BJean

That's interesting patty. Seriously. That you feel so strongly about GOD making sure that people donate 10% of their income. I am convinced that man is responsible for making sure that the Bible reads that God wants us all to tithe to build and support our church - and literally pay tribute to Him. I have absolutely no problem with churches demanding 10% of people's income to their church. I am the one who pointed out that they need envelopes so that they can do projected budgets and know how to allocate their funds. But it isn't as simple as that in most churches. Just because your pastor says he is blind to who gives what in his church certainly does not make it so in other churches. I have spent years interlinked with the Catholic church. Your remarks do not hold true with our experiences and those of our extended families. My husband's family and his siblings and their wives and children are all strong Catholics. All of the in-laws are as well which extends our knowledge base even further. Plus the fact that we've lived all over the country and attended Catholic churches in all of those locales. Some of the people I have mentioned have been so turned off by the requirements of the Catholic church financially, that they finally have broken off from it. In one particular case (and I've told this story before and hate to repeat it but I'll try to keep it short), one couple were unable to get their baby christened right after his birth because they had moved into the town when she was very pregnant and although they had attended Catholic church in their new parish, they had not yet begun using envelopes (they had, btw, been contributing cash each week.) Their new priest denied them that sacrament until they had filled out the forms promising to pay and then using envelopes for a given period of time. It was a crushing blow to a couple who had gone to Catholic schools their whole life, had attended mass every week and every holy day since Catholics are taught to believe that babies will not go to heaven until they are baptized so if their baby had died, he would have been doomed. My parents were members of the Methodist church and very active in all the church functions, including some missionary work. When they missed turning in the forms one year, pledging their yearly donations, they got a call from the minister. He was extremely nice and they loved him a lot, but it was disappointing that he was so quick to repremand them, those people who helped make up the core of his congregation. When I began going to the First Christian Church (Disiples of Christ) when I was in high school, I had no intention of being baptized in that church, but they had a terrific program for kids my age and they invited me to attend. But even though I was not a member of the church and the church was out no extra expense for my attending any of the functions (they were self-supporting) they still expected me to use envelopes every week. I was not even an adult, you see, with a reguar income. I had a similar experience when I joined the Baptist Church with my first husband. As I said earlier, I do not begrudge churches passing the plate. It is necessary to keep the church in business, but when so much of the focus is on building a bigger building, buying softer pews, buying the minister a bigger parsonage, adding a wing on here, adding another wing on there, when the church and the wings for Sunday school were used essentially one day a week and one night during the week, it seems to be a little beyond the vision of God's realm. Better examples would be the televangelists and the lifestyle of those folks. I lived very close to Oral Roberts University when I lived in Tulsa and when you see what that man not only accomplished from raking in the dough but how he lived, you know that the sums of money we're talking about is hardly just about keeping the church running. PTL ring a bell? My sister in law worked for Oral Roberts when she was young and going to college. She worked in the "counting room." Now that was an enlightening experience, I can tell you. So if you have a minister who turns a blind eye to who gives what in his church, I suggest you hang onto that fellow because he is not the norm, he's unique.

A Rockerfeller huh? Well then you are carrying some fairly serious conservative DNA. Bet you wish you were carrying around some of the serious cash that is linked with the name. (That's making an assumption that you aren't, of course.)

I will get back to you on the question you asked. I will check in with my DH when I can get him to stand still long enough. He is quite familiar with the workings of the government and can probably very quickly give me more to offer than just the random comment that we know that the government works well in some sectors.

I have a cousin who is an LDSer. He traced the Scotch-Irish side of my mother's family (her father) as far back as the 1600s, I think. I read it all but didn't pay much attention at the time. He claimed that we had some royalty in our background. I was young and too busy doing other things. I don't think he was able to find out a lot about my grandmother. My brother paid someone to do the research once but didn't discover much of interest I guess because we never really talked about it.

OMG, plain. You're a card-carrying American Indian?? I wish I were. My grandparents hid the fact from the government that my grandmother was full-blood Cherokee. Then my parents hid it from us kids for years. When they finally started coming clean they told us we had a tiny little bit, like a sixteenth. Then my mom admitted that one of her parents was half Cherokee. Anyway, I've always wished that they had helped us straighten it all out. Sadly, I'm the only child that they had who was even interested in researching that part of our roots. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to get it all straightened out. The tribe I was talking about were the Osage Indians in NE Oklahoma. I have no idea how they are financially today or in fact, anything about their standard of living. But when I was a young girl, I heard lots of stories about how they inlaid silver and gold coins into their concrete porches to show off their wealth. Their houses were large and two-story made out of brick. Back then, nobody much had concrete porches or all brick houses. They were generally wooden. There was a good amount of oil on their land, some fabulous stone quarries, minerals, etc. Whether all this was folklore or the truth, I can't state as FACT. I know what I was told and I know that there was a certain respect for the Osage Indians where we lived. And Indians in Oklahoma, when I was growing up, were not discrminated against (except maybe by the government.) Afterall, most of us had Indian blood coursing through our veins. There's a lot of Indian cultural pride in parts of Oklahoma even today. I don't look at the casinos with the same sense of pride as we did with the Osage Indians, but I do respect that the Indians got smart and are cheerfully taking the white man's gambling money off their hands. But let's face it, we live in Cowboy country now. That's party's over. They just want to shoot indians, eh?

Some of us would rather take a chance on being screwed by the government than being screwed to the wall by greedy insurance companies. I am all for the insurance companies making a profit, but it has gone way beyond that. I know that a lot of people like to yell about how lousy the government is and how the government just screws things up, but there are many fabulous goverment programs and it's the goverment that runs this country, quite well in fact. We only hear about the bad programs and the bad politicians and the civil servants who blow the whistle on each other. The government isn't the boogey man. Although I readily admit that it is not perfect and needs constant oversight just as the companies that threaten our way of life do. As for the health care industry, the insurance companies have changed my medical care: the way I get it, the quality of it and the type of medications they want me to use. I can't see how getting the government involved is going to make it worse at this point. If there's a chance it will give ME a little protection, that's what I want instead of making all the rules to be in favor of the insurance industry.

Or it could be that men are human. Human beings wrote the Bible and the Quaran. Whether you believe that the Bible or Quaran are divinely inspired by God or Allah or if you believe that some extremely creative people worked on those books for years and years to come up with the final texts, it all has to do with faith and which doctrine you choose to trust and believe in. That's true across the board with all doctrines. You can compare off-shoot churches in the same way. That's why there are so many of them. That's why the Pilgrims came over on the Mayflower. There is no "one" doctrine that trumps all others - except in the minds of the believers. I was surprised to read what you said about envelopes, patty (see below). I could go into some of my personal stories about the use of church envelopes to make my point, but I won't bore everyone. We all know what the reason for church envelopes is. The churches use them simply to keep track of who gives what. And they require a tithe from their members because they need to project their budgets from year to year. And in some cases, they can go knock on doors and have a little talk with the people who aren't ponying up. The fact that churches have become smarter and distribute end of year donation receipts for their congregation is something they know you'll appreciate, but they sure don't do it just for your convenience. patty: "The church I attend has envelopes there for your convenience. It is also a record of my giving that is returned to me at the end of each year for tax purposes. It is for my benefit, not theirs."

You know what Mary? You are right. It's all about discipline and motivation. Everything else is just an excuse. And that's why you've lost more weight in a year than I've lost in nearly 3 years. No excuses! Just not motivated or disciplined enough. Congratulations for having what it takes!

Having the surgery when you're young seems to be to be better to me for long-term success. When you're older your metabolism has slowed a lot - especially if you are past menopause and past having children. Also, you haven't spent 20 years yo-yo dieting which also wrecks your metabolism. After yo-yo dieting for such a long time your body becomes very efficient at storing fat because it thinks you may go into another starvation mode at any time. And thirdly, you are not as active as you were when you were younger. A few people are still running and playing racquetball and rowing and playing tennis, etc., when they're into their 50s and 60s, but that itsn't the vast majority of Americans. Most of us are couch potatoes. And the more we sit on our couches, the slower our metabolism is too. So although someone said that their doctor believes that younger people are less successful than older people, I have to wonder if he has an unusual practice that is primarily young people or primarily older folks.

plain I tried to post a link to "Conservatives for Patient's Rights" webpage. I don't know why it wouldn't transfer. Anyway, if you'd like to read a side by side comparison of 3 or 4 of the proposed plans, you can easily see how the things that people like Newt Gingrich are proposing empower the insurance companies and fall short of fixing the problems. When I have more time I will check out your links. Thanks for doing your homework, if you links actually do that.

Joan I don't know why you are unable to access your posts, but I can and your posts haven't been pulled. Do you think that perhaps you've blocked your own posts without meaning to so or something?

Oh yeah, AIG is a fine example of what I was saying.

And the lenders. But few have the lobbiest strength in Washington that the insurance industry has. IMHO.

palin? Did I type that accidentally or was something in my subconscious poking through. Sorry to both you and Nanook, who I called Nanette. Sorry, I get in too big a hurry to post my pearls of wisdom. :thumbup:

palin: "So why doesn't this "nanny state" program work for the Indians? Because, like I stated previously, there's a built-in incentive to do nothing..." Oh yeah. And the reservations are a huge part of keeping the Indians in their place. That whole system has been ruinous for American Indians. Intrestingly, I'm part Native American. And from a part of the country where the reservations had some wonderful natural resources. Those Indians were smart. They held onto those resources and only gave them up for their price instead of allowing the white man to take them from them like they took everything else. Where I came from Indians were relatively wealthy and not looked down on. They were respected and lived in beautiful homes on beautiful land. However, I haven't been back for years and I have no knowledge of their current-day situation.

If that happens over the long haul, I will be shocked. The insurance companies are way, way too powerful to let it wind up that way. Still waiting for proof, tap, tap, tap.

Even patty has said that organized religion is not the be all, end all. She has criticized it and has scripture to support her thoughts on it. For me I am not blind to the fact that the certain churches have used their rules and guidelines to keep people tied to them and to perpetuate the church. They have a vested interest in wanting their participants to have large families, to eschew birth control, to forego having abotions for any reason. They require their parishioners to tithe a certain percentage of their income. They insist that their attendees use envelopes for their "donations" so they can keep track of who is and is not tithing. And the list goes on. Ministers, priests, pastors always incorporate a certain amount of "sin" in their sermons. They heap on the guilt through reading certain scriptures. That guilt weighs heavily on their membership. It does a lot to help perpetuate the church. And the more fervent the membership, the more money they raise and the bigger the new additions can be and on and on. Churches aren't all bad, I know that. But they are not all good either. And some of the bad that they have been heaping on their membership for the last few years has been horrible. And I do believe that it has done a lot to divide this country. I believe it is in a way, analogous to the news media. If the TV news shows spend too much time on people doing good things instead of being focused on the horrible crimes of humanity everyday, people stop watching. People are intrigued by and they expect to see other people committing crimes everyday. The same with churches. If a minister is always upbeat and complimentary and sweetness and light, people drift away. When a minister incorporates talk of sin and betrayal and the weaknesses of people, it's what their congregation expects to be told. They believe that humanity is sinful and bad and it brings them back to the church more often. The people who seem to have the most guilt are some of the ones who are involved the most. Now don't get me wrong. Like I said above, churches can do a lot of good. Some of my family are liftime missionaries so I see it up close and personal. But I've also seen the dirty underbelly and what motivates and runs churches. I do not like the guilt that they peddle one bit. And I have no doubt that some of the people who were writing some of the gospels and passages in the Bible were similarly motivated. Blaspheme? Or simple honesty? It's up to each of us to decide, isn't it.

plain: "That's how we get into the problems of multi-generational welfare....there is an incentive for people to stay in the system and not even try for a better life. But, since this is more a socioeconomical thing than a racial thing (IMO), I'll let the thread get back to its original topic." I'm not sure that I agree with your humble opinion that this is more of a socioeconomic thing than a racial thing. Many brilliant sociologists believe that the welfare system has been a major factor in keeping black people beaten down in America. Whether by design or not, I do not know, but I do believe it has played a significant roll in the huge racial divide in this country.

Plain sez: "However, down the road, there will be NO MORE private insurance if the government gets into the market. So, everybody will be back-ended into the program eventually. President Obama and his cabinet know this." and goes on to say, "Respectfully, you are not thinking this through, CM......President Obama has already empowered a group to strat looking into "most efficient medical practices". That means that the government is already looking to write protocols on healthcare policy....that means that it will only be efficient (moneywise) for patient population a, b and c to recieve medical procedure x,y and z. In English, an 80 y/o may not be covered for a major surgery simply because they won't live long enough to justify the cost of the procedure" Ok plain, pony up. Where's your proof? Where's your documentation? Why should be accept what you're saying is fact? Hmmmmm???

A bunch of good posts! Headhunter, your post at #112 was one I could sure agree with and identify with. Thanks, ya'll.

I'm assuming you're taking the time to find the part of a post of mine where I've said what you're accusing me of. And perhaps you're doing some research on fat presidents. I dunno, but please find what I said that convinced you that I in any way denied the prevalence of weight discrmination. You can't just hit and run, at least I hope you won't.

Whoa just a minute, Jaffa. Are you claiming that no fat man has ever been elected president? And I really wish you would tone your rant at me down. I have never said that racial prejudice is more common than any other. That doesn't mean that I couldn't say it, though. I just didn't say that.

Steve please lift that passage that you think I wrote saying, to quote you: "Racism is NOT more likely then prejudice against someone being fat..." In fact I think that there is a ton of prejudice against fat people. I have an older sister who is humongous. Everywhere we ever went together I was made well-aware of the horrible prejudice against fat people. And I myself have been a victim of weight discrimination. I am not sure what I said that made you accuse me of stating that one type of bigotry is more prevelant than any other. Bigotry against people of color is what this thread is all about. It got side tracked by someone other than me.

No apology necessary. I am very willing to start over! I do know that I come off as harsh and opinionated. Especially in print. I get in a big hurry when I type and lots of times I don't re-read what I've posted. That's usually when I get into trouble. As for prefacing my posts with "it's my opinion that..." it is a good idea, but I don't try to pass my posts off as anything but my opinion. I've only cited other people's data or rare occasions because I figure we all have the same access to TV, newspapers and the internet. I've found that most of the stuff that people post links to are simply other people's opinions. Like someone from Fox or some right wing publication, or MSNBC or some liberal publication. I don't want to wade through that stuff. I've usually already been exposed to it in some form. That's how I come up with the opinions I have. Sometimes people cite those other people's (political pundits usually) opinions as fact. I find that very irritating. So that's why you probably got my reaction in the past. I too will do my best to mend my ways and be more peaceable and less confrontational. But shucks, you know as well as I do that we won't have nearly as much fun. I guess I'm just suggesting that we cut each other some slack and stop duking it out because it seems to upset other people. I think you and I could probably have a confrontation everyday and wind up still being civil on a different thread, but this has gone on for so long, I reckon that's not happening. I will do my best, I promise. I mean, can't we all just get along? :thumbup:

Hmmmm, Nanette. That's an interesting thought. I've tried to imagine someone walking toward me and think about which I'd notice first, sex or weight. I can't come up with anything but that I'd probably notice those two things simultaneously. How could you not? Which do you think you'd notice first?