BJean

You probably didn't hear because there were all manner of issues being constantly screamed by Sarah Palin and various other ignoramuses - like he isn't an American citizen, like he's a Muslim, like Joe the Plumber doesn't think he should pay any taxes, like his minister speaks for Obama, like he's a terrorist within our borders and proof is that he accepted an evening of fund raising at the home of a former dissenter (a dissenter who sounded a lot like you do now), that Michelle Obama hates America, that Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel pin so he's unpatriotic, like his daddy is a Muslim and all of Obama's people are in South Africa, like oh well, you get the idea. If all you can do is say "no" and regurgitate meaningless criticism that are lies and clearly meant to cast doubt on the man and his mission, then no wonder you didn't and don't get it.

Think we've come full circle in this debate. Republicans who argue against the proposed changes are the people who I maintain are the tools of the insurance companies. Yeah, patty and others will argue that they think for themselves and that they just don't agree that the proposed changes are the right ones. But their arguments fall flat because they don't have a viable answer to the insurance company controlling our medical treatment. What they seem to be proposing, when they do actually come up with anything but negative comments, tends to support insurance companies ruling the proverbial roost, but in a somewhat compromised fashion. Big deal. That won't do the trick. Too little, too late. Get out of the way. Time for a change. Call it socialism if you like, but people need relief from the system that has evolved. Major change is what is needed. Unfortunately the proposed plan is not what many of us have hoped would become the kind of major change that Americans would all benefit from. But it is a start and if we must take baby steps, which I think is wrong, it's change I can deal with on the path to real, lasting, major changes.

patty: "You keep confusing 'heath care reform' with 'a government run health care insurance plan'. 2 Different things. Republicans want reform. Reform is a change in the way things are run. (Ins. companies, trial lawyers, medical professionals).We want reform, just not the kind that's being offered. You know, the government insurance option." You keep confusing healthcare reform with just changing the way the insurance companies operate, and it appears that you're not even for much change of that. If you think that socialism is putting the people who deserve affordable healthcare in this country in charge of their own health care, then you're also misinterpreting that.

patty: "You have such kind words to share about me. Thanks. I believe what you really meant was "Those who love God and believe in him and want a moral country are rocking the boat for us who want the freedom to do as we choose and to not have to answer to anybody." "For all we want is what is morally right. The problem lies in sinful human nature and its tendency to rebel against the authority of God." Yes, I admit that I am not always able to find kind words to describe your posts or to debate your unkind words. One reason is because you think that your ideas are morally right. I disagree. I think your ideas generally are exclusionary, discriminative as well as small thinking and single minded. And furthermore, you're quite wrong about what we want for this country. YOUR God does not have the authority to tell people how to make this country function. YOUR interpretation of God is a God that would not treat people as Jesus instructed. And it is YOUR interpretation of GOD's will that people rebel against. Not God. And we do not seek to have a country where no one is required to answer to authority. We are a nation of laws. We need laws and we abide by the law. Some of the people you seem to agree with politically do not wish to abide by the laws of the land, and they justify that felonious attitude by saying it's what GOD wants. I'm going to call a major ahhhhh-bullshit-chooooo here. Pardon me. And you cannot divert attention away from your mean desires for this country by accusing us of not wanting to answer to authority. YOUR group of extremists are the ones who are not wanting to answer to governmental authority and the authority they supposedly answer to is a made up authority that they establish to suit their unholy needs.

patty: "When Obama campaigned on 'change', most thought he meant a change in the way the government does things. We thought he meant he wanted to get rid of government corruption and deception and out of control spending and social programs and 'pork'. We thought he meant to 'change' the way the government tries to take control of us. We thought he meant to change the corruption in Congress. This is not what he meant by 'change'. He meant 'change' us from a free country to a socialistic one. We don't want that kind of change. We want to go back to what our founding Fathers set up and planned for this country. " Looks to me like you interpreted his campaign and the changes he said he thought we need, to be completely different than what he actually said. How could you do that? He was extremely straightforward and open during his campaign. And he is being more open in his presidency than any presidents have been, that I know of. Bush nearly completely closed down commuication between the White House and the public. Having a president who is willing to actually answer to the public and who is willing to listen to the feedback he gets is practically foreign to most of us who became accustomed to not knowing what the heck was going on in the White House until long after the decisions had been made and action taken. You're complaining about a president who wants the government to make sure that we have a country that cares about all its' citizens instead of the few who Bush favored. That's not socialism, but even if it were, it is far closer to what the founding fathers planned for this country than what the imperialistic* Bush gave us. Your interpretation of what our founding fathers wanted is subject to debate. Just as is your interpretation of the Bible's meaning. *"Imperialism: The policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire;...characterized by a struggle for the control of raw materials and world markets, the subjugation and control of territories, the establishment of colonies, etc." Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary Establishment of colonies? Iraq certainly fits that bill.

patty: "They know that there are far more people against the bill being put thru than for it, and even if they are for it themselves, if they want to keep their seat, they better vote against it or we are going to boot them out!" Sorry dear, you don't gots the votes. You control a minority and if the extremist minority in congress don't learn how to shut up, you won't even have them. I'm with Cleo'sMom: "So, I say to the democrats that we helped put in office - vote for healthcare reform or we can just as easily vote you out of office." Works for me!

You mean there are adults who don't know that Nevada is the only state where prostitution is legal in certain counties? Wonder what rock they've been living under.

Cleo'sMom: "All the christian religions base their teachings on the bible. The same bible. The fact that they come to different conclusions about what it says and what it means makes my point. The catholic church has biblical references and interpretations for every one of the things you take exception to. I am not defending them, because I think they got some things wrong, too. But my point is that if a major, world wide religion, with billions of members, that claims to be the one true religion because it is the only one that can be traced directly back to Jesus can get the bible wrong, then anyone can. And this is especially true of those who use the bible to support their hatred and their discriminatory views." You said here what I've tried to say with hundreds of words on other threads, but you said it so much better. Bravo!!! I try not to be irritated by patty's arguments about how perfect her beliefs are, how inarguably correct her interpretation of the Bible is, how her "truth" is really the only truth in the world regarding the Bible and her faith but I cannot sit still to read over and over things that are so patently absurd without commenting. The reason it is so irritating is because people like patty are behind so much of the political strife in this country and they represent, frankly, very scary political rethoric that is all about inciting anger and discord. And after 8 years of a president and congress and an administration that shared her thinking, I am sick to death of it. And they don't seem to understand that their behavior and mean words are the reason why the people threw the bums out. Now they need to back off, take their medicine, and let the people we elected run the country.

kartman I learned a long time ago that if there was a really well constructed, easy to understand essay posted, with no misspellings, no gramatical errors at all, it is probably not one of us who authored it. Now most people at LBT always do the right thing and cite their sources. But there are always a few who would like to take credit for someone else's compositions. It's wrong, even though this isn't something that is to be published or a term paper or a thesis we're writing. This is a public forum and if one is to be given any credibility, one must cite one's sources and when one is quoting even another LBT member, it is unfair and wrong to do it incorrectly. I have had my words quoted and emphasis put on certain sentences that had no emphasis on them originally and things lifted and moved to change the meaning. There are no guarantees here that people will play fair and I take it as a very obvious indication of the kind of person I'm dealing with.

If Obama didn't care about bipartanship, he would have already ram-rodded the congressional plan through. He cares a whole lot more about you and me than any of the presidents in recent history. You don't recognize it because you probably haven't seen it before.

Your suggestions for what will heal health care in America misses the point entirely. What you've said you want only empowers the insurance companies and they will continue to manage our health care for us. That is exactly what we want to get away from and if it means that we must have the government step in at this point, then that's what we want. Things have been run the way you want and it hasn't worked the way you're suggesting it will. It is just like the trickle down mode for corporations to their employees. In theory it sounds reasonable. In fact, it just doesn't wind up working out for the vast numbers of American people. It winds up with us in an inferior position to the companies that run our lives. As for Canadians and the English and Europeans flooding this country for our health care, it doesn't happen. Some absoslutely do come here for certain treatments that are unavailable in their countries. We do have MD Anderson and Johns Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic which are reknown for their successful cancer treatment programs. However, more Americans are crossing the borders both north and south to get medicine and surgery and other medical care. Just look at the number of lap band patients who go to Mexico for their surgery. And people from America cross over to Mexico in huge numbers for surgical procedures, medications, routine healthcare and even dental work. They don't do that because those things are less expensive and more available here. And your proposal will not make those things more affordable. We've tried it, and it doesn't work. We need a change and our best chance for a reasonable solution is through this president and this congress.

Amen kartman! And I don't see it as defending the media. The news used to be something that the networks brought us just to keep us a little informed. We got most of our news from the newspaper. Then the Today show caught on but the nightly news still brought us the news. Then the Today Show went bananas (it went bananas, b-a-na-na-ess it's bananas! as Gwen Stefani sang) and the other networks wanted to get a piece of that action and the news/talk shows were born with stars all glammed up and competitive. Then came the political talk shows and with all this entertainment, the news became the big deal on tee-vee and the power one could wield with that big stick became obvious and people started taking big time advantage of the opportunity to sway the public. Read Rupert Murdoch. The newspapers are now an afterthought and most of them are going out of business. And the public? We're screwed if we want honest news. Because you can read anything and hear anything and see anything that is called the news and it doesn't have to be "the" news. It can just be someone's interpretation of newsy items. TV, Radio, newspapers, internet, it's pretty much a crap shoot whether things are being reported the way they really happened or if the purveyor of the news is feeding us something that ups their ratings or is complete bull or is a tool of manipulation for their own purposes. Takes a lot of digging these days and a lot of paying close attention to be able to filter through it all and get something truly worthwhile out of it. End of rant. Foaming froth subsiding. :thumbup:

Devana the extreme right wing party was accusing Obama of being the cause of terrible governmental policies and problems months before he even took office. I think someone had put together a memo and it got released before they intended. But heck once it was out, may as well run with it, right? We're making a mistake, and the mainstream media is making a mistake, by even arguing or defending the issues with these folks. And it's just exactly what you and kartman said, "sense, we don't need no stinking sense" and "facts, we don't need no stinking facts." How can an intelligent sane person argue with someone who isn't encumbered by the facts? But I have to add that it's people like you, kartman, Cleo'sMom and a couple of others who give me hope and I guess that's why we enter into these discussions. We hope that MOST Americans are sane and can comprehend the idiocy of the extremist propaganda. Positive feedback helps.

patty:" Why not control the trial lawyers from making million dollar settlements and therefore raising the cost for all of us in our ins. premiums because the doctors have such high medical insurance payments to make to protect them from frivilous lawsuits? Why not a cap on them? " Why not control lawyers? Why would you think it is perfectly fine to control the legal business but you think it is wrong to control the medical industry? You think that the insurance companies are gouging us because of malpractice lawsuits? Well, sure there are outrageous awards given in malpratice cases and the insurance companies slap it to the people who buy their insurance. The reality is that the insurance companies aren't penalized for covering a doctor who is so incredibly bad at his chosen field that he caused the death or maiming of a patient. WE are penalized. And explain to me how that improves our ability to get insurance and medical care, please. The answer to good health care isn't in disallowing US to file lawsuits against the quacks. That's just what the insurance companies want. We're playing right into their hands by buying into that ridiculous gambit. We should always have the right to seek redress for malpractice or gross negligence. Why in the world would you think that it is a good thing for the government to take OUR power away and give it to insurance companies? We in absolutely NO WAY benefit from it. The insurance companies would - but trust me, they will never drop your premiums or the amount of coverage you get. It just doesn't happen that way. If we have tort reform it should be simply about the courts tightning the rules about what is a reasonable cause to sue. I'm all for no frivilous lawsuits. But that can be handled by the courts. For some reason people have decided that the government taking action to favor insurance companies will cause our healthcare to improve. Why? Because that's the bills of goods that the insurance companies are selling and we've decided they're right. Hogwash!! Bill Clinton (and others) have tried to expose the problems Americans have with getting proper medical treatment and he tried to come up with a plan that everyone could live with that would actually improve our medical care and the way we pay for it. He was stopped in his tracks. Do you know how long ago that was??? The way he was stopped in his tracks was typical B.S. that the Republican party (the party of the wealthy, the party of large corporations) managed to cloud the real issues with. They jumped on Hillary Clinton and made a mockery of her participation in the work at White House. She was personally criticized (like Michelle is now) and they screamed at the top of their voices how HILLARY was not elected and she should have absolutely NO VOICE in government policy or even proposals for governmental policies. They fought Bill Clinton every friggin' step of his presidency and he was nearly brought to his knees before he got started. Now we're seeing the same treatment of our current president and his wife. Did Bush or Lara have this problem? Well, er, not hardly. They were idolized because they used words like, "education president" and "patriot" and "teacher" and "christian" like it was a prerequisite for the office. He played ball, Lara played ball. They did exactly what they were told and the right wingers got their way and they got their war and now they're mad as hell because that may be coming to a halt - although as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on that. I would like to say that this outrageous, hateful behavior that the extremists are hurling against our president and his wife is shocking to me. But it is not. It is business as usual for the right wing extremists who are the tools of big business in this country. What does always tend to amaze me is how the economically middle class and poor in this country can be used in this way. They show up at meetings and they write on the internet and say all the buzz words that they've been fed and they continue to chant those things when there is every evidence to the contrary. So I am very disappointed in the policial climate in this country. I am disappointed at how dangerous it has become. I am disapopinted at how the right wing supported media incites the ignorant people who are being brainwashed and used. And at this point I am disappointed in our new president because he's actually trying to work with these people. He should know better but he is obviously an idealist and a fair person. He's what Americans deserve, but what we wind up with in the end, too much of the time, is a country that is controlled by the extremely wealthy. It is a country where the man on the street is manipulated and used and doesn't even seem to be aware of it. When I read that someone here at LBT insists that we have the best medical care in the world, and ignores evidence to the contrary all I can think is... God help us.

Wow! And why wouldn't you post your after photos!!! You look awesome, dude. I am very, very proud of you. What an excellent job you've done. Very impressive. Congratulations, big time! and a tiny bit of jealousy oozes from my pores

The fact that you're convinced that your faith is real to you is not in question as far as I'm concerned. Nor is the fact that you've read various other religious literature or spoken with people of other faiths. People who believe they have been abducted by aliens is very real to them as well. Doesn't mean that they didn't experience an event in their head that was a few synapses short of normal brain function though. Just like folks who see ghosts. There are even ghostbusters that go about chasing out the little devils. There are priests who are summoned sometimes to cast out the devils and ghosts and demons when there's been an infestation. So there are all kinds of situations that we could discuss here and argue the validity of people's personal experiences. I have no doubt that when I hear someone say they have talked with God and he has spoken to them and people who say they have seen him, that it is perfectly real to them. But it is a condition (IMHO) that is present in their brains that makes it so real. For those who talk to and see God, the elation they feel is real, the peace they feel is real. Just as the fear someone experiences when they've seen a ghost; the fear and the terror they experience is real. But they are feelings. Mentally induced feelings. Convincing to be sure, but not actually REAL. All IMHO, of course.

The reason you don't know, can't understand, is because you are not open to other knowledge or truth than the one you are convinced is singularly correct.

Backing up a little bit, you argue in some of your earlier posts, above, that the Bible says something but that it doesn't mean what is written - it means something else. That's not just figurative speech - that's ambiguity. And yes, I'd agree that one will find that throughout the Bible. And one doesn't need to justify that by saying the Bible will only be found to be ambiguous by lifting a verse or two out of context. You've studied the Bible, and you know all this. You've chosen to believe and interpret a certain way. Which is perfectly find by me. But I do take issue with your insistence that your interpretations and beliefs are the only real truths and that if one doesn't believe as you do and become "born again" one is going to endure hell for enternity.

I didn't need clarification. I just thought it was big of you to help me make my point by observing that ambiguity exists in the Bible. Particularly since you generally argue against that fact.

Patty: "There is no literal 'fire' in Hell. Flames are a figure of speech. We know this because if you try to take it literally, it makes no sense, for Hell is describe as a place of utter darkness and yet there are flames? Flames would light things up. Whenever the bible speaks of 'flames' it is speaking of 'judgement'. God himself is called a consuming fire. Using the flame imagery is a way of saying that he is a God of judgement. This is why it is important to study the word of God, and not take what religious teachers have taught you to be true as fact. Many children have been taught that they will burn in fire forever if they reject God. This simply isn't true biblically. The truth is that rejecting God in this life will seperate you from him for all eternity, and it will be a torture to your soul forever." Thanks patty, for pointing out at least one ambiguous bit of writing in the Bible.

I heard that rumor. I think it is something some good humored Dems floated out there just to be funny. I'm not sure that the Republicans are THAT dumb. But geez, they did run her for V.P. and actually used him for V.P., so nothing's impossible. You know a photo with those two with shotguns is a true dream ticket for the neocons.

I was still half asleep when I posted my little diatribe this morning. I can't force myself to be quiet when I read some of the stuff that is so exclusionary and extreme and so positively close-minded to other possibilities. And I get so wound up that my rant doesn't make a lot of sense to everyone else. I do think that kartman and Cleo'smom get my drift. At least I believe they try to understand the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for the book tip, kartman. I'll check it out. That is if it is in the library. :-)

Absolute proof isn't the necessary component for everyone to be believers in the idea that God is real and that Jesus is God. Those who aren't absolutely positive need credible proof. They need something that they can relate to. Blind faith is only possible if you have it, unquestioningly, and absolutely. Once you begin to question that the Bible is absolute truth, it cannot stand up under the scrutiny. One can only be SURE if one is able to cast all doubt aside and turn away from the troubling questions and absence of answers. For those who are able to do that, is similar to the pagans who worshipped the sun god and other idols. There was obvious proof that the sun held their fate in its' hands, of course, and that was all the proof some needed to be avid and unquestioning worshippers. That is not to say that people cannot accept certain facets of Christianity or any other religion without proof. But to believe blindly, to know for SURE and for CERTAIN that any one particular belief is undoubtedly the ONLY truth, is single-minded and small and self-centered. It is like saying that there is absolutely no way that there are parallel universes or life in outerspace. We can't state that as an absolute. And acknowledging that there is a possibility of those things existing, is being open minded to other truths. Believing absolutely in those things which are unproven and controversial only shows that one has accepted ones' own thoughts and beliefs and ideas as being superior to all else.

Patty: "Now, I ask you, why would anyone be willing to die for a lie? " Obviously thousands of American soldiers were willing. They gave their lives for the lies of Bush and Cheney.

kartman, sorry but there's a huge difference between someone relating that they've seen Elvis (after his death) and someone saying they've seen God (dead or alive). No one has ever seen God, you see. No one knows exactly what God looks like. They use lots of different terms to express what they believe God looks like to them and how he sounds when he talks to them, but it's in their head. They haven't actually seen a photograph of God nor have they gone to the sumit to hear him speak or see him perform, nor have they seen Jesus. It is all hearsay and a feeling or belief based on what they've been taught and what they've read in the good Book. Or the way they've heard other people describe what HE looks like or sounds like. It's a self-perpetuating story. The more its' told, the more real it becomes. When there was a book created that put some of it down for people to refer to and to commit to memory, for so many people it has now become the ONLY way and ONLY truth and the ultimate guide to acquiring enternal life. And there's comfort in it. And it helps people explain why it is necessary for them to strive to be good. What patty doesn't seem to understand is that mortals have always been good. They've always been bad too. Just as there are good and bad people today. The existence or non-existence of God is not a required component in the establishment of laws. Laws are defined and set forth because of the need for humans to co-exist alongside each other. God didn't invent them. The Ten Commandments are great to go by, but they would have made just as much sense whether God actually used a bolt of lightning to create them or if Moses sat up there and chipped them out on the tablets himself. People know what is bad behavior and what is good behavior. Some people who are especially bad, need the concept of God and punishment, of the devil and hell, to give them a reason to be a better person. Some people don't need that to want to be a better person. Not everyone is impressed with the idea of eternal life. Some people are quite satisfied with making this life the best it can be and they accept that upon their death, they will go the way of the frogs and fish and lions and elephants - back into the earth. The same earth that made their existence possible. And they know that they will become a flower or a blade of grass or part of a squirrel or part of all of those things at once - that is eternal life for them and they are happy in the knowledge of it.