Though health care in America has problems (like every other health care system in the world) it is the best or at least one of the best. The only other health care systems that comes close (Singapore's for instance) do so because they make the citizens pay for the majority of the costs (out of pocket), there fore the health choices of each individual is there own responsibility, and as long as they work they will be paying for there own health care and the healthier they are the less they will inevitably have to pay, unlike what Obama wants to do (which doesn't pencil out). the link above has a lot of facts comparing our system to others (mostly Canada's and Europe's) but another thing a person should consider while reading it is that the US currently provides this superior service to more people than all of Europe, Canada and Singapore combined.
"1. of course government services are a right and of course there are requirements"
I thought we were talking about government assistance (welfare), I do think that everyone should have access to fire and police and to my knowledge EVERYONE dose, but not everyone has access to welfare programs ( which I'm am glad for) therefore it isn't a right, If it was a right everyone could get it.
"your argument that rich people can't but drug addicts can implies that anyone who uses government assistance is a drug addict. this particular government service has the eligibility requirement of "need", rich people do not have that need so they do not qualify, its really very simple, i don't understand why you have a problem with that."
I'm not saying that rich people should get government assistance I'm trying to explain why government assistance isn't "a right". I think people who NEED it should get it but if I quit my job or cut back my hours and started buying pot and alcohol or other things with the small amount of money I had and then went to the human services department and filled out and received food stamps, section 8, health care, utility assistance and child care, I would be able to continue my chosen life style of drugs and self indulgence at the expense of not only the tax payers but the families that choose not to do drugs and honestly need some help getting on their feet. There isn't an endless amount of money you know. each state and county only gets so much given to them for these services once its gone people cant get it any more. I think the state should do what it can to make sure its helping the people who need help not the people who want to have someone pay for there drugs. (Please note: i mentioned many times the fact that people who don't do drugs apply for assistance, therefore not all recipients are drug users).
"2. alot of people dont pay taxes? really? i understand that you probably mean income tax, but do you live somewhere where there are no sales taxes? EVERYONE PAYS TAXES! whether you admit it or not."
Actually I live in Oregon where there is no sales tax. Its true there are state taxes on alcohol and cigarettes but I don't think that proves that everyone pays taxes. It is my understanding that people who make under 10k pay no taxes and actually get "refunds" if they have kids, whether they payed taxes or not.
"my point, once again, is that you cannot include innocent people in the limited pool of people who would violate the rules/laws"
So... the system requires that every applicant provide proof that they have a social security number, proof of income, how many children they have, where they work, live, proof of expenses, assets, they ask if you've been convicted of a crime and so on. Its okay to ask and demand proof of all these things from "innocent" people but asking that they prove whether they are doing drugs (aka putting themselves in a position to be automatically denied a job) is stepping over the line?
"review your real issue which appears to me a jealousy issue because you feel that someone is getting something for nothing (which is untrue), and realize while the system has flaws it is necessary. but it is unnecessary to continue to wage the war on the poor, by keeping a boot on their back, breaking their spirits to keep them in check"
I realize the system is helpful and possibly beneficial for the country, I am not waging a war on the poor I am asking for a system with accountability, and suggesting a potential solution to one of the problems plaguing the welfare system.
In my experience most liberals conger up images of a fat white slob in a wife beeter sitting on his couch watching fox with a blank look on his face and drool on his chin, or "stupid white people" compositely and mindlessly buying whatever they see on TV while dumping their pills down the toilet, throwing trash out of their car windows, putting a cross on the wall in every room of their house and having a deep fear of sex and talking to their children, when the words "America" or "American" is uttered. To them that is what it means to be an "American"......but they are not stereotyping, they are to "open minded" for that!
"Is it such a bad thing we ask companies to put less sugar in their drinks? "
There is nothing wrong with asking, but that is not what they are doing, is it?!
There might be a large number of people in America who are over weight but there isn't a proven direct link between large sodas and obesity. Is the government going to make it illegal to eat a large portion of food, or over 40 carbs per meal (which turn into sugar in your body) or to eat without exercising, or to eat to close to bed time (all of which contribute to weight gain.
What if a family went to the movies and wanted a large soda to share (which is cheaper then buying two of a smaller size) the government is actually forcing that family to pay more for their soda then they would have, is that fair?
From all the reading I just did I didn't see where there was actually a definitive ruling on whether drug testing on welfare recipients was in fact unconstitutional. All over the country the debate is being discussed and ruled on but the case in Florida is actually still in court (temporarily halted) unruled on. I don't like that that the testing could end up being more expensive then not doing it but I would argue that it was worth it.
These are quotes from the link you left me that I consider to be reasonable questions to be considered in the debate: "Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said. "
“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” he said, “that our money wasn’t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”
"Government assistance is a right as we as citizens of the U.S. are all blanketed by the rules and regulations set forth by federal, state and local laws. Part of that system is the ability to ask for and receive the assistance that is part of the budget paid for by our government"
I disagree, if government assistance is a right then the rich would be able to receive it to right, or are the rich not US citizens? It true every American can ask for assistance but not everyone is ELIGIBLE to receive it, why is it that the rich cant receive it but drug addicts can? It doesn't make sense to me.
"We do pay fees for services of the police and fire through our taxes, this is our "fee" for use"
This is true, but not everyone (actually alot of people don't) pay taxes. What "fee" do they pay?
"Bottom line, while there will always be scammers who want to work the system, there are too many honest people who need the help, and there is not a single reason to violate their rights, humiliate them, or make it any harder than it already is to get the help they need"
The argument that there will always be scammers so we shouldn't bother trying to stop them is ridicules. I guarantee you the people who honestly need help and are trying to better themselves, their families and their situation will be happy that there are honest attempts to make sure the money (the tax payers are required to pay) go to help the right people, the people that it is ment to help. If you or anyone els want to supply drug addicts with some extra spending money go start a donation for them.
I don't understand why they say they "care" so much about everybody else's health. Even if America is "plagued" with obesity, so what! Most of the health zealots hate "Americans" anyway what do they care if we start dying?. What is the real motivation behind them trying to tell the rest of us how to eat? Is it that their enormous egos have convinced them that they are all knowing enlightened individuals and the rest of "us sheep" need to be treated like children and forced to conform to their idea of what we all should be doing? I think they should go exercise there self righteous tofu eating asses off a cliff.
Thank god the government is there to make my choices easer. I don't think I could say no to large sodas without them. Thank you government for all the laws you pass to protect me from myself, may you continue to grow and make me a better person.
That was sarcasm in case you didn't catch it.
I agree! However, I would expand this a little by saying that a large number of people think that everything thats wrong in their life is the fault of someone els and as long as people don't take responsibility for their own choices and reactions they will live in a world of unending suffering.
No, man created sin.
Everything that used to be a sin is now a disease.
Bill Maher
LOL. Oh...... thats a funny and true quote!
I think the point thing is stupid all together, why is it necessary at all. Most people don't use it the way it is supposed to be used anyway. More often it is used to punish someone for stating something someone els doesn't like instead of chastising someone for writing a bad argument. Ive noticed that arguments are often won or lost because there are more people who like (or don't like) you personally, then whether your argument is a good one or not. I vote for no more point system!
There is no such thing as fair. What one person thinks is fair another thinks is oppression. Fairness is as real/ possible as world peace, a good dictator, free health care and unicorns.
"it has been proven in Florida that it does not work."
What happened in Florida? Why didn't it work?
"You cannot search a person (including their urine, hair, etc.) without having probable cause to do so, and obtaining a warrant"
Its not an illegal search its a requirement for services, there are tuns of jobs that require applicants and employees to take UAs why should it be different. Specially if they are already taking themselves out of the job market by choosing to do drugs in the first place. Testing positive doesn't have to mean that they have to get arrested or denied permanently.
"I am all for helping those that need help, but they are already in a position where they are having to ask for assistance, what is the point of humiliating them further by telling them we think they are drug addicts as well?"
I am all for helping people in need too that is why I don't think a drug test would be humiliating (except to those who couldn't pass). If I felt like I needed help and I was denied assistance, which I have been, and then saw someone else get it and go out and spend the cash (that they now dont have to spend on rent or food) on pot or crank or whatever, which I have seen, I would be pissed (and so I am).
Government assistance is not a right, it should be policed more and you should have to abide by its regulations, if you don't like the rules then go out and figure out how to take care of yourself.
"If the same logic is continued, then how about using it for every government service?"
I'm not entirely against that idea. I think that if the fire depo or police come to your house for something you have done ( put the couch to close to the heater, climbed up in a tree and couldn't get down, letting a party get to loud etc you should have to pay a fee). Its one thing to have authority's come to your house and demand a UA or sample of your DNA and another go to the government (the tax payers) and ask for money because you don't have a job without expecting to submit to a few inquiries as to why it is you don't have said job.
I don't think its that complicated, if a person is asking the government for support they should prove that they actually need it (if they can afford drugs they can afford their own food, shelter etc).
The PEOPLE ( way more then one man) that were and are involved in the 911 attacks are the only ones that should be punished for that act. That being said I supported the Iraq and Afghanistan war, not because I hate or hated all Muslims but because the people running those country's supported, founded and encouraged terrorism and the extremist Muslim faction. People these days are so PC they seem to forget that stereotyping isn't necessarily a bad thing, hating someone is but stereotyping is a tool used in survival. If a women is walking down an ally by herself and a man starts down the same ally behind her is she stereotyping if she is afraid of him and puts her hand on her mace or gun? I would say she was but she would be a naive idiot not to, in my opinion.
Employers care about their employees for the most part, not all of them, they are people by the way. Some people care about others specially those they know , and some people don't. Employers arnt mindless robots programed to yell and hate they are people who have the very difficult responsibility to balance a business (which is very complicated and risky), the people that work for them, taking care of and balancing their family and all the other complexities of human life. I have worked for many people and for the most part they were and are incredibly generous, understanding, supportive, encouraging people. In my experience a better question is whether employees care about their employers.
I know you were being figurative, I was mostly joking around myself, but its also true. If you choose to get out of bed the chances of a fatal accident or encounter is greatly increased. By making the choice to go out into the world each day you are taking a huge risk with your life. You could choke on your breakfast or be hit by a car or shot by a co-worker or have a heart attack, aneurysm, blood clot or allergic reaction to something you didn't know you were allergic to. You could get sick and die from the food you eat or the air you breath. You could get aids from the sex you have or killed by the mate you choose and so on.
I know the chances of me dieing from a smoking related cause is high, say 50% but I have just as much chance of dieing from something els and I would like to go having just enjoyed a satisfying cigarette =) For me, its worth it.
You could die at any moment from any number of things. Getting out of bed is suicide=) Here yee here yee WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE AND WE DONT KNOW WHEN!
Its been proven that multiple personality disorder is a made up disorder, there is no such thing. There for if a person claiming to have multiple personality disorder threatens to kill themselves they are dramatic, attention hording lier's with a big ego and no compassion for the people who actually suffer.
I haven't read any H.G.Wells but I have read Tolken and I liked them. My favorite sci -fi writer is Orson Scott Card. He is awesome, no one can make characters like he can.
Your definition of what makes a country Christian (that the majority of its inhabitants are Christian) is fine and dandy and you have TOLD me that Christianity is in the constitution but just because you TELL me something doesn't make it a fact. Where in the Constitution is Christianity mentioned?
I don't think there is anything wrong with giving, though I think it should be up to individuals to decide where and to whom they give their money to, not the government. I am proud that America is the most generous country in the world and am well aware of that fact. I don't understand why you are so upset I am just asking for you to prove to me where Christianity is mentioned in the Constitution.
You've just said it a bunch of times now prove it, or do you think we will all agree with you because you called us stupid? Brilliant strategy Einstein.
I'm pregnant right now and I absolutely don't smoke or drink when I'm pregnant but when I'm not I do enjoy to smoke, so yes I smoke.
yes, absolutely. That being said, only when their superiors (bosses, managers etc) deem their employees contribution to the business or corporation as worthy of one. The government should not decide who "should or shouldn't" get raises.
Good for you....................................
Utopia is a subjective term. If everyone looked at things in a positive way and accepted that they were in control of their own reality then utopia can exist anywhere and everywhere. However, no matter how much we want to we cant make someone accept or understand someone else's version of utopia so in all actuality utopia is probably impossible anywhere.
Though I have a mutual hatred of government, comparing the small population of humans in its early existence and their form of successful government or lack there of with the now 7 billion people is silly. In the US alone there are 300 million people there has to be an organized set of laws and coordination between regions (or states) for us to live in relative peace.
I hate the argument that voting doesn't matter cause it doesn't change anything. Voting is the easiest and simplest way to get your opinion and point of view out to the government and the country. If that isn't enough for you then go out and protest, run for office, write a book or an article, start a blog, write to office officials, fill out surveys or join a group you support. Not doing anything because "it wont make a difference" is the laziest, self pitying, self fulfilling bull shit argument I can think of. Grow up and vote!
No, I'm a waitress currently on maternity leave..............................
Mitt Romney, mostly because in 2008 more people (African Americans mostly) registered to vote for the first black president. This time around the fantasy of change has been squashed and the luster of his color has dulled in the minds of the masses. The turnout will be dismal and Obama will lose.
These are some basic questions I have about Islamic culture I'm not sure if they are entirely relevant to the culture of only to different regions or country's please inform me of your perspective?
If a woman embraces western culture does her family always feel dishonored or is it only in extremist family's that this is considered an insult?
Is a woman allowed to leave the house without a male escort?
If a woman doesn't want to get married or to have kids is that okay?
How does Islam uphold the law? Is that to braud a question? If a woman claimed she was raped how does the law prove she was?
An argument can almost never change someones mind so if your here for that its probably a waist of time. If your here because you want to know what other people think, to understand different perspectives and opinions, or if you want to practice expressing your own opinion its a great site and the best of its kind.
Yes. You are not saying " I'm attracted to black guys" You are saying you are going to choose a black man to be with for no other reason then the color of his skin. I feel sorry for the man you choose, cause he is doomed to a life of bigotry at the hands of you.
Rush Limbaugh! I prefer brains over looks. =)--------------------------
"comparing the democrats of 1870 to the democrats of today is pointless. back then the democrats were the conservatives. back then Democrats held the south. and it was the south that wanted the anti-miscegenation laws"
I realize that ideology's change with time (somewhat) but current day Democrat evolved from the democrats of the past they didn't change parties. Democrats have been notoriously less religiously Conservative then republicans but they are only self proclaimed "progressives" and "open minded". The argument that current day Democrats are not racist or don't hold the same views as they did in the 1800s is false. Do you remember the Robert Byrd scandal?
"Despite being the only Senator to vote against both African American U.S. Supreme Court nominees (liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas) and filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Byrd has since said joining the Klan was his "greatest mistake." The NAACP gave him a 100% rating on their issues during the 108th Congress.[11] However, in a 2001 incident Byrd repeatedly used the phrase "white niggers" on a national television broadcast"
"West Virginia's Democratic United States Senator Robert C. Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd defended the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[10]
Then there is Harry s.s Truman who dropped the atom bomb, was a racist (towered Japanese) and made concentration camps in America for Japanese citizen.
"and republicans don't want the fairness doctrine past because it would put fox news out of business. (their viewers being demonstrably and consistently more misinformed on contentious issues then other news networks)"
That is your opinion all media is biased and they always have been but even so they are necessary (all of them) if you punish any media group for saying things that someone else (there opinion) thinks is wrong or biased then you have basically signed over all news and media to the government. You may be okay with that since most likely the news would coincide with your beliefs but I am not.
I think an appropriate quote here is:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.
"allowing corporations the continue to lie to the public and call it news is not a freedom loving act. it is akin to some of the first acts dictators throughout history have taken: control the news."
I hate the "corporation" copout argument. In a free society we are able and capable of finding and hearing all information and opinions out there and coming to our own conclusions. If you or anyone els completely buys into any one news outlet then you are an idiot but you have the right to be one.
"It depends on which extremists the ones in Afghanistan were created by the CIA"
The extremest where not created by the CIA. The may have been supported by the CIA but they were not created by them. By that reasoning someone created racists, dictators, sexists and war lords or maybe...... they were actually created through their own choices and with the support (or indifference) of their own society.
"I mean, think about all the dictators in the world, why do the people allow them to be dictators? They don't, they just can't stop them"
They do allow them to take charge, probably because they agree with what they are saying. The civilian population (of any country) vastly out number any government/dictator population in that country. Therefor the only reason the dictators stay in power is because they have the support of the people.
A child can breast feed AND eat solid food and drink other liquids it not one or the other. No one knows what "causes" a person to be perverted, plus "perversion" is subjective. Some people are gay are they perverted? Some consider finding the pregnant form attractive is perverted, or having sex with more then one person at once or sodomy or oral these are all examples of perversion to someone. In my opinion have an obsession with breast is really not that big a deal.
Amen brother! I could not agree more! ---------------------------------------
"2-. Since you don't cover your hair, and you think you do not want men to rape you or that all what you do not want is sex. But at the same time you do not guarantee others to behave and feel modestly, and this is how one would open the door to the immorality to prevail."
I never stop or judge people for being modest, there is nothing wrong with being modest, though you and I may have different views of what modesty is. I believe that if a woman is raped (whether she dressed modestly or not) the rape was not her fault. It was the fault of the man who raped her. If a woman was naked and a man raped her, the raped happened because HE was immoral not her, she was just naked.
I read through the sites you posted and I appreciate the perspectives.However, I dont think you and I will ever truly understand each other. You are (and the Islamic culture) deeply rooted in your religion and though I do believe in God, I follow no religion. Versus from the Koran or the bible or any other text are subject to interpretation, they can mean different things to different people. Therefore I believe that the only way a person (man or women) can be free is to live in a society that does not base its laws on those of any religious text or interpretations of said texts. I could be wrong but I don't think you would agree and there for the world and reality will probably always be very different between us.
I have heard of no example where it has worked for more than a group of ten or twenty people and even in those cases it only lasted for a short time before it to fell apart. I completely agree true communism cannot exist. I encourage any one who is a communist supporter to go out and start your own commune and see for yourself. It seems like the only way to get those people to understand that humans don't work the way they would have to for communism to work is for them to go out and directly rely on, support and work with someone (who is not a family member) for a while.
I am against oppression of ALL women, of all people actually. If every country around the world would insist on being a democratic capitalist country like the U.S. then oppression would be basically non existent.
Show me a society that you would call communist that did or does exist and is superior to a capitalist society?
So you live in Cuba right?
If the government was destroyed or disappeared or in some way was unable to continue to provide you with health care (ie couldn't pay health care workers, couldn't acquire medical supplies or provide a safe/stable building to work from)) could you still get it?
If the Muslim people are not "extremist", how do/did they allow extremist to run their countries? If the Muslim People are no "extremist" why don't/didn't they vocally support the US attempts at ridding them of extremist?
If a person sits back and allows a criminal to break into their home rape and imprison their family then kill their neighbors I would think that person supports that criminal, wouldn't you?
If the U.S. is a Christian country then the world is a Christian world.
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y00/jun00/
Communism: Is a fantasy it does not and cannot exist.
Socialism: The government tells the workers they have two cows, they(the workers) milk them and take care of them and sell the milk and are paid what the government tells them that can have the rest of the money goes to the millionaire "government" office holders and they tell everyone that they now have free health care, education and shelter that is until all the cows die. Then all the workers (who have nothing of their own) watch as the shelter they have collapses and they all start to starve. That is everyone except the government who can buy milk from other country's with all the money they have acquired from the workers.
Capitalism: You have two (which you bought with the money you worked for) you hire someone to milk the cows (if you want to) you pay them a competitive rate so they can go out and buy their own cows and shelter and Superior health care.
What part?
"Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[53][54][55][56]"
"Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[58] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities"
LOL! Funny and well stated debate! I (to no ones surprise, I'm sure) would pick capitalism. I am the best judge of what to do with my cows. Just because I choose to sell them for a bull doesn't mean I wont share it with anyone els, it just means I get to decide who I share it with.
no, the line is when a person stops talking and does something to hurt or attack another. A person can and should be able to say whatever they want, specially because anyone can be offended by anything if they want to be. All speech said in anger or ignorance could be considered hate speech.
This is a tough subject because you cant really know what goes on in the mind of another. From my experiences I have basically come to the conclusion that the meaning, purpose and design of life is to make choices. Before I get into that I would like to state that everyone deals with emotions, hormones and out side influences as well as their own perceptions of reality. If someone lets these things control their reality and chooses not to make any conscious decisions, mearly goes where their hormones and emotions take them (and most people do) then the argument that they were "born that way" or have no choice could be considered on some level. However it is possible to look at each thought and feeling and decide if you really want to go along with them or... not accept them right off the bat and instead consciously decide if you would like to change your views and the person you want to be. So that being said, I would think that being transgender or transsexual (or any other self identifying attribute) is a choice.
Do you mean, they can only do it if they are not trying to be racist?
I see it more like adding a new product to the market place. We don't (generally) tax new product but collect the tax on the money that product makes (ie. Income tax, property tax, business tax, sales tax etc.)I see no need to tax it just for being a controversial product. We could also take into consideration that the people producing the product currently are not paying taxes on it or their profit, make it legal and they would be pretty much forced to.
It would make me happy knowing that the people I know who make thier living growing marijiuana would have to report there earnings and probubly subsequently lose thier food stamps and section 8 housing because it would come to light that they make a killing.
"The duty of man is not to question or deny the
attributes or presence of God,"
A true God (and true prophet/master/son of god/priest or any other spiritual or religious leader) would welcome and encourage us to have questions and would think it is wise to have doubts. Only through real understanding can anyone become a true follower and an enlightened or graced person.
Finding more things to tax is the wrong way to handle the deficit problem (in my opinion).
I think it should be legalized, but only if it isn't regulated and taxed like alcohol and tobacco (not that I think they should be either). We all deserve to be able to grow, use and make a profit off of it without the government claiming they have some right to take it from us. If the government will only legalize it if they can take the profit, say who can grow and distribute it and arrest people when it benefits them, then they can keep there pot and go screw themselves!
There is no definitive proof either way is better. Every body is different, different in metabolism, in iron count, in allergy's etc. all of which goes into how a person acquires, processes and absorbs nutrients. There are a million different diets out there and a million doctors will tell you a million different things about what is bad for you. In general to much of anything is bad for you.
Absolutely not! The vast majority of gun violence in America is caused by people who have guns illegally and punishing people who choose to have them legally is not going to stop the violence. Maybe if we actually punished the criminals for their choices we could discourage bad behavior, just a thought.
sounds barbaric, but no current Christian culture (that I know of) makes and carries out its laws based on scriptures (thank god), unlike Islamic cultures.
I have read and studied both a little and I don't see much fundamental difference between the two The differences I see (and that I think most of you are debating) are really only different because the ideas are filtered through the minds, eyes, and writings of men from different cultures and places. In my opinion debating the specific differences of most religions (specifically religious writings) is silly and will not accomplish anything. Why not believe in both or all. Does god really prefer one mans worship over another's?
I am against it in general, I would never do it and I think that we would be a sad society if it where used as a preferred method of birth control or even a socially encouraged choice. however, I don't think the government should or needs to be involved in the matter, currently.
If there was universal health care the government would by definition be involved in it and every other aspect of our health and I don't like that idea,but thats probably a different debate.
This is my opinion obviously (and I didn't always feel so strongly about it) but I think that child rapist and abusers deserve to die. I heard a story the other day (on the news) about a young stepfather who was arrested for beating and sodomizing his two year old stepson, I heard another story a while ago of a mother who put her infant in a microwave and nuked it till it died. How can anyone think that people like that can or should be allowed to live in society again?
your right, my bad. Its the declaration of independence I was thinking of and they use "creator" and "divine" but not god.
http://www.youtube.com/
This is a fun video!
The volume on this video is really bad on my computer, I sorry but I'm not going to spend 4 hours with my ear next to the speaker.
find me a shorter version that is specific to your point and I will listen to it.
Duh! Are you trying to debate me on something??????????????????????????????
No, the founding fathers perspective was filtered through a Christian view of the world (which was all they knew) and the constitution does have the word God in it but it dose not have the word "Christian" in it.
Explain to me how the constitution is based on the "teachings of the bible?
When you say our country is a Christian country do you mean that the majority of the religious people here practice the Christian realign or do you mean that the country belongs to Christians? Please clarify.
We are all god. Everything is god. You guys are debating religion, which was created by man not by god.
I couldn't give two shits about whether Mary showed her hair or not.
I use the words (I wonder and I think) because I wanted you to understand that my opinion and perspective are my own and not necessarily anyone else's. It is true that I do not have much experience with the Muslim religion (or any religion) so let me phrase things a little differently.
When you (a Muslim woman) sees me ( a non Muslim woman) do you think that God will "reckon" with me because I am not Muslim. Sines I don't cover my hair, do you think I want men to rape me or that all I want is sex? Are you (a Muslim woman) friends with any non Muslim women? Think of this as an opportunity to educate me on the general views of Muslim women.
It seems to me that allot of people (especially people from other country's) think that U.S.= Christian. I dont think this is true. Though this country was founded by men who where predominately Christian their dream was to create a place where people could worship and practice whatever way they desired uninhibited and unoppressed by the restrictions of a controlling religion. Are their people who think this is not true?
When I see a woman wearing a hijab I dont think shes going to kill me or that shes oppressed I try my best to assume the best of everyone but always leave room for the reality that people are dangerous (all of them) and they might hate me. What I do think when I see a women dressed in hijab is "I wonder if she thinks I'm going to hell,that god doesn't love me" or that maybe I'm a slut. I also wonder if Muslim woman can be friends with another woman who is not Muslim.
I also wonder (not when I see a Muslim woman but in general) how can anyone ever truly find and love and give themselves to god if there is no temptation to make them more disciplined. I don't believe god would appreciate the honor of some one who has no choice in the matter more then a person who chooses to honor him dispute being surrounded with temptation and corruption.
Oh my god! The day after tomorrow is fiction! If your going to base your opinion on fiction why dont you read "the state of fear" by Michael Crichton. I dont know how much research the writer of the day after tomorrow did but Michael did tons and put them all in his book but the story is fiction so maybe you will believe it.
right social libertarian.
Right: 7.19, Libertarian: 4.68
Foreign Policy 3.17
Culture: -1.38
There has been studies done that says that a moderate amount of wine or beer can help with stress, your heart, Alzheimer's, dementia, reduces high cholesterol, reduce the risk of developing diabetes and even extending your life. Alcohol is not sexist it is just as good for men as it is for women. Men (in general) can drink more without getting intoxicated but that is due to their larger size. From my own experience I can honestly say that without consumption of alcohol I would be a more closed minded, less independent woman then I am today. Alcohol is good for girls as long as its done in moderation.
OH MY GOD! Is this all supposed to support the argument that Islamic culture is admirable?
Yeah sure as long as they are allowed to be fired for it. I (as an American) am allowed to curse anywhere I want but if i did it at work in front of my customers we would lose customers and I would be fired. Teachers should be held at the same standard.
"If 20 oncologists analysed your head and 19 of them said it was there professional opinion that you had a tumor, would you tell them to go to hell, and beleive the one dissenting opinion who told you are fine and need no treatment for your cancer? Then consider how the consensus is closer to 100:1 instead of 20:1"
I would not tell them to go to hell but I would question their definitiveness. If there was an opinion that my cancer didn't exist I would at least partly pursue that possibility. Wouldn't you, mister I think for myself.
"Beleiving the earth was flat did no one any harm"
Accept allow a particular group to have control over a vast population of people, and suppress their ability to reach their true potential.
"you haven't refuted the arguments I presented"
What arguments? All I see is opinion, anger, attacks and a desperate emotional man hopelessly defending his ideas by calling me an "ignorance spewing" right wing idiot. I show you the same amount of respect as you show me.
"I don't intend on responding to anything you post in future on this site"
Booohoooo! Ill believe it when I see it.
Oh garry...you love debating me =) You say you don't but you do.
"No, you've presented quite enough propaganda for me to deobfuscate. I wasn't even going to bother responding as (beleive or not) I do have better things to do, but I feel it will be a useful excercise to show why what you beleive to truth is actually false. Also, present an argument next time, and if you're going to post links why not posting something that deserves to be taken seriously, like a peer reviewed paper from a climate skeptic, these links are nothing but grade A BULLSHIT, but please allow me to explain why as I'm sure you disagree."
Blahblahblah. Here are lists of SCIENTISTS who disagree with "overwhelming scientific consensus" that man is responsible for global warming.
"The entire worlds scientific community have reached a consensus on this, do you have any vague notion of what that means?"
I seem to remember a time when the"overwhelming" majority of scientists (or what passed for scientist at the time) believed that the world was flat and if you questioned it or tried to prove it false you were ostracized from society of not killed. You can clime right on bored with whatever ideas "the majority" has despite the fact that there are still many unknowns and questions unanswered but I am going to continue to be skeptical especially because the people who unquestioningly agree with this idea are trying to control my life and my opportunity's with these opinions.
"This clearly shows that even you have no idea what it is you are doing. The video was entitled: Global Warming is a Lie! Al Gore is Wrong!, and therefore you took to be a video in favour of your incredible narrow minded view that is supported by virtually no one. The video was created for fanatics like you so that you would stumble onto it and would have to hear the actual science instead the propaganda you love so much."
I posted that link as a parody of the hyped up propaganda that Al Gore creates and makes millions off of, I know its not proof but it is appropriate.
I want to know why is it okay for people like Al Gore to make a profit from his position but its not okay for people like Bridget Gabriell, and G.W.Bush to do the same, I think its because people like you agree with Al gore but not with the others and that is BS.
I don't think that the Muslim religion is bad, that all people who fallow it are psycho or the Karen evil, what I do think is that the dominate culture and the majority of the people who happen to claim Muslim faith are not admirable. I don't think this of only this particular group, I also don't like the Christian culture (to name one other). I know that there are people who fallow the Christian Faith that are amazingly generous, loving respectful people but the majority are judgmental, controlling hateful hypocrites.
Yes when and if we get rid of schools and teach our own children.
how is she facist? This is how I see it: she was raised in that culture, where she was part of the most oppressed groups in the world (being Christian and a woman in an Arab country) she was able to escape, alive, and experienced what it was like to live without the daily fear of death. She unlike you or most people around the world has direct knowledge and experience of the culture of Islam and despite continuing threats on her life she has decided to speak out against it. Whats wrong with that. I think its a much better tactic then flying plains into buildings to get your point across.
I understand the desire to want to help children avoid pain, embarrassment and emotional trauma as well as the desire to punish parents for hurting their children but the truth is aside from sexual and physical abuse the rest is subjective. All people have gone through trauma, embarrassment and pain, for every person those experiences happen differently and help shape us into the individuals that we are. If we were all raised with the same values and in the same environment and all exposed to the same ideas and rules we would be a pretty boring, uncreative group of people (i would think). If the worst thing that ever happened to a person was that they to had to wear extravagant clothes, lots of make up and pretend to be a princess I would call them lucky.
On the subject of children having a say in their own lives: I could understand helping them make decisions about their life in their teenage years but until then they don't have the experience or the ability to make rational safe choices. For example if my son had his way he would eat cookies and run around naked outside (in whatever weather) in a dirty diaper all day. Not all parents make the best choices for their children but they should be allowed to try and to make mistakes even if they don't realize what those were until much later if ever.
I'm curious, do you have children?
You are one of the most wish washy people on this site. Do you think that government should be more involved in raising our children? Below are some quotes from you that suggest you don't think so.
"Should we ban EVERYTHING that is bad or harmful? Burgers? Fast Food? Christianity?"
"No. We shouldn't be trying to legislate behavior. You don't like second-hand smoke? Don't eat/drink at bars and restaurants that allow smoking. It is your choice to expose yourself to said smoke."
"YAY! More government censorship! Let's create a utopian breed of ultra-protected children who live in bubbles and are not allowed to watch, hear, see, smell, or touch anything that hasn't been deemed appropriate by their authoritarian overlords"
"1. Thou shalt do whatever the hell thou wants.
2. See #1."
Why should a person be charged with reckless endangerment for doing something they believe is the safest, healthiest and most natural course of action for their child?
I am not saying small pox parties are right or wrong. My four siblings and I were all exposed to chicken pox this way and have no more lasting damage then we acquired from our parents allowing us to play outside. We might even be wiser for having the experience (and closer for having it together) than f we didn't.
I think you talk a lot of self righteous BS but when it comes down to it you don't care if people have more freedom or not you just want them all to have to do what YOU think is right and best.
YES! I wish I could up vote you a million times. I think you said it all perfectly. I wish you were running for president!
Did you know that some parents think the chicken pox vaccine is bad for their kids, so instead of giving it to them thay have "pox parties" where they place their children in the company of other children who have the virus. Receiving chicken pox in any other method than vaccination can result in a far worse reaction to the virus resulting in weeks of fever and itchy pussy bumps that often result in scaring. This could be considered torture but is widely supported and encouraged. Should the government step in and tell these parents that they are not allowed to control how their child are exposed to this virus?
"It's the same argument as being free to home school your kids. The debate between freedom of the parents, and autocracy of the child."
Please rephrase this statement
Third party? You mean the government right, or maybe you mean a psychiatrist? What will they be analyzing? to who's standards will they be determining there findings on? Who is going to pay them? There can be no exceptions, once you give exceptions to the government it will not stop, its not in its nature.
My son, don't think I could go on living if i lost him. If you mean inanimate objects I would say.....oh i don't know pictures maybe. No, nothing matters that much. The only thing I would be devastated to lose would be my son, sorry I know I'm not suppose to say that but its the only thing.
The green movement is a politically driven agenda that will only end in more government control of our economy and our lives. I will NOT support it. Go ahead and say I'm a crazy conservative that wants to destroy the planet, Ive heard it all before, but mark my words you'll be wishing you had done the same someday.
So.....................................
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
By the way in case you haven't guessed Brigitte Gabriel is my idle.
No, The government doesn't need to be involved in how a parent choose to raise their children even if you (and I) think beauty pageants are stupid. If you make it okay for the government to control one thing, in how people raise their kids, then it will open the door to eventual total control.
Anarchy is more a system of government then a political spectrum or anything els, no true form of anarchy (or any governing system) can exist someone or people will eventually seek power and or rule, its human nature.
"Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level, although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.["
Atheism and religion are the same in the sense that they are both beliefs.
Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.
. "Lumping anarchy in with government systems and the like seems ignorant and juvenile."
I just gave my reasoning behind it, but you should notice that the first person to do this lumping was the debate creator not me. My whole point is that the grouping of these things are wrong and most of them should not be compared to the others.
That is a very simple answer, Ill humor you for now. Please tell me the ideology of the democratic republic party that you like so much and how you can be both a communist and a Democratic republic supporter.
