marjon9

Im all for being "pure," before marriage, during marriage, and after marriage. But I have a very hard time comprehending the world view that says that anyone who has sex before marriage is "impure." I know that many see the world that way. But it is really impossible for me to comprehend. Why would anyone choose a view leads to the conclusion that one is surrounded every day, morning, noon, and night, by "impure" beings. Sounds like Night of the Living Dead, or something like that. And thinking of it from "god's" point of view, I would think he or she would be so offended that human beings would actually believe that god that would create a world full of impure things. What god would do that? I would imagine god would want people to understand that all god's works are perfect. And I don't mean "potentially perfect." I mean, perfect.

I've gotten a lot of benefit from Peyton's "pep talks." I've taken them to heart and actually purchased some "bigger shirts."

Indy? You must mean that you are from Baltimore, home of the "Colts World Superbowl Champs" (1971). Sorry, some things you just never get over. :tongue:

I know what you mean. Sometimes I think they put the band on the wrong end.

Sanjaya!!!! Oops. Wrong poll. I like the Giants better, but I'd like to see that perfect season. So, I'm on the fence, and frankly, it hurts.

Here is the definition from Websters: Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron Pronunciation: ˌäk-sē-ˈmȯr-ˌän Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural ox·y·mo·ra -ˈmȯr-ə Etymology: Late Greek oxymōron, from neuter of oxymōros pointedly foolish. Date: 1657 : Oxen (singular ox) are cattle trained as draft animals. Often they are adult, castrated males. It has been said that “An ox is nothing more than a mature bovine with an ‘education.’” Those who cannot learn or who refuse to learn are termed “oxymorons.” The only modern political figure who deserves this characterization is George W. Bush. — ox·y·mo·ron·ic -mə-ˈrä-nik, -mȯ- adjective — ox·y·mo·ron·i·cal·ly -ni-k(ə-)lē adverb

Bush is an oxymoron.

Oxen are dumb enough even when they are normal. The cognitive ability of an oxymoron must be quite minimal, indeed. Other than Bush, I can't think of another politician who truly deserves this characterization.

You are right I did assume that you were advocating that abortion become illegal. My mistake. The thing is, most people who believe that abortion is "killing a child" do think that it should be illegal. But in any event, you are correct, I did incorrectly jump to that conclusion in your case.

I understand that you believe that a fertilized egg is exactly the same as "a child." The thing is, most people don't believe that. No one has any problem with you believing whatever you want. The problem comes in when people who believe like you do trying to use the power of the government to force other people, those who disagree with you, against their will, to live by your view of what is right. That's really the only issue here. The issue is, do you have the right to force other people to live their lives by your religious moral code. The majority of Americans believe that you do not have that right. Even many people who oppose abortion for themselves do not believe that you have the right to force your views on others. I know how hard it is for you. You truly believe that a fertilized egg is "a child." Since you believe that way, you naturally believe that abortion is "murder." Since you believe that, you are practically forced to try and end abortion, even if it means forcing other women to carry an embryo to term against their wishes. Obviously this is a very difficult issue for everyone. But most Americans believe that you do not have the right to force your views on people who disagree that a fertilized egg is "a child." Up until now, the courts have said that the Constitution protects women from being forced to carry an embryo to term against their wishes. The bottom line is, after all these decades of "choice," there is simply no going back. The women of American who believe in choice will never allow the government to control their lives this way. That is true regardless of what the law says. The only difference is, if abortion is made illegal, the less afluent women will die and be injured in large numbers from unsanitary and improper medical care attendant to illegal abortions.

Sweethot, your position on this matter comes down to this: Don't have sex unless you are prepared to have a baby exactly 9 months from that moment. No matter what you say about that point of view, at least you must realize that it is totally unrealistic. People are absolutely not ever going to live their lives by that rule. Take green for example. She has made clear that she never wanted children. She has always been clear about that in her own mind. She attempted to have her tubes tied and was refused by the doctor. So, as her advisor, you would say to her, "sorry green, you must never have sex for the rest of your life, even if you use contraception, because there is a tiny chance that the contraception might not work." Sweethot, get real!! It's fine if you want to live your life by those rules, but it is absurd to expect other people to do the same. You have a certain point of view here that you believe every person must live by in order to be "right." Yet you and everyone else in the world can clearly see that no one is ever going to actually live like that, except for a very few that may choose to. So what is the point? It seems like such an exercise in futility to believe in something that is never, ever, in a million years, actually going to happen.

Sure, green, I'll be your running mate. I'm just concerned because of all those breakfasts at various Diners. Are pancakes and sausage really compatible with the Bandster Lifestyle? We don't want all those embarrassing projectile PBs showing up on the evening news! But no one ever said it would be easy. I say we get out there and save the world.

Hi BJean and green, thanks ladies for your nice comments. Like green, I have also been considering a political career. Do you think it's too late for me to throw my hat into the ring for this presidential election? I think I'd fit in well with this year's theme of openmindedness and breaking down barriers. We'd have a white woman, a black man, and me, a fat atheist. I think I'd fit right in. My slogan could be "It's time for change. Anyone have some to spare?" I do find this race to be quite exciting. It's the most interesting one in a long while. And the crop of candidates seems much better than the last few go arounds, at least to my liking. Even some of the Republicans border on the tolerable. While I disagree with most of McCain's positions, I do think he is someone you might be glad to have around when facing a real crisis. For me, though, the choice is between Hillary and Obama. I like Edwards, but I don't think he has a chance. I really do think that one of these two, Hillary or Obama, will be the next president. This is truly an amazing thing to contemplate. If either one is elected, this will represent a profound and fundamental change that will be life-altering for this country, and maybe beyond. In a sense it is too bad that both of these candidates have to be running at the same time. One of them will have to lose, and we will all therefore miss out on the great benefit it would be to see that one elected. Aside from whatever great job they could do as president, just the symbolism of the election of one of these two would be enough to change this country. I think it is that important. For example, it would mean so much to all the women of this country to see Hillary elected. All of a sudden no dream would be too big. I believe we would see glass ceilings come crashing down in every walk of life in a matter of just a few years. I think it would be that profound. I agree with BJean that sometimes women are unsupportive with each other, but I think that part of this may be because spaces at the top for women are so few that there just isn't enough room for a team to get there. It's a solo endeavor. Men can afford to be supportive because, within reason, there's room for everybody at the top in a man's world. Women don't have that luxury. The election of Hillary could go a long way to moving us forward in opportunities for women. However, at some point in an election a person has to make a choice, and for me, I now believe that the best result overall at this time, since both Hillary and Obama can't be elected, is to see Obama win. Can you imagine what it would mean to every black person in America to see Obama elected? One of the things that would make it so powerful is that this would not just be an individual achievement. Martin Luther King has already done everything that needs to be done to demonstrate black individual achievement. The thing that would be different here is that every black person in America would know that Obama was elected in part because a majority of white people voted for him as well. We saw how powerful this was when we learned that Iowa, a relatively conservative state with a 95% white population, voted for Obama. This was so powerful and so healing. If this happened on a national level I think that this would have the effect of encouraging the process of uniting us into one family and healing the past in a way that could hardly be achieved any other way. And I also agree with green that electing Obama would give us the best chance of healing the horrible damage Bush and Cheney did to the standing of the United States in the international community. We need Obama for this reason as much as any other. But, I have a luxury here because if my second choice wins, Hillary, the benefits will be just about as meaningful as far as I'm concerned. So, it's a good year.

Diane Rhem is a highly respected radio journalist in the Washington D.C. area. She's sort of like the Bill Moyers of radio. Wikipedia describes her show as follows: The Diane Rehm Show is an award-winning National Public Radio call-in show with more than 1.7 million listeners. It is produced by WAMU and hosted by Diane Rehm. The show debuted on WAMU in the 1970s as Kaleidoscope, a weekday morning arts and discussion program. Diane took over as host in 1979, and it became The Diane Rehm Show in 1984. =========================== On her show today she hosted an abortion doctor, Susan Wicklund, who has written a book about her experiences. The "blurb" introducing the show describes it as: "A doctor on the front lines of the abortion wars explains why she does what she does,the steps she takes to protect herself, and why she believes she's providing a vital service." I listened to most of the show and found it quite interesting. It included call-ins with questions from people on both sides of the issue, including some tough questions from "pro life" people. Dr. Wicklund's responses to the questions, not surprisingly, support the so-called "pro-choice" point of view. Those in the "pro life" side of things will, naturally, take issue with most of what Dr. Wicklund says. But nonetheless I believe anyone interested in the topic will find the show interesting and valuable. Even though Dr. Wicklund is pro-choice, she is "describing" based on personal experience, rather than "advocating" a particular position. Her discussion of the issues is frank, honest and personal, and she offers useful insights. You can find a link to play the whole broadcast on your computer on Real Player or Windows Media Player here: WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio - The Diane Rehm Show Look about half way down the page for the links to this segment. If you do listen to the show keep in mind that Diane Rhem has had some issues with her voice lately, and her voice is currently a bit shaky.

I lost some of the Fluid from my first and second fill. The doctor explained why this happens sometimes and that it was normal. I don't remember exactly what she said. I have since stopped losing fluid from fills, so it appears that there is no leak involved. If I were you I would try doing some searches on the forum. As I recall this issue has been discussed a few times. Other people have described loss of fluid from the band, especially at the beginning. Losing fluid from your band could indicate a leak which would be bad. But I believe that there are other benign explanations, as in my case. You may have a problem with your band, but I would look into more before you conclude that you have a problem.

As you know I disagree with most of your premises, as do most people. But I don't want to go in circles again about it all. The main point to me is, no matter how strongly you believe everything you just said, you and those who agree with you do not have the right to use the police power of the state to force women who disagree with you to make life decisions based on your values. That's really the only thing that matters here. As for your views on "life" etc., I fully support your right do everything you can convince everyone you see of the vaidity of your point of view. I would imagine you will be able to convince a number of people to see things your way. More power to you.

The discussion of whether an embryo is or is not "life" ignores the fact that unwanted pregnancy is a totally unique situation where two lives/potential lives are intertwined to such a degree that a decision with respect to one has enormous consequences for the other. There is just no way around that. The so-called "pro-life" camp wants to discuss the two "lives" as if they are separate an independent, and then decide the issue of abortion based on the need to "protect" the alleged separate life of the embryo. As lulu's story indicates, however, this is not how it works in the real world. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the harsh truth is that one entity or another is definitely going to suffer a major tragedy. There is no way to avoid that. Simply giving up a baby for adoption is not the magic answer that relieves this tragedy, notwithstanding the "pro-life" argument to the contrary. So, often the decision comes down to this: Should an embryo with no meaningful consciousness at the present moment lose its potential life? Or should a grown up, adult woman lose everything that she considers to be valuable in her already-existing life. This is a very difficult question, and both sides have valid points. But one thing for sure is that it is never, ever appropriate is for the government to force a woman to make one decision or the other. There is no room for the government in this matter, and that is true even if an embryo must lose its potential life in many circumstances. This is a decision for the woman, her family, and her doctor. It is not a place for anonymous legislatures and judges to impose their own view of morality on others, and use the police power of the state to force a woman to carry an unwanted embryo to full term.

true, but even so she probably has poll numbers well above some of the "candidates" who actually are running here. I'm looking forward to getting past Iowa and New Hampshire so we can get the roster of candidates down to the low hundreds. Concerning Derick's actual question, I think this assassination may generally help Republicans like Giuliani because people still seem to have the odd misconception that Republicans are "better" on national security. I just don't happen to agree that dropping bombs is the correct solution to all national security problems, so I don't agree that Republicans are better on national security. In my book a candidate is "better" on national security when he or she can at least imagine solving problems without dropping bombs, and when he or she is able to at least consider the ways that the actions of the United States may not always be perfectly correct, and may generate legitimate grievances among others who suffer consequences of U.S. actions. If some day our leaders have the maturity to understand that every action of the United States is not necessarily the perfect realization of god's will, only then can real progress in world peace be achieved. And only then can hope to avoid nuk-u-lar conflict (if you'll pardon the expression). I'm not saying that our leaders should ever put the interests of the United States below the interests of any others at any time. But I am saying that it IS in U.S. interests to be at peace, and that we cannot achieve peace when our actions have the effect of destroying the environment and crushing the legitimate aspirations of many others through our blunt force cave man foreign policies. I also think it is generally disgusting the way the candidates have scurried around like crabs on a hot beach trying to gain some advantage from this tragedy. The major candidates are all the same. Every one of them. On a personal note I think that this assassination was a major loss. It really set back prospects for world peace, for reasons both real and symbolic. Bhutto may not have been perfect by any means, but her influence in this dangerous part of the world was really positive at this time. I was surprised how saddened I was to hear of the assassination.

This thread makes me wonder because so many doctors and scientists insist that there is more to weight loss than "calories in, calories out." They talk about how other things matter like intake of refined carbohydrate, various triggers of metabolism, etc. I certainly don't have any answers but I am reluctant to dismiss all of this learned commentary simply because "calories in, calories out" sort of makes sense to me as a lay person. I also note that many people have an experience with weight loss that does not support "calories in, calories out." People on this thread have mentioned such experiences where they excercise a lot, control their diet, but do not lose weight. Our good friend Jack on this forum just started a thread discussing his weight loss experience. He went months eating under 1400 calories a day with no weight loss, and then finally lost some weight. This does not seem consistent with the concept of "calories in, calories out." I have no answers, of course. But the evidence I see before my eyes just does not fit with "calories in, calories out." Obviously calories make a difference. But are calories the whole answer? It just seems to me like there must be something more as well.

I get a little confused with this type of thread because to me, when food comes back up because of the lap band, it does not seem at all like actually "throwing up." When I really throw up, like when I'm sick, I feel awful, the vomit tastes horrible, and my stomach goes through major convulsions. When I "PB" (productive burp) from the lap band, there are no convulsions, I don't feel sick, and the food that comes up is what I just ate and it does not taste bad at all since it has never made it down to the stomach. So, I am confused when people ask about throwing up. If you are really "throwing up" like you do when you have the flu or something, after every meal, then that sounds like a pretty major medical issue. If instead you are having a "PB," then the band may be too tight, or you are not chewing enough, or you are eating too fast, or something like that. Check with your fill doctor/nurse about that one.

I don't have a good answer for you but I feel like I have the same problem. For me, especially in the last few months, the lap band seems sort of like a single rubber band around my esophagus that is sometimes tight and sometimes loose. When it is tight I can't get a single bite to go down. Not one. When it's loose I can eat just about anything I want in any amount. When the lap band is loose I don't get full quickly at all, and I really feel like I have no lap band. Yet I don't want to get another fill right now because, when this baby is tight, I mean it is really tight. If it were any tighter I wouldn't even be able to drink water. I'm pretty sure this is not how the lap band is supposed to work, but I don't know what to do about it. It seems to me that this is probably something like "first bite syndrome." If anyone has any thoughts about it, I would also like to hear. If we don't get many responses in this thread I may just start a new thread on this question. Anyway, you are not alone on this.

I agree that this is probably the reason for the small turnout. It would probably work out fine to just do another one now that is private.

I don't know, I think these may be a little more what you had in mind. http://chocolatefantasies.com/MedLouie.JPG http://chocolatefantasies.com/Penis_Pop.JPG

1/4 cup of food is fine for me too, as long as I eat 3 or 4 times an hour.

Part of my decision-making process will have to include the idea of who is actually electable. I like Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. The one who gets my vote, from among those three, will probably be the one who, on that day, appears the most electable.