BJean

You are totally spot on, Cleo'sMom! And everyone knows it. Why else would there be so many extremely personal attacks on the man and his wife? If it were really just about the decisions he's made and wants to make, there would be more substantive discussion about the specifics of these things. Instead what we hear is about his spending - period. No discussion of WHY he has done what he has done or how better it would have been solved if he had taken a different action. And certainly no concessions on the fact that it looks like some of his actions may have saved this country from economic collapse. We didn't hear public outcry from these people when Bush was spending billions every week on the Iraq war - and untold amounts of money that went unaccounted for. They were instead, busily justifying the war and calling people unpatriotic if we criticized the war in Iraq. They even said that we and Obama weren't supportive of our troops because we didn't want the war!!!!! Now they're blathering on about spending and Michelle's shorts, the family vacation, Michelle's staff because what? she's a princess? And making up stuff about death panels and birth certificates. To say that it is not the man that they don't want or approve of is a lie. If it really were the issues they care about, they'd discuss the issues and have well-thought out alternatives. As for Bill Clinton's presidency, he was all about doing what they seem to want. He cut military spending, he did some revising of welfare and he balanced the budget. You'd think that if it really were about spending issues, they'd be singing the praises of Bill Clinton and holding him up for Obama to emulate. But nope, when they talk about Clinton, it's in reference to Monica Lewinsky and what a no-good man he is and what a lousy president he was because of his indiscretions. We know what the right wing is all about. And unfortunately for them, there's no disguising it anymore. They're all out front about it and everyone in the media and personally should be calling their hands on it. Good job Cleo'sMom!!! And HappyCC - glad you joined the party on this thread.

In a discussion that included a post by kat that says that RI will not give up the $$$ that they make on prostitution no matter how tarnished it makes them look. patty responded: "That sounds like our government system. Not willing to give up $taxing$ the people by eliminating waste and cutting spending no matter how financially indebted we become to to the rest of the world." So does that mean patty, that you prefer that prostitution be allowed to operate in RI without taxation, which means no oversight whatsoever? And that by governing prostitution, the state of RI is refusing to eliminate waste and spending cuts, even though the country (not the state) is financially indebted to the rest of the world? Sorry, I'm not following your logic here. I'm also not following the logic that kat put forth that RI will look tarnished by regulating and taxing prostitution. Prostitution is not something that goes away depending upon whether it is taxed or not. It is here. It is everywhere, and it's here to stay. How does it tarnish the reputation of a state if they step in and clean up and regulate prostitution and enforce the payment of taxes on that business - just like my small business, for instance, is required to pay? Seems to me that they look much more tarnished by the paintbrush of ignorance by not taxing and regulating prostitution. We all know that arrests and jail sentences do not make prostitution go away.

I knew it!! The wealthy ruling class want to burn all the wrong books!

Why can't you just take responsibility for your use of the term? You know the context in which I used it - in reference to your usage when you said that "death panels could be the inadvertant result of the overburdening of medical resources." You pulling my leg again and if so, the very nerve~! :thumbup:

Why am I feeling a strong tug on my right leg?

patty I have asked you before and I am asking you again - do not change the way I posted my words without making a note that you did it. I am not someone who takes stuff to the top. I like to take care of my own business on my own. But you're trying to force my hand here and I don't appreciate it and I will do something about it. As for God having Mercy on me. I have no doubt that God is well aware of the meaning of my words and Jesus is supremely happy with my defense of the words that he said and the meaning of them. You on the other hand will have some serious explaining to do.

You probably didn't hear because there were all manner of issues being constantly screamed by Sarah Palin and various other ignoramuses - like he isn't an American citizen, like he's a Muslim, like Joe the Plumber doesn't think he should pay any taxes, like his minister speaks for Obama, like he's a terrorist within our borders and proof is that he accepted an evening of fund raising at the home of a former dissenter (a dissenter who sounded a lot like you do now), that Michelle Obama hates America, that Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel pin so he's unpatriotic, like his daddy is a Muslim and all of Obama's people are in South Africa, like oh well, you get the idea. If all you can do is say "no" and regurgitate meaningless criticism that are lies and clearly meant to cast doubt on the man and his mission, then no wonder you didn't and don't get it.

Think we've come full circle in this debate. Republicans who argue against the proposed changes are the people who I maintain are the tools of the insurance companies. Yeah, patty and others will argue that they think for themselves and that they just don't agree that the proposed changes are the right ones. But their arguments fall flat because they don't have a viable answer to the insurance company controlling our medical treatment. What they seem to be proposing, when they do actually come up with anything but negative comments, tends to support insurance companies ruling the proverbial roost, but in a somewhat compromised fashion. Big deal. That won't do the trick. Too little, too late. Get out of the way. Time for a change. Call it socialism if you like, but people need relief from the system that has evolved. Major change is what is needed. Unfortunately the proposed plan is not what many of us have hoped would become the kind of major change that Americans would all benefit from. But it is a start and if we must take baby steps, which I think is wrong, it's change I can deal with on the path to real, lasting, major changes.

patty: "You keep confusing 'heath care reform' with 'a government run health care insurance plan'. 2 Different things. Republicans want reform. Reform is a change in the way things are run. (Ins. companies, trial lawyers, medical professionals).We want reform, just not the kind that's being offered. You know, the government insurance option." You keep confusing healthcare reform with just changing the way the insurance companies operate, and it appears that you're not even for much change of that. If you think that socialism is putting the people who deserve affordable healthcare in this country in charge of their own health care, then you're also misinterpreting that.

patty: "You have such kind words to share about me. Thanks. I believe what you really meant was "Those who love God and believe in him and want a moral country are rocking the boat for us who want the freedom to do as we choose and to not have to answer to anybody." "For all we want is what is morally right. The problem lies in sinful human nature and its tendency to rebel against the authority of God." Yes, I admit that I am not always able to find kind words to describe your posts or to debate your unkind words. One reason is because you think that your ideas are morally right. I disagree. I think your ideas generally are exclusionary, discriminative as well as small thinking and single minded. And furthermore, you're quite wrong about what we want for this country. YOUR God does not have the authority to tell people how to make this country function. YOUR interpretation of God is a God that would not treat people as Jesus instructed. And it is YOUR interpretation of GOD's will that people rebel against. Not God. And we do not seek to have a country where no one is required to answer to authority. We are a nation of laws. We need laws and we abide by the law. Some of the people you seem to agree with politically do not wish to abide by the laws of the land, and they justify that felonious attitude by saying it's what GOD wants. I'm going to call a major ahhhhh-bullshit-chooooo here. Pardon me. And you cannot divert attention away from your mean desires for this country by accusing us of not wanting to answer to authority. YOUR group of extremists are the ones who are not wanting to answer to governmental authority and the authority they supposedly answer to is a made up authority that they establish to suit their unholy needs.

patty: "When Obama campaigned on 'change', most thought he meant a change in the way the government does things. We thought he meant he wanted to get rid of government corruption and deception and out of control spending and social programs and 'pork'. We thought he meant to 'change' the way the government tries to take control of us. We thought he meant to change the corruption in Congress. This is not what he meant by 'change'. He meant 'change' us from a free country to a socialistic one. We don't want that kind of change. We want to go back to what our founding Fathers set up and planned for this country. " Looks to me like you interpreted his campaign and the changes he said he thought we need, to be completely different than what he actually said. How could you do that? He was extremely straightforward and open during his campaign. And he is being more open in his presidency than any presidents have been, that I know of. Bush nearly completely closed down commuication between the White House and the public. Having a president who is willing to actually answer to the public and who is willing to listen to the feedback he gets is practically foreign to most of us who became accustomed to not knowing what the heck was going on in the White House until long after the decisions had been made and action taken. You're complaining about a president who wants the government to make sure that we have a country that cares about all its' citizens instead of the few who Bush favored. That's not socialism, but even if it were, it is far closer to what the founding fathers planned for this country than what the imperialistic* Bush gave us. Your interpretation of what our founding fathers wanted is subject to debate. Just as is your interpretation of the Bible's meaning. *"Imperialism: The policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire;...characterized by a struggle for the control of raw materials and world markets, the subjugation and control of territories, the establishment of colonies, etc." Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary Establishment of colonies? Iraq certainly fits that bill.

patty: "They know that there are far more people against the bill being put thru than for it, and even if they are for it themselves, if they want to keep their seat, they better vote against it or we are going to boot them out!" Sorry dear, you don't gots the votes. You control a minority and if the extremist minority in congress don't learn how to shut up, you won't even have them. I'm with Cleo'sMom: "So, I say to the democrats that we helped put in office - vote for healthcare reform or we can just as easily vote you out of office." Works for me!

You mean there are adults who don't know that Nevada is the only state where prostitution is legal in certain counties? Wonder what rock they've been living under.

Cleo'sMom: "All the christian religions base their teachings on the bible. The same bible. The fact that they come to different conclusions about what it says and what it means makes my point. The catholic church has biblical references and interpretations for every one of the things you take exception to. I am not defending them, because I think they got some things wrong, too. But my point is that if a major, world wide religion, with billions of members, that claims to be the one true religion because it is the only one that can be traced directly back to Jesus can get the bible wrong, then anyone can. And this is especially true of those who use the bible to support their hatred and their discriminatory views." You said here what I've tried to say with hundreds of words on other threads, but you said it so much better. Bravo!!! I try not to be irritated by patty's arguments about how perfect her beliefs are, how inarguably correct her interpretation of the Bible is, how her "truth" is really the only truth in the world regarding the Bible and her faith but I cannot sit still to read over and over things that are so patently absurd without commenting. The reason it is so irritating is because people like patty are behind so much of the political strife in this country and they represent, frankly, very scary political rethoric that is all about inciting anger and discord. And after 8 years of a president and congress and an administration that shared her thinking, I am sick to death of it. And they don't seem to understand that their behavior and mean words are the reason why the people threw the bums out. Now they need to back off, take their medicine, and let the people we elected run the country.

kartman I learned a long time ago that if there was a really well constructed, easy to understand essay posted, with no misspellings, no gramatical errors at all, it is probably not one of us who authored it. Now most people at LBT always do the right thing and cite their sources. But there are always a few who would like to take credit for someone else's compositions. It's wrong, even though this isn't something that is to be published or a term paper or a thesis we're writing. This is a public forum and if one is to be given any credibility, one must cite one's sources and when one is quoting even another LBT member, it is unfair and wrong to do it incorrectly. I have had my words quoted and emphasis put on certain sentences that had no emphasis on them originally and things lifted and moved to change the meaning. There are no guarantees here that people will play fair and I take it as a very obvious indication of the kind of person I'm dealing with.

If Obama didn't care about bipartanship, he would have already ram-rodded the congressional plan through. He cares a whole lot more about you and me than any of the presidents in recent history. You don't recognize it because you probably haven't seen it before.

Your suggestions for what will heal health care in America misses the point entirely. What you've said you want only empowers the insurance companies and they will continue to manage our health care for us. That is exactly what we want to get away from and if it means that we must have the government step in at this point, then that's what we want. Things have been run the way you want and it hasn't worked the way you're suggesting it will. It is just like the trickle down mode for corporations to their employees. In theory it sounds reasonable. In fact, it just doesn't wind up working out for the vast numbers of American people. It winds up with us in an inferior position to the companies that run our lives. As for Canadians and the English and Europeans flooding this country for our health care, it doesn't happen. Some absoslutely do come here for certain treatments that are unavailable in their countries. We do have MD Anderson and Johns Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic which are reknown for their successful cancer treatment programs. However, more Americans are crossing the borders both north and south to get medicine and surgery and other medical care. Just look at the number of lap band patients who go to Mexico for their surgery. And people from America cross over to Mexico in huge numbers for surgical procedures, medications, routine healthcare and even dental work. They don't do that because those things are less expensive and more available here. And your proposal will not make those things more affordable. We've tried it, and it doesn't work. We need a change and our best chance for a reasonable solution is through this president and this congress.

Amen kartman! And I don't see it as defending the media. The news used to be something that the networks brought us just to keep us a little informed. We got most of our news from the newspaper. Then the Today show caught on but the nightly news still brought us the news. Then the Today Show went bananas (it went bananas, b-a-na-na-ess it's bananas! as Gwen Stefani sang) and the other networks wanted to get a piece of that action and the news/talk shows were born with stars all glammed up and competitive. Then came the political talk shows and with all this entertainment, the news became the big deal on tee-vee and the power one could wield with that big stick became obvious and people started taking big time advantage of the opportunity to sway the public. Read Rupert Murdoch. The newspapers are now an afterthought and most of them are going out of business. And the public? We're screwed if we want honest news. Because you can read anything and hear anything and see anything that is called the news and it doesn't have to be "the" news. It can just be someone's interpretation of newsy items. TV, Radio, newspapers, internet, it's pretty much a crap shoot whether things are being reported the way they really happened or if the purveyor of the news is feeding us something that ups their ratings or is complete bull or is a tool of manipulation for their own purposes. Takes a lot of digging these days and a lot of paying close attention to be able to filter through it all and get something truly worthwhile out of it. End of rant. Foaming froth subsiding. :thumbup:

Devana the extreme right wing party was accusing Obama of being the cause of terrible governmental policies and problems months before he even took office. I think someone had put together a memo and it got released before they intended. But heck once it was out, may as well run with it, right? We're making a mistake, and the mainstream media is making a mistake, by even arguing or defending the issues with these folks. And it's just exactly what you and kartman said, "sense, we don't need no stinking sense" and "facts, we don't need no stinking facts." How can an intelligent sane person argue with someone who isn't encumbered by the facts? But I have to add that it's people like you, kartman, Cleo'sMom and a couple of others who give me hope and I guess that's why we enter into these discussions. We hope that MOST Americans are sane and can comprehend the idiocy of the extremist propaganda. Positive feedback helps.

patty:" Why not control the trial lawyers from making million dollar settlements and therefore raising the cost for all of us in our ins. premiums because the doctors have such high medical insurance payments to make to protect them from frivilous lawsuits? Why not a cap on them? " Why not control lawyers? Why would you think it is perfectly fine to control the legal business but you think it is wrong to control the medical industry? You think that the insurance companies are gouging us because of malpractice lawsuits? Well, sure there are outrageous awards given in malpratice cases and the insurance companies slap it to the people who buy their insurance. The reality is that the insurance companies aren't penalized for covering a doctor who is so incredibly bad at his chosen field that he caused the death or maiming of a patient. WE are penalized. And explain to me how that improves our ability to get insurance and medical care, please. The answer to good health care isn't in disallowing US to file lawsuits against the quacks. That's just what the insurance companies want. We're playing right into their hands by buying into that ridiculous gambit. We should always have the right to seek redress for malpractice or gross negligence. Why in the world would you think that it is a good thing for the government to take OUR power away and give it to insurance companies? We in absolutely NO WAY benefit from it. The insurance companies would - but trust me, they will never drop your premiums or the amount of coverage you get. It just doesn't happen that way. If we have tort reform it should be simply about the courts tightning the rules about what is a reasonable cause to sue. I'm all for no frivilous lawsuits. But that can be handled by the courts. For some reason people have decided that the government taking action to favor insurance companies will cause our healthcare to improve. Why? Because that's the bills of goods that the insurance companies are selling and we've decided they're right. Hogwash!! Bill Clinton (and others) have tried to expose the problems Americans have with getting proper medical treatment and he tried to come up with a plan that everyone could live with that would actually improve our medical care and the way we pay for it. He was stopped in his tracks. Do you know how long ago that was??? The way he was stopped in his tracks was typical B.S. that the Republican party (the party of the wealthy, the party of large corporations) managed to cloud the real issues with. They jumped on Hillary Clinton and made a mockery of her participation in the work at White House. She was personally criticized (like Michelle is now) and they screamed at the top of their voices how HILLARY was not elected and she should have absolutely NO VOICE in government policy or even proposals for governmental policies. They fought Bill Clinton every friggin' step of his presidency and he was nearly brought to his knees before he got started. Now we're seeing the same treatment of our current president and his wife. Did Bush or Lara have this problem? Well, er, not hardly. They were idolized because they used words like, "education president" and "patriot" and "teacher" and "christian" like it was a prerequisite for the office. He played ball, Lara played ball. They did exactly what they were told and the right wingers got their way and they got their war and now they're mad as hell because that may be coming to a halt - although as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on that. I would like to say that this outrageous, hateful behavior that the extremists are hurling against our president and his wife is shocking to me. But it is not. It is business as usual for the right wing extremists who are the tools of big business in this country. What does always tend to amaze me is how the economically middle class and poor in this country can be used in this way. They show up at meetings and they write on the internet and say all the buzz words that they've been fed and they continue to chant those things when there is every evidence to the contrary. So I am very disappointed in the policial climate in this country. I am disappointed at how dangerous it has become. I am disapopinted at how the right wing supported media incites the ignorant people who are being brainwashed and used. And at this point I am disappointed in our new president because he's actually trying to work with these people. He should know better but he is obviously an idealist and a fair person. He's what Americans deserve, but what we wind up with in the end, too much of the time, is a country that is controlled by the extremely wealthy. It is a country where the man on the street is manipulated and used and doesn't even seem to be aware of it. When I read that someone here at LBT insists that we have the best medical care in the world, and ignores evidence to the contrary all I can think is... God help us.

Hey Whitepants - you've lost 107 lbs! That's fantastic!! You're definitely doing something right! I haven't have had as much success with drinking something before I eat. In fact, this phase I'm going through will not allow me to drink anything at all and warm drinks are the worst. Go figure!! Last year, if I drank something (not huge amounts of course) right before my meal I was able to tolerate more, like you said. So I don't know what this latest wrinkle is, but I've tested it over and over and everytime I drink anything at all before a meal these days, I wind up having a PB episode. That's the interesting thing about the band. It keeps you constantly working to keep from getting something stuck. About the time you think you have it figured out, that doesn't work anymore. You can't say it isn't an interesting journey! I haven't tried the pineapple or paypaya pills or juices. When I have something lodged and am in pain, the last thing I am willing to try is adding something else to the mix. I mean at that point, I can't even swallow my saliva. But I would be interested in hearing exactly how people use those things to fix a problem.

Wow! And why wouldn't you post your after photos!!! You look awesome, dude. I am very, very proud of you. What an excellent job you've done. Very impressive. Congratulations, big time! and a tiny bit of jealousy oozes from my pores

The fact that you're convinced that your faith is real to you is not in question as far as I'm concerned. Nor is the fact that you've read various other religious literature or spoken with people of other faiths. People who believe they have been abducted by aliens is very real to them as well. Doesn't mean that they didn't experience an event in their head that was a few synapses short of normal brain function though. Just like folks who see ghosts. There are even ghostbusters that go about chasing out the little devils. There are priests who are summoned sometimes to cast out the devils and ghosts and demons when there's been an infestation. So there are all kinds of situations that we could discuss here and argue the validity of people's personal experiences. I have no doubt that when I hear someone say they have talked with God and he has spoken to them and people who say they have seen him, that it is perfectly real to them. But it is a condition (IMHO) that is present in their brains that makes it so real. For those who talk to and see God, the elation they feel is real, the peace they feel is real. Just as the fear someone experiences when they've seen a ghost; the fear and the terror they experience is real. But they are feelings. Mentally induced feelings. Convincing to be sure, but not actually REAL. All IMHO, of course.

As for fills, doctors do that differently too. My doctor believes in being extremely conservative with fills and over a two-year period, I've seen him on the average of about once every 3 or 4 weeks. My fills and other support care were included in the price of my surgery. He uses a very tiny needle to deaden the area around the port first. It stings a little, but it is quite bearable. Then almost immediately he uses a larger needle (I don't watch) and a large syringe and withdraws any fill solution that is in the band to see what amount of fill I currently have. Then he pushes the solution back in with the amount of fill I had and an additional bit of solution (if I need more - or puts less in if I need an unfill) and then extracts the needle, puts a bandaide over my port and gives me a small cup of organic tea to drink while he gives me a pep talk. Once he sees that I can tolerate the tea, I go on my way back to work or whatever. I am not uncomfortable in any way afterwards. The first few days after a fill I usually can't tell any difference and then after a while, sometimes a week or so, the fill seems to take effect and I learn that I can't eat as much. Yay!

Sounds like every doctor has a different take on the pill swallowing issue. For the first 1.5 years, the only thing my doctor's office told us was that we had to be very careful taking pills and they suggested that we crush our pills. They also said that there are some pills that say "do not crush" on them and that we would need to get those changed into another form of liquid or crushable medication if we had any trouble swallowing the uncrushable pill. Then last year they made a big announcement in their monthly newsletter and they made sure to tell us in person when we went for our visits, that there had been recently documented cases of people aspirating pills. Some of those people died. So they were warning us of the dangers and telling us that we shouldn't take pills at all. I told them that I didn't have trouble taking the two meds I take everyday and asked if I could continue taking them whole. They said that it was a risk but that as long as I understood the risk, it was up to me. At that time they also reiterated that I should never take multivitimins in pill form and that I should only take chewable vitamins - preferably Centrum. I had a teeny tiny bit of a veal chop lodged once that caused the most stress and pain and throwing up of any that I've ever experienced. It went on for hours and hours and it was incapacitating and I thought I was going to die. Not your regular version of a PB, which I've had many times. That episode made a believer of me and I am more careful now than I was when I had the major problem with the veal chop. I listen to my doctor and take what he says very seriously because I know he doesn't tell me stuff just to scare me. You should ask your own doctor and listen to him/her. I only posted about this because some people were discussing it and I hoped that if someone who had their surgery in Mexico or elsewhere and wasn't using that same doctor for fills or is getting fills and seeing a doctor very rarely, the potential dangers of swallowing pills might be something that they had not heard about.