Karol likes to stay neutral so she doesn't often comment on threads like this. Her reply was a misunderstanding that we have cleared up once she understood why I had made the comments. Private matter between me and Karol and yes, I do have great respect for her and for IHD. Simple misunderstanding cleared up if you would like to know and keep harping on this issue thank you. Anything beyond that is none of your business.
-
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
You mean my female friends? This is really creeping me out the way you seem fixated on mentioning women's reproductive organs in every response to me, even though I have made it clear that I find this disrespectful.
Dear Cariad, you fail to respond to all of the issues that I find disrespectful, but that is the game you choose to play. So be it.
P.S. Since when is uterus a dirty word anyway?
-
The friend's name was not mentioned if she asked to not have her name used. Health problems are a very private matter to people, and not all want to broadcast all that they are going through. That is every person's right. Doesn't meant that her story isn't worthy of being told, but it does not need a name to it to be valid.
Also, as you know, ovarian cysts are not the only medical reason a woman needs to use birth control pills. Maybe this pill was the best thing for this patient, we don't know for sure, because we are not privy to her medical records. And we shouldn't be!!! This is not something to be decided by anyone other than the patient herself, and her doctor. (Hello, HIPPA!!!!)
I stand by my stance on bishops - until they bleed uncontrollably every month in a very personal/private area of their bodies, they have nothing to say on this subject. My only reason for ever taking the pill was to control frequent, heavy periods, which certainly didn't help my anemia when that kicked in. Birth control pills are the only thing that can help with that, or other hormonal types of contraception. That's my reality, but apparently, if I were to "put it out there" so to speak, I'd be ostracized as a slut for taking care of my health and quality of life. No, this is not the America I want live in. We live in a country where people get lost in the despair of medical bills if they are unlucky enough to get sick. That is not the America I want to live in, either. I want to live in an America where I can get treatment (for any medical condition) when I need it. I want this for every American. I do admit to being a bit apprehensive about those who do damage to their bodies due to risky activities. I don't know how to address that. In fact, that's a big thing I don't understand in this whole argument. I hear complaining about "paying for people to have recreational sex" but I hear nothing about lung cancer and other horrible diseases due to smoking, cirhossis of the liver due to drinking, etc etc. Those are recreational activities that are not necessary to live, and cause disease and most likely death to boot! Why do all of us who pay insurance premiums have to pay for those high expensive costs, but some scoff at the idea of premiums paying for birth control to prevent pregnancy? And, for that matter, isn't paying for maternity and birth also "paying for people to have sex"??? And doesn't that cost a LOT more than paying for birth control?? (this argument has nothing to do with medically necessary birth control. I'm just referring to the argument about using birth control to prevent birth, of which most of the conservatives seem to be all in cahoots.) And, since when are married women, or women in committed relationships, sluts??? I don't for one minute support those who do one-night hook-ups and have multiple partners in a short period of time. I'm just talking about those who are lucky enough to be in healthy, loving relationships. Why do the conservatives have such a problem with them having sex, and having their insurance cover dr-prescribed contraception to help prevent pregnancy, which is an expensive medical condition?? This is what I don't get in the whole grand argument that is currently going on about this.
The other thing that I don't get, and this is on a completely different topic, is how Obama is responsible for the high gas prices of today, but Bush wasn't 4 years ago when the same thing was happening? I remember 4 years ago, and learning about the speculators, and all the profits the gas companies made after that year, when their annual earnings reports came out. How is one President responsible for this, but the other isn't??? And, really, what sitting President who is up for re-election would deliberately raise gas prices? Even one who wasn't up for re-election, like Bush was, wouldn't do that!!! Besides, how can one man sign his name or make that call and magically raise prices on a needed commodity like that??? I really want to know, because I just don't understand how an argument like that can flip-flop based on who or what party is sitting in the White House.
KarenInWA
-
The friend's name was not mentioned if she asked to not have her name used. Health problems are a very private matter to people, and not all want to broadcast all that they are going through. That is every person's right. Doesn't meant that her story isn't worthy of being told, but it does not need a name to it to be valid.
Also, as you know, ovarian cysts are not the only medical reason a woman needs to use birth control pills. Maybe this pill was the best thing for this patient, we don't know for sure, because we are not privy to her medical records. And we shouldn't be!!! This is not something to be decided by anyone other than the patient herself, and her doctor. (Hello, HIPPA!!!!)
I stand by my stance on bishops - until they bleed uncontrollably every month in a very personal/private area of their bodies, they have nothing to say on this subject. My only reason for ever taking the pill was to control frequent, heavy periods, which certainly didn't help my anemia when that kicked in. Birth control pills are the only thing that can help with that, or other hormonal types of contraception. That's my reality, but apparently, if I were to "put it out there" so to speak, I'd be ostracized as a slut for taking care of my health and quality of life. No, this is not the America I want live in. We live in a country where people get lost in the despair of medical bills if they are unlucky enough to get sick. That is not the America I want to live in, either. I want to live in an America where I can get treatment (for any medical condition) when I need it. I want this for every American. I do admit to being a bit apprehensive about those who do damage to their bodies due to risky activities. I don't know how to address that. In fact, that's a big thing I don't understand in this whole argument. I hear complaining about "paying for people to have recreational sex" but I hear nothing about lung cancer and other horrible diseases due to smoking, cirhossis of the liver due to drinking, etc etc. Those are recreational activities that are not necessary to live, and cause disease and most likely death to boot! Why do all of us who pay insurance premiums have to pay for those high expensive costs, but some scoff at the idea of premiums paying for birth control to prevent pregnancy? And, for that matter, isn't paying for maternity and birth also "paying for people to have sex"??? And doesn't that cost a LOT more than paying for birth control?? (this argument has nothing to do with medically necessary birth control. I'm just referring to the argument about using birth control to prevent birth, of which most of the conservatives seem to be all in cahoots.) And, since when are married women, or women in committed relationships, sluts??? I don't for one minute support those who do one-night hook-ups and have multiple partners in a short period of time. I'm just talking about those who are lucky enough to be in healthy, loving relationships. Why do the conservatives have such a problem with them having sex, and having their insurance cover dr-prescribed contraception to help prevent pregnancy, which is an expensive medical condition?? This is what I don't get in the whole grand argument that is currently going on about this.
The other thing that I don't get, and this is on a completely different topic, is how Obama is responsible for the high gas prices of today, but Bush wasn't 4 years ago when the same thing was happening? I remember 4 years ago, and learning about the speculators, and all the profits the gas companies made after that year, when their annual earnings reports came out. How is one President responsible for this, but the other isn't??? And, really, what sitting President who is up for re-election would deliberately raise gas prices? Even one who wasn't up for re-election, like Bush was, wouldn't do that!!! Besides, how can one man sign his name or make that call and magically raise prices on a needed commodity like that??? I really want to know, because I just don't understand how an argument like that can flip-flop based on who or what party is sitting in the White House.
KarenInWA
Sandra Flukes' "testimony" is completely bogus hearsay. This is a bogus political ploy with no legal standing. Obama will soon drop the entire thing, but he has already improved his ratings with woman based on lies and duplicity.
-
Obama has publicly stated for several years that he wants energy costs to "skyrocket."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk&feature=related
Part of their energy policy is to increase gas prices as noted by his secretary of energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH0CzERzEZg
-
The Sandra Fluke plot thickens. Looks like she not only has a potential White House connection through Anita Dunn, but she is also dating a prominent Democrats son.
O’Reilly found on Friday that Fluke is also dating the son of “Democratic stalwart” William Mutterperl, who has made numerous donations to the Democratic Party and liberal candidates in recent years.
“For six days, we have been telling you that the 30-year-old Georgetown law student has become a major player in the presidential election,” O’Reilly said during his “Talking Points Memo” segment. “Last night, we reported that she is now being handled pro bono, for free, by the PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, which is good, because Sandra doesn’t have enough money to buy birth control pills, as we know. But there is more to Sandra’s story than just contraception. Right now, she’s on spring break in California with her boyfriend, who is the son of Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl. He has made at least 56 donations to Democratic candidates or organizations. Nothing wrong with that — I’m just pointing it out.”
O’Reilly then questioned whether Fluke was receiving some sort of backing in exchange for her advocacy. Despite claiming that it is financially taxing for her to afford contraception, Fluke is somehow able to travel across the country and make numerous media appearances.
O’Reilly also noted the timing of Fluke’s rise. The law student came on the scene right when the Obama administration was being criticized for a controversial contraceptive mandate requiring some religious institutions to supply contraception against their will.
“Of course, that’s when Sandra Fluke suddenly appeared — popping up at congressional hearings, showing up in the media,” he said. “Polls show President Obama’s poll numbers among women now on the rise, and he has Ms. Fluke to thank [for] that. If you don’t pay close attention to this story, it looks like President Obama is simply helping out a young woman under siege, but again, that’s not what’s going on here.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/10/o%e2%80%99reilly-sandra-flukes-boyfriend-son-of-democratic-stalwart-william-mutterperl/#ixzz1omFq8Cim
-
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
You mean my female friends? This is really creeping me out the way you seem fixated on mentioning women's reproductive organs in every response to me, even though I have made it clear that I find this disrespectful.
Dear Cariad, you fail to respond to all of the issues that I find disrespectful, but that is the game you choose to play. So be it.
P.S. Since when is uterus a dirty word anyway?
Where did I say it was a dirty word?
You remind me of those callers, who did on occasion use dirty words, also words like 'erection' and 'masturbate' which are not dirty but not something appropriate to say to a ten-year-old, and not something I want to hear in mixed company as an adult.
I find it deeply inappropriate that you want to use terms like 'uterus vote' when I have said I found that offensive, and my husband wants to know just what the deal is with you getting such a thrill from repeating the word uterus to a woman you've never met, and who has further made it abundantly clear to you that this makes me uncomfortable.
-
So, go tell all of your lady friends with a uterus to seek title 10 coverage if they can't afford 9 dollars a month to pay for it themselves.
You mean my female friends? This is really creeping me out the way you seem fixated on mentioning women's reproductive organs in every response to me, even though I have made it clear that I find this disrespectful.
Dear Cariad, you fail to respond to all of the issues that I find disrespectful, but that is the game you choose to play. So be it.
P.S. Since when is uterus a dirty word anyway?
Where did I say it was a dirty word?
You remind me of those callers, who did on occasion use dirty words, also words like 'erection' and 'masturbate' which are not dirty but not something appropriate to say to a ten-year-old, and not something I want to hear in mixed company as an adult.
I find it deeply inappropriate that you want to use terms like 'uterus vote' when I have said I found that offensive, and my husband wants to know just what the deal is with you getting such a thrill from repeating the word uterus to a woman you've never met, and who has further made it abundantly clear to you that this makes me uncomfortable.
Who said I got a thrill out of an accepted medical term especially when this is the language of liberal commentators who originated this whole discourse. You are pushing the absurd now Cariad. Oh well, I guess that is all you wish to debate on a political thread. You take absolutely no shame to calling a respected ex-senator an A-Hole and then say that wasn't enough, you should go further into the slime pit to describe someone you don't agree with politically.
If you are offended, so be it. Your posts offend me and you make no apology. So be it. That is the game you wish to play.
Since when is a-hole a 'liberal' term? Santorum is most definitely an a-hole, Billy was right. That is not replacing a body part for the word 'men'. It is saying that that particular person is an outright ghastly specimen. Dan Savage's definition is beyond gross. Again, he is insulting one person for doing what Santorum does - tries to strip away everyone's freedoms but his own. As much as I find Savage's definition nauseating, when he's right, he's right.
-
Interesting how Sandra Fluke, a woman's advocate didn't know how to advise her alleged friend how to secure OCP's through planned parenthood for as little as 15 dollars a month. Here is Planned Parenthood's website and information on OCP's.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm
This will create a backlash against Obama for this fraud perpetrated against America. Lies, and duplicity at the highest levels of our government.
-
This will create a backlash against Obama for this fraud perpetrated against America. Lies, and duplicity at the highest levels of our government.
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; Let me try to reply with a straight face... :rofl; Nope! I just can't do it.
-
Who said I got a thrill out of an accepted medical term especially when this is the language of liberal commentators who originated this whole discourse. You are pushing the absurd now Cariad. Oh well, I guess that is all you wish to debate on a political thread. You take absolutely no shame to calling a respected ex-senator an A-Hole and then say that wasn't enough, you should go further into the slime pit to describe someone you don't agree with politically.
If you are offended, so be it. Your posts offend me and you make no apology. So be it. That is the game you wish to play.
There are any number of accepted medical terms that I do not wish to hear about from you, Peter. Your actions say that you get a thrill out of this bizarre behaviour. You keep doing it after all.
Respected is in the eye of the beholder. Santorum has no respect for my civil rights and I have no respect for him as a politician. There is a difference between calling a famous person a name (or rather, agreeing with someone who says that is what he sounds like) and you going out of your way to harass me with your sexist remarks and your personal comments about my female friends or encouraging me to go out and 'abort away' (Ew. I should not have to hear this from anyone.) I make no apology for my statements nor do I want an apology from you. I want to not feel that someone is so fixated upon me, my opinions, and my reproductive organs that he has to follow me around saying uterus at every opportunity.
-
Looks like the union base is angry over Obama and the pipeline. Will he be able to keep the rank and file in light to his complete opposition to these projects and rising gas prices, let alone the Obama food price inflation. Has anyone seen what cheese and other staples cost today?
WASHINGTON – Unions may be united in working to re-elect President Obama, but their leaders also are trying to repair bitter divisions over his rejection of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.
Trade unions representing workers who stand to benefit from thousands of new construction jobs from the Keystone XL pipeline are furious at other unions that joined environmentalists in opposing the project.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/10/union-leaders-seek-to-repair-internal-divisions-over-keystone-pipeline/#ixzz1oms1anjb
-
O’Reilly found on Friday that Fluke is also dating the son of “Democratic stalwart” William Mutterperl, who has made numerous donations to the Democratic Party and liberal candidates in recent years.
“For six days, we have been telling you that the 30-year-old Georgetown law student has become a major player in the presidential election,” O’Reilly said during his “Talking Points Memo” segment. “Last night, we reported that she is now being handled pro bono, for free, by the PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, which is good, because Sandra doesn’t have enough money to buy birth control pills, as we know. But there is more to Sandra’s story than just contraception. Right now, she’s on spring break in California with her boyfriend, who is the son of Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl. He has made at least 56 donations to Democratic candidates or organizations. Nothing wrong with that — I’m just pointing it out.”
O’Reilly then questioned whether Fluke was receiving some sort of backing in exchange for her advocacy. Despite claiming that it is financially taxing for her to afford contraception, Fluke is somehow able to travel across the country and make numerous media appearances.
O’Reilly also noted the timing of Fluke’s rise. The law student came on the scene right when the Obama administration was being criticized for a controversial contraceptive mandate requiring some religious institutions to supply contraception against their will.
“Of course, that’s when Sandra Fluke suddenly appeared — popping up at congressional hearings, showing up in the media,” he said. “Polls show President Obama’s poll numbers among women now on the rise, and he has Ms. Fluke to thank [for] that. If you don’t pay close attention to this story, it looks like President Obama is simply helping out a young woman under siege, but again, that’s not what’s going on here.”
Again, Ms. Fluke was not complaining that contraception was too expensive for HER, rather, it was too expensive for her friend with the ovarian cysts.
I'd bet that all sorts of students from Georgetown are dating stalwarts of both parties. That's just the kind of institution Georgetown is, being so close to DC and all.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with Bill O'Reilly that Ms. Fluke is a "major player" in the Presidential election. Mr. O'Reilly is a genius at taking some innocuous matter and blowing it up into a major event. If Ms. Fluke truly is a "major player", it's because the triumvirate of Issa/Boehner/Limbaugh. Compare the time those three have talked about this issue with the time that President Obama has talked about it, and you have to wonder who is manipulating who. If this really is a trap cleverly laid out by the President, then he is too smart by half, and well played, sir! Maybe he can set an equally clever trap for the likes of Assad and the President of Iran's whose name I can't spell at the moment.
-
Hemodoc;
Your world is unrealistic and I think you know it. What you seem to advocate appears to be an argument for argument’s sake. Your ideas will never happen because:
1. The standards of a special interest group cannot be placed on others for the sake of principle.
2. Religion and government do not mix and it won’t happen in America.
3. Despite GOP efforts to manage any type of women’s healthcare, it won’t happen.
4. Abortion is legal in this nation even though radicals who oppose abortions, have murdered people who work in planned parenthood clinics.
5. History has shown that every President since World War II has tried to implement a universal healthcare program, and the GOP always barks “socialism”. First of all it isn’t socialism and second – George W. Bush instituted the prescription program and supported an expansion of Medicare.
6. I am a citizen and there are many like me – who do not identify with any religion. I was born and raised Catholic, and educated in a Catholic school. I am not illegal, I have the same rights that you have.
7. You have only one vote.
8. Come November, you are going to lose, bigtime.
Don’t you think it is time to end this discussion? You have made your point and have resorted to ridicule which and no one is going to convince anyone else of anything.
You might try loving all females as I do. I want to marry every lady on this forum. They are something to behold.
Gerald Lively
-
Looks like the union base is angry over Obama and the pipeline. Will he be able to keep the rank and file in light to his complete opposition to these projects and rising gas prices, let alone the Obama food price inflation. Has anyone seen what cheese and other staples cost today?
WASHINGTON – Unions may be united in working to re-elect President Obama, but their leaders also are trying to repair bitter divisions over his rejection of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.
Trade unions representing workers who stand to benefit from thousands of new construction jobs from the Keystone XL pipeline are furious at other unions that joined environmentalists in opposing the project.
Well you know, this is why it is hard to be the President. You cannot please everyone at all times. What an impossible choice to have to make...jobs vs the environment. There is great debate over how many or how FEW jobs this pipeline will actually create. And at what environmental cost? If construction were to begin tomorrow, it would be YEARS before any oil was flowing, so this pipeline is not going to lower the cost of gas tomorrow or even next year.
It is possible, even probable, that the pipeline will eventually be built. But remember that there are people in those states through which the pipeline will go that don't want it...it's the NIMBY principle. Building a pipeline bisecting the country is not an easy thing to do. A lot of private land will have to be bought, so what about those people who might not want to sell? I bet those people are going to be really, REALLY angry that their land will be taken from them. I virtually promise you that Homeland security or someone like that will enforce a security zone around the pipeline the whole way down to Port Arthur.
So, does job creation, even just relatively few jobs, trump everything all of the time? These are the kinds of decisions that Presidents have to make, and as this president has a lot more information than you or I do, perhaps we should live with his decision.
Unions rarely agree with each other. That there is disagreement over the pipeline is not surprise at all!
-
Hemodoc;
Your world is unrealistic and I think you know it. What you seem to advocate appears to be an argument for argument’s sake. Your ideas will never happen because:
1. The standards of a special interest group cannot be placed on others for the sake of principle.
2. Religion and government do not mix and it won’t happen in America.
3. Despite GOP efforts to manage any type of women’s healthcare, it won’t happen.
4. Abortion is legal in this nation even though radicals who oppose abortions, have murdered people who work in planned parenthood clinics.
5. History has shown that every President since World War II has tried to implement a universal healthcare program, and the GOP always barks “socialism”. First of all it isn’t socialism and second – George W. Bush instituted the prescription program and supported an expansion of Medicare.
6. I am a citizen and there are many like me – who do not identify with any religion. I was born and raised Catholic, and educated in a Catholic school. I am not illegal, I have the same rights that you have.
7. You have only one vote.
8. Come November, you are going to lose, bigtime.
Don’t you think it is time to end this discussion? You have made your point and have resorted to ridicule which and no one is going to convince anyone else of anything.
You might try loving all females as I do. I want to marry every lady on this forum. They are something to behold.
Gerald Lively
Dear Gerald, after about two months of your ridicule and instead of sticking to the issues such as the several posts I have already placed today, you instead continue in your ad hominem attacks. Go for it, I will discuss issues. If you and Cariad want to be so fixated on your continuous insults I could care less.
Have a good night Gerald.
-
O’Reilly found on Friday that Fluke is also dating the son of “Democratic stalwart” William Mutterperl, who has made numerous donations to the Democratic Party and liberal candidates in recent years.
“For six days, we have been telling you that the 30-year-old Georgetown law student has become a major player in the presidential election,” O’Reilly said during his “Talking Points Memo” segment. “Last night, we reported that she is now being handled pro bono, for free, by the PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, which is good, because Sandra doesn’t have enough money to buy birth control pills, as we know. But there is more to Sandra’s story than just contraception. Right now, she’s on spring break in California with her boyfriend, who is the son of Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl. He has made at least 56 donations to Democratic candidates or organizations. Nothing wrong with that — I’m just pointing it out.”
O’Reilly then questioned whether Fluke was receiving some sort of backing in exchange for her advocacy. Despite claiming that it is financially taxing for her to afford contraception, Fluke is somehow able to travel across the country and make numerous media appearances.
O’Reilly also noted the timing of Fluke’s rise. The law student came on the scene right when the Obama administration was being criticized for a controversial contraceptive mandate requiring some religious institutions to supply contraception against their will.
“Of course, that’s when Sandra Fluke suddenly appeared — popping up at congressional hearings, showing up in the media,” he said. “Polls show President Obama’s poll numbers among women now on the rise, and he has Ms. Fluke to thank [for] that. If you don’t pay close attention to this story, it looks like President Obama is simply helping out a young woman under siege, but again, that’s not what’s going on here.”
Again, Ms. Fluke was not complaining that contraception was too expensive for HER, rather, it was too expensive for her friend with the ovarian cysts.
I'd bet that all sorts of students from Georgetown are dating stalwarts of both parties. That's just the kind of institution Georgetown is, being so close to DC and all.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with Bill O'Reilly that Ms. Fluke is a "major player" in the Presidential election. Mr. O'Reilly is a genius at taking some innocuous matter and blowing it up into a major event. If Ms. Fluke truly is a "major player", it's because the triumvirate of Issa/Boehner/Limbaugh. Compare the time those three have talked about this issue with the time that President Obama has talked about it, and you have to wonder who is manipulating who. If this really is a trap cleverly laid out by the President, then he is too smart by half, and well played, sir! Maybe he can set an equally clever trap for the likes of Assad and the President of Iran's whose name I can't spell at the moment.
Sorry, Moosemom, but if she is a woman's advocate and a law student and couldn't forward the website to Planned Parenthood, then she is quite incompetent.
I don't believe that. I believe that this is a terrible fraud perpetrated against the America people. Is that what you want from your president? Really?
Once again, who is the mystical "friend" anyway. Completely absurd hearsay that makes no sense at all. Did you know that there is a Target outlet 3 miles from Georgetown University that offers the most popular OCP for $9.00 a month to those that don't have contraceptive coverage? Planned Parenthood, Title 10? Nope, Fluke couldn't find any of those options for her so called friend. By her own testimony she is incompetent if telling the truth which I seriously doubt.
-
Hemodoc;
How quickly you forget. I started this thread with a post expressing a desire for the American electorate to discuss the more important issues of the day; like war, the economy, education, etc. It was you who diverted this discussion to women’s issues and you clearly lost on all points.
Once again, if you cannot stay on point, then stop arguing.
gerald
-
Hemodoc;
How quickly you forget. I started this thread with a post expressing a desire for the American electorate to discuss the more important issues of the day; like war, the economy, education, etc. It was you who diverted this discussion to women’s issues and you clearly lost on all points.
Once again, if you cannot stay on point, then stop arguing.
gerald
Have a good night Gerald and perhaps you can read some of my posts such as the loss of unified union support. So much for staying on topic huh Gerald. Anyway, have a good night.
-
Hemodoc, it is intellectually lazy to now claim that Sandra Fluke has been lying and has no "friend". I don't think you truly believe that.
Yes, Sandra Fluke has been a women's advocate for some years now, working with groups that provided services for victims of rape, domestic violence and human trafficking. How does that make her an enemy of the state? Thank God for women like her!
Let me ask you this...Georgetown refused to cover the pills on the basis that they are used to prevent pregnancy. What if a female student could prove that the medication was to be used to treat her ovarian cysts. Let's say, hypothetically, that this student could show university officials scan results or something...factual, medical evidence plus testimony from her doctor that yes, this med was to be used for this purpose. Should Georgetown or other catholic employers then relent and cover the pills? Just a hypothetical question.
Oh, what does "OCP" mean?
-
Hemodoc, it is intellectually lazy to now claim that Sandra Fluke has been lying and has no "friend". I don't think you truly believe that.
Yes, Sandra Fluke has been a women's advocate for some years now, working with groups that provided services for victims of rape, domestic violence and human trafficking. How does that make her an enemy of the state? Thank God for women like her!
Let me ask you this...Georgetown refused to cover the pills on the basis that they are used to prevent pregnancy. What if a female student could prove that the medication was to be used to treat her ovarian cysts. Let's say, hypothetically, that this student could show university officials scan results or something...factual, medical evidence plus testimony from her doctor that yes, this med was to be used for this purpose. Should Georgetown or other catholic employers then relent and cover the pills? Just a hypothetical question.
Dear Moosemom,
There is absolutely no documentation that this so called "friend" exists. That is hearsay evidence not admissible to a court of law. Why are we excepting this as true when there is absolutely no evidence of that allegation.
Secondly, if she is a woman's advocate and was involved with this friend, it is absurd that she couldn't get access to OCP's. Couple that with her connections to the White House through Anita Dunn and her high profile boy friends father, no, I don't believe a word she said. There is NO evidence of its veracity. Sorry, I don't buy it at all.
I have previously stated I prescribed OCP's. This is not an issue from my professional dealings. Sorry, I don't believe the story at all, there is no verifiable proof of this myth.
-
A question about the pipeline...why are the Republicans trying to force the Administration to make a decision in such a short period of time? I mean, the route of the pipeline hasn't even been decided yet, so how can a responsible president say a definitive yea or nay at this time?
I'll grant you that it's a difficult decision, so I want whoever the president is to have all of the relevant information and to have the time to really consider all sides. There are a lot of Americans who are very much opposed to this project, and their concerns should be addressed, too. A lot of people who for generations owned land along the Texas/Mexico border had their land taken from them to make into a safety zone for the border fence. Their private property was comandeered by the Feds. I would have thought that's the kind of thing you wouldn't like.
-
Dear Moosemom,
There is absolutely no documentation that this so called "friend" exists. That is hearsay evidence not admissible to a court of law. Why are we excepting this as true when there is absolutely no evidence of that allegation.
Secondly, if she is a woman's advocate and was involved with this friend, it is absurd that she couldn't get access to OCP's. Couple that with her connections to the White House through Anita Dunn and her high profile boy friends father, no, I don't believe a word she said. There is NO evidence of its veracity. Sorry, I don't buy it at all.
I have previously stated I prescribed OCP's. This is not an issue from my professional dealings. Sorry, I don't believe the story at all, there is no verifiable proof of this myth.
Oh, I don't feel like reading 15 pages of this thread to find out what "OCP" stands for. "Over the Counter Protection"? Can you just tell me what the initials stand for?
If you don't believe the veracity of her story, that's fine. Her testimony, true or false, came AFTER Issa's Circus, so the damage is done, anyway. Nothing is going to make women (or men) forget that tableau of five old men giving lessons on women's bodies and their rights to contraception...or not. If the GOP is smart, they will quietly drop the whole thing.
I must admit that I am not clear on why, after President caved to the Church, religious employers still have to provide coverage for birth control. I thought that relieving them of this moral conundrum was the whole reason for the President's amendment to the rule. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Thanks.
Oh wait... OCP means "oral contraceptive pills"? Is that right? LOL!
I've got to go to bed. I've read your PM but not thoroughly enough, so I will do so later, hopefully tomorrow, and will get back to you via PM. Have a great night, everyone!
-
Dear Moosemom,
The pipeline issue is one more fraudulent issue propagated against the American people. It is not as if we don't already have thousands of miles of pipelines, many of which go through the same exact land mass as the proposed pipeline.
http://www.aopl.org/
Just a bunch of hype once again.
In any case, the point of my post is that union anger is growing against Obama and they are one of his biggest supporters. They are ripe for picking. There is no reason not to approve these projects, but he is pandering to the far left on this issue.
-
I couldn't possibly do anything more than skim the last three pages of this thread, but personally I've never been offended by even the most rabidly divisive political discussions. I actually think sometimes they are quite humorous and entertaining even when the topics are not. Oh well...
On the other hand, I want to say that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and also what most would call a right-wing conservative (a lower-case "L" libertarian actually). But there are decent and civilized standards for making conversation. I just want people who disagree with me to know that I do not think you are bad people who are going to burn in hell just because you disagree with me. That is between you and God (if you believe in God...if not I guess it shouldn't matter if someone consigns you to hell :P). And it seems ironic that the loudest Christians or Conservatives (and to be fair, Liberal/Progressives too) seem to have the least ammunition and least effect on converting the "opposition."
I can't help but think of the old proverb: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
(Ooops, I hope quoting the Bible doesn't offend anyone!) ;)
-
I couldn't possibly do anything more than skim the last three pages of this thread, but personally I've never been offended by even the most rabidly divisive political discussions. I actually think sometimes they are quite humorous and entertaining even when the topics are not. Oh well...
On the other hand, I want to say that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and also what most would call a right-wing conservative (a lower-case "L" libertarian actually). But there are decent and civilized standards for making conversation. I just want people who disagree with me to know that I do not think you are bad people who are going to burn in hell just because you disagree with me. That is between you and God (if you believe in God...if not I guess it shouldn't matter if someone consigns you to hell :P). And it seems ironic that the loudest Christians or Conservatives (and to be fair, Liberal/Progressives too) seem to have the least ammunition and least effect on converting the "opposition."
I can't help but think of the old proverb: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
(Ooops, I hope quoting the Bible doesn't offend anyone!) ;)
Hi Willis! I agree with almost all of this, and feel similarly to you. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, of course not, but as you've said there is a certain standard for civility, and for me, bigotry does not fall within those boundaries. Some of the problems that MM mentioned - violence against women, for example, or women being shut out from testifying before Congress on an issue that does not physically affect men in the slightest - are fueled by dehumanizing women into body parts, sending that message that our only value comes from our anatomy.
Also, let me clarify, it DOES matter to an atheist when someone 'consigns you to hell'. This is an important point I feel, because while I cannot speak for all atheists, as far as I know we all feel the same about this. We know that when a Christian says it, they really believe what they're saying. So, to me, it is akin to someone saying 'I hope you are locked away in an Iranian prison for life' or 'I am so glad you have a painful disease', only it is far worse. It is saying "You deserve to be tortured for all eternity" . There is really no nice way out of this, either. It does not matter that it won't be that person's decision. The speaker is the one expressing the sentiment, and when it is expressed, it is usually over a difference in belief. It is not that we (atheists) are worried this will actually happen, it is the malevolence of the statement that is being directed at us that is quite shocking.
I do appreciate you making clear that you don't harbor ill-will toward those that disagree with you. I am sure that we would disagree on most things, but I feel I can learn a lot from people on the other side of the political spectrum who are able to make their points calmly and rationally. You couldn't be more right about the most vocal (and I would add most extreme) being the least effective. I've noticed that, too.
-
Well, once again I caught the tail end of an interview that I wish I had been able to see in its entirely, but what I did see got me to thinking, and I wanted to quickly post about it here.
It was an interview of Kah Wallah (sp?) who is a women's advocate from Cameroon. She was being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell about the role/plight of women in the world today. She is, I would guess, American trained as she speaks English with a perfect American accent. They showed a clip of a speech Meryl Streep recently made about role models, and she said that being a role model was more than being polite and perfectly groomed; it was about being what others aspire to be. That dovetailed nicely with the next question of the interview in which Andrea Mitchell asked Ms Wallah about her thoughts on current American politics and the role of American women.
She had an interesting reply. She said that women throughout the world still do look to America for role models and like the idea that American women have the freedom they do, but they are baffled by how few women are in high positions in government. She also said that they are "reeling" from the reproductive rights controversy we are having here at the moment.
There is a lot of debate still about whether this is all a religious rights issue or a reproductive freedom issue. It's not just about birth control. It's about so much more; it is STILL about the debasement, devaluation and dehumanization of women, especially if they are pregnant, in which case it seems like a newly fertilzed egg is more important than the woman herself; she has become a mere vessel. When derogatory words are used by any man of any party to describe any woman, it is indicative of the still-present violence against women.
How many time have we been told that we should be exporting American ideals and values to the world, that we are the heralds and the footsoldiers of democracy, that peoples of the world want to be like us and have governemt like us? Well, if this is true...if we are that shining beacon on the hill, then we have to be particularly careful in the messages that we are sending, and to the rest of the world, we look like we are back in the Stone Age where women once again have no value unless they either are servicing men or having babies.
If you think that this is a fight about "religious freedom", I can pretty much assure you that the women of the rest of the world do not see the battle in those terms at all.
Quick question...more and more states are requiring that women who want a legal abortion must have an ultrasound "to give them more information". Do the taxpayers of that state really want their money going to fulfill this mandate? I thought that Americans were supposed to be against mandates, against the state requiring action taken in any aspect of health care. Does this not seem hypocritical to anyone? It's like it is just fine to require OTHER people to do things as long as YOU are not required to do the same. How about for any woman required to have this ultrasound, her male partner/husband be required to pay for it? That's about $500 down the drain! I'm sure MEN would just LOVE to be required to pay THAT!
If anyone would like to quote Bible verses, could someone explain to me why Christianity is NOT misogynist? 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Is this the Christian basis for relegating women to the second division? What does something like this mean in today's world?
-
Hi Willis! I agree with almost all of this, and feel similarly to you. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, of course not, but as you've said there is a certain standard for civility, and for me, bigotry does not fall within those boundaries. Some of the problems that MM mentioned - violence against women, for example, or women being shut out from testifying before Congress on an issue that does not physically affect men in the slightest - are fueled by dehumanizing women into body parts, sending that message that our only value comes from our anatomy.
Also, let me clarify, it DOES matter to an atheist when someone 'consigns you to hell'. This is an important point I feel, because while I cannot speak for all atheists, as far as I know we all feel the same about this. We know that when a Christian says it, they really believe what they're saying. So, to me, it is akin to someone saying 'I hope you are locked away in an Iranian prison for life' or 'I am so glad you have a painful disease', only it is far worse. It is saying "You deserve to be tortured for all eternity" . There is really no nice way out of this, either. It does not matter that it won't be that person's decision. The speaker is the one expressing the sentiment, and when it is expressed, it is usually over a difference in belief. It is not that we (atheists) are worried this will actually happen, it is the malevolence of the statement that is being directed at us that is quite shocking.
I do appreciate you making clear that you don't harbor ill-will toward those that disagree with you. I am sure that we would disagree on most things, but I feel I can learn a lot from people on the other side of the political spectrum who are able to make their points calmly and rationally. You couldn't be more right about the most vocal (and I would add most extreme) being the least effective. I've noticed that, too.
Yes, I can see your point about the disrespect it shows "to consign an atheist to hell." I suppose it isn't a fear of hell that is the problem, but rather that someone makes themselves somehow superior (in their minds). I was being a bit flippant trying to lighten the mood a bit, but I appreciate the point you make. Now believe it or not, my views about "hell" depart significantly from most in Christendom and I take a lot of heat for my "heretical" views from the same people we are both referring to in these example scenarios.
Unfortunately, Mahatma Gandhi was right when he has been quoted as saying: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-
There is a lot of debate still about whether this is all a religious rights issue or a reproductive freedom issue. It's not just about birth control. It's about so much more; it is STILL about the debasement, devaluation and dehumanization of women, especially if they are pregnant, in which case it seems like a newly fertilzed egg is more important than the woman herself; she has become a mere vessel. When derogatory words are used by any man of any party to describe any woman, it is indicative of the still-present violence against women.
Yes! I had that exact complaint with my first pregnancy, and used that exact term - vessel. You've probably never read What To Expect When You're Expecting, as anyone who had a baby 20 years ago was probably spared that particular bit of nonsense. I finally found an article that expressed my views on that book perfectly. The authors of the book dictated that you must watch your weight obsessively and only eat kale and drink purified water, or similar. So condescending, so controlling, so unrealistic - and yes, it was written by 3 women in the healthcare field, and I do believe they were all mothers. This is what we refer to as internalizing messages of bigotry and oppression. It can happen to any of us. For my second pregnancy you'd better believe I ignored that book completely.
I would like to know why the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is always interpreted to mean "right to be born" but not "right to have any life-threatening disease treated free of charge". This is not a religious interpretation question, so I do not expect that any serious attempt at an answer will need to include biblical references.
-
Yes, I can see your point about the disrespect it shows "to consign an atheist to hell." I suppose it isn't a fear of hell that is the problem, but rather that someone makes themselves somehow superior (in their minds). I was being a bit flippant trying to lighten the mood a bit, but I appreciate the point you make. Now believe it or not, my views about "hell" depart significantly from most in Christendom and I take a lot of heat for my "heretical" views from the same people we are both referring to in these example scenarios.
Unfortunately, Mahatma Gandhi was right when he has been quoted as saying: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
That quote is amazing. It is sadly true as a generalization, but of course, some of my favourite people on IHD and out in the world identify as Christian, although they would nod right along with that statement, too.
The only religion in my family is Judaism, and Jews don't really believe in hell or even necessarily an afterlife. Plus, I don't think there are any practicing Jews left among my relatives. I would love to hear more about your views on hell, Willis. This is going to undoubtedly offend some people, but I have always thought that the whole idea of hell is pretty sick. You have a finite number of sins that any person could possibly commit on earth, and yet you have punishment that is infinite. And once you commit those sins and die, you have no way to redeem yourself. So, yeah, if you feel like sharing, I would look forward to reading your views.
Oh, and I definitely took your comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I can certainly understand why people who are not atheists would come to the conclusion you did, and although I know it was just a lighthearted comment, I saw the opportunity to get the word out, and I grabbed it! Thanks as always for hearing me out. :)
-
I want to marry every lady on this forum. They are something to behold.
Why you smooth talker.... :guitar:
-
Yes, I can see your point about the disrespect it shows "to consign an atheist to hell." I suppose it isn't a fear of hell that is the problem, but rather that someone makes themselves somehow superior (in their minds). I was being a bit flippant trying to lighten the mood a bit, but I appreciate the point you make. Now believe it or not, my views about "hell" depart significantly from most in Christendom and I take a lot of heat for my "heretical" views from the same people we are both referring to in these example scenarios.
Unfortunately, Mahatma Gandhi was right when he has been quoted as saying: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
That quote is amazing. It is sadly true as a generalization, but of course, some of my favourite people on IHD and out in the world identify as Christian, although they would nod right along with that statement, too.
The only religion in my family is Judaism, and Jews don't really believe in hell or even necessarily an afterlife. Plus, I don't think there are any practicing Jews left among my relatives. I would love to hear more about your views on hell, Willis. This is going to undoubtedly offend some people, but I have always thought that the whole idea of hell is pretty sick. You have a finite number of sins that any person could possibly commit on earth, and yet you have punishment that is infinite. And once you commit those sins and die, you have no way to redeem yourself. So, yeah, if you feel like sharing, I would look forward to reading your views.
Boy oh boy is this going to be off-topic! :o
It's kind of tough to discuss something like hell without a lot of context! Perhaps you have studied the Torah and other related Jewish writings so a theological point from what Christians call the "Old Testament" may mean more to you than the average Christian who knows very little about any of the Judeo-Christian writings except what they've been told by someone else.
In short though, it's my opinion and that of a small but significant number of other Christians that the concept of "hell" as a place of eternal torture for the "lost" was a fabrication of the early church years and stolen from Greek mythology. The Jews did not hold such a view and Jesus--despite rabid arguments that may well show up here--did not teach such a view either. He was, after all, a Jew and would have been teaching from the precepts of the Torah and other prophetic writings (Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.). Jesus, it will be argued, supposedly taught about "hell" more than any other single topic.
Unfortunately, the first and greatest translation of the Christian Bible with the widest dispersion was the 1611 King James Bible. It was a brilliant scholarly work for its time, but many mistranslations and just simple errors worked their way into the massive work and some are still there today. The translation of "hell" is one of those errors. There was I think at least three different words in the Greek, Aramaic, and Latin copies available that had no direct English equivalent and all of these somewhat similar terms were thus translated as the word "hell." I do not believe that in the Hebrew scriptures that the concept of a place of eternal torture can be found. Rather, through Adam mankind became a mortal being and lost his spiritual immortality. Now whether Adam was an actual living person or just an idea is irrlevant to me since the same point is made. Now of course some just consider the whole thing a fairy tale. Well, so be it. I'm just trying to give some background to what and why I and other people believe certain things. And that point is that all men and women, because of Adam, do not have eternal life.
Now the big difference between my views (and Judaic views too) and the bulk of Christendom is that it is more commonly believed that ALL people have eternal life. If not, how could they by conscious of eternal torment? It doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory. The first four sections of the New Testament called the "Gospels" are about Jesus and his life. Jesus DID talk about eternal destruction a lot and said that all of us should not fear anyone but G-d, the one with the ability to destroy both body and soul in "hell." For more than a thousand years one particular branch of Christianity dominated theology and thus equated "hell" as an actual place. So the terms "destroy" and "destruction" throughout the Christian writings had to be euphemistically re-interpreted to mean something other than ACTUAL destruction and turned the idea into a terror weapon. Well, people of earlier ages with no access to the actual Scriptures knew only what they were told. So the threat of suffering forever and forever in an actual place was quite powerful as a means of keeping people in line!
What is actually taught in the later Christian writings is that because of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection he (Jesus) conquered death for all humanity past, present, and future. In a manner of speaking he "undid" what Adam had done. Making it possible for the faithful of all ages to be "made alive" at some point. The Scriptures teach that there will someday be a judgment of all mankind. So my view (a more positive and loving view I believe), is that those who lived a life in a knowledgeable and intentional rejection of G-d will simply not be granted Eternal Life. They will just cease to exist (without life of any kind)--that is, they will be destroyed. It will be a final and one-time destruction but it will be forever. It may be so that to those who remain and are given Eternal Life that it will be as if the "lost" never existed. Also, my view on this makes allowance for the billions upon billions of non-Christians or mentally-handicapped or children who die young that never heard the Christian "Gospel." I think the Jews and those who have become followers of the Jewish Messiah Jesus will be given some special roles to play in eternity and perhaps that will be the difference between those who heard and believed while alive and those who did not have that chance.
People who want to use eternal torture to scare people into following their religion do not like this idea because they don't think it's punitive enough! Well, I think IF in fact I come face-to-face with a being we call G-d and see that Eternal Life is a reality, the prospect of being snuffed out will be terrifying enough. I'm just one man fortunate to have been born in America and I'm ultimately responsible for my own actions. I'm not going to be the self-righteous fanatic who insists that everyone who fails to do it "my way" will suffer horribly forever. No, it was THAT kind of thinking that made people so mad in the days of Jesus and why he was crucified on a Roman cross.
I'm sure these thoughts will stir up a hornets nest, more so among those who call themselves Christians than anyone else! I can tell you that is so from sad, personal experience. For those of other faiths or of no faith at all I merely hope this gives a small bit of enlightenment or if not, at least a chuckle.
-
Ya see, Willis, King James was at odds with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church at the time the research on the King James Version Bible began. The idea for the translation was a result of a dispute with the old church (religion) and the Church of England, who held great sway over the populace. The idea was to provide any interested Englishman, a bible so they might interpret the “word” for themselves, thereby minimizing the importance of the clergy.
It is my opinion that King James wasn’t much interested in the content of that particular Bible.
Soon after, the Pope had his own version printed up – the Duway Version. It was all politics.
Just for the hell of it, Edward Lively was one of the three translators directly appointed by the King. Yep, he was Great Grandpappy several times, nine to be more exact. He died right in the middle of the work. I think he didn’t have Universal Healthcare or Blue Cross. He did have time for other things. We know this because he had eleven kids. No Planned Parenthood Clinics were in his neighborhood then. He shoulda bought a TV to fill in his spare time.
gerald
-
Ya see, Willis, King James was at odds with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church at the time the research on the King James Version Bible began. The idea for the translation was a result of a dispute with the old church (religion) and the Church of England, who held great sway over the populace. The idea was to provide any interested Englishman, a bible so they might interpret the “word” for themselves, thereby minimizing the importance of the clergy.
It is my opinion that King James wasn’t much interested in the content of that particular Bible.
Soon after, the Pope had his own version printed up – the Duway Version. It was all politics.
Just for the hell of it, Edward Lively was one of the three translators directly appointed by the King. Yep, he was Great Grandpappy several times, nine to be more exact. He died right in the middle of the work. I think he didn’t have Universal Healthcare or Blue Cross. He did have time for other things. We know this because he had eleven kids. No Planned Parenthood Clinics were in his neighborhood then. He shoulda bought a TV to fill in his spare time.
gerald
Yep! Though not the actual first English translation (Wycliffe had made a translation into Middle English around 1390), the Tyndale version was the first in what would be considered modern English and the first Bible to be printed in large quantities. It was also the first English Bible to be divided into verses for easier reading. However, the Tyndale Bible was not actually finished because after translating the New Testament and about half of the Old Testament, William Tyndale wrote a paper criticizing Henry VIII and was imprisoned and eventually burned at the stake. After that I suppose the English Royals and the Vatican both decided they better get their own "authorized" versions out before some other heretic followed up on Tyndale's efforts.
It's also interesting (at least to me) that the Apostle Jacob (Yakov) got a name change in the King James "Authorized" Version. What? Who? The Apostle Jacob? Oh, King James had Jacob re-named to James and thus he remains to this day. It has also been speculated without proof that Shakespeare inserted his name into Psalm 46. Shakespeare was 46 years old in 1611, the year of publication, and the 46th word from the top of the Psalm is "shake" while the 46th word from the bottom is "spear." Coincidence? :P
-
A side note; Shakespeare mention Edward Lively in one of his plays. I have forgotten which one.
gl
-
A fascinating read, Willis. I (sometimes) believe in the possibility of an afterlife or at least another life, but that belief is based on my very crude understanding of physics, and friends' personal experiences that have been related to me. My head starts to hurt when I think that we (the planet) are such a tiny speck in this universe that is some 18 billion light years across. I am a very visual person, so to me, if it cannot be rendered somehow, it is very difficult for me to think about the concept. So the idea of eternity or an infinite universe or a finite universe that would have to have SOMETHING on the other side - I just cannot think about it because my brain automatically tries to create an image.
I have so many questions for you, but don't want to derail this discussion any further than I already have. I have never studied the Torah myself, my father is the Jewish one who went through the various rituals as a kid. I don't know when he gave it up, but he's always been an atheist in my memory. I have read the works of Jack Miles (God: A Biography and Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God.) and it is interesting that you mentioned mistranslations as he is fluent (for lack of a better word) in those ancient languages. He spends the first section going over what was meant by certain words back then - who knew you could take so many meanings out of a word like 'book'. He also explained the difference between the Torah, the Tanakh (?) and The Old Testament. I am truly fascinated by religious texts, but I will only read works that do not editorialize to try to convince me how magnificent a certain belief system is.
MM, I looked up your question about the Bible passage and found a great blog about Feminist Christianity. OK, they did editorialize a bit, but for the most part, they were able to come up with a somewhat plausible translation of that passage that is less insulting. I don't think I buy it, and there were males who were furiously decrying their interpretation in the comments, which was kind of icky.
At any rate, thanks for indulging me.
-
A fascinating read, Willis. I (sometimes) believe in the possibility of an afterlife or at least another life, but that belief is based on my very crude understanding of physics, and friends' personal experiences that have been related to me. My head starts to hurt when I think that we (the planet) are such a tiny speck in this universe that is some 18 billion light years across. I am a very visual person, so to me, if it cannot be rendered somehow, it is very difficult for me to think about the concept. So the idea of eternity or an infinite universe or a finite universe that would have to have SOMETHING on the other side - I just cannot think about it because my brain automatically tries to create an image.
Last comment in this thread on this subject. If someone wants to start another thread I'd be happy to chime in!
I think the common perception of "heaven" is also a misconception picked up by Greco-Roman mythology. I don't see it (nor do I think the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures see it) as some ephemeral place with angels and people floating on clouds with harps. The Scriptures always refer to the "afterlife" as a REAL place. It goes back again to what I said about Adam. Whether or not the written story is mere analogy or literal truth doesn't matter to me. There was a time when God created the Earth and populated it with at least one pair of perfect and immortal people. Now I know some just consider this all a fairy tale. Oh well, whatever.
But in the story the REAL world never came to an end--only Adam and Eve were "expelled" and unable to see what had been their previous abode. To me, this means they simply became mortal, i.e., subject to the laws of physics as we know them including the dimension of time and degeneration of the body, etc.. I think there is a world beyond our perception in which these laws do not apply. We are merely unable for the most part to see that world due to the limitations of our physical bodies.
Now this may all sound strange (certainly contrary to commonly held ideas about "heaven" based on faulty ancient assumptions), but if one takes the time to read about modern string theory and quantum physics you will find much discussion about the possibility of a "multiverse." M-Theory postulates something called "Brane Cosmology" that makes our puny 4-dimensional "universe" just a small subset of an infinitely larger multi-dimensional space. Pick up a Bible and read the story of Adam and Eve again with that concept in the back of your mind as you do so. Maybe the story isn't such a fairy tale after all!
-
I have tomorrow off, so I was sitting in front of the TV watching the film “Casino Jack” when I clicked over to MSNBC to watch the deep southern GOP primary results. The linkage was startling.
A couple of days ago I watch the Sarah Palin flick “Game Change”, then this story on Jack Abramoff – but it wasn’t just about Jack Abramoff, it was about Republican politics during the George W. Bush administration, in particular, the Senate and House plus a mix of White House. Then I recall Frank and Lon argue that national elections are about character. I should say here that Tom DeLay played a prominent role in this story, Casino Jack. If that doesn’t get to you, see the flick “To Big To Fail”.
Let that term “character” roll around a bit. Then think - - yes, think about the character of the GOP leadership. Begin with Nixon followed by Spiro Agnew, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and don’t forget George W. Bush. There is more, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft. Yes, the team that brought America to it’s financial knees. Those Republicans on Wall Street are too many to mention but if we read page two of the news, we see these guys going to jail every week. How about the Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour?
I think about the Special Prosecutor with wholesale support from the GOP who was supposed to investigate Whitewater and came up blank, but spent $57 million to entrap the President of the US on a denial of a personal infidelity. It wasn’t America’s business. Character. Ken Starr didn’t have anything good to say when he jail one lady for 12 months for not telling him what he wanted to hear, or threatening the same to Monica. Now we have the cow-tow King, Rush Limbaugh and his very strange sense of ethics. I fondly remember the CREEP bunch for tricky Dick.
We went to war in Iraq for no good reason. What did that cost? Afghanistan, why are we there – after all we killed Osama and wasn’t that the idea? (Okay, GOPers started it, Dems have to finish it albeit too slow) This one is the longest war in US history.
Richard Clarke may have been the only saving grace from the Bush administration, God bless him. Yet, there was Ollie North who intentionally broke a law that Congress passed to prevent the very thing he did. Poindexter too. The list goes on and on and I see no contrition on the GOPs side of the aisle, and I see no comparison to Democratic politicians.
No contrition? Just look over the field of GOP candidates today and point out the man with character (or female). It wasn’t Sarah Palin, we just watched a film on who she was; it isn’t Santorum, he wants to subvert the Constitution on the mix of religion and government to say nothing of his support of voter ID designed to suppress minority voting (per the various courts) and in conflict with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Does that make the GOP racist? Does it? And Gingrich, your family values man.
Racism isn’t just a buzz word, it means something. Racism, doesn’t the GOP politic smell like something very bad?
Whatever happened to the Nelson Rockefellers of politics?
-
Just look over the field of GOP candidates today and point out the man with character (or female).
Ron Paul.
-
Ron Paul is a Libertarian and is in last place.
-
Ron Paul is a Libertarian and is in last place.
That's not what the question was!
-
Ah yes, the Silly Season is here. This is a time when dubious no substances charges are tossed out. Wait until the political convertions are over before evaluating the candidates. LIsten for substance and see if that matches up to your beliefs.
gl
-
How do all of you feel about SuperPACs? I just cannot believe the amount of money that is being spent on the candidacies of everyone who is running for elected office this year, not only for the Presidency but also for Congress. Millions upon millions of dollars. I am just horrified at the reality of these offices being essentially bought. Do you think that there will ever be any kind of reform in this regard?
And one other issue...the Post Office. Congress has required that the Post Office pay for health insurance and pension benefits for their employees for the next 10 years, NOW. So, the Post Office has to pay billions of dollars NOW, up front, for benefits to employees that aren't even born yet. I am not really sure why this particular business has been targeted this way. The result will probably be the privatization of the Postal Service. Do you all think this is a good idea or not? I've heard some people speculate that this is a union busting move by the GOP, but I'm not sure that's true (although it might well be). Anyone have any thoughts or information on this?
I've always found politics to be interesting and important, particularly in a democracy where we all have a duty to be informed and engaged, but I am getting royally sick of the punditry and the increasing silliness. I don't want to hear about Ted Nugent or Hilary Rosen or Seamus the Dog any more. ::)
-
Using my superior deductive powers, I have figured out what is happening in our government. Yes indeed! It’s 2012.
The GSA is the watchdog in our federal government, you see, and they have their fingers (all ten of them) on the pulse of the government itself. They know things. They know that a government shutdown is on the horizon over a broken deal on the debt ceiling and they know nobody cares. So, a quick examination of the calendar (that’s the thing on your wall with the squares and numbers in it) revealed the GSA secret. Of course the Secret Service is paid to know everything (so is the CIA but, well, they should be called CRS) and they found out.
Yep, this is 2012 and the World ends in December. It’s all over then, folks. We’re dead meat, gonzo gone, packed it in, swallowed by a mean Mother Nature and that is probably a result of Global Warming (that was for my GOPer friends).
What does it matter that we spend $863,498. 27 on an Eat, Drink, and Be Merry last ditch party? Can’t raise taxes in time to pay off the party debt. They probably charged it all on a government credit card anyway.
Hell of an idea, said the Secret Service Dude who quickly interviewed 20 virgins who were willing to be sacrificed in the land of the Maya’s. Tradition! So, screw it became the word of the day. And they did. But they forgot to tell Maybelline who wanted $800 for her pulsating body part quivering act. But she was talking to the wrong guy. She shouted, the other SS Guys looked for a hiding place and someone called the cops. Ho boy!
Who cares? The party is over in a few months anyway. Some Bozo will get elected in November and some clown from Alabama will object on religious grounds, it’ll go to the Supreme Court and they’ll defer to Santorum and just as he is about to speak, it’ll be all over.
-
LOL! Lord, between the GSA and the Secret Service not being able to keep their collective pants on, no one's paying attention to any serious topics. And now there's CookieGate... ::)
It's like a bad version of "The Hangover 3".
-
Aw yes, the US Supreme Court.
Back when the Supreme Court decided who should be president, I undertook a complete review of what our government was and is, and what the Constitution seemed to be saying through 200 years of political finagling. Conclusion: Our government is no longer interested in the people.
If you are one of those who needs a singular simple truth, have a look at our campaign laws and what the US Supreme Court did to those. Jesse Unruh, a California politician once said, “Money is the Mother’s milk of politics.” In deciding that corporations are people in the sense that they have free speech rights under the first amendment, meaning, they can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns, the Court marginalized you and me. The money now rolls in like a Tsunami.
Where are you in this political spectrum? Let’s just say that your $100 contribution will go unnoticed – but the big oil corporations million dollar contribution will not go unnoticed.
Despite Lincoln’s well understood mantra, “A government by the people, for the people, and of the people,” it just isn’t true anymore. The new truth is: Campaign contributions are not bribes; Congress exempts themselves from law that apply to you and me; The US fights needless wars; The President lies to Congress; Congress regularly stops government operations; There is the left and right but no one represents the moderate voice; We pave highways in Afghanistan but no in America; and some people are starving, are homeless, are sick, and the middle class is gradually being blocked from higher education because it is becoming too expensive.
So what does the future hold? Is there hope? Within the last two weeks a Florida Congressman claimed that all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives are communists; and twice members of the GOP made a comparison of the President to Adolf Hitler; and there has been that War on Women thing too.
Unfortunately, I my assessment of the Federal Government is - - the inmates have taken over and are running things.
-
Speaking of the Secret Service...On the news this morning they talked about the fact that since Newt has not dropped out of the race he still has Secret Service protection. The cost was estimated at $40,000.00 a day.
The money spent on the election alone is so staggering it is beyond ridiculous. I do not remember what the figure was that has already been spent on the primaries but it is rumored that Obama will have a billion dollar "war chest."
-
Right, Marc, there is so much money spent on this election it just blows your mind.
-
Aw yes, the US Supreme Court.
Back when the Supreme Court decided who should be president, I undertook a complete review of what our government was and is, and what the Constitution seemed to be saying through 200 years of political finagling. Conclusion: Our government is no longer interested in the people.
If you are one of those who needs a singular simple truth, have a look at our campaign laws and what the US Supreme Court did to those. Jesse Unruh, a California politician once said, “Money is the Mother’s milk of politics.” In deciding that corporations are people in the sense that they have free speech rights under the first amendment, meaning, they can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns, the Court marginalized you and me. The money now rolls in like a Tsunami.
Where are you in this political spectrum? Let’s just say that your $100 contribution will go unnoticed – but the big oil corporations million dollar contribution will not go unnoticed.
Despite Lincoln’s well understood mantra, “A government by the people, for the people, and of the people,” it just isn’t true anymore. The new truth is: Campaign contributions are not bribes; Congress exempts themselves from law that apply to you and me; The US fights needless wars; The President lies to Congress; Congress regularly stops government operations; There is the left and right but no one represents the moderate voice; We pave highways in Afghanistan but no in America; and some people are starving, are homeless, are sick, and the middle class is gradually being blocked from higher education because it is becoming too expensive.
So what does the future hold? Is there hope? Within the last two weeks a Florida Congressman claimed that all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives are communists; and twice members of the GOP made a comparison of the President to Adolf Hitler; and there has been that War on Women thing too.
Unfortunately, I my assessment of the Federal Government is - - the inmates have taken over and are running things.
I certainly won't dispute that there's way too much money spent on brib..uh...re-relecting politicians. But concerning the ruling on corporations, if I remember right, the main point was that the Constitution also prohibits restrictions on peaceable assembly--that corporations are as much a voluntary collection of free citizens as are unions, political "action committees," religious or educational institutions, or ANY group. If all of these other groups have a collective right to spend their money to express their opinions (through advertising or lobbying), then why should corporations be singled out? The ruling just leveled the playing field. Personally, I'd have preferred to silence all of those left-wing organizations who also spend millions on politicians or to shut down the public sector unions who negotiate their benefits with the politicians they spend so much money on to get elected. But then, silencing anyone--even "corporations"--seems just plain un-American.
(I think the one major action for reducing the bidding war for politicians would simply be to enact term limits. Alas, those who need term limits are the ones who would have to vote them into effect. Ain't gonna happen.)
-
Willis, my gut reaction (which is not enshrined in the Constitution, sadly. LOL!) is that the reason why corporations shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions via giving gobs of money to re-electing certain politicians is because they AREN'T in fact "voluntary collections of free citizens" in the first place. They are in existence for profit and only for profit, and the people who work for them are not volunteers at all. The CEO of BigBob Corp may not have the same political stance and philosophy as the mail guy, so you get an uneven playing field that is made even more uneven.
That said, I personally agree that unions shouldn't be allowed to give big contributions in the same way.
I'm curious...what is the advantage of allowing corporations, comprised of many people of many different opinions, to give large amounts of money to any candidate? I can see where a Pac or an educational group or a religious institution might be populated with like-minded people, but I don't see corporations that way. I would be very resentful if I worked for a corporation that gave a lot of money to a candidate of whom I did not approve. I might not be in the position where I could easily leave that job, and I don't think I should have to suss out the political ideology of the board members of any company I may work for.
So, I don't see it as "silencing" corporations, rather, I see it more as not allowing the heads of corporations (who are the ones who are going to be deciding to whom to give money) to financially contribute funds that were earned through the labors of people who might not have the same political opinion. That seems un-American, although it does seem that the volumn of your voice is defined by how much financial sway you have, so maybe it's becoming very American in a sad way.
-
" Let’s just say that your $100 contribution will go unnoticed – but the big oil corporations million dollar contribution will not go unnoticed."
You don't count anymore. You don't have enough money. Democracy in action. The US Supreme Court trumped your vote.
gl
-
Willis, my gut reaction (which is not enshrined in the Constitution, sadly. LOL!) is that the reason why corporations shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions via giving gobs of money to re-electing certain politicians is because they AREN'T in fact "voluntary collections of free citizens" in the first place. They are in existence for profit and only for profit, and the people who work for them are not volunteers at all. The CEO of BigBob Corp may not have the same political stance and philosophy as the mail guy, so you get an uneven playing field that is made even more uneven.
That said, I personally agree that unions shouldn't be allowed to give big contributions in the same way.
I'm curious...what is the advantage of allowing corporations, comprised of many people of many different opinions, to give large amounts of money to any candidate? I can see where a Pac or an educational group or a religious institution might be populated with like-minded people, but I don't see corporations that way. I would be very resentful if I worked for a corporation that gave a lot of money to a candidate of whom I did not approve. I might not be in the position where I could easily leave that job, and I don't think I should have to suss out the political ideology of the board members of any company I may work for.
So, I don't see it as "silencing" corporations, rather, I see it more as not allowing the heads of corporations (who are the ones who are going to be deciding to whom to give money) to financially contribute funds that were earned through the labors of people who might not have the same political opinion. That seems un-American, although it does seem that the volumn of your voice is defined by how much financial sway you have, so maybe it's becoming very American in a sad way.
I think you came close to getting my point. The issue is who gets to decide what groups are OK and which are not OK. I could agree that corporations, unions, and even so-called non-profits may have people in the organization who have diverse points of view that run counter to those of the decision makers who may get involved in politics. There are probably lots of groups that could be singled out as being unfair to certain constituents. Heck, maybe a husband who contributed to one party pisses off his wife who prefers the other party. Where do we draw the line?
Some would say only individuals could contribute money. That still involves a wide disparity in income (and contributions). But the Constitution includes the right of assembly in the Bill of Rights. So if people get together and form a group then decide to contribute money to a politician...well then we've came back full-circle. My issue is who decides! I don't think there are any pat answers and no perfect system. But I prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than limiting speech.
-
I don't think there are any pat answers and no perfect system. But I prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than limiting speech.
I also think there are no pat answers and no perfect system, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find said perfect system, and I'm not sure that allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to get a particular candidate elected is steering us closer to perfection. And I suspect that "free speech" is a bit of a canard. I don't think I buy that argument. We limit speech all the time. There are all kinds of things that you might say that will get you into trouble. I am uncomfortable with the idea of money spent equalling "speech". The fact remains that corporations who speak the loudest surely believe that they are buying something, and that feels somewhat anti-American and against the aims of the Constitution. I'm not sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind.
-
I wrote this some time way back when . . . . . for a blog I had.
Military Industrial Complex -- read it twice
Posted by Kootie J at 20:01, 29 May 2008
" . . . this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican President. That he spoke these words at all demonstrates a courage that is seldom seen in American politics. President Clinton challenged the military-industrial-complex through reductions in the defense budget, sending surpluses to payoff the national debt - something no Republican President has ever done. We are all aware of what happened to President Clinton, every aspect of his life was investigated. Courage under fire. Punishment for challenging the establishment.
All of this involves war, continuous war. Of course a military is necessary, especially in a world political environment created by the U.S. since WWII. Yet, war means killing. That's right people, killing other people. Those "people" could be you. Hah, you feel the fear!! Someone could be so angry with you that they would shoot at you, kill you if they could, because you are an American. Is it okay to shoot at the other fellow as long as he doesn't shoot back?
War!!! What can we do to stop war? Perhaps we can start by not starting wars. Perhaps we Americans should not consider ourselves the World's Policeman. We did take a central role in creating the United Nations for that purpose. Perhaps Americans should mind their own business.
Lost lives is not the only cost of war; ask yourselves this -- are you better off today than you were before the Iraq invasion? Gas, housing market, grocery prices, world reputation, secret government, wiretapping, airport searches and more! And why is it that America is the first to jump into any fracas?
Does all of this lead back to the Eisenhower statement about the military-industrial-complex? Hey, an Army that doesn't fight isn't needed, nor are all of the industries that support that military. All of that industrial production went to war, not to you, not to me, and the profits went to the chosen few.
And for those who have forgotten, wasn't it Harry Truman who made his reputation investigating war profiteering? And who is doing that job today?
Kootie J
-
I don't think there are any pat answers and no perfect system. But I prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than limiting speech.
I also think there are no pat answers and no perfect system, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find said perfect system, and I'm not sure that allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to get a particular candidate elected is steering us closer to perfection. And I suspect that "free speech" is a bit of a canard. I don't think I buy that argument. We limit speech all the time. There are all kinds of things that you might say that will get you into trouble. I am uncomfortable with the idea of money spent equalling "speech". The fact remains that corporations who speak the loudest surely believe that they are buying something, and that feels somewhat anti-American and against the aims of the Constitution. I'm not sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind.
I believe there are two issues here and we need to be careful not to mix them up. The first issue concerns huge amounts of money going into lobbying Members of Congress. Gerald's post highlights how some industries profit by supporting war-mongering politicians. Most of this money is "hidden" money that comes out of a corporation's (or union or NGO, etc) "black box" of money used for lobbying. I think this is a separate problem from that of political speech per se and I'm in favor of limiting this official bribery system. It's not right that some middle-class businessman can get elected to the Congress or Senate and then retire 30 years later as a multi-millionaire. In a few rare cases the money may come from legal outside activities such as writing a book. But even these book deals are usually "cooked" and just more bribery in disguise. It's disgusting and only term limits can solve the problem.
On the other hand, the freedom of speech issue comes in when corporations buy (for example) TV advertisements supporting some cause. An example would be Exxon extolling its virtues concerning conservation efforts within its operations. This kind of advertisement certainly has its political point-of-view by trying to influence consumers, but how is it different from another company saying its soap is better than someone else's soap? In both cases the law has held for years that hyperbole alone is no reason to claim an advertisement is fraudulent. If a corporation, in my opinion, wants to make a scathing political attack against a candidate then they risk alienating customers who disagree with that POV. That should be their choice and if someone doesn't like it they can just avoid buying that product. That's what the free-market (of both products and ideas) is all about.
Now one BIG problem not discussed yet is how a few of these large corporations actually own significant parts of the media. For example, General Electric owns NBC and its affiliates. So should NBC and MSNBC forfeit their right to Freedom of the Press? Or should Fox be censored because it's owned by a foreign company (News Corp.)? Where do we draw the line?
-
Willis, I don't disagree with any of your points. But it does raise the question of how do we keep foreign interests out of our election process? How many major corporations that make political donations are domiciled in other countries who might not have the interests of the US at heart? And what about American multi-nationals who might want to influence foreign affairs policy? Are there some laws in place that would prevent such circumstances? I really don't know.
Most members of Congress are unhappy with the current lobbying system. I do believe that many are eager to serve their constituencies but have to spend an inordinate amount of time in fundraising rather than in problem solving. I've heard quite a few congresspeople from both sides of the aisle complain about that, so all of this "free speech" has become screeching! I agree that this is probably a bigger problem, for now, than superPacs, but I'd rather not add to the problem via Citizens United.
So, since so much time is spent in raising money, I'm not sure that time limits are the answer because then a congressperson will not have had time to do anything but fundraise. Term limits are great for congresspeople who think that they will become millionaires out of the enterprise, but I feel that people should have the duty and responsibility of finding out whether or not their congressperson is doing what they have been elected to do. If not, get rid of him/her, but if you like what s/he has been able to do on your behalf, then you should have the choice to keep that person in elected office. People get the opportunity to rid themselves of shambolic representatives on a regular basis. Let the democratic process work.
As for the media, yes, there are all kinds of problems there. I personally do not think that General Electric should be allowed to own media outlets, but I don't know how you can separate them now. And no, I don't think that any media outlets should be owned by a foreign company. Rupert Murdoch had way too much political clout in the UK, and look how that turned out. I don't know where the law would allow me to draw the line, but give me the crayon and I'll be drawing lines all over the place! LOL!
From today's The Independent...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/james-murdochs-revenge-evidence-that-shook-government-to-its-core-7675196.html
-
“Let the democratic process work.” (per MooseMom)
Democracy right now isn’t working, that’s the point.
Wall Street is embezzling your money, the government isn’t prosecuting or regulating issues like hedge funds or derivatives, banks aren’t lending because they have to recover the money they lost in 2008, the US Supreme Court took away the 2000 election then changed the campaign money picture, nobody I know supported a war in Afghanistan after Osama was killed but we are still there and if the news is correct – we will be there for ten years, money buys votes and you don’t have any money, and half of Congress wants to have the sex police in your bedroom to make sure you don’t use a condom.
If a cop shouts “terrorist” he doesn’t need a warrant to bust into your home, if they bust you for drugs – even if your are innocent – they can do an asset seizure and take away your house and car and everything in between, they can tap your phone, read your e-mail and strip you naked for getting on an airplane. If you are arrested and innocent the jailer can strip search you and in some states you get your vagina invaded because you asked for an abortion.
We don’t have enough money to repair highways but we have heaps of money for wars we started. Jobs are scarce but we can’t get a jobs bill passed. And some on congress wants to privatize Medicare. And there goes your dialysis program to say nothing of the children whose only medical care is in an emergency room where we pay the bill anyway. And that says something about healthcare and those who cry “socialism”.
If you want Democracy to work, we must have it in the first place. Whether you like it or not, this nation has been drifting toward fascism. A democracy requires its citizens to be informed and involved. That isn’t happening.
A small thing like creating an upbeat ambiance in a dialysis center may not seem important in the face of all of the above, but we have to begin somewhere. Let us not just complain, get out there and do something.
Gerald
Made as Hell and I won’t take it anymore
-
I realize that this country is no longer a democracy but is, rather, a plutocracy. But as yet, we have no dictator, and it is still within the power of the American people to change things if they want. Lack of education about the issues is no excuse as we are an information-based society with most of the population having any information they want right at their fingertips.
The people in Congress who want to control your behaviour in the bedroom can be voted out. We get the government we deserve. If we can't be arsed to educate ourselves and to get involved when we see something we don't like, then we mustn't grumble when things don't go our way.
I am a regular letterwriter to my members of Congress. I have even written to the President on several occasions.
We DO have the money to repair highways, it's just that the majority of congresspeople won't be convinced that money spent for the public good is an investment in our nation.
-
Wall Street is embezzling your money, the government isn’t prosecuting or regulating issues like hedge funds or derivatives...
Yes, for anyone who cares, just google "front running" and it will make your blood boil. Now it's done in microseconds by computers on every financial transaction on every stock, bond, options, and futures exchange. It may only be a fraction of a cent (usually more), but whether the market is up or down the brokers (via computer) make literally MILLIONS of these front-running transactions every day.
...drifting toward fascism.
Only drifting? :rofl;
-
I realize that this country is no longer a democracy but is, rather, a plutocracy. But as yet, we have no dictator, and it is still within the power of the American people to change things if they want.
I'm not sure we do have that power anymore. The game is so rigged for this country's elite that nothing can be changed easily. Voting alone won't help because a candidate can't even get on the ballot without massive corporate money, and once that money gets him elected he certainly won't be motivated to get money out of politics.
-
Mussolini identified Fascism as a “corporate run government”. Does that cause anyone to think? Even pause at the thought?
-
Maybe we need to separate corporations and state, too. ;D
It's kind of a catch 22. If a lot of what has been given to the government to run is returned to the free market system, the cost is less. Check out some of the stats on privatizing toll roads, for example. But, without the government around to apply some restraints, we end up with monopolies that end the free market.