Who’s getting tired of all the ads that are calling the proposals for Health Care reform “Socialized Medicine”? Even the most liberal approach to the reforms “Single Payer” is not at all socialized medicine. At most, it might me considered “socialized payment” or “socialized administration”. None of the plans call for socialized medicine, if you are one that falls for this misinformation then the Insurance Companies are getting just what they want from you.

A more realistic example of socialized medicine would be the British System, in which the hospitals are run by the government and the doctors are on the payroll of the government. Another example closer to home would be the VA in which the government provides the hospitals and the doctors to vets. What is being proposed here “Single Payer or a Government Option” is a system in which the federal program only takes the place of the insurance company and pays the bills to the doctors or the hospitals. This program is more analogous to the Canadian and French systems. The beauty of this program is that it takes away the insanity that doctors have to go thru in dealing with hundreds of separate carriers and it provides coverage for everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Do you really have a personal relationship with your insurance provider today? Do you even have a choice in which carrier you get? Most people don’t, they have to take whatever carrier their company provides for them. And then, once they take the carrier that is provided, they usually have to pick a doctor that is on the plan that the company offers. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a lot of free choice to me. You are being lied to by Insurance Companies. Single Payer will provide more choice and more cost savings to the average household. The only group that will suffer form this are the Insurance Carriers, and they will tell you every lie they can to stop it from being implemented. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these companies. The way I see it, they are a big reason costs have escalated and quality of care has decreased over the last 30 years.

One of their teachings is that Mary's only child was Jesus and she was a virgin all her life. Yet there are many scriptures that speak of Jesus' brothers and sisters. Now, how could she be a virgin if she had other children with Joseph?

Now, this is not an important doctrine by any means, but this is an example of them NOT reading the book.

Another thing they teach is that you can pray to dead people (Saints). ("This saint can find your lost earring, and this saint can give you luck, etc.") Yet, 1 Timothy 2:5 says "There is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." If there is only ONE person who can speak to God the Father for us, how can Catholics expect a dead saint to do it for them?

Another example. Not an important doctrine, but still, an example of how they don't read the book.

So, my point is that UNLESS you have read the book, you wont get it right. I don't care if they have been around for 2000 years and feel they got it right. It just shows man's foolishness to believe in their own thoughts instead of the words God gave to them.

One of their teachings is that Mary's only child was Jesus and she was a virgin all her life. Yet there are many scriptures that speak of Jesus' brothers and sisters. Now, how could she be a virgin if she had other children with Joseph?

Well, they start with a conclusion - that Mary is ever virgin and then draw conclusions about what Jesus's brothers mean - that it is not the true biological sense of the word. Mind you, I'm not saying they're right - I'm only telling you that the pope, who they believe is infallible, says it is so.

Now, this is not an important doctrine by any means, but this is an example of them NOT reading the book.

Another thing they teach is that you can pray to dead people (Saints). ("This saint can find your lost earring, and this saint can give you luck, etc.") Yet, 1 Timothy 2:5 says "There is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." If there is only ONE person who can speak to God the Father for us, how can Catholics expect a dead saint to do it for them?

Another example. Not an important doctrine, but still, an example of how they don't read the book.

I think the catholic hierarchy would take exception with your saying they don't read the bible. That is laughable. They reach a different conclusion than yours but you say you are right - they say they are. He said/she said. And in the meantime, I will make up my own mind.

So, my point is that UNLESS you have read the book, you wont get it right. I don't care if they have been around for 2000 years and feel they got it right. It just shows man's foolishness to believe in their own thoughts instead of the words God gave to them.

Again, they believe the pope is infallible. And you want all of these different conclusions/beliefs to become entangled with our public/government policy? NO WAY!!

Again, they believe the pope is infallible. And you want all of these different conclusions/beliefs to become entangled with our public/government policy? NO WAY!!

No. I don't think things like whether Mary was a virgin all her life or whether you can pray to anyone but God is something that should be entangled in government policy. But things like whether you should be allowed to murder an unborn baby or not, YES! or whether two men or two women should have a marriage license, yes. Or whether the government should be allowed to rob from people to pay for other peoples expenses, Yes. These kinds of things need to be decided if they are acceptable practices or not. I believe the majority agrees with God on these issues. I for one am going to be sure that those whom I vote for to represent me will also agree with these things, or they will not get my vote.

I believe that the rest of America who slept through on voting day have had a rude awakening to what their lack of vote (or their wrong vote) has caused for us, and will be getting to the voting booths in 2010 to straighten these Senators out.

Again, they believe the pope is infallible. And you want all of these different conclusions/beliefs to become entangled with our public/government policy? NO WAY!!

No. I don't think things like whether Mary was a virgin all her life or whether you can pray to anyone but God is something that should be entangled in government policy. But things like whether you should be allowed to murder an unborn baby or not, YES! or whether two men or two women should have a marriage license, yes. Or whether the government should be allowed to rob from people to pay for other peoples expenses, Yes. These kinds of things need to be decided if they are acceptable practices or not. I believe the majority agrees with God on these issues. I for one am going to be sure that those whom I vote for to represent me will also agree with these things, or they will not get my vote.

I believe that the rest of America who slept through on voting day have had a rude awakening to what their lack of vote (or their wrong vote) has caused for us, and will be getting to the voting booths in 2010 to straighten these Senators out.

Oh, I think people knew what their wrong votes in 2000 and 2004 got us, which is why Obama won in 2008. They are not going to want to return to the failed policies of those 8 years. But if cleaning up those failed policies costs democrats and Obama a second term, then so be it. These clean-up efforts aren't painless and there will be a political price to pay because people are impatient and want everything solved yesterday.

Oh, I think people knew what their wrong votes in 2000 and 2004 got us, which is why Obama won in 2008. They are not going to want to return to the failed policies of those 8 years. But if cleaning up those failed policies costs democrats and Obama a second term, then so be it. These clean-up efforts aren't painless and there will be a political price to pay because people are impatient and want everything solved yesterday.

You know full well that the people are regretting their decision to vote for him and that THAT'S why there will be a new president in 2012. For if cleaning up the failed policies is what Obama is doing right now, they would be reelecting him in 3 years. But, that's not what he's doing. He's changing this country into a socialistic nation and spending us into oblivion!

The people who voted for Obama and are unhappy with him are those who think he is not liberal/progressive enough and think he is governing too close to center or center right. These are not the people you see at the tea bagger rallies. Those are the people who didn't and never would vote for Obama.

Here is how "legitimate" fox news and the former bush white house press secretary, Dana Perino, is. She says we never had a terrorist attack during Bush's presidency. In her defense, maybe she had a mini stroke before she said this:

Daily Kos: Perino: "We did NOT have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." W/ POLL.

The people who voted for Obama and are unhappy with him are those who think he is not liberal/progressive enough and think he is governing too close to center or center right. These are not the people you see at the tea bagger rallies. Those are the people who didn't and never would vote for Obama.

Wrong! Most people I know who voted for him are not happy with their vote any longer.

Here is how "legitimate" fox news and the former bush white house press secretary, Dana Perino, is. She says we never had a terrorist attack during Bush's presidency. In her defense, maybe she had a mini stroke before she said this:

Daily Kos: Perino: "We did NOT have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." W/ POLL.

Talk about grasping at straws to find an error with a conservative. Wow! She knows full well about 9-11. She meant to say since Bush declared War on the terrorists of 911. We all talk about how Bush's administration has protected us from terrorist attacks since 9-11. This was no different. If you're going to 'grasp" at any chance to find a slip of the tongue in order to try to convince me that all conservative rights are ditzy, then I can do the same with Obama and even Biden or Gibbs. Please!!!! But I think we're both a little too old for that childness. As for me, I'm not going there.

Talk about grasping at straws to find an error with a conservative. Wow! She knows full well about 9-11. She meant to say since Bush declared War on the terrorists of 911. We all talk about how Bush's administration has protected us from terrorist attacks since 9-11. This was no different. If you're going to 'grasp" at any chance to find a slip of the tongue in order to try to convince me that all conservative rights are ditzy, then I can do the same with Obama and even Biden or Gibbs. Please!!!! But I think we're both a little too old for that childness. As for me, I'm not going there.

You just went there. Why didn't Hannity correct her or why didn't she correct herself? Because until they're caught, Fox news just keeps on putting the lies out there. Like they did with the pictures of the November rally which were actually pictures from the Sept. rally. Until they were caught - they just let the lie continue.

And this is where people get their news?? No wonder people are so ill-informed and mis-informed!!:thumbup:

You just went there. Why didn't Hannity correct her or why didn't she correct herself? Because until they're caught, Fox news just keeps on putting the lies out there. Like they did with the pictures of the November rally which were actually pictures from the Sept. rally. Until they were caught - they just let the lie continue.

And this is where people get their news?? No wonder people are so ill-informed and mis-informed!!:thumbup:

You must be one of the wiser Americans in this country.:frown:

The majority of People watch FOX. They are the #1 watched News station. You are sooooo intellegent because you're not like the majority of us who watch FOX, cause we can't think for ourselves.:wink: We're soooo dumb compared to you. You are soooo much smarter than the rest of the country who tends to watch the News station that they believe is on target and right. When the majority of the people tune into FOX it's not because they're all wrong in the way they think. It's because they are RIGHT!!!!

Lev. 18:22

, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13

, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10

, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28

, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

The bible also says this:

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21

If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

DEUTERONOMY 22:22

If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

MARK 10:1-12

Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

LEVITICUS 18:19

The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. MARK 12:18-27

If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12

If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

why do some old testament laws still need to be adhered to while others don`t?

The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.” The Old Testament law can be a good guidepost for knowing how to love God and knowing what goes into loving your neighbor. At the same time, to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect. The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.

“This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lyin g to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. Also, the law about homosexuality is repeated in the New testament. It is to be upheld. The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9; Galatians 3:24). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.

Oh, I think people knew what their wrong votes in 2000 and 2004 got us, which is why Obama won in 2008. They are not going to want to return to the failed policies of those 8 years. But if cleaning up those failed policies costs democrats and Obama a second term, then so be it. These clean-up efforts aren't painless and there will be a political price to pay because people are impatient and want everything solved yesterday.

Agreed! I would like to see Obama make it through to two terms, but if doing the right things (ending the wars, passing healthcare, fixing the financial system, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, repealing DOMA, climate change, etc.) means he gets voted out then so be it. He is just one man, I think the principals are more important than the man.

The people who voted for Obama and are unhappy with him are those who think he is not liberal/progressive enough and think he is governing too close to center or center right. These are not the people you see at the tea bagger rallies. Those are the people who didn't and never would vote for Obama.

count me in that camp

Quote from Glen Reynolds:

"I think Obama's 'charisma' was based on voter narcissism--people excited not just about electing a black president, but about themselves, voting for a black president. Now that's over, and they're stuck just with him, and emptied of their own narcissism there's not much there to fill out the suit."