Tired_Old_Man

Muslim Fundamental extremists are people who don't read their holy book enough to know that their God doesn't want them fighting in his name. Christian Fundamental extremists are people who don't read their holy book enough to know that their God, who is the same God that the Muslims worship, doesn't want them fighting in his name either.

Has anyone heard on the news that the capital city of Iraq, Baghdad is in lock-down because they fear a coup? The Iraqi military is too weak to do their own fighting and protect their own country, but they are strong enough to take power away from the elected government. Also has anyone heard that the new bill passed this week by both houses of congress which allows for BuSh to decide what means of torture, I mean interrogation, is to be used when questioning terrorists also allows for questioning of left-wing groups suspected of plotting against the government? I heard that today, though it could not be substantiated. Either way, it is a disgrace to know that suspected terrorist will now be terrorists in the eyes of the men applying the aggressive interrogation techniques. Didn't the same thing happen in Salem?

Ask anyone but a "true believer" if "in the year 2000 would you have thought that in 2006 the US government would be kidnapping people and sending them to prisons in places like Syria, would be arresting people and holding them without filing charges, without allowing them to see a lawyer or to notify their family, would be tapping phones with no warrants and interception e-mail without court order, and that the big issue of the day would be 'how much torture is too much' and 'who decides'?” They would have said "You are crazy". The reply, "911 made things different," is phony. Just about every major country in the world has had attacks which make the attacks of 911 pale in comparison. The US government is full of power hungry criminals who are eager to help the cry-baby American public give away everything that has been fought for in the history of this nation in exchange for a little bit of security. The reasons that we see all these bumper stickers like (Red, White and Blue) "These colors don't run" is because we are cowards trying to convince ourselves how brave we are. Bill Maher who used to host "Politically Correct" on ABC lost his show when a few days after 911, one of his guests referred to the 911 plane hijackers as cowards. Bill told him that it takes a lot more courage to fly a plane into a building that to sit on a ship and push a button that launches a cruise missile from 200 miles away from the target. Bill was not gaging morality or right vs wrong. When we can't see the difference between courage and morality, we wind up in the state we are in now. About the only two differences between us and the terrorists now are #1 "they are them" and "we are us" and #2 "we are good" and "they are evil", but both difference will be said from either side because we have lowered ourselves to their level. Oh, there is a third difference, "we do it high tech". This is not BuSh's fault. It is our fault for being such cowards that we looked the other way as long as daddy would protect us. Instead of looking to daddy for protection, we should have been looked into our history books and we would have seen another daddy or father figure, the fuhrer of Germany of 1933. We are approaching the same place, but there is no one to stop us.

The use of running in all those sentences is not the run like in walking fast. If I asked you, "when you go to the exercise track, do you walk or run?" "I run" is not the same as "I am running". Most of the time when I hear the sentences that cause me to feel that there is a problem, they contain words like want or love, which are verbs of state rather than action. Instead of "I love it", "I love you" or "I want a car", they say "I am loving it", "I am loving you" or "I am wanting a car". They are not correct in my book, even though I do not know what rule they violate. I think the difference is that "I want a car" means "I (do) want a car (now)" which is a sentence that shows actual desire at a given time rather than "I am wanting a car" which show a state of being for an indefinite time.

Tamiko, I don't think you know what the word friend really means and I don't think you choice of people to share personal information is very astute. Moving will solve nothing because the problem is within you. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!! If you can't keep your own secrets, do not expect others to keep them secret.

Hearing your story did help me in many ways. It gives me hope in that I want to think that the world still has people with empathy and caring. It gives me reason to stop being down on myself. When I see the love that your husband is sharing with you by postponing his retirement, it gives my heart a feeling of joy. I and my wife are always criticized for our symbiotic relationship. We act often as one, though we are very different in so many ways, but by sharing our lives and our love, we have found a oneness that allows us to be more than the sum of two. I feel that you and your husband are living that same experience. Success very seldom brings much growth within us, but adversity makes us stronger and the weaker we were, the stronger we will become. Thank you for your much appreciated words. Thank you for sharing, for we have nothing more valuable than ourselves to give. And please take care of yourself and I hope you feel better.

I am a Pro-Choice Liberal, but if I had my wishes, there would never have to be another abortion. I don't think that abortion used as retroactive birth control is an efficient method of birth control. Families should be planned. And of course rape and incest are criminal, but abortion only destroys one aspect of the trauma and does not make the victim whole. To me, Pro-Choice is not pro-abortion, but it is realization that no man (or women for that matter) has a right to come between a pregnant women and her doctor, nor the right to tell a women what to do to protect herself and her body.

My point was that instead of "Today I run" why would anyone say "Today I am running"? "Yesterday I ran" becomes "Yesterday I was running". "Tomorrow I will run" becomes "Tomorrow I will be running". They are changing a verb of action into a verb of being, by exchanging the verb "to run" for the verb "to be" for example. "I am loving it" is a state of being while "I love it" is a state of sense.

I just got back from dinner with the group that I belong to and our guest; Dr Davidson Loehr, author of the book "America, Fascism and God". Dr. Loehr is a minister in the Unitarian Universalist Church and holds PHD's in Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Science. The 15 members of my group had a rambling discussion on many of the same things that we have been discussing in this thread. Religion and Politics have regrettably become so inter-linked that freedom may be an inescapable victim as the world is drawn into a more primitive state. If anyone is in Stuart Florida tomorrow, please feel free to come to the Seminar entitled: "The State of the Union: A Spiritual Perspective" It will be hosted by The Unitarian Universalist Church of Stuart, 21 SE Central Parkway Stuart, Florida 34994 The Seminar will start at 9am and is expected to end by 3pm

Her accent comes back. She has been in the USA for 51 of her, never mind. :faint: She starts using words that British people use, but US people don't.

Another Holier than Thou, self-righteous Republican has bit the dust. I have been working for, have personally met and share my E-mail wisdom (:faint:) with Tim Mahoney, who is running for Florida’s District 16 Congressional seat. The incumbent, Mark Foley has one of the highest percentages of voting the way President BuSh would like in the US House of Representatives, but today the 6 term congressman who came into office in 1994 with the "Contract for America" class of Republicans, resigned after it was revealed that he wrote e-mails to a 16 year old male page.

No offense, but we often speak, write and think in the grammar that we continually hear. My wife is British and every time she spends a month in the UK visiting her relatives, she comes back speaking totally differently than when she left.

The improper usage of English causes as many communication problems in this country as the USA trying to be a country that speaks English and Spanish simultaneously. I have heard someone say something and the person that was with me could only agree on one thing; "the exact words that we had just heard". When two people who have spent over 100 years combined living in the USA can not agree over the meaning of a simple 10 word sentence spoken in English, how does anyone expect to hold our elected officials to their word? When no one knows what their word is, even though we know the words that they used, we are in for a rough ride. Yes, it does depend on what the definition of what the word "IS" is. Just like it matters what the definition of the words "sexual relations" is. We, in order to become more inclusive have allowed our dictionaries to become sanctuaries for slang and misused and incomplete words. I am not wasting my time, I am trying to figure something out. And I am not too proud to ask for assistance from knowledgeable people. Proper communication, to me, is of the up most importance.

For the past couple of years, I have witnessed a trend in the way Americans speak English. A few years ago, there was a movement to certify Ebonics as a language. Ebonics, as far as I was concerned was just a bunch of slang words added to the improper conjugation of the verb “TO BE” coupled as the helping verb to a main verb which often ended in “ing”. Now there is a new way of speaking English which is epitomized by the McDonald's commercial that states. “I'm loving it.” “I'm loving it” is of course short for “I am loving it”. Why not “I love it”? Why do we need the helper or auxiliary verb “am”? The difference between “I love it” and “I have been loving it for a long time” is obvious. The first statement is showing the present condition, while the second sentence shows an existing and past condition simultaneously. Proper ********* New Alternative********** Ebonics I run *********** I am running ************** I be run or I be running He runs ******** He is running ************* He be running You run ******** You are running ********** You be running They run ******* They are running ********* They be running Why would anyone use the longer alternative way. I called up a customer service person and after I explained my problem, she asked, “So, what are you wanting me to do about it?” How about the more easily constructed question, “So what do you want me to do about it? It seems that in Ebonics they didn't conjugate the verb "to be" before placing it before the main verb which often ended in “ing”, but this new way of speaking is conjugating the proper helper verb properly, but always using a main verb which always ends in “ing”. One step better, but still incorrect. Can any English teachers out there tell me if I am right or wrong? I am wanting to know. :confused:

If 8 months of counseling hasn't helped, then all I can say is, "I wish you the best." BTW, You didn't mention the gender of your younger child, but either way, they both will survive, although they do not believe that they can at this time. PLEASE, PLEASE assure the children over and over that they had nothing to do with your decision. They will think that they were the cause, no matter what they tell you. So repeat it often, "This has nothing to do with anything that you did."

Welcome to the forum. Slow but steady wins the race. A goal is something nice when it is achieved, but a goal must never be allowed to instill a feeling of failure. If you do not make your goal by Christmas, then allow reaching your goal to be your Valentine's Day reward. :clap2:

Faybie, you look so different. Did you get plastic surgery? :confused:

You are a Loser! Isn't it wanterful to lose all that weight? Keep down the good work.

Patience for Patients That should be the motto of the pre-fill Lap-Band recipient. Just keep exercising and eat balanced, but small meals and your weight-loss goal will soon be in sight.

I can't help you with my (personal or reading) knowledge of SPANX, but I would like to: CONGRATULATE YOU on your terrific weight-loss. YOU GO, GIRL!!!

I have flown about a dozen times since getting my band and before reading this thread, I had never heard of a reason for concern. I did fine.

I would like to see a link to this theory of Canada threatening to violate patent law. Whether that is true, and I doubt it (because, I am able to buy Rx drugs in the USA much cheaper than Canadian drugs through my medical plan and my plan did not threatening to violate patent law, it just negotiated price based on massive buying power), the USA's Medicare Rx plan law could still have allowed (legal) price negotiating. Other departments of the US government are allowed to negotiate Rx prices and they get the drugs cheaper and dispense the drugs at less cost to the US tax-payers. You mentioned above that Canada will only pay for "cost + profit", by which I would assume you to mean that Research & Development (R&D) costs are not allowed to be recouped by the manufacturers. Yes, R&D is a very expensive component of the price of any product, but for some products the amount is even larger. Because of the need to test drugs (and medical equipment), many studies must be conducted at huge expense to the drug companies. That system is costing the US tax-payer billions in Medicare Rx costs and the Medicare Rx recipients still have to pay high prices even with the plan (as compared to my drug plan), plus it is costing the average non-Medicare Rx consumer a lot of money, so why not change the system. Why not let each drug company develop the drug and then let the FDA test it? Yes, it would cost the Tax-payers a lot of money for that program, but I bet it would cost less than the cost of the Medicare Rx plan and it would save everyone a lot of money for prescriptions, whether a senior on the Medicare Rx plan, a Medicaid recipient or a no-plan average Rx consumer. And it would still allow the drug companies their profit since the largest part of the R&D costs would be eliminated.

Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with pro-abortion and anti-abortion, but that is a huge mistake. Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with immoral and moral, and that is also a huge mistake. Jesus ministered to the poor more than any other group. Many of the Pro-life people, especially the most radical ones, believe in protecting the life of every fertilized embryo until it takes its first breath. Then if the mother can not afford to provide food and shelter, she "should take personal responsibility" for her offspring. Many people who are pro-life tell me that they have both sympathy and empathy for new mothers who can not afford to feed and give their babies a home and medical care, yet they vote for politicians who cut Medicaid and food-stamps, and force women (who need to take care of their children who are less than school age) to work for their welfare, but then don't provide any means of day-care. The so-called Christian Right does not act like Jesus in their treatment of the poor, whether the poor are adults or infants. Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with executing people convicted of murder and many of them want other crimes added to the list of capital crimes. Even though in 1999, a group of graduate students doing a class project found 13 of 25 death-row inmates (at one prison) were innocent and then found and tracked down all of the 13 people who had actually committed the murders, many Pro-life people have told me that if those 13 people who had been on death-row would have been executed (wrongfully), it would have been a small price to pay in order to keep the death penalty. Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with sending US military personal to drop bombs, launch missiles and invade other countries, even though that country had never attacked the USA, had no weapons to attack the USA and no means of delivering weapons to the USA (even if they had weapons). They will take for granted that the person in authority must be right and if he says it is ok to kill, then ok it is. Didn't the USA (and most of the civilized world) condemn Germany for that same blind faith in the authority of a man in the 1930's and 40's? Many of the Pro-life people also have problems with allowing medical research that will help people that are living and breathing. The 16 cell embryo which is so small that 1000's could fit on this *, seems to have more value than a man dying from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes or a myriad of other illnesses. Does life begin at conception? Is a sperm cell alive? If not, how does it swim to the unfertilized egg? "Does that life have any meaning?" is a more important question. If anyone thinks that every embryo has a soul, I question that person's judgment of God's intelligence. Would a God who is so powerful and knowing bother putting a soul into every embryo? Does anyone really believe when a fertility clinic harvests 20 eggs and then fertilizes them, that God puts 20 souls into that petri dish. I think God is a whole lot smarter than that. One can be pro-life and demand a strong defense, but one can not logical claim to be pro-life when they let babies starve, let innocent people die by execution, allow people to die of illness when medical science might be able to save them and also accept anything less than 100% proof that we need to fight a war. Pro-life is just a meaningless title when used in this total context. And being Pro-life is not any more moral than Pro-Choice if it means neglecting the poor, neglecting to make sure people accused of crimes are given fair trials, neglecting sick people and allowing needless wars to be fought, especially against countries 1/10 our size.

By the way, this debate is one reason why the Republicans keep winning. The pit the middle-class against the poor against the rich, while the really wealthy go quietly unnoticed. :faint:

I can not speak for anyone else, but I think that the problem is not with middle-class or even rich, what ever that is, but with the wealthy. I am talking about the less than 1% who own more than the other 99% combined. What is funny is that two of the people who epitomize the wealthy are speaking out and acting out against the system. Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet are in favor of the elimination of the inheritance tax. Both are removing the inheritance tax problem from their situations by giving their money away to important causes. But many of the wealthy will leave their money to spoiled children who think it is their right to rule over others. Warren Buffet has said he has an obligation as a rich man to leave his children enough money so that they can do anything, but not enough that they will be able to do nothing. George W BuSh is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator and the great grandson of a rich man. The Rockefeller's and the Kennedy's and many other politicians are our leaders almost as if they were a monarchy. Same goes for William Ford who just stepped down from CEO of Ford. I guess his "Blue-Blood" acquired by being the great grandson of both Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone (founder of Firestone tires) was not enough to make him a leader of men. But, I bet he made many 100's of millions of dollars from the CEO's job although he was completely incompetent. Keeping the inheritance tax does not stop these dynasties, but it may help. Faybie, there is nothing wrong with wanting your kids to do well and I do not think that makes you the enemy, but it is the people who think because they are billionaires that they have a right to show us who's boss. Steve Forbes inherited his money and business from his hard working father, so he thinks he can buy the presidency and he proposes a flat tax to keep even more of the money. People like him are the enemy. Rich is only a word. Most CEO's of the Forbes 500 companies, make so much money, that if I hit the Florida Lottery twice a week for a whole year, I would still make less then a CEO. They make that money even when their companies are losing huge sums of money. Their retirement is more in a year than people like us make in 10 lifetimes of wok. If you could give each of your children one winning lottery ticket each (for separate dates, of course), I am sure you would be satisfied that they have a chance to succeed in life with that as a start. If they blow that money rather than invest it, the problem is them, not the system, but if you have instilled the values you have spoken of into them, one lottery is enough to start a rich life.