So let me get this straight;

Obama is a socialist. BAD
Obama is a muslim. BAD
Obama is a Nazi. BAD
Bush is a Nazi. Not "acceptable", but at least on the right track.

anyways, that's a pretty massive threadjack that if we want to continue discussing it could certainly be in its own thread. i just find it a fascinating subject

also interesting. and yes i'll make fun of the birthers because there's no basis in fact there. there's basis in fact in these other things.

I think this thread is now so all-encompassing that it is incapable of being threadjacked. All hail the Omnibus Political Thread!

There's no basis in fact that Bush is a Nazi.

Oh wait though, you've actually contended that there is.

i meant in the family ties bit.

anyways, i'm sincerely sorry for the threadjack, let's put this thread back on topic and if we want to start another thread to discuss the nazi ties of prescott bush, joe kennedy, bayer asprin, etc then let's do that

hence why the Health Care Townhalls also become much moch more of a debate about all of these things and very little is left about debating the actual pros or cons of the bill(s) being politiced.

Too bad you didn't take the bait more, I fall for this tactic all the time. I almost had you defending the existence of Bush's Nazi ties. It was kind of an experiment. Let's make the conversation about whether or not Bush is a Nazi. I like my chances there! It's like when I get tricked into downplaying the conservative fringe.

Now let's get back to the real issues critical to the debate - Sara Palin's facebook postings and what some hick yelled at Arlen Spector. After all, they speak for all those concerned with Obama's healthcare plan.

I thought this was interesting, and a very creative way to get a message across:

I am one who thinks we need an overhaul of our current insurance-based model for healthcare, but my concerns about the debated national policies are summed up nicely in there. I have family in Massachusetts, including some who work inside the healthcare industry, and while Massachusetts is doing a good job of providing emergency care to everyone, the healthcare system as a whole is doing a horrible job, with costs soaring and the state trying to figure out how to pay for it all. I just don't see that as a model we want to be following right now.

Please make your rebuttal argument in video form using Weeblos, k thx.

It's good to see JesseEwiak is back. Errr

In an attempt to get the discussion somewhat back on track - let me ask a question:

What exact problem(s) will a national health care plan resolve and how will it go about doing that? I still am fuzzy on what the actual goal of this plan is.

I believe in God and evolution also. I believe in Intelligent Design.
When you can come to me and explain how life started with science to back up your claims, until then I say you are the fool.

And those are all quotes from Obama. Im not real sure how they were taken out of context. This is what the man said.

briefly

there are millions of people who cannot get insurance.

millions of people that will be on their way out of affordable health insurance if they lose their jobs.

millions of people who cannot get affordable insurance due to a vague interpretation of pre-existing conditions.

millions of people who are dropped when they actually need their insurance.

millions of people who are one sickness in the family away from bankruptcy.

-these are just a few issues, not ALL the issues involved in the problem and certainly not representative of the 'problems' as both sides might see them.

So, it's basically to improve the "net of coverage"? If that's the case, why not identify who the millions are who don't have coverage and setup a targeted plan to provide them tax credits for coverage (or even a "poverty plan" of sorts). If this is the main set of concerns, 4 of the 5 would be addressed by:

1. Extend unemployment insurance from 2-3 months to 6-8 months (item 2).
2. Work with private carriers to provide a government sponsored "safety net" plan for people making less than a certain amount. There are plans like this in many states, but just setup a federal tax subsidy to cover the premiums for those who qualify (puts a dent in many of the other items).
3. Provide tax credits for small business owners to purchase into a private plan.

Those 3 items would cost significantly less than this 1000-page house plan and would put a fairly significant dent into the above issues. I really don't see how the house plan would do much more than the above to solve the issues listed, and it's significantly more expensive. Plus, we can work on bringing up our infrastructure while this first phase goes on.

Im not sure of a perfect answer. Right now I think there are multiple bills being talked about and those are only a few issues that popped into my head about the Health Insurance issues and costs we face. Im sure others can chime in on other real issues as well.

However, the problem that youve done a great job of focusing on is not what most people, the most loud and spectacular ones, are debating. Many are blending the health care debate with a bigger umbrella of issues thus not only making it hard to do anything in regards to solving anything it mitigates the points being made by the moderate majority on both sides.

When MBBF comes on here and makes a comment, like he did a few pages ago, insinuating that the politicians are pussies for canceling town halls it is simply continuing his and their spin. When someone like Tarcone blends the issue with his misguided belief that Obama has Muslim tendencies (whatever that means) it continues to muddy the point at hand. When someone blends the issue at hand with Fascism it isnt doing any good for either side as well.

If FOFC is a microcosm it stands to reason that you can extrapolate some conclusions with statistical ranges of error with what we see on TV and in the news (especially headlines).

So, it is what it is. MBBF, instead of compromise wants the democrats to shove it through. Why? It's a gamble that the GOP can gain seats some day on the back of this tactic. Ok. When the Democrats refuse to listen to the other side in trying to come to something that makes the middle of both sides happy it ends in getting the car sideways. All in all, I dont think either of the fringe, including MBBF sincerely care about this particular point at hand but a greater picture of 'winning at all costs' which is a shame.

That being said, until a bill comes out that can be looked out and debated Im not sure what the hell is going on, how to solve the real problems our country faces in health care (your options being something to debate too), and have seen the underbelly of the fringe.

I would like to know if they are going to protect funds going into the healthcare plan (think 'lock box') or is it going to go into the general fund like Social Security. When Congress sees all those funds, how can they not be tempted into using them for other expenditures?

I always thought there should be a "medical bankruptcy". It seems silly to lump in people who bought houses and cars they can't afford with people who got sick. Maybe have some kind of government guarantee to pay the bills if a person goes through the medical bankruptcy process.

My biggest problem is the mass of the bill and how nobody can be sure what's going to happen with such a dramatic overnight change.

If I'm reading this thing right, the Obama plan would only be free or low cost if you're poor. You get no help if you make $43k as an individual. You can still get the government plan, I guess, but you have to pay for it. They claim that this "government plan" will be self sufficient, but if the middle class has to subsidize the poor with its premiums, it's going to be pretty pricey.

And there's a huge tax penalty if you choose not to carry insurance. It's a reasonable fear that less employers will offer private healthcare as a benefit, as it will likely be more expensive with the imposed regulations. So if employers drop health care, then a middle class individual has to pay the whole thing out of pocket. And it will be the sub-standard government plan, probably of less quality then they have currently.

Or I guess to sum up the concern more generally, everybody seems to be focussed on the goals. They're fine goals, nobody's against the goals. There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about the practical risks. What if there's a huge recesssion and everyone loses their jobs, or what if the private health industry can't handle the competition? Can the government plan infrastructure handle wildly varying coverage needs and unpredictable demand? What would we do about a doctor/clinic shortage? I don't think care will be rationed for financial reasons, as this administration will just keep printing money. But what if there's not enough infrastructure for the demand? If you're GUARANTEEING everyone care, isn't rationing a necessary potential evil?

This country already spends, by far, more money per capita on health care than any country in the world, including those with universal care. We already have a national health care plan that everyone seems to agree is a disaster, but have gleeful confidence in a rushed (though not as rushed as Obama wanted it to be originally) plan that's bigger, more ambitious, more risky, and more unpredictable.

there's better evidence for life starting with science than intelligent design. See Miller-Urey, or any of the other abiogenesis experiments.

This is absolutely happening now, under the current system, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. As previously discussed, doctors have to have to be good businesspeople (as well as doctors) to see the fruit from their "labor of love." Costs of overhead (paying salaries and benefits for staff and malpractice insurance), business placement/location, and insurance/medicare/medicaid reductions make it difficult to survive or thrive for a lot of specialists.

I think it is just as easy to make the argument that doctors in big practices, big clinics, or research/university hospitals (most of whom are salaried and have a much less stressful lifestyle, as they aren't worried about their business) are under less stress to get patients in and out in a hurry, to see large numbers of patients in order to "cover costs," and/or wonder which of their patients will be able to pay.

As I mentioned earlier, my wife just completed her training a year ago and had the choice between a private clinic that required her to see 20-30 patients a day (do the math on that over 8 or 9 hours a day and consider the last time you had a conversation with a child or elderly person about their health) or working at a major university/research hospital that pays significantly less, but offers a much better lifestyle and gives her time enough time to work with patients (as opposed to letting a nurse or social worker do the work, with her ducking her head in so that the insurance pays and being a glorified Rx writer).

Yes, but some might argue that if you (figuratively) had lived even more within your means(if one can define "within your means") you may have been able to afford the medical bills. I think you're probably referring to poor people that get hammered with medical bills, so I'd agree but figured it worth noting the counter to it as an "across the board" type of thing.


A few things on this general thought and primarily the bolded:

1) I think it is reasonable to expect a good many employers to drop private in favor of public (and I think the Obama Admin is counting on it in order to guarantee coverage...unless there is a mandate in the bill that doctors/hospitals MUST accept the public plan...which would just further divert from private to public more quickly)

2) If you take my (1) as reasonable logic, then we are going to be employing (maybe tens of?) thousands of government employees to handle this workload. All with government pensions (correct me if wrong please) & no incentive to reduce costs for their "company". So...in an ideal scenario (throwing away my speculation on incentive even)...they divert money from the private sector to the government sector and they either reduce the cost/person by forcing doctors to take less money per unit (leading to cramming more patients in...i.e. longer waits) or they pay the same and take more taxes.

3) Economies of scale can make sense here but not if the government is acting like "another insurance company". So the real goal (if one believes the best of intentions) would have to be to squeeze out private business so as to realize those economies of scale. Sounds great, eh? Well...like many industries...having a monopoly (even government monopolies) never end well. They become bloated, protectionist, and continue the transfer of power to people "we" cannot vote out (i.e. federal government) all the while soaking up benefits the rest of us are not going to be afforded.

4) IMO, if socialized medicine is worth doing & can be done...it should be done on a single-payer system at the state level. The power, authority, and voting constituency can keep the people running it in check that way(i.e. I don't have to live with Massachussetts incompetence just because they can't make it work).

I believe in God and evolution also. I also believe in tolerance towards others who do not share my beliefs to the letter.

I'm not sure that anyone has any beef with the quotes you posted. But, when you come to conclusions like this:


Blanket statements and conclusions like these do nothing to promote Christianity, make you sound intolerant of others who have not shared in your cultural and/or religious experiences, and simply make others less tolerant of Christians who do are not as judgemental as you.

Or you could just continue pouting.

I actually think that's a good long term goal. For some reason the single-payer system scares me less than a complicated attempt to attempt to co-exist with the private sector.

Ideally, the way to see that happen would be 50 states trying out something, and then we learn from each other's mistakes, and eventually, have a fed plan that has some track record of success at the state level. But when all we have is failure at the state level right now, it's hard to be too confident.

The only problem of course, is that a single-payer system would mark the end of medical and technological developments in this country. As long as you have a richer, capitalist company and their corporations to leach off of (like everyone else in the world has with the U.S.), it's a great system. But who can we leech off of?

I do believe this is happening now as well, but do you think (know?) to what degree? Are we talking about 2-4 doctor offices consolidating to 10-15? Or are we talking about 2-3 being gobbled up into 50-100 doctor conglomerates?

I can see the former being inevitable due to liability, insurance, complexity of compliances, etc. But the latter is what I see as not necessarily unavoidable (though I'm sure there is an arguement for it as a benefit).

The fool thing was your anti-muslim BS and the quotes are pieced together and editorialized. I don't know how life started, the only scientific theory that has been tested is abiogenesis. I think life happened because of a higher power, but I also believe in the possibility it didn't. What I said was that I don't believe in one being presented as science in schools. Intelligent design is not science, even though I don't think anything in science rules it out.

Yeah, I had that thought as well though I do not have enough of a handle of the dynamics involved with R&D to know how this would affect it.

Ideally, it would be nice to keep R&D (mostly) private & for-profit in order to attract the best & brightest as to me, that is the potential fallout of such plans which are diffcult to project the repurcussions of financially.

Yeah, too bad there haven't been any technological advances in military or space programs, since the government is the single payer there as well.

I wish more people (on both sides) would be open to the idea that science and religion do not have to oppose one another. It is cringeworthy to see someone who is certain that God doesn't exist debate with someone who is certain that He does.

Not disagreeing but asking - why aren't there cutting edge medical technologies and drugs coming from European states (or are they)? Why is it all American companies?

Cuba has kick-ass healthcare. But they're definitely not developing anything.

The private sector is going to be a HUGE part of space travel in the next few decades. Letting them in is to going to greatly accelerate progress.

You can't really compare military, because you can't have anything but a single-payer system there. But obviously the U.S. government relies heavily on private companies for technology.

I can't speak for NASA but since when are General Dynamics, Lockhead Martin, Boeing, etc not private companies??? One could argue they live off the tit of the government's massive military budget but they are definitely not the government.

There are some, and the number is growing. Up until about 10 years ago, each country ran their own independent R&D groups. Now they are starting to work together under the E.U. umbrella, and getting more funds. They are staying at home, instead of coming to the U.S, because they are finally getting the needed resources without having to come to the US.

You actually make an unintended argument against Obama's plan in your military analogy. What if the government decided it needed to take over the defensive industry due to out of control costs and spending? Would a bureaucrat (with a government wage and government yearly pay increases) be able to design the next fighter jet or missile with the same vigor and focus as a group of private engineers (that probably get million dollar bonuses if the government chooses their fighter)?

The only thing that's pretty clear is you are truly the first person I've seen on this forum that I thought was batshit fucking insane. I actually thought you were just trolling at first.

I also think it's fair to say you make up the intolerant group of Christians that give the rest a bad name and lead those that don't believe in god or aren't christian to assume the rest are the same.

Who gives a flying fuck what religion our president represents anyway? If I were to make a list of important qualities for a president which god (if any) he prays to would be damn close to the bottom the list and would definitely rank below which sports teams he cheers for or what his favorite shows are. Should everyone share that view? No. But if you have a problem with a person's ability to lead simply based on his religious beliefs then I do question the foundation of your belief system.




Keep on respecting other people's beliefs. In the meantime I suggest not being an ignorant hypocrite in the meantime.



I apologize to everyone that was just trying to let this stuff slide by and die down. This is my first and last post that has anything to do with religion on this forum. I just can't believe there's people like this that can't see there's some serious conflicts with their beliefs and the way they act. Carry on.

Exactly, they are not the government. It is the same scenario under a single payer system. Doctors and hospitals that are independent businesses do the work, and are paid from the goverment budget. That's why I don't see why medical R&D would suddenly stop with a single payer system when in space and military it flourishes.

Except that the plans being discussed now are not about taking over the health care industry. None of the proposed plans are nationalizing doctors and hospitals, and making them direct federal government employees and institutions. That is how it works in the UK with the NIH, but not what is being considered here.

You can certainly have innovation but it doesnt typically come very efficiently (or cost-effectively). In relation to public health care, the concern is more that you don't get as much innovation due to the costs involved (or you go broke trying to maintain).

This is not true on any level.

Could you elaborate? Take say, the last significant 50 drugs that were developed in world. How many were developed by American companies? My perception could be all wrong, maybe all 50 were developed by the government of Spain. That's why I'm asking the questions.

Four of the top 10 most profitable pharmaceutical companies are American. Pfizer is the only one in the top four, though.


Edit:

Here is a wiki link with a couple easy-to-read charts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmac...rms_of_revenue

Here are the top five by sales:


Probably need a lot more info to glean much from that, but a lot of those companies have government sponsered healthcare in the nation they are headquartered in, obviously do a lot of development, and several have development labs in the U.S. (I know Glaxo has a big outfit in the Raleigh-Durham area).

One example is the EORTC (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer). They have trialed and made available quite a few of the more successful cancer treatments to have emerged over the past few years.

Well, most stem cell trials for heart and other diseases are performed in Europe, Japan, and South Korea (with some others in Southeast Asia). Also, just because Pfizer develops the drug doesn't mean all research was done there. A significant amount of research is done in Europe and Asia, with tons of new bipolymers stuff. I'm tired and the wife is feeding the baby (and scowling at my freedom) but that's just off the top of my head. Oh, and I'm not talking about embryonic stem cells either.

Interesting - but I wonder how a Swedish/Swiss/British pharm company makes that kind of money. Selling to Americans, right? They sell a pill to Sweden for $4 and America for $500. Do they need to be subsidized by us to develop?

(This sentence isn't intended to be sarcastic, even though it kind of gives off that tone).

Oh yeah, Novartis is a huge drug maker as is AstraZeneca. In fact, I think most top drug companies are foreign.

It does account for a lot, but many of the trials were done in Europe. The 4H trial was huge (Scotland). But you are correct I believe as the unhealthy US population requires a lot of drugs. And I think with the way the prices are regulated, they stand to make a lot more over here.

You would probably be more familiar with patent law than me, but I am pretty sure the U.S. requires a longer period of time before generic companies (which are a huge industry, as well) can re-produce and market them. Not sure how it works in other industialized nations.

BTW, here are the top 100 bestselling drugs in 2008: List of bestselling drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The location of the drug company is immaterial. As many have stated, the lack of price control in the US combined with the current private insurance system allows for much more of a profit in the US than anywhere else.

Now, some may say that's a bad thing (and many have). But, there's no way to avoid the fact that US price controls/rationing would throw a serious monkey wrench into R&D money for pharm companies (US and abroad).

I present a fact on what the radical muslim religion is all about. And dont think the radical muslim element wont influence the world. Iran is based on this. A radical muslim religion.
So, yes, a President in a Judeo-Christian country that leans towards that religion is very bothersome.
You are the crazy one for not realizing the importance that religion plays in the world. If you have any questions, please look towards the Middle east.

I am very tolerant of people. But not a President that says he wants to make a "Kingdom on Earth". That is "Anti-Christ" talk. Now Im sure you will call me another name in your tolerant way that you do so well. But this is a very ominous quote.

And Im not really sure how i am being aan "ignorant hypocrite"?
I see a world that is based on religion. I see a President that leans towards a sworn enemies religion. I really dont see how this is ignorant or hypocritical.

Anti-muslim? Yes i dont believe in a moon God. There is only one God. I pray every night for muslims throughout the world to find Jesus Christ. This would be a great thing.

As for Intelligent design. Why isnt it science? because scientists say it isnt?
Scientists have tried to create life the exact same way they theorize that it started. And guess what? It fails every time. So if a hypothesis continues to fail, is this good science? Should it be taught in schools?

We setup a system that is built to maximize revenues for pharmaceutical comapnies and not what's best for our country. Other countries do a better job of serving their citizens. We are subsidizing them out of choice and not necessity.

They already found Jesus Christ, he's in the Koran. And they pray to the same god you do.

Judaism --> Christianity --> Islam


It's not science because there is no scientific evidence to back it up.


And then one day maybe they get it right. Or maybe they discover it wasn't abiogenesis, but something else. Or maybe we never know. That's how it works.

Besides, I don't really think abiogenesis is being taught in schools. It might get mentioned as a theory, I don't know. I was certainly never taught anything about it at all when I went to school.

I don't have any idea what this means. Is this code or something? "Kingdom on Earth" means that he's muslim or muslim-leaning or "Anti-Christ?" I don't get it.



Yes. For the record, yes, absolutely, you are being ignorant. Hypocrite? Not sure. But ignorant? Yes. That is a fact.

Your religions are extremely similar. The Qur'an is filled with the old and new testaments. Outside of the actual messenger and a few other details, the religious are not much different from one another. I say this as someone who has studied and read both.

Because there is zero scientific evidence to support it. Just as we don't teach kids that Horus and Set control the cycle of day and night.
There are a lot of things that we'll never be able to reproduce on our own. It doesn't mean it didn't happen or that there isn't scientific evidence that it did happen. Scientists base their theories on the evidence in front of them. There is evidence for how life began and how it evolved from the start. None of that evidence points to a supernatural entity making it happen. If there is evidence of it, it would be used by scientists.

What you're saying is that if some theory can't be proven, the alternative must be right. That's not science.

WTF is this "moon God" thing you're spouting?? :confused:

Intelligent Design isn't science because it's not testable. And they have created complex amino acids in Miller-Urey "primordial soup" type experiments, which are the building blocks of life. Life occurring probably had an amazingly small chance of actually happening - you might have to run the experiment billions of billions of times in order to get life to happen.

Wrong. muslims do not pray to the same God. They pray to Allah. Allah is not my God. They believe Jesus Christ was a prophet, not God.
Islam believes those that kill or are killed by unbelievers will go to the garden of paradise.
Those who submit their lives to Christ will go to Heaven.

Jesus is Love. Allah is not.

I think you are mistaken about the true God. I do not pray to God that allows murder or that women are required to be subservient.


There is no science to back abiogenesis either. How can life originate from an inanimate object without Intelligent design?
Thats your science?

The prophecies in the Bible say an Anti-Christ is coming. One of the things that an anti=christ will say is that he can provide a kingdom on Earth.
Im not saying that Obama is the anti-christ. But statements like this are very disturbing.

Please state your facts that I am being ignorant.

i'm really confused - what is this "moon god" shit??

i know a decent amount about islam and there's nothing about Allah being a "mood god" that I know of.

ALLAH, the Moon God

Here you go.

?

Care to start another thread on this? I find this line of thought fascinating. Not being completely sarcastic either, it obviously is complete nonsense, but I really am intrigued on what this means. But I don't really want this Obama thread to get de-railed off politics. (I know it gets derailed all the time but you know) What are you inferring here?

Ummm...Jesus wasn't God in Christianity either. :lol:

Do you realize how much blood is on the hands of Christianity throughout history?

Life can originate from an inanimate object through chemistry. Through an incredibly long process of chemical reactions, building amino acids, amino acids building (now here's where my chemistry gets fuzzy...dna first, or single-cell organisms first?), etc. Over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

:lol:

can you provide something that isn't from a group with an agenda?

because what i see on wikipedia is this:

In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.^[12]

Allah at Rohtas Fort Pakistan


Allah was not considered the sole divinity; however, Allah was considered the creator of the world and the giver of rain. The notion of the term may have been vague in the Meccan religion.


And FYI - I can find plenty of links between Paganism and Christianity too, so any belief that your chosen religion is more "pure" is bullshit. All religions throughout history have borrowed liberally from others...it's one way of attracting easy converts.

Allah is simply the translated word for God, as is Yaweh. In pre-Islamic times, 'allah' was used to describe pagan idols, much like the term 'god' was used for the Greek and Roman entities. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all children of Abraham.

Sure.
I will start it in a minute.

Wrong. Jesus is God and Man. He was able to raise the dead and heel the sick.
I do know how much blood is on the hands of Christians. And your point is?

Really? Science has tried to recreate this. In fact scientists say the final thing that has to happen is electricity has to hit it. They think a bolt of lightning might have hit the primordial soup and then all of what you are talking about happened. Really? thats science?

Allah is just a word used for God, just as Yahweh is used by Christians. They believe that God is the creator. They have different views of what that God is, but also a lot of similarities. Allah is just a word as Arab Christians used the word to describe their Christian God.
But you do. Christianity has been responsible for the killings of millions over the course of history. Charlemagne, the Crusades, I could go on and on. Your Bible has many mentions of women being sold into slavery and being the property of men. Perhaps that is not how people view it today, but that is what your holy book says. Not to mention the instances of rape and infanticide that you hold in your hands on Sundays.

There is though. Many books and research on it.

I really dont have a response to this, other then Allah is a pagan God. Not the real God.

Uh... It's the same God, dude.



You are funny:

Condoning Murder (there are actually about 100 of these, I just copied the first few):

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)


Women must be subservient:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Alright, so let's return this thread to it's regular topics hmm?

_________________________________________________________________

But this is more fun.

Dolly

BTW anyone have difficulty seeing how the Health Care debate is getting derailed into this fringe element of Gun toters, threats of violence, militia stuff?

The "God" and the "Jesus" that Christians worship today are actually amalgams formed out of ancient pagan gods. The idea of a "virgin birth", "burial in a rock tomb", "resurrection after 3 days" and "eating of body and drinking of blood" had nothing to do with Jesus. All of the rituals in Christianity are completely man-made. Christianity is a snow ball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions. As the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals in order to be more palatable to converts. You can find accounts like these in popular literature:

"The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions."

"Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans."

True, but Allah is a different Gid worshiped by Muslims then the God I worship as a Christian.

True again. And sin is a very bad thing. The 10 c=Commandments are what we strive to live by. You bet their was death in the Bible. God made covenants with people. And he has chosen ones. Just like today. The Jewish are Gods chosen ones. But I follow Jesus Christs law, which is Love.
Sin is the quickest way to lose your life. Choosing a sinful life is against God.

As for Intelligent desing, there are many books and research on it.

There are also many books and research on Zombies.

Really? The Bible says nothing of this. The Bible is Gods direct words to us. therefore your paganism is wrong. The Bible is the truth.

Oh man. If you're going to play the "Bible is literally the word of God" card then you might as well go away because you're impossible to have an intellectual conversation with.

Big surprise there. Actually it was in a verse from a long lost book from the first draft of the bible.

"Hey. You know all of these stories we put in this book that are supposed to be true? Well, we borrowed most of them from earlier religions. And the others we just made up. Except the part where the apostles drank Jesus's blood and ate his flesh. That TOTALLY happened."
- Doug, 5:16

actually that was totally a Cult of Mithras thing IIRC...

I wonder why the Town Hall sessions turn into this twisted discussion on right wing religious crap and how it is blended with some of this other political GOP rhetoric, like less govt intervention, 'give me my country back', socialism, stuff. See the moderate group, for the most part will sit there and ask great questions like Arles did, posing even suggestions, but people like this, fringe element, will stand up, shout over their allies and opponents, and basically become the 'momentum' while the middle get stuck with watching the fight while compromise becomes lost int his morass of shit that never shouldve been talked about in the first place at a "health Care" town hall debate.

If nothing else at least MBBF will have no legs to stand on, even in this thread when he says that this isnt representative. Percentage wise alone its simply inarguable as to what would garner that 'momentum', coverage, and therefore headlines and in turn sheep.

I really don't want to read this stuff because its frustrating to see. At the same time I feel it's kind of cool that FOFC has one of their own "them" type of people. Thus, I keep coming back to this thread and reading it. I can't stop. I will refrain from posting about religion, though, as promised. I also feel bad if I'm the one that got this started again.

This is definitely a concern of mine. And to say "an end of medical and technological development" is really overstating it. But it will slow. However, I think we've reached or have passed a tipping point with regards to medical technology- it's far too expensive for the greater good. How useful is this medical technology if few can afford it because it's too costly?

SI

I'd be quite curious to see something like this. It sounds like a short term disaster but with some long term gain. That is, provided people have the patience to see something like this through- which I don't see. And that "at the state level" isn't just code word for "reduce the funding and scale and try to kill it" as arguments about states' rights often are these days.

SI

I've wondered this a few times out loud but I don't know if I've posted it to the forums- it's part of my magical omnibus economy theory thread that I've wanted to write but never have had the time.

Basically, if you're the US Government looking for long term sovereignty, what is your best bet for companies? Would you rather have what we have now with huge multi-national corporations and all of their advantages (economies of scale) but also huge disadvantages (too much meddling in government for their own interests to stifle genuine competition and introduce entry barriers)? Or would it be better to have a more competitive marketplace as that likely suits the needs of your consumers better?

In short, if you're the government- is it in your best interest to have a few big fat actors to compete across the global stage or a bunch of leaner, smaller ones?

SI

Interesting discussion on Muslim vs Christianity, but it's one I have very little to add to (or wish to be a part of). I'll got back to reading the 1000-page house bill and you guys have at it ;)

This goes to what I was talking about above. In most every business, you have an economy of scale advantage- not just a bit of inefficiency gain, but, more importantly, a geometric increase of your influence.

SI

I think there are ways to avoid that. First off, open up the borders to the trade of pharmaceutical drugs. Let me buy my drugs from Canada if I want. Stop allowing these companies to price control by each country.

What this does is force the hand of other countries. Pfizer isn't going to sell a drug for $5 to France that it sells for $100 here because we'll just buy it from France. It will force them to tell France that they can no longer sell it at that price. Force them to pay more while lowering our costs.

I'd note that I wouldn't have a problem with banning the drug sales from some smaller countries that need cheaper drugs. I don't want to see a third world country paying the same rates we do. But I do want to see the people in France and Canada paying the same rates we do.

The other thing that I think is missing from this is that a lot of advancement doesn't come through pure R&D from these companies, but from government grants. There isn't big money to be made from many cancer treatments. The money is in arthritis, acid reflux, depression, and penis pills. These companies would make them all day if they could because that is where they can reach the most people.

So no matter what happens, research for drugs that help cancer and other major illnesses will still come from government and other private organizations.

Also, this goes back to other disadvantages Europe had 50 years ago with R&D. They had none as we were the only global power with even half of our infrastructure intact after WW2. Not only was ours going well, it was accelerating while the rest of the "civilized" world was trying to put their countries back together. People always fail to forget what a huge advantage we had 2 generations ago and it is already much to our detriment as we are behaving like some modern day manifest destiny that we should be the world's superpower as it has always been and always should be.

SI

You know, this actual health care debate stuff is fun- that's like, what, 5 posts in a row?

SI

Obama is a muslim. there.

Seriously, dude, do you think it validates your argument to take a shot at someone everytime you state your opinion? This has been several posts in a row you have either taken a shot at Republicans, conservatives, or MBBF. Granted, MBBF is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you sit beside him on the short bus. How about you discuss the actual topic of healthcare reform and leave the pot shots out?

It's funny to see the discussion suddenly get constructive without the usual players around, and then all of the sudden Flasch is back in the middle of it randomly attacking MBBF, trying to pick an Obama/Muslim fight, and highlighting the conservative fringe. The supporters' argument is much more persuasive when it doesn't feel the need to resort to such things.

I'm still confused as to why we believe all innovation comes from the states. Maybe I missed it in the stupidity of the religious troll, but there is much more innovation coming from Asia and Europe these days. I'm not certain it's necessarily tied to healthcare spending though, as those areas have spent a lot of money on research programs while the ones here had budget cuts.

Actually, it's pretty evident Flasch was just making a joke in response to SI's post that there were actually 5 posts in a row discussing the health care debate.

Maybe that last post, but I don't know about the previous 300.

It just seems like its easier to pick fights on the fringes that you can win than actually support this plan.

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

This is the kind of speaker the Republican party so badly lacks.

evidentally not evident enough.

I was also referencing MBBF's ignoring (not ignorance) when he makes a statement, is called out upon it, THEN ignores the debate, as he did. When MBBF begins a topic (whether it be the topic du jour or not), hears the counter, and then, instead of throwing the victim/strawman/faux shock card down, talks about it, we will truly have discussion. As it is I do feel the need to continue to deride him of this facet of his game so that it doesnt hang out there and over time morph itself into a 'point' or 'angle' or 'truth'.

Duckman, I do appreciate the commentary and if you'd read the crux of my statement a few points above in response to Arles great discussion, I dont have the right answers, nor do I pretend to but I do know we have problems with healthcare and the debate on that particular topic is being bastardized by some tangential topics that truly have little to do with solving healthcare. I dont know whether or not, which of the different bills being debated about and what portion of them I support or dont. I worry about costs too and also worry about costs if nothing is done. That being said, the topic at hand is the one I'd like to learn about and not let it get derailed by the fringes talking about "death panels", "socialism", etc. When MBBF or others in the real world drop their little nuggets, "Ie., I was thinking about this today blah blah blah..." and they get grabbed ahold of by the Tarcone's and the Al Sharpton's it does no one any favors. I am still trying to learn all of the facets of whatever bill is finally talked about and its pros and cons.

FWIW I dont expect MBBF to respond to my counters of his statements since that is his game but I do still feel it important that someone, be it myself or someone else, continue to call out facets of his points when they are countered and he moves on to the next 'point', to rinse and repeat and never go back to the first topic he made commentary about. If he gets away with leaving the statement hanging out there, much like talking heads do on radio and TV, and never have to revisit the issue then the statement becomes 'truth'. View me the same as MBBF and that's cool, I feel the need to make sure that his spin is seen as spun.

On that note, and since I feel Ive at least explained my motivation, I will attempt to leave 'pot shots' out. That being said I have no fruitless Idea that he will begin to truly re-address the times when he spins his magic on the topic dujour, and then ignores the debate that ensues to move on to his next drop shot.

All of the above is my opinion :)

It's not that all innovation occurs in the US, it's that the US population funds most of the innovation (partly because of our current health care system). As I said earlier, this isn't necessarily a good thing.

However, if the same UK/Europe/Canada system is setup in the States, the profit margins will go down for a lot of these pharm companies. Past activity shows when this occurs than money spent in R&D will decrease to keep the profit margin/share price higher. Now, maybe the US should stop being the financier of drug companies. But the reality is that once that happens, a lot of dollars currently going into R&D for new drugs will dry up.

Anyone want to take a wager when we get our next domestic attack?

Obama's Safety: Hate Groups Thrive Amidst Town Hall Health Care Debates - ABC News