KartMan

I think your stats are a little off. A recent Pew survey has it at 78%, oh and brace yourself because that study also suggests that a strong trend is toward no affiliation at all. Wikipedia shows similar numbers and trends. But that’s not really the point anyway is it? Let me say it for the 800th time, we are a country of many religions (and non-believers), but we are not a religious run country (Christian or otherwise). Do you not understand the meaning of Secular Democracy? I think this is the one point about arguing with you that frustrates me the most. Even students in a 10th grade American Government class can grasp that relatively simple concept. Why cant you? Do you have a pair of Ruby Slippers by chance? If you do, you might try clicking them together 3 times to see if that can make us into a Christian Government.

Absoluterly??? Now it all makes sense, George Bush lives in your head:biggrin:

Beautiful. I was sitting here trying to articulate a good response to such an asinine argument and you went and beat me to it, bravo. And by the way Patty… a Sin is a Sin and Law is a Law. One has meaning to all of us, the other only has meaning to those that believe in it, do you know which is which?

Patty, I can’t disagree more with you on this issue. The medical field is with me on this too (psychologists and medical doctors). Not everyone falls into a nice little category of male and female (or heterosexual). I’m sure I will anger some of my liberal friends by saying that I do believe that some people choose the gay lifestyle (I think Anne Heche chose it while Ellen DeGeneres did not for example), but I think that group is a minority of the gay community. Conversely, I would also say that there are some gay people that choose to live as heterosexuals.

Granted. You can “try” to get laws passed because of your beliefs. And if you do, it will be the law and it should be respected as law. They did it here in California with Prop 8, so for now it is illegal for gays to marry in California. The problem for you is that most people have moved past that way of thinking and are seeing the religious right for what they are and will change the laws accordingly. For you to have any chance in passing and maintaining these laws, it seems to me you will have to make them for secular reasons. Otherwise only the limited people that feel as you do will vote for them.

Me too:cursing::cursing:. I probably have a few more rounds of this fight in me before I have to pound my head into a table for a while until I can argue it again.

You really don’t want to have this argument with me. I told you that I personally don’t have a reason to defend gay rights, I do it because I think it is the right thing to do. I do however have a vested interest in torture though. Our country’s use of torture, and yes, it absolutely was torture was not only morally wrong, it caused us more harm than any good it could have done. We can not and should not ever, ever, ever torture. The minute we do it, we put every member of our military service at risk and we become that which we hate and fight against. No reasonable or patriotic person can make an argument for torture, it’s just completely wrong for us to go down that path. Do not try to compare the killing in war to torture; it’s not the same thing. Anyone that knows anything about war and the military could tell you that. I was a simple enlisted man that served honorably, so maybe you don’t think my word on the matter is enough. How about a few other and higher ranking names? John McCain, Colin Powell, do you think they have enough credibility on it? They think torture is wrong too.

Yet it is a sin to be born gay? Sorry Patty, I think you are on the wrong side of history here. I can’t fault you for your belief, I truly feel you are wrong – but it is your belief. All I ask is that you not impose that belief on others – especially when it is to their detriment.

Careful now, I’m not calling you a bigot ‘because” you are a Christian, I think you are a bigot because of what you want to do to others. You want to make laws based on your interpretation of your beliefs. Bjean and others have professed their belief in God on here and I have not referred to them as bigots. I believe that your religion should be between you and your god and the other people that share your beliefs. I don’t want any part of your belief system to impact our secular democracy, period. Especially if those beliefs humiliate, demean, denigrate or discriminate against others. You have every right to disapprove of gays and abortions but you have no right to implement laws around it because of the belief system you follow. If God is in fact against these things, and he is real, then I say it is up to him to judge not you or anyone else. You should follow his laws as you interpret them yourself, don’t try to subject others to those laws.

I don’t believe torture is right and it is certainly not legal, yet I was forced to pay for that…

Well said BJean, I couldn’t agree more. I particularly like the discussion about allowing the bigots to practice their bigotry freely from within the confines of their own group. I am a big advocate for free speech. Unfortunately, a side effect of free speech is that people are allowed to spew hate. Fortunately, even they do though they are often the only ones that choose to hear their own voices. The neo-Nazis, skinheads, Farrakhan, and other bigots are allowed to say what they want – I don’t think that freedom has made them much stronger. In fact, you could make the argument that in saying their beliefs out loud they have Enlightened people on how narrow-minded and hateful they truly are.

crap I lost another morning to LBT R&R I'm tired now:sleep:

Patty: You talk as if Cheney had a 'personal' grudge against Iraq or something. They didn't make the decision to go to war with that country for any reason except that they and everyone else in charge of making decisions felt it was the right thing to do at that time. Wow, really? If you really believe that then there really is no hope for you. Patty: This is a small facet of why so many are against Obama's public option plan. It gives women that right on the tax payers dollar. We will not stand for that. If they want to do their dirty deed of abortion, let them pay for it themselves. It is unfair to force the rest of the public to finance something that we are adamantly opposed to morally. There are so many who will tell you that the funding of abortions isn't in there, but they will, mark my words, will sneak it in there through some other wording if it ever gets passed. Because this is how the liberals are. Just curious, have you ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? Maybe instead of screaming about what the nasty sneaky liberals “might” put in the bill, you could take a look at an existing law that many (including Obama) have said would still take precedence. I know it’s easier to paint a picture of a boogieman, unfortunately the current set of facts don’t support your argument. Patty: I disagree. If homosexuals want to make a committment to one another that is likened to the vows made to God in the marriage ceremony that God ordained and set up for a man and a woman together, then they can make up their own title for it and say their vows to their own God or to themselves or whoever. But the term Marriage is meant for a man and a woman. They had a name for thir committment once. It was call "Civil Union". Why don't they keep it? Because it isn't enough for them to just have a civil union. They want the "Christian" world to recognize them as equal to them, and they aren't equal in the sense of marriage. We will never go against what God says and call it okay to do commit the acts that they do with one another, for it is wrong in God's eyes. That would be like asking us to condone any other sin that is out there, and we will not do that. It will never be acceptable to those who truely believe in God and his words. BTW, you stated that they are "entitled". Show me in the Constitution where it says that marriage is a right. It's not. Marriage is a religious institution that God ordained. If all of the rights and benefits of marriage were purely religious, then your argument might have merit. The problem is that Marriage is an institution that is recognized by government and companies. That recognition comes with benefits and rewards for the people that are married. Excluding a class from obtaining those benefits is discriminatory. You are being disingenuous when you say that they want a “Christian” world to recognize them. First, I would remind you that the concept of marriage is not the exclusive property of the Christian world. Second, I would say that they want the rights afforded to other married couples more than any religious recognition. As for marriage being a right or not, I would say to you then to take away all the advantages then. Fairness under the law is a right under the constitution. Patty: Oh really? What if there is a man who believes it is perfectly okay to have sex with a ten year old. So, for him, since he 'believes' it's fine, it should be none of your business? There should be no law against it? What if there is a person who feels it is okay to have a sibling relationship. So, for them it is okay? And there should be no law against it? You see, you want to make laws according to what "you" feel is acceptable. Where do we get these moral standards anyway? From the beginning. God made the rules and the laws and mankind has been following them ever since. As mankind gets more and more depraved over time, they lower the standards and make 'sin' more and more acceptable. God prophecied that there will come a time, and I believe we are seeing it now, when mankind will call what is right "wrong" and what is wrong "right". This is a ridiculous and pointless argument. You can’t compare homosexuality with pedophilia. The homosexual couple we are discussing are consenting adults. Pedophilia is a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To even go down that road is nothing more than a sign of homophobia.

Just a minor point of clarification, Obama openly opposed the Iraq war but he was not in the US Senate at the time so he couldn’t actually vote against it (Ted Kennedy did vote against it). I can’t really fault the ignorance of those that did vote for it now tough. They (along with the American people and the UN) were lied to by the other branch of government about almost everything that led up to the war. If they did oppose it they would have appeared stupid or unpatriotic at the time.

I’m pretty sure my parents made me, and I haven’t rejected them in the least. Please, don’t mourn for me. I am perfectly content with my beliefs (or disbeliefs). I’m also resigned to the fact that I might be wrong and am willing to bear the consequences of that as well – are you?

Patty: Once again, the civil rights era needed to be changed because their was no sin in the color of your skin. The sin was in the way white people enslaved black people. The gay movement doesn't need changing of our laws because what they want is sinful. I still don't understand what you don't get about that. For this is not the first time you have compared slavery with homosexuality. Slavery was wrong and needed correcting. If we allow gay marriages, that would be wrong and then that would need correcting as well. It’s not that I don’t “get It” Patty, it’s that I “don’t believe it”. I totally “get” that you believe that that homosexuality is a sin, and I adamantly “believe” you are wrong – not just because I don’t believe in sin, but because I think most of them are gay because they are born that way and I am totally fine with that. Let me correct one more thing for you. I have not nor would I ever “compare” slavery with homosexuality. What I have done is draw a comparison between the bigotry and hatred of the racists that perpetuated the injustices of slavery and the civil rights era to the homophobic bigots of today. In my opinion there is no difference in the fairness of allowing gays to marry than in breaking the shackles of racism in last century that allowed people of different races to marry. One more thing to clear up so you don’t think I have some personal agenda. I myself am not gay, nor can I say that I have any close friends that are gay (only casual acquaintances) so I don’t have an agenda form that perspective. My strong feelings on the matter are derived strictly from the unfair treatment and injustices of the anti-gay movement.

Sorry, maybe I’m not very smart because I seem to have missed something… At what point was our “neighbor” (which I’m guessing would be Iraq in your analogy) trying to “take” our home or our property:confused:? How many times do you have to hear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never did anything that warranted our invasion? Sure Saddam was a $hithead, a brutal dictator, and a horrible leader of his country, but he was on a long list of despots around the world. It is no more right for us to take them out than it was our place to take him out. I served 6 years in the US military (back when Saddam was our friend because he was fighting our other enemy Iran) and was honorably discharged when my enlistment was up. Having proudly worn the uniform of my country, I think I have a unique right to say yes, I do have a problem with war. To clarify, I have a problem with pointless wars that serve no purpose other than to satisfy the personal ambitions of the politicians that wage them. I am especially angered when those same politicians use lies and half truths to take our soldiers into war and to soil our reputation on the world stage. The effects of war are not just “terrible”, they are horrific and long lasting. Thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqis have died in this pointless war and for what? We killed a low life aging dictator (Saddam) and lost the most hated terrorist of our generation (Bin Laden). I ask you Patty, what part of that was “needed”?

Patty: Wrong! It is those who don't believe in the God who created them, who have spoiled our freedoms from the beginning. They are the ones who want to allow sin, yes sin, to be a part of this nation. We are a nation of Laws, not Sins. There are no “Sins” written in the legal code. Some things that are illegal are considered Sins by some – but that is a coincidence. The significance is in the Law, not the Sin. Patty: "Let everyone do as they please, that's true freedom" Halleluiah, as long as it is legal that is. Patty: "If a woman wants to have sex with another woman, let her, and if they want to raise a family, let them" Absolutely. and a man with a man for that matter. I think in 20 years society will look back at people like you and wonder how could you have been so bigoted? I was watching footage the other day of the Civil Rights era and saw a black man on the ground being bludgeoned and kicked by whites. That is the same sort of bigotry, you don’t see it - but it’s true. Patty: "Let anyone who wants to murder their babies that aren't born yet do so" There you go again, mistaking your definition of “Sins” with “Laws”. Most reasonable people have come to agree that a woman’s right to choose outweighs the fetus’ right to exist. It’s not a pleasant thought, but it is fact of life. The law calls it an Abortion, not murder. Patty: “Let's make prostitution legal" I personally see a lot of merit in that idea. Seems like we had a thread on it around here somewhere… Patty: "Let's legalize marajuana, too." Just curious, is consuming alcohol a sin too? I haven’t been drunk or high in so long I honestly don’t remember, but aren’t they pretty much the same thing? I mean seriously, what really is the difference between drinking and smoking pot? In full disclosure, I don’t do either (I don’t like being drunk or high) – but the hypocrisy in banning marijuana baffles me. Patty: God gave us standards to go by for our own good, not to penalize us and keep us from having fun. Christianity causes no divisions in this country, except for those who just want to do what they want to do and don't want anyone including God to tell them they can't do it! Liberals! sheesh! No divisions? Really? I’m just gonna pretend you didn’t say that because it is a ludicrous statement. To be fair though, I would say that religion causes divisions, Christianity by no means has a monopoly on it though.

It was not and is not, I'm bored with this argument. This is my new image of you: You should consider changing your avatar.

Jackie, Are you getting enough Protein? I find salmon to be a great source, but I can only handle so much of that. I have been supplementing with Muscle Milk Light or Protein Shots, both are only 100 calories and available by the case at costco. I find them both to be a little on the sweet side, but not as gross as some of the stuff out there.

I couldn’t be happier, down over 90lbs and close to my original goal weight:thumbup::frown::thumbup: I was banded 2/18/09 with no initial fluid in a 10cc band. I have had 3 fills and a small unfill, currently I’m pretty comfortable at 3.6cc (I think I’m at my sweet spot). I didn’t exercise much in the first 5 months, but the weight came off at a good clip, usually between .2 and .4 lbs every day. I have had restriction since the beginning. I eat between 900-1500 calories a day in 3 meals and sometimes one snack. My hunger is usually kept at bay for 4-6 hours between meals. I have gone form XXXL shirts and size 44 pants to M shirts and size 34 pants. I am below any previous dieting weight that I have ever had, and close to my US Navy Boot Camp weight from 1984. As I started to get closer to my goal, I decided to shift my focus from weight to Body Fat %. Last month I went in for a Hydrostatic Dunk test and learned that my BF was 22.3% which is “Average” for a male of my age. I decided though that I could do better and am working towards a goal of 15% Body Fat, which is considered “Ideal”. Since starting a workout routine, I have dropped some more fat and am currently at 21.2% Body Fat. At my current rate, I believe I will pass my weight goal and attain my Body Fat goal within the next 1-2 months. I LOVE the band:wub::wub:

I knew you might say that plain, the article points that out as well. TARP was a $hit sandwich and nobody really wanted it, but we had to do something or risk total collapse of our banking system. Our current Health Care system is poised to bankrupt us and is doomed for cataclysmic failure. I think everyone agrees it is in dire need of reform. My point in posting the article was to show you and the fellow naysayers of the current administration (and of government in general) that things don’t always turn out as horrible as the fear mongers want us to believe. Back when this thing was being implemented, people were saying the whole $700B would be wasted and the tax payers would never see it again. Well, not only are we starting to see a chunk of it being paid back, but we are actually turning a profit on some portions of it. Yes, some of it may take a long time to recover (AIG funds for example), but large portions of the program seem to be working. I guess what I’m saying is can you look at it as the “glass half full”? If you can do that, you might see that it just might be possible for the government to do something right with Health Care as well. Seriously plain? C’mon, can’t you see this is another Red Herring just like “Death Panels” and “government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor”? Are you really afraid the IRS (which is part of the Federal Government BTW) might divulge your tax info to the Health Choices Commissioner (another part of the government)? Did you not see the news reports on the passport scandals this last election cycle? An employee of the INS (or NSA, I can’t remember which) illegally accessed several individuals’ passport records (including Obama’s, McCain’s and Hillary’s). The point is this; the “government” already has access to ALL of our private data. The government is made up of people like you and me, and some are not always as honest as we are (you’re an honest guy right:wink2:). Sometimes they can and do commit illegal acts with the access they have, that is a fact of life. The sad reality is that those things are going to happen regardless of whether or not we pass Health Care reform. What is important is that we have protections in place to identify those indiscretions when they happen, and to have severe penalties established for the perpetrators of those crimes. The funny thing is that if these provisions were not in the Bill, the Right would be outraged that there were no protections against fraud or for means testing within the Bill. It smacks of hypocrisy - dammed if we do, dammed if we don’t.

You know what Patty? I don’t care if he did say it THAT way, in fact – I wish he did, I say that because it is in fact a true statement. America is NOT a Christian country, I know you choose not to believe it – but it is in fact a reality that you should understand and come to grips with. America is a Secular Democracy not a Christian Nation as you would prefer. We are in fact a country of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, countless other religions, oh and wait for it… unbelievers. The beauty of our country is that we are not defined by a single religion or race, but a rich melting pot of faiths, races, cultures and ideas. Having said all that, I am guessing you are wrong in your quote of Obama though. You are probably misquoting him, taking him out of context, or he may have just misspoke (would you mind citing a reference to his actual quote?). The reason I say that is twofold; first Obama is religious himself, second I think he is far too politically astute to have said it in that way.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/are-profits-on-tarp-funds-enough-feel-free-to-change/?scp=2&sq=tarp&st=cse It’s funny how all the news about TARP at it’s inception was how horrible it was to use tax dollars to bail out Wall Street and how our money would be just pissed away. I do agree with the author of the article that we could have gotten an even better deal. Also, I can’t say I agreed with everything they did with the bailouts, but like Obama and McCain (and even Bush) I did believe at the time we had to do something – and TARP is what we came up with. Well, look at where we are now!!! About a year later and we are already getting paid back, and at a profit at that. That and the fact that most economic experts have said the banks are in a much better situation than they were back then. How is that even possible? Imagine that, a big government program that not only worked, it worked to our financial benefit. Where are all the Chicken Little’s now? The ones that said if we passed TARP and the other bailouts it would be the end of democracy as we know it? Oh wait, I think I see them... They are off of that soapbox now (because they were wrong), and now they are out just as vocally trying to convince America that Heath Care reform and more specifically the Public Option are surely the beginnings of socialism and the “new” end of democracy and freedom of medical choice. Don’t believe these people America. They think they are patriots, but they are nothing more than tools of the Insurance Industry (just as they were in 1994).

I am of the belief that Tort Reform and all other reform should be an ongoing process – I’m for constant improvement. Just as with our Health Care system, our legal system is need of reform too, but Tort Reform a bit of a Red Herring I think. I think it is a small piece of a much bigger pie. Even if we “fixed” it the way that the Right wants it fixed, Tort Reform only saves and estimated 5-10% in the total cost of Health Care. I am no legal scholar so I don’t know all the details in this area, but I have heard enough to make me believe that there are some legitimate concerns that should be addressed with reform – but it is just a small component, not the whole answer.