BJean

plain: "That's how we get into the problems of multi-generational welfare....there is an incentive for people to stay in the system and not even try for a better life. But, since this is more a socioeconomical thing than a racial thing (IMO), I'll let the thread get back to its original topic." I'm not sure that I agree with your humble opinion that this is more of a socioeconomic thing than a racial thing. Many brilliant sociologists believe that the welfare system has been a major factor in keeping black people beaten down in America. Whether by design or not, I do not know, but I do believe it has played a significant roll in the huge racial divide in this country.

Plain sez: "However, down the road, there will be NO MORE private insurance if the government gets into the market. So, everybody will be back-ended into the program eventually. President Obama and his cabinet know this." and goes on to say, "Respectfully, you are not thinking this through, CM......President Obama has already empowered a group to strat looking into "most efficient medical practices". That means that the government is already looking to write protocols on healthcare policy....that means that it will only be efficient (moneywise) for patient population a, b and c to recieve medical procedure x,y and z. In English, an 80 y/o may not be covered for a major surgery simply because they won't live long enough to justify the cost of the procedure" Ok plain, pony up. Where's your proof? Where's your documentation? Why should be accept what you're saying is fact? Hmmmmm???

A bunch of good posts! Headhunter, your post at #112 was one I could sure agree with and identify with. Thanks, ya'll.

I'm assuming you're taking the time to find the part of a post of mine where I've said what you're accusing me of. And perhaps you're doing some research on fat presidents. I dunno, but please find what I said that convinced you that I in any way denied the prevalence of weight discrmination. You can't just hit and run, at least I hope you won't.

Whoa just a minute, Jaffa. Are you claiming that no fat man has ever been elected president? And I really wish you would tone your rant at me down. I have never said that racial prejudice is more common than any other. That doesn't mean that I couldn't say it, though. I just didn't say that.

Steve please lift that passage that you think I wrote saying, to quote you: "Racism is NOT more likely then prejudice against someone being fat..." In fact I think that there is a ton of prejudice against fat people. I have an older sister who is humongous. Everywhere we ever went together I was made well-aware of the horrible prejudice against fat people. And I myself have been a victim of weight discrimination. I am not sure what I said that made you accuse me of stating that one type of bigotry is more prevelant than any other. Bigotry against people of color is what this thread is all about. It got side tracked by someone other than me.

No apology necessary. I am very willing to start over! I do know that I come off as harsh and opinionated. Especially in print. I get in a big hurry when I type and lots of times I don't re-read what I've posted. That's usually when I get into trouble. As for prefacing my posts with "it's my opinion that..." it is a good idea, but I don't try to pass my posts off as anything but my opinion. I've only cited other people's data or rare occasions because I figure we all have the same access to TV, newspapers and the internet. I've found that most of the stuff that people post links to are simply other people's opinions. Like someone from Fox or some right wing publication, or MSNBC or some liberal publication. I don't want to wade through that stuff. I've usually already been exposed to it in some form. That's how I come up with the opinions I have. Sometimes people cite those other people's (political pundits usually) opinions as fact. I find that very irritating. So that's why you probably got my reaction in the past. I too will do my best to mend my ways and be more peaceable and less confrontational. But shucks, you know as well as I do that we won't have nearly as much fun. I guess I'm just suggesting that we cut each other some slack and stop duking it out because it seems to upset other people. I think you and I could probably have a confrontation everyday and wind up still being civil on a different thread, but this has gone on for so long, I reckon that's not happening. I will do my best, I promise. I mean, can't we all just get along? :thumbup:

Hmmmm, Nanette. That's an interesting thought. I've tried to imagine someone walking toward me and think about which I'd notice first, sex or weight. I can't come up with anything but that I'd probably notice those two things simultaneously. How could you not? Which do you think you'd notice first?

I grew up in a very small town in the southwest where there was a part of town that was referred to as "colored town". There were no children of color in any of the schools I went to prior to college. I had no point of reference regarding black people except to see them occasionally when we drove by "colored town." My parents were basically silent on the subject so although I think they were very good people, they didn't begin to teach me about bigotry. When I got married, at an extremely young age, my H (not so dear now) went to Vietnam. He served 13 months in a dirty, senseless war. There were only 3 people who survived in his platoon. He and an Korean-American and an African-American. The three of them had become very close during their time of service together. They had all at one time or other saved each others' lives. It was very interesting when we all got together for dinner. Race relations were discussed. And the men all agreed that we wives had no clue about how unimportant skin color was. They also discussed the fact that we wives were uncomfortable because we didn't think we knew how to treat people with skin that was a different color from our own. They were right. We didn't and we were uncomfortable simply because we had different skin and hair and very different experiences growing up. We had not had the benefit of working alongside each other - depending on each other for our very lives. We had not had the chance to learn the lesson that they had learned: that skin color has absolutely no bearing on whether we can trust, love, respect or depend on each other in this life. I consider myself lucky to have learned something so important from those beautiful people.

I see your point about the remark that comes off as a cheap shot as I re-read it. On the other hand, regarding proof, neither you or plain cite proof most of the time. You give each other pats on the back instead, reinforcing what each other has said because you two agree with each other. Which is perfectly fine by me. Everyone can read. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they accept what the two of you post. But then when I make a post that disagrees with you two, you all of a sudden want proof that what I am saying is FACT. In point of fact you demand it and post repeatedly, in heated terms, that I can't prove what I've said. I never claimed that what I was posting is FACT. I'm posting my opinions, nothing more, nothing less. And I feel that you all are ganging up on me because you don't like my opinions. I have never understood why you can constantly and consistently post your opinions and you only want me to post FACTS. Like you two are on some fact finding mission. The few times that I decided to give you some facts, you just ignored them. So what's the point?

I know that you believe all that with all your heart, patty. I just have a much more generous spirit with my beliefs. Yes, it is indeed how I was raised. But you'll never convince me that it is wrong. I suppose I am as deeply programmed as you are. It seems that our basic differences hinge on the fact that you believe the Bible can be and should be taken literally, and you believe that you know how to interpret each and every word so that it perfectly reflects what God wants from us. You say that you: "believe that many who have disagreed with some of the things that I have put forth about faith have either not read the scriptures, or they have been taught differently by mere human beings who are capable of erring in their teachings rather than by the Word of God alone. The bible is the only infallible word of God. You should never add anything to it or take anything away from it. (meaning your own rules and doctrines and laws) It's all we need to govern ourselves properly and in God's way. If mankind would live by it there would be such peace and harmony in the earth today instead of chaos and madness and controversy." The point for me is that the Bible is not infallible. And people are fallible. That means not only me, but you as well. If we were to never add anything to it or take anything away from the Bible, we would never be able to relate to it within today's society. Besides, we cannot take it literally - men wrote it (whether divinely inspired or not) and men have re-written it according to their own beliefs and prejudices throughout the ages. Those men were not God. They were not infallible. The second difference between us that is obvious to me is that you use your faith as a tool to get into heaven. I believe that what will gain me entrance into heaven is the way I conduct my life here on earth. I cannot believe that all of those millions of people who do not believe as I do, will go to hell. I cannot believe that a person who is a good person, one who strives to do good deeds throughout their life, but who has never been saved or Baptized, will go to hell. Those are just a couple of things that you and I disagree on. There are more, but those seem to make up the foundation of our differing beliefs. You think you are here to teach those of us who do not share your beliefs. I think I am here to help you see beyond your single-minded interpretation of the bible. I would very much like to influence you in a good way that would cause you to cease making the claim that your beliefs are the only Blessed beliefs. I would like to influence you to stop being so obsessed with the Bible and start being softer in your approach of how you speak to people.

Huh? THAT was your point? Sorry, I didn't get that from your posts. I do think that we misinterpret each others' posts pretty frequently. I envision you with a big club in your hand just waiting to pound someone to the ground (usually me.) That probably keeps me from being as open-minded as I should be when I read yours. I'm curious. How do you envision me?

Can't answer that for you, patty. It does seem rather odd.

Gosh is there anybody who HASN'T been discriminated against for one reason or other? As I know I said before, the bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that bigotry and discrimination are based on ignorance and fear. Once you understand and accept that, it is a little easier to deal with. Some of us who have low self-esteem or are just insecure for whatever reason, believe that the behavior of others is more valuable and important in our lives than it really is. We are all a product of our upbringing and it's hard to hold that against people when you get down to it. We have to set an example and prove to bigoted people that they are wrong to discriminate against others.

patty: The problem with my providing personal information to you about my religious background and beliefs is that I am quite certain it would open the door for you to lecture me and deliver another sermon. I'm just not up for that. Suffice it to say, I have a strong religious and spiritual background. I have been saved, but even without having felt that, I believe I would have been destined for an eternity in heaven. Now that's all you're getting that is personal from me. And that is more than I ever planned on disclosing to you. Many people have made posts wherein they disagreed with many of the things you put forth about faith, the Bible and organized religion. I agree with most of them.

Very cool, plain and Beth.

Beth, is there any way we can declare a truce between us? I realize that you do not like the things I post and you feel compelled to insult me because you disagree with me. But the manner in which you accuse me of stuff is wearing thin. If I irritate you so much, why don't you ignore me? When you get so nasty, it really only serves to make you look bad. Oh wait a minute, I'm sure that you don't really care if you look bad. Well anyway, I would really appreciate it if you could see your way clear to get off my back. By the same token, I will be happy to never post any personal attacks about you. Deal?

P.S. I do not believe that I have stated anything I've posted as "fact" - I have stated things that I believe to be true, but unless I know something is fact, I do not say that I am posting factual data. In fact, (:-) I am as much irritated as the next guy when people do that. (But usually only if I disagree with them, hee, hee) And that's what has gone on that has rubbed people the wrong way. People have disagreed with my opinions and so they demand proof. And what is astounding to me is that those who get the most inflamed about my posts are every bit as guilty as I have been about not providing proof to backup my opinions. Because if someone had the time to research all the political posts, they'd find just as many conservative posts that have been made without citing any documentation to back them up as liberals have posted without proof.

To be honest, I don't like the proposed plan. I don't dare post what I would propose. I can imagine the backlash that I'd get here. Who needs it? And it isn't going to happen anyway. The thing that I don't like about the proposed plan is that the insurers are still pretty much in the driver's seat when it comes to my health care. I don't see that changing under this plan. I hope I'm wrong if it passes. The only change I see is that there will be a kind of government oversight and perhaps a cap on how much insurance companies can make by denying decent health care, denying decent hospital care and having such hellacious premiums that millions of people can't afford it. As an employer, providing health care insurance is a perk that we offer. I don't see that changing under the proposed plan. Unless of course, our employees can get their own insurance for so much less that it is no longer considered a perk.

Gloucester: "My boss was going to give her a hug, since she felt so close to the woman, but the woman stuck her hand out. She said after that meeting, the woman changed the vendor account contact to another person and she never talked to her again." I'm surprised no one jumped on that. You know there are a whole lot of people who do not like to be hugged. It may have had nothing with their differences in skin color. Perhaps the white lady just felt much more comfortable with a handshake. And if it was a limp handshake, maybe she doesn't really even like to have that much personal contact. I know a lot of people these days, what with all the constant discussion about washing your hands and passing germs and all that, who refuse to shake hands even in church. I'm just trying to make a point here, although what I've said is true. I don't really doubt that the black lady was discrminated against, but you can see how questioning someone's story is kind of ridiculous. Speaking of Virginia... I worked for the Attorney General in downtown Richmond when I was young. One day another white older lady and I were walking to lunch uptown. Three young black girls looked at me from across the street and when the light turned green, they locked arms and plowed into me in the middle of the crosswalk. They nearly knocked me to the ground and my lunch companion had to help me recover. At the time, I was astonished that they would pick on someone who thought she understood discrmination and was on their side. But when I recovered from the blow, I realized that they were a product of their own experience and upbringing and I shook it off and took it with a grain of salt. Oprah did the eye color discrimination test on her show one day. It was pretty enlightening.

I would say that we are at a point where we could just agree to disagree but I don't think that either of us is that agreeable. LOL I thought about recapping my religious background, so that you might understand a little about MY beliefs, but what's the point? People always say that one shouldn't discuss politics and religion unless you want a fight. There is some wisdom in that statement.

Joan I am glad that your post hasn't been pulled. I was getting ready to tear into somebody. I've been posting for years on LBT and I can tell you that things have changed from when a bunch of us used to have a great time and we could say just about anything we wanted without anybody getting their nightie in a knot. We could duke it out over some topic or other and then laugh about it together later. I am glad that it hasn't gotten to the point that they're tossing posts that someone thinks is controversial. I appreciate what you're saying about Canadian health care. I'm sure that my own experience was unique. I lived in Montreal and it is a little different from some of the other provinces. We did have friends who lived in a small village, far from the big cities and they had the situation that you described where they couldn't get just any test at their little hospital. They had to travel a couple of hours for the big tests. Canada has a very small population in relation to the size of their land mass. Of course I am not suggesting Canada's system of health care for the United States. But I do think that there are some very good things about their system that we don't enjoy. None of us ever had to wait weeks and sometimes months for a doctor's appointment in Montreal. Here in Texas, we have to wait months to see a decent dermotologist and if a GP is good, you will play hell trying to get them to accept you as a new patient. You have mapped out some of the reasons that health care in the U.S. needs reform and you explained very well the insurance problem and how it unfolded which has put us in the situation that we're in now. That experience you had with your artery surgery is frightening. When I had my daughter, she was jaundiced (more than normal) and I had a very painful contusion from the birth. They still sent us home before either of those problems were resolved. And we lived an hour and a half from the hospital. Thanks for your very interesting and informative follow-up post. And plain, thanks for making it public that you're insistence on back up data is only directed at people you don't agree with. You're still funny, so I guess we won't boot you off.

patty: "We also had a craigs list killer, and he didn't hold to any religion at all. So what?" Are you under the impression that I said that all killers are right wing nut jobs? patty: "Everyone who has a faith in something believes that what they believe in is the right faith, or they wouldn't believe it." Of course that's true. But the believers in most Christian doctrines are tolerant of other faiths. They do not think that the people who believe differently than they do are going to be banned from heaven. patty: "What's wrong with goodness?" I think that's what I've been trying to ask you. I'm not sure that you and I share the same definition of "goodness." People murder all the time in the United States and most are crimes of passion. They are usually murders within families and friendships or at least murders of acquaintances. What I was talking about is the negativism that is practiced by the extreme right wing in this country and the fact that they become so outraged and angry that they are driven to commit murder against others who do not share their religious and political beliefs. They do not have to know someone to want to murder them. The murderous intent is within themselves. For instance, they are so anti-choice and they are so angry that they can justify in their own minds, the murder of someone who would provide abortions to women. You said that you do not agree with the man who killed Dr. Tiller and in fact, you said that you think he is crazy. But when you rant and rave about abortion being murder, you sound just like someone who could justify doing away with another human being because as far as you are concerned they are going against God's will. There's a whole lot of negative-speak going on today everywhere in America. I find it scary and disturbing and I find the attitude and tone of your posts to be negative and disturbing. It's seems to be a dichotomy - on the one hand you're preaching the Bible and speaking of God. On the other hand you're saying things like: "We see it starting already with the homosexual movement who claims that those 'intollerent, hateful christians" are keeping them from their so called 'rights', and the pro choice movement who feel that these christian pro life people are keeping them from their 'right' to murder their babies." You are fully allowed to rant all you want about your beliefs. I am supposed to be allowed to do the same. The fact that we completely disagree is unfortunate, but it doesn't give one of us the right to post and the other not. And it doesn't mean that one of us is totally right and the other totally wrong. We're venting, and people will either agree or disagree. We ought to try to keep it impersonal. I will if you will, okay?

I'm dating myself big time, Cleo's mom, but I remember the Archie Bunker show quite well. It did a great job of exposing some of the hypocrisy that the Nixon era was all about. I remember seeing it for the first time and we laughed so hard we were rolling in the floor. I don't remember the episode you're referring to, but it sounds pretty typical.

I don't know which of us is the most narrow-minded on this topic, plain, but I will reiterate that if the health care system was working - by that I mean that Americans can get adequate health care when they need it - then there wouldn't be a reason for President Obama or Congress or you or me or anyone else to suggest that we need a change. I think you're being disengenuous when you accuse Obama of pushing this bill through because he knows people wouldn't go for it if they understood it. We need change now! We've needed change since before Clinton took office. He was our first hope and the Republicans quashed it from the outset without any effort to research it or listen to his proposals. Your approach reminds me of the Republican's behavior back then which was based on the old: No change is better than any change. Thanks for your post Cleo's Mom. I sure didn't have the energy or time to line by line take both of them on. You made some good and valid points.