marjon9

I say we take a poll. If more than 50% of the people on the forum think Jack should move, he'll have until midnight on May 1, 2007 to be out of his house.

Would that be Cho W. Bush?

Good one, synicalchick. I have two dogs and two cats. What more needs to be said?

Hey TOM, Hippo Birdy Two Ewes

I could definitely support gun control for all. I just have a hard time doing it selectively based on subjective criteria. With this guy Cho, perpaps the criteria were not entirely subjective. By the time someone is placed in a mental hospital, perhaps they should not have a gun. But what about his creative writing where he fantasized about killing people and wrote things that his teachers found "disturbing." Is that enough? I have a hard time with that. But again, I can certainly support gun control for all.

So who will be the one who gets to say "Hey, your thoughts have crossed over now from normal angst and frustration with life's challenges, and in my opinion you have now started fantasizing about killing people to the degree that you are now forbidden from doing something that is otherwise legal, even though you have done nothing wrong." Who gets to make that call? To the extent that you are saying we need to try to pay more attention to the people around us and get help for someone who is in trouble, for our own safety. I agree with that. But I don't know how you pick the committee who gets to decide someone is "fantasizing" too much, and they should have their freedom and legal rights curtailed because "I" say so.

"LOL! Does it hurt THAT much to agree with me???" I have to admit, in my case it really does hurt THAT much to agree with you. But on this issue I do. I would say my views would be similar to those of Carlene. I don't feel like I have a right to tell other people how they need to live their lives. No matter how much I hate abortion, I am simply not in a position to tell a woman that she must make the choice I think is right. "It is truly barbaric and incredibly violent. But I guess if you're a doctor who kills babies for a living, you'd have to be pretty calloused to life." This is why it is so hard for me to agree with you, because of statements like that. Yes, partial birth abortion is a truly barbaric and violent act, but to trivialize the hard and painful choices a woman and her doctor must make in that flippant way is, in my view, totally inappropriate. I've never met anyone who was in favor of abortion. There are just some who believe it is an acceptable, if incredibly difficult, decision that should be legal. There are just times, when the fetus is in the early stages of formation, that I believe a woman has a right to make a choice free from my supervision.

I realize this is probably politically incorrect, and may even provoke angry responses, but I can't help but notice that there is virtually no coverage in the news of the 170 civilians killed today in Baghdad bombings. On CNN.com there are about 25 stories about the incident at VA Tech that occurred two days ago, and just one line about today's harvest of souls in Iraq. I have a hard time with that because I feel like we are largely responsible for the unimaginable terror and heartache taking place in Iraq right now. And I feel like the Iraqi's lives are worth just as much as those of American college students. In my view there is not much we can do about a madman like Cho Seung-Hui. People in this thread have said that people like Cho can be spotted in advance and dealt with. I'm very skeptical about that. I've known my share of weirdo loners. None of them ended up killing anyone. What are we supposed to do every time someone acts weird? Put them in jail in advance of any wrongdoing? But of course the situation is different in Iraq. In the Iraqi situation, we can actually do something to stop this. So, to me, the story that needs to be talked about is the one where you can actually do something about it. Fortunately for the world Cho Seung-Hui is gone and no one needs to be afraid anymore. Unfortunately for the world, Cho W. Bush is still president. And as a result, millions of our fellow human beings must live a life of unspeakable horror and terror.

Don't forget, my son, all you have to do is "choose" to be attracted to women.

When I read your responses the same question keeps coming to my mind: Let's assume that "no one knows for sure" about global warming and imminent environmental catastrophe. Even if that is true that no one knows for sure, you must admit that there is at least some risk that the general consensus of the scientific community might be right. Again, let's assume that the minority of commentators who disagree with the majority might be proven right in the long run. But at least I am sure you will admit that "no one knows for sure." So, if that is true, why not err on the side of protecting the environment? Why not err on the side of decreasing the permanent extinction of god's plant and animal species? Why do Conservative Christians all seem to err on the side of corporate profiteers? It just makes no sense. Wouldn't a "conservative" person be in favor of "conserving?" When Christian Conservatives all line up on the side of chemical companies, strip miners, corporate fish trawlers that strip every living thing out of the ocean and then discard the "waste" forms of sea life like so much garbage, does that not seem to be inconsistent with the type of values a religious conservative would be expected to have? I really do not understand.

And this brings me back to my original question. Why do you, and other "Conservative Christians," all seem to find the arguments of the anti-global-warming scientists "more convincing." Why is that? And this is not an unfair generalization. I think it is fair to say that the very large majority of "Conservative Christians" count themselves on that list. Let's say it is true that no one can predict the weather. But it is certainly reasonable to assume that the enormous quantities of pollutants that have been dumped into the environment over the last 50 years might be having some effects. Damage to the environment just cannot be chalked up to the speculation of arrogant gloom and doom liberals. There is just too much objective evidence of environmental damage, extinction of species, overfishing of the oceans and depletion of fish stocks, international deforestation. A fair-minded person cannot simple forever reject this evidence as "gloom and doom speculation of arrogant liberals." Even if it is true that "no one knows for sure," why not err on the side of protecting the environment? Why do Conservative Christians all seem to err on the side of corporate profiteers? It just makes no sense. It does not seem to be consistent with the type of values a religious conservative would be expected to have.

Most would argue that scientists are doing far more than predicting the weather when they discuss global warming. In the last relatively brief period of time human beings have dumped enormous volumes of waste products into the atmosphere and the land and the sea. These create measurable effects. Scientists may be wrong about the exact date the earth will get warmer, but that does not detract from validity of the scientific observations and the evidence of changes to the environment. Just because a few people erroneously predicted a coming ice age in a couple magazines fifty years ago does not justify closing your eyes and ears to all science relating to environmental destruction, overfishing, extinction of species, etc. That "ice age" thing is a red herring. Just because some people were wrong about that then does not mean that every other environmentalist is automatically wrong about everything else forever.

There is one area that I do agree with you, and that is I also can't stand hypocricy, whether it is practiced by corporate plunderers, environmentalists, or anyone else. But other than that I do think your point of view is downright scary. You say, for example, that there are more trees now than when the Europeans first arrived, and that Weyerhouser is a good steward of the environment because it replants the forests it cuts down. Weyerhouser takes virgin forests with highly complex ecosystems and a huge variety of species of plants and animals, and replaces them straight rows of genetic mutant trees that are bred to grow twice as fast as normal trees. And in your mind, this adds up to being a good environmental steward. This point of view to me is scary. You also argue that it is "amazingly arrogant" for us to believe that we can have an impact on the earth. Just reading that raises the hairs on the back of my neck. Would you consider it an "impact on the earth" if we wiped out Amazon rain forests, for example, and took with it countless totally unique species of animals and plants? And you train your children to joke "blah, blah, blah" about the destruction of the corral reefs? Have you ever seen a corral reef? All I can say is, your attempt to satisfy my curiosity about why Christians are anti-environment was not at all successful. All you did is show me that there are people on this earth who are so misinformed about environmental issues that there is very little hope for saving the earth.

It's true, my sense of humor is often described as being so dry as to be totally parched, sort of like a corn husk that is professionally dehydrated and then placed in the desert sun for ten years. I'm also told that my jokes are great except for the lack just one element: humor. In this particular case, I can say that my Howard Stern comment was actually intended to be humorous. But believe me, I can understand your confusion on that point. :biggrin1:

One thing about the band, it's different for everybody. Some people can't eat this list of things, other people can't eat the other list of things. Still others can eat anything. When it comes to fills and restriction, the same applies. I was banded a few months ago and still have quite a bit of restriction from the operation. I've never had a fill. Other people need 8 fills before they feel any restriction. And when it comes to doctor care, the same is true there as well. Some people have a lot of involvement with their doctor, others have none. If you are self-pay, and had your surgery far away from where you live, you may never talk to the doctor again. In fact, I would say that people who are regularly supervised by their doctors are in the minority. And since people are usually on their own with the band, at least mostly on their own, they do different things. Some people feel like taking things slow and holding off on getting a fill for six months, even if the "need" one. After all, it does not hurt you to leave the band unfilled. It just sits there, waiting for you, until you are ready to use it. Other people are very aggressive about fills, and try to get good restriction as fast as possible, getting several fills within the first few months. Anyway, you get the point. When it comes to the band, there is no "normal" way. Each person finds their own way to use this highly flexible tool depending on their needs and circumstances.

Why is it that those who would describe themselves as "Christian conservatives" are almost invariably skeptical of environmental protection measures, and almost always tending to side with business interests over protecting the environment? I'm really curious. It's probably true that we don't have all the answers yet on global warming. But intuitively, wouldn't a "conservative" "religious" person be expected to err on the side of protecting (conserving) god's creations, instead of erring on the side of the interests of big oil, coal, timber, and chemical corporations? When I see this connection between "Christian conservatives" and pro-business politics, a connection which is pretty undeniable, it causes me to wonder what it means to be a Christian conservative. Is it about a relationship to god, love of god's creations, self inspection and personal growth? Or is it about big business, personal wealth, and a legislative agenda? Speaking for myself, I just know that it is hard to see the human agony associated with drought and pollution. It's hard to see numerous species of helpless animals going extinct from lack of habitat - animals that depend on us (me) for their survival. It's hard to look at stunningly beautiful Appalachian landscapes after they have been ravaged by strip mining for coal. Yes, it is true, we don't yet have all the answers in relation to global warming and environmental protection. But if I am going to "err" on one side or another, until I know the final truth I'm going to err on the side of environmental protection. If that makes me a whacky godless liberal, then so be it.

It seems like Howard Stern was pretty nice to Anna Nicole Smith and little Dannielynn, so he couldn't be all bad. :notagree

I have hypertension and joint problems!! :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :peace: :peace: :peace: :Banane01: :Banane21: :Banane21: :Banane21: :first: :first: :note: :note: :banana :banana :) :whoo: :whoo:

That's good news Divingqueen. Having this covered by insurance is a great thing. Just keep in mind that the process can take some time so try to be patient. I think you are right that high blood pressure is a "subsequent factor." I've never heard that term before, I think they often call these things "co-morbidities" or something like that. But I think it means the same thing. Other similar factors could be sleep apnea, diabetes, possibly mobility issues, and other things. Most of us have something like that, so you'll probably find that you qualify in that way. Good luck on the journey. I hope it all works out for you.

Hi skyeblu. I think fillcenterusa is a good option. Last time I checked the closest one was in New Jersey about 3 hours away. But that could still be a good option for us here in DC. It might be worth the trip considering the local prices. Thanks for reminding.

I was also wondering what happened to you TOM. I always enjoy reading your posts.

Kirsten, did you find that Dr. Brinkley also has a program fee now too? That would be bad news.

I agree that you need more Protein, and I agree that sometimes we just plateau. If you don't get discouraged during a plateau, and stick with sensible eating, you may find that you lose a bunch of weight in a spurt later. Having said that, I also have to say that I do not agree with some of the other comments made on this thread. In particular, I'm really reluctant to chalk up "salad" as "wasted space." I think many people would argue that fiber and the Vitamins and minerals from raw, fresh, leafy green vegetables have value. I believe we need to pay attention to overall health here, and not just focus entirely on weight loss. Above all, I would advise that you broaden beyond this forum with respect to your nutrition advice. I do think that the opinions on this forum have value, but I also think it would be useful to discuss this with a nutritionist. Is one available to you through your doctor?

That's Daisy the Boston Terrier, thanks for asking. She's about a year and a half now. We also have a Beagle named Boris and various other assorted quadrupeds. Without a doubt, Daisy rules the house. She's is endlessly entertaining, and has more personality then any dog I've had before. But the most amazing thing about Daisy is that she views herself as Number One in any situation, whether it is at home or at the dog park surrounded by dogs five times her size. She acts like the reincarnation of Cleopatra no matter what she is doing. It's quite a spectacle. Regarding Mexico, I just have to say that I don't think the issue is hygiene or safety or competence. From what I hear some of the Mexican doctors are tops in the world on this lap band, and people say they've never seen a cleaner facility. The issue with going to Mexico is just a matter of aftercare. For some reason, people sometimes run into trouble finding doctors who will care for them in the U.S. if they have had the surgery in Mexico. I doubt that there is a good reason for this, but that is how it is for some people. So, as others have said, Mexico can be a good choice, but make sure you've got the aftercare lined up here before you go. But of course, for myself personally, I like Dr. Kirshenbaum. If you want more information on him there is an active thread right now called "Considering Dr. Kirshenbaum." There is a lot of information there, and people to answer questions. Good luck getting it sorted out. Now, if you'll excuse me, Daisy is ready for her pedicure.