KartMan

Because it is all subject to ones own religious interpretation. You firmly believe what you believe and I absolutely respect that. I however believe something very different than you. We can’t both be right. Therefore, in the interest of a civil society, we should (and mostly do) make laws based on the consensus of what the people want and not on the teachings of one or another religion.

I find it fascinating that people are comforted by what they read and believe. I find it interesting that there can be so many inconsistencies contained within the text (I’m not going to go thru them all again here, we’ve beaten that topic into the ground) and people are able to dance around them or fall back on the line of “well, you just have to have faith”. I think it’s great that people have faith. Life is hard and we often don’t have answers to things, if faith gets you thru the day then I say more power to you. For me, it doesn’t – but I get by with faith in myself and those around me. I also have faith in the scientific method, prove to me why something is and I will likely believe you. Tell me that something is because God says so or that I just have to take it on faith, then I will likely argue the point to my grave. I think the Bible is still in circulation and is popular because people choose to believe in it. Just because it is popular and that it has been around for a long time in no way proves the validity of its writings. It is comfort food for the minds of those that choose to believe in it, I don’t have any problem at with that at all. But just because a group believes it to be true still does not make it true, at least it doesn’t for me anyway. At one time most of the world “believed” the Earth was the center of the universe – all of that faith didn’t make that theory a reality did it? Don’t misinterpret my interest here. I’m not implying that I am on the verge of being saved by showing interest. I am fascinated by the “concept” of religion and the impact on the human psyche, not so much on the teachings of the religions themselves. Oh and BTW, I’m just as fascinated by the impact of Islam, Buddhism, and other religions as I am by the impact of Christianity.

Is it cheating when a Diabetic takes insulin? Is it cheating when an impotent man takes Viagra? Is a prosthetic leg allowing someone to cheat at walking? When a police officer is shot and is bleeding to death, is it cheating to give him blood to live. The answer to all of these is a resounding no, just as getting a band is not cheating. Like all the others I have listed, it is medical technology that we have at our disposal. It is a tool and you have to work it like any other tool.

While I would agree that there is nothing morally wrong with masturbation, I think given the alternative, that it is a pretty unsatisfying experience for the poor guy to go the rest of his life without sexual contact with another human being. Sexual urges are biological reactions, we are corporeal beings, satisfying those urges should be no more wrong than satisfying thirst or hunger as long is it is done between consenting adults. I am in no way advocating satisfying sexual urges with minors, animals, or unwilling partners – I am merely talking about consensual sex between adults. It seems to me that if it was intended that we only have sex in a one man one woman (married) relationship the way that you insist that God had intended, he would not have made the urge to have sex so strong. I think it is just another example of science (in this case biology) dispelling the ludicrousness of the bible.

This is so true. I know that many might think that with my skepticism on this matter that I have no interest in the Bible. On the contrary, I find it utterly fascinating how it has captivated people for so long. I do find religion and religious scripture to be very interesting, just not very believable.

Patty, I’m curious about something. How would you suggest that an unmarried man that has no intention of marring deal with the biological need to address the sexual urge that he has? BTW, I’m not saying women don’t have these urges too, I’m just trying to make a point that there are unmarried people out there that have very real sexual desires. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that we have a 25 year old man with no present or future wife. Should he be celibate the rest of his life? Biology just doesn’t work that way, the sexual urge is one of the strongest we face as animals. It seems to me that prostitution can be and is a simple business transaction for people like this.

Patty, I’m sorry to say that you missed the point entirely. They couldn’t get insurance if they came here (and yes if I lost my insurance today I couldn’t get coverage for a preexisting condition either). That is precisely one of the HUGE problems with the system we have today. How many Americans are out there today in a nowhere job just because they are locked into an insurance plan for that reason? How many of those people could be entrepreneurs that would start a small business if not for that reason? When are we going to get past the idea that adequate health coverage is a RIGHT and not just a privilege for the lucky few that have the coverage they need? I just hope for your sake that you have great insurance and that you never lose your job. I know you have kids and that you care a great deal for them, imagine if you couldn’t get new insurance for one of them because of a preexisting condition… It is such a ridiculous premise, I can’t believe we are even having this debate in this country.

Seriously, it really is laughable that people actually believe in them. Even our sworn enemies at the time (the Soviets) confirmed that we made it to the moon. Of course the real conspiracy theorists take that argument and say that all the world’s leaders are actually in cahoots and that they are part of the lie too. So now we not only have the 400k Americans that were in the US Space Administration lying about it but we also have the Kremlin lying about it as well. P.S. Thanks Tapshoes

As a certified Bush Basher, I will go on record saying yes it is Bush’s fault. But I think Clinton gets a share of the blame too. Clinton started by deregulating us to the point that all of the financial shenanigans were able to start to take place. Bush embraced that deregulation, and added a bunch more deregulation that allowed Wall Street to really dig us into a hole. Then he drastically cut taxes for the extremely wealthy and turned Clinton era surpluses into huge deficits. Then, he started a stupid war that we had no business being in and had no way to pay for.

Patty, that whole line of thinking is invalid if you don’t believe in religion (and therefore sin). I think a person’s body is a tool and they should be able to use it if they can. Baseball players are blessed with athletic ability and are able to use their bodies to make millions. I have no problem with somebody using their own body to make a living, even if the only talent they have is their own sexuality. I do have a problem with the scum that force people into prostitution against their will though. If a person is able to use their natural talents, then I say more power to them – as long as they are making the decision themselves. I do agree with BJean, that since it is a crime right now, the Johns and Pimps should be getting busted too – not just the prostitutes. If it were legal and if we were less prudish about sex in general, maybe some of the seediness would be taken out of the equation and it could be handled in a more civil manner.

Of coarse we didn't go to the moon. They made it all up to cover up the fact that fact that JFK was really killed by the defense industry (who also didn’t want us to figure out that the world is really flat). Elvis knew the truth and was going to tell all so they were going to kill him too, he went into hiding by faking his own death. I just love these conspiracy theories. There is always somebody out there that can twist the truth just enough to make people believe that the theories are true. The one thing the conspiracy theorists can never address is how could they have gotten so many people to perpetuate the lies for all of the years? There were thousands of people that worked on the Apollo missions and nobody credible has ever come forward to say that it was hoax. The best real life story about the hoax was when Buzz Aldrin punched the lead crackpot (Bart Sibrel) in the face when the guy accosted him and said he never set foot on the moon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Welcome to the party BJean

Not a relative, but a friend that lives in England. She was offered a great opportunity a few years ago to come to the US and work for a major company. She had to turn it down because her husband has a lot of medical problems and is pretty well taken care of there. If she came here she would have had to leave him there or bring him here with no coverage because the company’s insurance would not have covered his preexisting condition.

Those are great goals, I'm sure you both will make those. I use to pray that I would get the aisle seat cuz I didn’t think I could squeeze my fat a** past somebody if I had to use the restroom.

I’m sitting here trying to figure out if this is a joke or an attempt to prove a point. If it’s a joke, I have to say its not real funny, in fact not even worth the read. If it’s an attempt to prove a point, well it falls pretty short on that front too. Should we choose to put a hole in the professors head we would surly find a brain, and then we could proceed to feel, touch, and smell it if we were so inclined. Unfortunately though, every hole we poke in the faith of religion only shows it to be more and more unbelievable.

In full disclosure, I can’t say that I really understand a multi party parliamentary system but to me, it sounds more appealing that our simple two party system. In our system, you really only get the two choices. The Dems and GOP have strengthened themselves so much within the system that no outsider would even stand a chance. Even Ross Perot who had tons of media attention and lots of cash never stood a chance. At least with a parliamentary system, those fringe voices get a seat at the table and have to be brought into a coalition government. Once the coalition is formed, the majority party has to listen to them to some extent or risk breaking up the coalition. When I get political mail, the first thing that gets thrown away is anything that looks like a party line vote on a slate of issues.

This seems like a good spot for a couple of thoughtful quotes: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. George Santayana History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are. David McCullough I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past. Edward Gibbon History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again. Maya Angelou One faces the future with one's past. Pearl S. Buck Here is one that you should find particularly interesting Patty: This only is denied to God: the power to undo the past. AGATHON And here is one for you BJean: Rosa sat so Martin could walk, Martin walked so Barack could run, Barack ran so we all can fly. Unknown

That was only because we were lied to about it. Not just a little “we could be wrong here, but we think Iraq is involved” kinda lie, but a “come on guys lets feed the American people and the world a bunch of horse$hit “ kinda lie. That single act and everything that followed turned the goodwill that the rest of the world had for us after 9/11 to complete and utter disdain for all things American. You often complain that it will take generations to pay back what you think is economic waste by the Obama administration. How long will it take to undo the lies and hypocrisy behind the Iraq invasion?

Great job UberMom, good luck on the fill!!

BJean, I couldn’t agree more. For me, Obama IS what I wanted and expected. Do I like every single thing he has done (or not done)? No, of course not. Because I like him, but I am not a disciple of his. He is a politician, and to some extent he has to operate within the framework of being a politician, which always involves give and take. He had the mandate (and now has the power in Congress) to ram his issues thru, but I see him taking a more careful and measured approach and at least attempting to be bipartisan, which is a very welcome change after the last 8 years. Sometimes he goes a little slower than I would like (Don’t ask Don’t tell) and sometimes a little faster than I would like (the Stimulus Plan) but overall I think he is doing a stellar job.

Thanks HH – I try to keep it civil, but it’s not always easy:wink2:. A few threads back I let myself get carried away and allowed the tone of my conversation get personal. I didn’t intend it that way when I wrote it, but it came across that way. It’s really hard on here because the topics are emotionally charged, we are a bit anonymous, and we are writing rather than speaking (or reading rather than hearing). In person, I have a sarcastic sense of humor and I constantly have to watch that on here, because in writing sarcasm often presents itself as bashing. I consider myself politically independent, although I have come from the right’s point of view in my past life (my first presidential vote was for Regan in 1984) and tend to lean left now (my last presidential vote was for Obama). This topic is very interesting to me because I see it as more of a moral imperative than a constitutional rights issue (if that even makes sense). I’m afraid though that while folks like Jack and I would both agree that the current system is full of flaws, interests with more money than us will likely shape the final result and it probably won’t be a pill either of us wants to swallow:frown:.

I’m certainly not an expert, so let me see if I can get this right. Single Payer would be a program in which the Government is the Insurer for those that qualify and are enrolled in the program. It is analogous to Medicare. Universal Health Care would be a system in which everyone qualifies for with no questions asked and no cost to the patient (again the Government is the Insurer). Universal Health care is sort of analogous to the Public School system. By the sounds of those definitions, I think I prefer the Single Payer System. I like to think that it could be developed in such a way that there could still be personal accountability built in. Let me explain that… Those that have health insurance today usually get it from their employer. The employer usually pays a big percentage of the premium (say 80%), the employee pays a smaller portion (say 20%). The employee pays some sort of annual deductible and is given a framework that they can get treatment in. For example, the insurer may put a dollar cap on certain procedures. If the employee wants a procedure that is under funded by the policy, they have to make up the difference (this difference does not always go to the deductible). I can envision a system in which the government takes the place of the insurer, yet the other rules still apply. The employer would still pay a percentage of the premium, the employee would cover the rest plus co-pays. A few key differences between single payer and the current private system are: - the premium costs should be less (to the employee and employer) because the insured population would be so large - administrative costs would be driven down because the overhead to support Single Payer would be less than multiple private insurances - the Single Payer program would not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions - employees would have essentially the same coverage when switching from one job to another (or even if they become self employed) - there would have to be some premium cost allocation structure for the unemployed and for low income workers - premium costs would be determined by ability to pay - everyone gets the same level of care Some similarities to the current system: - you get to keep your doctor (n fact your company won’t be switching your plan every year so you don’t have to worry about your doc going off-net) - you still have to qualify for certain procedures (elective or medically unnecessary procedures would need special approval) - individuals still have to pay something into the program (this is not a free lunch)

There are some interesting arguments out there on how providing Universal Health care is compatible with the contents of the Constitution and the BofR. There are also some really compelling pieces that say it is not only a “legal” right but a moral imperative. One has to make their own determination on that. I know one thing for certain though. The opponents of Universal Health care are not really individual thinkers like yourself – it is the Health Care Lobby that is currently spending $1.4 million a day http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html to see that “reform” gets done in such a way that it reflects their interest (which are not necessarily yours or mine).

I mentioned my weight loss to a friend the other day and he said in jest, “yeah but you cheated”. I know he was kinda joking and he struggles with weight too. But why is it considered cheating? How is what we did different than what everyone else does? I mean everybody needs to do something right? Some people get lipo, others use drugs, a personal trainer is just the ticket for others. Some lucky people are able to do it by themselves with strict control of their diet. It seems to me almost everybody needs some sort of tool or trick, ours is the band, I just don’t see how it is cheating.

I don’t think you will find it directly in original Constitution, but there are some relevant indicators in the Amendments and in the earlier Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson writes …certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - the Ninth Amendment states that rights are not restricted because they are not specifically covered in the Constitution - The Equal Protection Clause states that everyone is to be treated equally. The problem here is that the current medical system is completely broken. Wealthy people or those with adequate insurance are able to get treatment for their medical conditions, while the poor, the working poor, and even people with substandard insurance can be wiped out by exorbitant medical bills. Theses are fundamental inequalities that are in direct conflict with the design of equality granted by the 14th Amendment. There is a common thread throughout the Bill of Rights – it is that the people have a right to pursue their lives without hindrance. The basic concept of the Bill of Rights is that everybody should be allowed to pursue their own lives in peace and security. Yet today, with the health care system so dramatically unequal, people are being deprived of the right to live their own lives in peace and comfort as set forth in the Bill of Rights. I think it is a right, but even if I didn’t, I would at least think it is a moral and fiscal imperative. The system that we have today is broken and will surly bankrupt us if it is allowed to continue. Even before it bankrupts society, it is already bankrupting and killing individuals. When uninsured people today face a catastrophic illness they have to go into irreversible debt. Many people die way too soon because they lack even the most basic of medical coverage. And a happy fourth to you as well Jack:thumbup: