KartMan

By that line of thinking, it is no more ok for the State to take a life than for an individual to take it. Which is my perspective, BTW. That is not my main opposition to death penalty though. Mainly I oppose it because the State gets it wrong too often and should not be trusted with the responsibility of killing its citizens.

Exactly!!!!! How many times have I said this on this forum? This is exactly what we mean when we say the United States is a Secular Democracy.

Obama, should take a page from the Bush playbook and pass meaningful reform – screw the Republicans, the Blue Dogs, and anybody else that gets in the way. As Jon Stewart says: “Democrats will only then have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the f**k he wanted to do." He should also can half of his staff. Get rid of the War Hawks (Gates, Clinton, Emanuel, etc.) that are keeping us in these stupid wars, the Wall Street lovers (Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, etc.) that are in bed the banks, and anybody that is holding us back on social issues. I don’t care if Obama has a second term or not. I voted for him because I wanted change, a REAL progressive in the White House. Instead, we got another Establishment Democrat doing what Establishment Democrats do (which from my perspective is not much more than Republicans do). I’m so angry:cursing::biggrin::cursing: Grrrrr

No more or less dirty than any other campaign as far as I can see. Bottom line from my perspective is that Dems (Obama, the Party and the Candidate) took the seat for granted. The national party didn’t bring out the big guns, Obama didn’t campaign for her, and the candidate had some major blunders (including taking a vacation in December). They thought since Obama won the state by over 20% and that it is a liberal state they had it in the bag. Come on dems, it’s not a freaking game, you can never a take a seat for granted. We gave this one away. Say goodbye to healthcare, climate change, women’s rights, gay rights, and every other progressive issue. The Democratic Party deserves exactly what they got in this, unfortunately we all will suffer for it. I’m so mad I could spit nails:cursing::biggrin:. Oh, and Patty – don’t get too excited. I don’t think Republicans won as much as Democrats lost if you get my meaning.

I have to disagree with you. I think he was a wolf in a jackasses clothing.

Well Said!

Wow… How can I argue with that? Why even try? Seems to me that Blind Faith leads to perilous consequences, but that is just my opinion. I choose to base my knowledge on demonstrative facts that can be replicated, vetted, and cross checked. In fact, I look forward to the times when science and conventional wisdom are proved wrong, it further validates the process. How often does religion admit that it is wrong? Or God forbid (pun intended), admit that the Bible is wrong?

It's been a while since I've posted here, so have a look. First one is about 6 months pre-op @ about 285lbs. Second batch is just last month, @ about 173lbs and happily maintaining.

I’m happy to concede that Jesus existed, I never argue that point. I don’t think there is enough evidence to prove he didn’t exist. I think he was simply a prophet though. I do believe he was deeply religious. Even if half the things attributed to him are true – it seems as if he was genuinely a good man. I also think if he were alive today, he would be saddened by what people say and do in his name. I certainly do not believe though that he is the Son of God (or that “God” exists for that matter) or that he was conceived from a virgin birth.

IMHO, you do not have a foundation at all. Your beliefs are based on mythology, mysticism and faith. None of which are foundational at all. A foundation (again, this is my opinion) would be one that is based on observed facts, evidence, proven hypothesis, etc. It’s called the scientific method, you should Google it sometime.

What Patty fails to realize is that even if that 85% statistic is right (which I really doubt), they are not monolithic. They certainly don’t have the same narrow minded view of politics and religion that she does. I know several Christians that support Gay Marriage and several that believe in a woman’s right to choose. The point is, Patty can’t “claim” that 85% because it really doesn’t mean anything.

What are you smoking Patty? The U.S. absolutely IS a secular Democracy. You don’t seem to understand what the term means, even though I have described it to you and pointed out references to you on numerous occasions. I have no problem with people in office having a belief in God or following a particular religious view. I also don’t have a problem with the electorate voting certain ways based on their faith (or lack thereof as the case may be). The problem is when someone such as yourself tries to say we should make laws specifically because of a particular religious tenant, it just doesn’t work and is unconstitutional. Abortion is a great example for this. I have asked you several times to give me a non-religious reason to ban abortion, you can’t because there really is no non-religious reason. Now I would agree that reasonable people can have differences of opinion on when and where an abortion is appropriate, but an outright ban – that’s silly and based solely on religious dogma. I think you owe me an apology on the line “I think on issues, you do not “. How is it that a person (myself) that considers a variety of sources, well traveled, is very well read, and is open minded on many issues can be accused of not thinking while another person (you) who basis all of their opinions on arcane writings from a single source is a thinker? I don’t get that one. I never claimed to be a God. I am the same thing Jesus was, just a man –nothing more, nothing less.

Except when we get it totally wrong, which have done far too many times. The death penalty is absurd and so is trying to legislate a woman’s right to chose on purely religious grounds. Give me a non religious argument against abortion (or gay marriage for that matter) and I’ll debate it, otherwise you have no grounds to discuss the issue in a secular democracy.

Ok, so I am 6 lbs away from losing 100 lbs and 7 lbs from my goal weight (which is shifting to Goal Body Fat BTW) So here is the conundrum… Should I be proud of losing 100 lbs, or should I be ashamed of having been 100 lbs overweight?

I know he has the indigence and certainly the ability, but I’m not sure he has the political guts to follow thru. I voted for him for THIS term, not the next term. I EXPECT him to follow though on “YES WE CAN” so that we can say “YES WE DID” even if that means only one term for him. He already caved on Afghanistan and is bending on Health Care. He need to do at least these things right: - End the wars - Pass healthcare - Repair the economy - Fix the financial system - End Don’t Ask Don’t Tell - Repeal DOMA - Make a real effort on climate change - etc.

Who’s getting tired of all the ads that are calling the proposals for Health Care reform “Socialized Medicine”? Even the most liberal approach to the reforms “Single Payer” is not at all socialized medicine. At most, it might me considered “socialized payment” or “socialized administration”. None of the plans call for socialized medicine, if you are one that falls for this misinformation then the Insurance Companies are getting just what they want from you. A more realistic example of socialized medicine would be the British System, in which the hospitals are run by the government and the doctors are on the payroll of the government. Another example closer to home would be the VA in which the government provides the hospitals and the doctors to vets. What is being proposed here “Single Payer or a Government Option” is a system in which the federal program only takes the place of the insurance company and pays the bills to the doctors or the hospitals. This program is more analogous to the Canadian and French systems. The beauty of this program is that it takes away the insanity that doctors have to go thru in dealing with hundreds of separate carriers and it provides coverage for everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. Do you really have a personal relationship with your insurance provider today? Do you even have a choice in which carrier you get? Most people don’t, they have to take whatever carrier their company provides for them. And then, once they take the carrier that is provided, they usually have to pick a doctor that is on the plan that the company offers. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a lot of free choice to me. You are being lied to by Insurance Companies. Single Payer will provide more choice and more cost savings to the average household. The only group that will suffer form this are the Insurance Carriers, and they will tell you every lie they can to stop it from being implemented. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these companies. The way I see it, they are a big reason costs have escalated and quality of care has decreased over the last 30 years.

I’ll give you that it does take 2 people to “create” a child (although one can argue that with sperm and egg donors the people don’t even need to be together). I think your emphasis on “the best way” is naïve and shortsighted. We don’t live in a perfect cookie cutter world. Even if we did, there are tons of references of people that have done wonderfully in life with one parent, with gay parents, even no parents. Just as there are plenty of people that have failed society with a mom and dad in the home. I would argue that the most important thing is that a child be reared in a safe, intellectually stimulating, nurturing, and loving environment. I see no conflict with that in a gay household.

Why does it say my message is too short? I put my text in the body of the reply. Alas, even Lap Band Talk is not perfect.

Let’s stick with just you and me and leave “the creator” out of it. You and me and the rest of society make up an electorate. Some of us have religious views, some don’t - but we all have a sense of right and wrong. We don’t need a religion, a book, a pastor, or even a God to tell us which is which. We are all adults and should be able to reason our way thru those things. Some things are obvious, like rape, robbery, and murder. We all know those are wrong and the people that do those things have to pay their debt to society (not to God, to society). Other things are not so clear - segregation, gay rights, abortion, etc. For these tougher questions, society decides en mass thru elections what it deems to be right and wrong. This is a simple concept of secular democracy. In a society as diverse as ours, there is really no other logical way to do it – to even suggest a religious foundation be applied to any of our laws is ludicrous. A simple example of this is gay marriage. Can you give me a non-religious reason why same sex partners should not be allowed to marry? I can’t think of one. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I think government should treat all Marriages as Civil Unions and give the all the same benefits whether they are same sex or M/F. Marriages should strictly be the purview of religion. If one religion chooses to Marry you, then it is their choice – but that marriage only has significance within the religion but no legal standing.