Secular society? Where?

[Shine Dalgarno]

Or maybe it's the fact that "global climate change" has for decades been used to attack capitalism. Climate change isn't really up for debate -- as our climate has been changing constantly since the creation of Earth -- it's the idea that the changing climates we're going through are the fault of human interaction with the environment.

To repeat what I said earlier, there is a disproportionate amount of evangelicals who do not believe in global warming. There must be a reason for this. And its not because evangelicals are capitalists, because capitalism has nothing to do with Christianity.

Or how you can consider reasons for Christians to support the Republican party "arbitrary", when the conservatism has proven itself over liberalism in nearly every instance to be more focused on individual responsibility and the sanctity of innocent life.

Well, Im not going to turn this into a red vs blue debate because I cant stand either party. But I think by "individual responsibility" and "sanctity of innocent life" the only thing you could possibly be talking about is abortion. One point, Sasquatch.

But what about other issues?

Theres a woman somewhere in America who just found out she has breast cancer and she is going to have her health insurance rescinded tomorrow so an insurance company can save money. What party attempted to expand health insurance? Even if you dont agree with Obamacare (Im guessing you dont), which party has consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly? I guess once you're born your life isnt so "sanctified" anymore.

Which party has drastically reduced pollution standards, which disproportionately leads to pollution of poor neighborhoods?

Under which administration where safety requirements for oil drilling greatly reduced, endangering lives and resulting in the death of 11 BP workers (Hint: BP racked up over 700 violations during the Bush years. ) Again, who was not protecting the sanctity of life?

Which party has continually cut funding for financial aid (in other words, which party is making it more difficult for "individually responsible" people to go to college and actually become taxpayers instead of just collecting a welfare check?)

Under which administration have two wars been fought with no clear goals or endgame or plan to get out, resulting in the death of literally countless innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan (since the DoD has said theres probably only 200 Al Qaeda members in Aghanistan, Im guessing most of the 100,000 + killed were not Al Qaeda and not a threat to American security)

Five points, Shine Dalgarno. And I only touched on the Bush years. I could go on and on.........

First: Religious people in America don't all belong to the same party. There are plenty of people who claim plenty of religions that have vastly differing views. Second: "Tax cuts for the wealthy" should be "letting those who make money keep some of it", since the wealthy are still taxed disproportionately more than anybody else. Third: "Lax pollution standards" should be "rules that aren't entirely based on attacking capitalism and killing jobs". Fourth: "Draconian punishments", I'm not even sure where the hell you're trying to go with this. If you're referring to capital punishment, I've already addressed it, and I'm not sure what else could be considered "draconian", though thank you for using another liberal buzz-word.

Again, im not turning this into a red vs blue flame war. I will just say this. You are kidding yourself if you believe any party is looking after your interest.

You are in denial if you believe that the vast majority of the wealthy (ie millionaires) "worked hard" to get their money, or that they "deserve" it because they provide some social benefit to America, like some wise men who just keep the gears of society moving. You are in denial if you believe that pollution standards kill jobs, or that everyone is out to destory Christianity, or when you cut some rich person's taxes, that they expand the economy, instead of just putting it all in derivatives (ie bets).

Just like how someone is crazy who thinks that guns lead to increased crime, or that religion causes people to do violent things....im sure theres a few other kooky liberal ideas but these two come to mind the most.

And you'd be wrong. Morals and ethics are two different things.

Your whole "everything evolved to be moral" argument is not only baseless, it's completely irrelevant, so I'll just ignore that. Especially the entire "survival of the most sharing" idea.

Pretending evolution doesnt exist doesnt make it go away

No, because those issues would not be found in the teachings of Jesus. And before you start whining about how Jesus taught us to help the poor and homeless, I'll explain ... well, really, the only thing I need to say is "charity". There are hundreds of thousands of charitable organizations in the United States, and Americans are some of the most giving people in the world. (If you do a little research, you'll also find that conservatives give much more time and money to charity than do liberals, Republicans more than Democrats, etc.) The problem comes in with a federal government forcing "charity". And, of course, the fact that programs designed to help the poor have been expanded so greatly that they are almost encouraging poverty.

So what you should do is create programs that encourage independence, like financial aid for schooling tied to continued academic performance, especially in the sciences. And give financial aid based on per credit hour for required courses, not just capping aid per year, so students get out faster. Or maybe giving the severely disabled insurance even after they go to work.

Evangelicals dont support those type of programs either. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Youve been tricked into believe that people are poor because they want to be poor. The truth is, someone made up an excuse to be greedy and you believe it.

And universal healthcare? Well, let's see -- the two countries with healthcare systems closest to the one Obama suggested, and the type that liberals have been fighting for for years, are abysmally horrible. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians come to the United States every year because there are American states with more necessary equipment and specialists than Canada has in the entire country. And there have been stories of people in England pulling their own teeth out with a pair of pliers because they had already had to wait more than two years just to get a cavity filled. Now, this isn't the place to debate whether or not certain types of socialized medicine are beneficial (as if there is any debate at all), but one cannot claim "if you don't support this, you must not be Christian" when the issue would be going against the teachings of Christ.

Obamacare is almost entirely private insurance, with a mandate. So its actually nothing like Canada or Great Britain. The system its most like is Switzerland, which, by the way, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

[Sasquatch]

To repeat what I said earlier, there is a disproportionate amount of evangelicals who do not believe in global warming.

... who don't believe in man-made global warming. I'm not correcting you because I'm sure that's what you're trying to say, I'm correcting you because you're wrong.

There must be a reason for this. And its not because evangelicals are capitalists, because capitalism has nothing to do with Christianity.

Because the idea of man-made global climate change is nothing but another way to attack capitalism, and yes, the ideas of individual responsibility, non-forced charity, supporting yourself without demanding support from others, etc. do coincide quite nicely with Christianity.

But I think by "individual responsibility" and "sanctity of innocent life" the only thing you could possibly be talking about is abortion.

Abortion would also fall into those categories, but that's not all. I say individual responsibility, and the only thing you can think of is abortion? Really?

One point, Sasquatch.

But what about other issues?

You mean all the other things I said that you didn't address at all? If you really want to "score" this argument with "points", you might want to get your scoring system down.

Theres a woman somewhere in America who just found out she has breast cancer and she is going to have her health insurance rescinded tomorrow so an insurance company can save money.

If that is true, and there's no more to the story (like if she knew of a preexisting condition and falsified an application), then it would be illegal, and the insurance will not only be made to fulfill their contractual obligation and provide her with health insurance, but also legally punished and forced to pay fines, either to the government through a criminal trial or to the woman through a civil trial. But I'd like to see a credible cite for that.

What party attempted to expand health insurance? Even if you dont agree with Obamacare (Im guessing you dont), which party has consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly? I guess once you're born your life isnt so "sanctified" anymore.

First: "Health insurance" and "healthcare" are not synonymous, they are two entirely different things. But to answer your questions, neither party has attempted to expand legal health insurance -- one specific party has attempted to force an unConstitutional health insurance plan on the populace, forcing taxpayers to fund the bill for health insurance for those who have chosen to not pay for it themselves, then making them go through hoops for other people to decide whether certain medical procedures or treatment methods were "worth it". And neither party has "consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly". Unless you're talking about making health insurance more expensive by refusing to address tort and continually allowing false malpractice cases to cost doctors and hospitals money -- but I don't think you'd care to hear which party supports the "right" to sue anybody, for any amount of money, for any reason.

Which party has drastically reduced pollution standards, which disproportionately leads to pollution of poor neighborhoods?

Your question should be, "which party has attempted to block or slow extreme pollution standards, which cost American jobs?" American companies already have to jump through hoops and go to extremes to obey current pollution standards, which costs them productivity and money that could (and otherwise would) be used to expand their company.

Under which administration where safety requirements for oil drilling greatly reduced, endangering lives and resulting in the death of 11 BP workers (Hint: BP racked up over 700 violations during the Bush years.)

Are you referring to the Cllinton administration, which initially blocked American companies from drilling in the area of the Gulf oil spill, which led to BP (which had lower safety standards than American companies) taking it? Oh, of course not, you've got another case of BDS. Please, explain how an American politician indirectly killed people that he had absolutely, positively no control over.

Which party has continually cut funding for financial aid (in other words, which party is making it more difficult for "individually responsible" people to go to college and actually become taxpayers instead of just collecting a welfare check?)

Hahahahahahahahahahahah, wow. You think "individual responsibility" is demanding money for the government to better onesself? You obviously have no concept of "responsibility" ... or "individual", apparently.

So let me help you: "Which party has continually pushed for indivuals to be responsible for themselves and work to put themselves through college, instead of letting them demand taxpayer money that will not be repaid, just so they can get a mediocre education in a field with no demand?" And then, possibly: "Which (opposing) party has continually pushed for money to be taken out of the hands of those who have earned it, to be redistributed to those who wish for further education but weren't good enough to get a scholarship and aren't responsible enough to work their way through college, like millions upon millions of other people have without demanding federal funds?"

Under which administration have two wars been fought with no clear goals or endgame or plan to get out, resulting in the death of literally countless innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan (since the DoD has said theres probably only 200 Al Qaeda members in Aghanistan, Im guessing most of the 100,000 + killed were not Al Qaeda and not a threat to American security)

Again. "Under which administration have two conflicts been started that have liberated fifty million people from Islamic extremism that included, among other things, public rapings, female genital mutilation, torture, and rampant poverty." And you really need to stop making your ignorance so obvious -- 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Next you'll say that the Taliban isn't our enemy. In every conflict, there will be collateral damage -- but to say that there have been 100,000 innocent deaths is a blatant lie. Remember, this isn't a conventional conflict with two uniformed enemies, this isn't one country against another, this is the strongest military force in the world against a group of people with no qualms hiding among innocent civilians, people that force villages to protect them or their name, people that threaten innocents with slaughter if they refuse to help them. And claiming that those that aren't specifically Al Qaeda are not our enemies is, at best, foolishly naive.

Five points, Shine Dalgarno. And I only touched on the Bush years. I could go on and on.........

This isn't the place, but if you would really like to compete, check the "create thread" button. I'll teach you how to keep score.

Again, im not turning this into a red vs blue flame war.

No, you're not, despite your efforts.

I will just say this. You are kidding yourself if you believe any party is looking after your interest.

Who said I believe that any party has my best interest in mind? I acknowledge that they don't -- but I do. Which is why I support the candidate (not the party, but the candidate) whose policies most closely resemble mine.

You are in denial if you believe that the vast majority of the wealthy (ie millionaires) "worked hard" to get their money, or that they "deserve" it because they provide some social benefit to America, like some wise men who just keep the gears of society moving.

Then how did they get it? Are you one of the many who refute the fact that only 1.5% of people with over a million dollars actually inherited it? What, did every rich person steal their money?

Sure -- they didn't earn it, let's take it from them! Then nobody will ever work to be financially successful, because they will never be rewarded for it. But we'll all be equal in our poverty, yay!

You are in denial if you believe that pollution standards kill jobs ...

... except for the fact that extreme pollution standards result in job losses, and thus economic downturns ...

... or that everyone is out to destory Christianity ...

When did I say that everybody is out to destroy Christianity? It's obvious that some people here carry some sort of contempt for it, but it's not like that unreasonable, ignorant disdain is any sort of majority.

... or when you cut some rich person's taxes, that they expand the economy, instead of just putting it all in derivatives (ie bets).

Hahahahah, right. Because when people get paid, they take whatever's left over and buy entire boxes of lottery tickets, right? Do you honestly believe that a person who owns a company won't use the money the company makes to expand the company? No, no, nevermind -- my sides already hurt from reading your comments, I'm not sure I want to hear any more of your hairbrained ideas.

Just like how someone is crazy who thinks that guns lead to increased crime, or that religion causes people to do violent things....im sure theres a few other kooky liberal ideas but these two come to mind the most.

Wow. You actually said something ... true. Not just true, but logical, at that. Maybe you do actually think sometimes.

Pretending evolution doesnt exist doesnt make it go away

And, I was wrong. Anyway, the fact that morals and ethics are two different things still remains, no matter what you choose to take faith in. If, for some reason, you haven't learned that yet, Ethics classes are GDRs for most college degrees, so you'll learn it then. Theoretically.

So what you should do is create programs that encourage independence, like financial aid for schooling tied to continued academic performance, especially in the sciences.

How exactly is giving somebody somebody else's money "encouraging independence"?

And give financial aid based on per credit hour for required courses, not just capping aid per year, so students get out faster.

Or so that students are encouraged to take on a larger course load than they can handle.

Or maybe giving the severely disabled insurance even after they go to work.

What type of insurance are you referring to?

Evangelicals dont support those type of programs either. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You made the claim, you prove it. That's how this works, here. Or, wait, wait, let me try: There's a huge conspiracy to make people believe that the sky is blue, when really, it's green. Prove me wrong.

Youve been tricked into believe that people are poor because they want to be poor. The truth is, someone made up an excuse to be greedy and you believe it.

You've been tricked into believing that people are poor because some other greedy bastard made them poor. The vast majority of the poor are poor not because they want to be (I never made any comments on whether or not poor people want to be poor), but because they have not done enough to not be poor.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because they both keep doing what they did to make them that way in the first place. The rich, generally, continue to educate themselves, continue to invest, continue to advance their companies. The poor, generally, continue to blame others for their situation, expect others to pay for them to get out of it, or simply remain dissatisfied hardly enough to change their situation.

Obamacare is almost entirely private insurance, with a mandate. So its actually nothing like Canada or Great Britain. The system its most like is Switzerland, which, by the way, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Obamacare provides a federal health insurance, that is the mandate. If somebody doesn't have private insurance, they are forced to have federal insurance. Slowly but surely, Democrats will continue to make private health insurance more and more expensive until enough people choose rely on the already-tax-funded, and thus cheaper, federal option. Eventually, enough of the population will be on federal health insurance that another socialist will mandate it for everybody.

Actually, I think it's absurd that a religious group can be so readily identified with one particular party. The Republicans are (largely) pro-life. But they also have so many policies that don't seem like they would meet 'WWJD'.

I wouldn't say that they are identified with any one particular party. There are people who claim to be Christians that are liberal, there are some that are extremely liberal to the point of socialist, hell, there are supposed Christians who support KKK and neo-naziism. The Republican Party does not, and has never, had the support of any one religion as a whole.

If your definition of secularism is that people must deny a fundamental aspect of their identity when forming political opinions, you are suppressing religion, which is a different kettle of fish from separating it from the State.

Emphasis mine. Excellent point. That's basically what I've been trying to point out.

I actually think even as individuals, we shouldnt automatically get behind one party, unless you agree 100% with the party all the time. But how often does that happen, really?

Prettymuch never. Which is why no one party controls every voter in any specific sect. The Democratic Party does not get all of the young vote, or all of the ethnic minority vote, or all of the female vote, and the Republican Party does not get all of the religious vote, or all of the white vote, or all of the middle-class vote.

If Jesus went around talking about how big business was the backbone of society or how wealth should be the standard by which we measure success, I would totally support evangelicals voting Republican. But he doesnt.

So, to translate: "I don't care if Christians vote, or that they use their beliefs to influence their vote, but I don't like that whom they vote for."

To be fair, most of the time I vote I feel like Im choosing between "awful" and "even worse". And I think religious groups feel the same way sometimes.

So why do you claim that the Republican party has a stranglehold on "evangelicals"?

By the way, my two favorite politicians are Democrats.

[Shine Dalgarno]

... who don't believe in man-made global warming. I'm not correcting you because I'm sure that's what you're trying to say, I'm correcting you because you're wrong.

Because the idea of man-made global climate change is nothing but another way to attack capitalism, and yes, the ideas of individual responsibility, non-forced charity, supporting yourself without demanding support from others, etc. do coincide quite nicely with Christianity.

You're gonna need to quote some scripture. Where in Matthew 25 does Jesus give the caveat of "charity" not being "forced"?

If that is true, and there's no more to the story (like if she knew of a preexisting condition and falsified an application), then it would be illegal, and the insurance will not only be made to fulfill their contractual obligation and provide her with health insurance, but also legally punished and forced to pay fines, either to the government through a criminal trial or to the woman through a civil trial. But I'd like to see a credible cite for that.

(Well, now its illegal, or will be soon, because of Obama's law.)

Everyone thinks they have good health insurance until they get sick and they find out they dont. Insurance companies have changed the definition of pre-existing condition to almost anything. Prior to Obama's law, if you had an ear infection as a kid they could rescind your coverage when you go to collect your claim for cancer treatment if you didnt tell them about the ear infection. That is, didnt tell them about an inconsequential and unrelated minor illness or injury decades in the past. Its hardly falsifying, since the vast majority of time peoples' coverage was rescinded for things that no one who was sober could call a condition. AIDS is a pre-existing condition, not an ear infection

And the courts seem to agree that this policy over-reaches what was meant be pre-existing condition. But for many years this was common

First: "Health insurance" and "healthcare" are not synonymous, they are two entirely different things.

Im glad you figured that out. Ill take credit for you realizing this, since you clearly didnt know the difference when you wrote your last post, comparing the NHS to Obamacare.

But to answer your questions, neither party has attempted to expand legal health insurance -- one specific party has attempted to force an unConstitutional health insurance plan on the populace, forcing taxpayers to fund the bill for health insurance for those who have chosen to not pay for it themselves, then making them go through hoops for other people to decide whether certain medical procedures or treatment methods were "worth it". And neither party has "consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly". Unless you're talking about making health insurance more expensive by refusing to address tort and continually allowing false malpractice cases to cost doctors and hospitals money -- but I don't think you'd care to hear which party supports the "right" to sue anybody, for any amount of money, for any reason.

Too many words, too much loaded language.

Summary: You admit Obama expanded insurance, but you think he did so illegally.

Which is a fair point.

See, Im not unresonable. No need for you to get all flustered.

Your question should be, "which party has attempted to block or slow extreme pollution standards, which cost American jobs?" American companies already have to jump through hoops and go to extremes to obey current pollution standards, which costs them productivity and money that could (and otherwise would) be used to expand their company.

Not really. I use to work for Dow Chemical which is the largest chemical company in the world, and is a leader in sustainability. The EPA isnt perfect, and sometimes Dow has actually been punished for being so eco-friendly. I remember when the EPA had a list of substances all companies need to reduce emissions of a certain percent. Well, Dow had already done all the cheap stuff to lower emissions so short of rebuilding 50 year old buildings there wasnt much they could do.

But of course thats a special case. Most companies just drag their feet. It doesnt cost much to dispose of substances safer or to buy some cleaner equipment. And remember that money is going somewhere. When a company buys cleaner equipment they are putting money into the economy. Its the trickle down theory you guys love so much.

Which party has continually pushed for indivuals to be responsible for themselves and work to put themselves through college, instead of letting them demand taxpayer money that will not be repaid, just so they can get a mediocre education in a field with no demand?

"Which (opposing) party has continually pushed for money to be taken out of the hands of those who have earned it, to be redistributed to those who wish for further education but weren't good enough to get a scholarship and aren't responsible enough to work their way through college, like millions upon millions of other people have without demanding federal funds?"

You have unrealistic expectations on how to pay for college.

How did you pay for college?

And you really need to stop making your ignorance so obvious -- 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

lol

What, did every rich person steal their money?

No, only the investment bankers. And thats mainly who I was talking about. You do know the average salary at Goldman Sachs right?

Hahahahah, right. Because when people get paid, they take whatever's left over and buy entire boxes of lottery tickets, right? Do you honestly believe that a person who owns a company won't use the money the company makes to expand the company? No, no, nevermind -- my sides already hurt from reading your comments, I'm not sure I want to hear any more of your hairbrained ideas.

I was obviously talking about individuals.

Note to self: You have no idea what a derivative is.

What type of insurance are you referring to?

medicaid waiver

You made the claim, you prove it. That's how this works, here. Or, wait, wait, let me try: There's a huge conspiracy to make people believe that the sky is blue, when really, it's green. Prove me wrong.

Well thats easy. No programs like those exist, and democrats would support it if they were ever proposed by republicans.

Obamacare provides a federal health insurance, that is the mandate. If somebody doesn't have private insurance, they are forced to have federal insurance. Slowly but surely, Democrats will continue to make private health insurance more and more expensive until enough people choose rely on the already-tax-funded, and thus cheaper, federal option. Eventually, enough of the population will be on federal health insurance that another socialist will mandate it for everybody.

What?

I know it was 1200 pages long or whatever but you need to go over to Kaiser's website and at least read a summary of the law, because you are not even close to correct. Theres no "federal" option, unless you mean Medicaid, which is state run (ie not Federal), and free.

No wonder you hate the law, you have no idea what it does!

So why do you claim that the Republican party has a stranglehold on "evangelicals"?

a quick google search says 78% vote republican. that was for midterm election, maybe a bit different in general

By the way, my two favorite politicians are Democrats.

Cool story bro

[Sasquatch]

You're gonna need to quote some scripture. Where in Matthew 25 does Jesus give the caveat of "charity" not being "forced"?

You should really check up on Matthew 25. Nowhere in Matthew 25 does it say anything about people being forced to give -- having your money stolen and redistributed is not "charity".

In fact, the entire chapter is about what people have done willingly -- what they've chosen to do -- with what they have. If I remember correctly, it's made up of three parables. Out of the three men with sixteen talents among them, the one who refused to invest his talent is the disappointment. AND HE WAS NOT GIVEN ANOTHER. Out of the ten women who went to meet the bridegroom, the five who squandered their lamp oil are the disappointment. AND THEY WERE NOT GIVEN MORE. And, of course, nowhere does it say in the third tale, "you had worked for financial success, so you had your money stolen from you and redistributed to me when I was poor, so come, ye who are blessed."

While you're out googling Matthew 25, try looking up the definition of the word "charity". Involuntary "charity" is not charity at all.

And check out 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

(Well, now its illegal, or will be soon, because of Obama's law.)

It was illegal before, and it still is. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

By the way, where's that credible cite I asked about?

Prior to Obama's law, if you had an ear infection as a kid they could rescind your coverage when you go to collect your claim for cancer treatment if you didnt tell them about the ear infection. That is, didnt tell them about an inconsequential and unrelated minor illness or injury decades in the past. Its hardly falsifying, since the vast majority of time peoples' coverage was rescinded for things that no one who was sober could call a condition.

When an insurance company asks you about any past conditions, injuries, and illnesses, and you leave something out, that's on you. It would be just like hiding from your car insurance company that you've totalled the last half-dozen vehicles you've driven before you applied for their insurance.

But while we're at it, do you have anything other than your own word that says somebody was dropped, legally, because they didn't inform their health insurance company of an ear infection "decades in the past"?

And the courts seem to agree that this policy over-reaches what was meant be pre-existing condition.

So you're trying to say that, before Obama, it was common for health insurance to cancel or refuse coverage because of simple things like ear infections, and that, before Obama, it was completely legal ... but the courts agreed that it wasn't legal? Get your story straight, kid.

Im glad you figured that out. Ill take credit for you realizing this, since you clearly didnt know the difference when you wrote your last post, comparing the NHS to Obamacare.

Actually, no, I didn't "compare" Obamacare to NHS. I compared NHS and Canadian Medicare to the program that Obama suggested, not the one that he actually got passed. However, I also made the distinction that Obamacare will slowly but surely be advanced to the point of NHS and Canadian Medicare. Are you trying to be ignorant because get a kick out of it, or are you actually serious with these asinine accusations?

Too many words, too much loaded language.

Summary: You admit Obama expanded insurance, but you think he did so illegally.

How 'bout no, kid. Try reading it again -- attempting to force people to buy insurance, then having taxpayers fund it anyway, and bragging that Omaba "expanded insurance" is like setting somebody's house on fire and bragging that you provided them with heat through the winter.

By the way, it's not just me that realizes that parts of it are unConstitutional -- a little something called the Supreme Court also says so.

Not really. I use to work for Dow Chemical which is the largest chemical company in the world, and is a leader in sustainability. The EPA isnt perfect, and sometimes Dow has actually been punished for being so eco-friendly. I remember when the EPA had a list of substances all companies need to reduce emissions of a certain percent. Well, Dow had already done all the cheap stuff to lower emissions so short of rebuilding 50 year old buildings there wasnt much they could do.

Again I will ask for a credible cite, and again I will expect nothing.

But of course thats a special case. Most companies just drag their feet. It doesnt cost much to dispose of substances safer or to buy some cleaner equipment. And remember that money is going somewhere. When a company buys cleaner equipment they are putting money into the economy. Its the trickle down theory you guys love so much.

First, that wouldn't be "trickle-down" at all -- that would be forcing a company to spend money on unnecessary equipment that they could be spending on, say, hiring new employees, developing new technology, or building a new plant. If you're going to use an idea, make sure you know what it is. And second, the United States has some of the strictest pollution standards in the world, partly because of the UN, Kyoto Protocol, etc., even when "developing" countries are still allowed to pump more pollution out in a month, with less production, than the United States does in a year. And do you really believe that most companies would rather "drag their feet" than do things that, according to you, don't cost much, then use their high pollution standards as advertisement?

You have unrealistic expectations on how to pay for college.

So millions upon millions of people haven't paid their own way through college? Nobody gets a job to pay for their schooling and residence, nobody takes a couple years off after high school to save up enough money for college?

lol

Yes, I'm aware of Obama's NSA's estimate of less than a hundred. I'm glad you laughed -- I found it quite comedic that you actually believe it. Though I can't say I'm surprised.

Saying that there are only 100 or 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan would be like saying that the United States military is less than 50,000 personnel, because that's how many are in SOCOM. Or that the U.S. only has a few million children in it, because that's how many teachers we count.

No, only the investment bankers. And thats mainly who I was talking about.

Ah, I got it. So ... ummm ... yeah, so it's still ignorant.

You do know the average salary at Goldman Sachs right?

You do know the difference between mean and median, right? Mean, median, mode, you should have learned those in middle school. Do you know the median salary at Goldman Sachs?

And when you calculate salaries (or, rather, read a blog that somebody else "calculated" on) for those employed by Goldman Sachs, do you include the millions that have been made by Democratic Congressmen, Senators, and Presidential candidates?

I was obviously talking about individuals.

And, praytell, how many people just "fell into money"? How many people became rich just by "chance", like winning the lottery, instead of through investments or company ownership?

Note to self: You have no idea what a derivative is.

If I were you, I would write that note to myself, as well, considering the fact that you referred to them as "bets".

medicaid waiver

If they are well enough to work, why should they still be leeching taxpayer money? There are plenty of different Medicaid waivers for those with developmental disabilities, and many of them are still available to those with disabilities while they are working, provided that they are earning under a certain income level -- I'm not sure what you're trying to complain about, here.

Well thats easy. No programs like those exist, and democrats would support it if they were ever proposed by republicans.

So your idea of "proving" that specific issues are not supported by a certain group of people is stating that those specific programs don't exist, so they must not have support from that particular group of people? Really, at this point, the ignorance can't be accidental.

Democrats had control of the White House and both houses of Congress for the first two years of both Clinton's and Obama's presidency. If Democrats would support it, as you so claim, it would have been pushed through when they had the power to push nearly anything through, even if it wasn't supported by evangelicals.

What?

I know it was 1200 pages long or whatever but you need to go over to Kaiser's website and at least read a summary of the law, because you are not even close to correct. Theres no "federal" option, unless you mean Medicaid, which is state run (ie not Federal), and free.

At this point, I've reasoned that it would be nearly be impossible for you to naturally be this ignorant, so even though you probably won't understand this, I'll explain it just in case somebody else is reading this and isn't quite sure about it.

Obamacare basically forces people to buy health insurance. If they don't, they will pay slightly higher taxes to be put on a "federal insurance" plan. Hence, the "mandate" -- you can either buy your own insurance, or you'll be put on the dole for a federal HMO.

By the way, "free" and "taxpayer-funded" are in no way synonymous.

And Medicaid is state-controlled, but majority of its funding comes from the federal level. Which is why the federal government has to approve nearly everything the state wants to do.

a quick google search says 78% vote republican. that was for midterm election, maybe a bit different in general

So the way that the majority of a group votes in one mid-term election dictates that the entire group belongs to that party. Got it.

I mean, really? You're a horrible comedian. And I only say that because of all of the bad jokes in your post. Prettymuch your entire post has to be a joke. I mean, it is a joke, but you meant it as a joke, right? Right? Please tell me you meant it as a joke.

[Shine Dalgarno]

By the way, where's that credible cite I asked about?

Im not playing games with you. I know what youre doing. Complain about someone not citing (while you continually cite nothing) then when I do cite something you say “ROFL [irrelevant comment here]”.

Actually, no, I didn't "compare" Obamacare to NHS. I compared NHS and Canadian Medicare to the program that Obama suggested

What!?

So you didnt compare Obamacare to NHS, you compared NHS to Obamacare.

Oh, okay.

Even if that sentence made any sense at all, you are still wrong and comparing not two, but three completely different styled programs.

I think what you meant to say is that Obama wanted a single payer system, which is not true.

comparison of obama’s and actual plan

(I know you wont actually read it, but I posted the link for anyone else reading this thread because it has good information for responsible adults who do not wish to remain ignorant about serious issues.)

If you had actually done any research at all on this topic you would know Obama did not want to decide what was in the healthcare law, because this is what Clinton did, and its why Clinton failed at healthcare reform. So Obama gave very few guidelines, as seen in the above link.

Not to mention that you still don’t understand the difference between Canada’s Medicare and the NHS (or Obamacare, for that matter).

try looking up the definition of the word "charity". Involuntary "charity" is not charity at all.

Yawn. Another banal (that means "unoriginal") argument from you.

People like you are a dime a dozen.

The problem is, its only when the government is giving money to you that you dont see it as a waste.

Some white man who looks like GI Joe who uses government aid to get him out of a hole-well you think thats perfectly acceptable! Hes just trying to make a living so he can have 8 kids who can grow up and vote Republican and collect Medicare. Thats all American. But once some poor person from Detroit or Cleveland tries to get health insurance for their kid with Duchenne's, everything changes, because they are just lazy and ambitionless parasites just trying to steal of the hard working man.

you're so against government handouts and socialized medicine, but you know as well as I do you will be first in line when you're 65 to cash your social security check and get your Medicare payed for scooter.

Because......you think you deserve it, right? its those "other people" who dont deserve it! People like you go retire at age 54 and spend the next 40 years collecting some fatass state or military pension while they sit around listening to people like Glenn Beck, without irony, talking about people mooching off the government.

You created a dichotomy (that means, two things that are seperate and opposite) where when the government gives you money its okay, but once someone who is not you gets money, well thats just a waste of your hard earned tax money.

The truth is that everyone relies on the government, in some way or another. Maybe its through farm subsidies, or military contracts, or grants in academia, but everyone is dependent on government financing.

And you know this. This is why you didnt say how you payed for college, because you know you didnt pay for it, and chances are the government did in some way or another.

To bring this thread back to the original topic, Sasquatch is exhibit A in why religion should be separate from politics. Even if you dont believe that it hurts society, it hurts the religion too. Christianity is a beautiful religion, but Sasquatch has actually said capitalism is one of its principles. When you read Ayn Rand and then read the Bible and come away with the same take home message, something is wrong. Thats a perversion of Christianity

[Sasquatch]

Im not playing games with you. I know what youre doing.

Asking for a credible cite to put some evidence towards your bullshit story? How dare I?

Complain about someone not citing (while you continually cite nothing) then when I do cite something you say “ROFL [irrelevant comment here]”.

I asked you for a cite, and the one you provided was irrelevant, and on an entirely different topic. I've been posting facts which are common knowledge to, well, prettymuch everybody. But if you might actually learn something, tell me what you need a citation for, and I would be happy to provide it.

So you didnt compare Obamacare to NHS, you compared NHS to Obamacare.

Obamacare is the bill that was passed, not Obama's original plan. I'm really not sure how you can be a functional human being without the capacity to understand simple concepts like this -- I compared NHS with Obama's original plan. Neither of which are Obamacare.

I think what you meant to say is that Obama wanted a single payer system, which is not true.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." -Barack Obama, 2003

Again, I'm not sure how this can be difficult for you to understand. Obama said nearly a decade ago that he was a proponent of a single-payer system, but that the only thing standing in the way was that Democrats didn't have control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Since then, Democrats have gained control of all three (and have since lost one), and Obama has taken that opportunity to push through what will evolve into a single-payer system.

See, again, I'm not saying that Obamacare is a fully single-payer system. I haven't said that at all. But the fact remains that it does have a single-payer mandate for a certain portion of the population.

Yawn. Another banal (that means "unoriginal") argument from you.

If it's unoriginal, you should have heard it before. And if you've heard it before, you have no excuse for not knowing.

The problem is, its only when the government is giving money to you that you dont see it as a waste.

I haven't had the government "give" me any money at all.

Some white man who looks like GI Joe who uses government aid to get him out of a hole-well you think thats perfectly acceptable! Hes just trying to make a living so he can have 8 kids who can grow up and vote Republican and collect Medicare. Thats all American. But once some poor person from Detroit or Cleveland tries to get health insurance for their kid with Duchenne's, everything changes, because they are just lazy and ambitionless parasites just trying to steal of the hard working man.

Wow -- you serious? Now, I figured that you'd eventually bust out Godwin's Law or call me racist, but I didn't realize that you are so ignorant as to fall back on it already.

So if it's a white guy, you think I'm fine with it, but if it's somebody fron Detroit or Cleveland -- hence, a minority -- then you think I'd just assume they're "lazy and ambitionless parasites".

Lemme guess ... next, you're going to try to BS your way into "well I never said it was a black guy from Detroit or Cleveland ..."

you're so against government handouts and socialized medicine, but you know as well as I do you will be first in line when you're 65 to cash your social security check and get your Medicare payed for scooter.

Is there anything else that you want to ignorantly assume about me? (By the way, I won't need to be "first in line" for Social Security, because I'm responsible enough to save for my own retirement.)

Because......you think you deserve it, right? its those "other people" who dont deserve it!

Anybody who pays their fair share into Social Security deserves to get their own money back out. Why wouldn't they?

People like you go retire at age 54 and spend the next 40 years collecting some fatass state or military pension while they sit around listening to people like Glenn Beck, without irony, talking about people mooching off the government.

You mean, you think "people like me" serve in a state or military position for long enough to earn a pension, then use their pension? Oh no, what freeloaders! Taking what they've earned, how dare they?

Never cared for Beck, either. Anything else you'd like to assume?

You created a dichotomy (that means, two things that are seperate and opposite) where when the government gives you money its okay, but once someone who is not you gets money, well thats just a waste of your hard earned tax money.

According to whom?

Or are you truly ignorant enough to believe that somebody who works a public job is being "given" a paycheck?

The truth is that everyone relies on the government, in some way or another. Maybe its through farm subsidies, or military contracts, or grants in academia, but everyone is dependent on government financing.

Not everybody in the private sector relies on government funding of some sort -- more often than not, government funding just screws with the market. Which is why you have federal grants going towards students who get accepted to college with ACT scores of 15 that will obviously not finish, federal funding going to farmers for leaving their fields empty, etc. etc.

And you know this. This is why you didnt say how you payed for college, because you know you didnt pay for it, and chances are the government did in some way or another.

Actually, I didn't say how I paid for college because it's none of your business. But you know how I mentioned the millions upon millions of people who either work their way through college or work for a few years to save money, or both? I did both, which is why I had a job through every semester of college, which I didn't start until four years after I graduated high school. I didn't receive, nor did I request, one cent of taxpayer money, though I qualified for multiple types.

Any other stupid accusations you want to throw out there, or do you actually have a sense of shame?

Christianity is a beautiful religion, but Sasquatch has actually said capitalism is one of its principles.

No, I haven't. I've said that they share many of the same principles, but I have not "actually said capitalism is one of its principles". Any other stupid quotes you want to attribute to me?

When you read Ayn Rand and then read the Bible and come away with the same take home message, something is wrong. Thats a perversion of Christianity

You have shown that you know very little about ... well, many things, but that long list includes Christianity and capitalism. And let's add Ayn Rand to that list, because it's a well-known fact that she was not only an Atheist, but very much against Christianity. Ayn Rand was an anarcho-capitalist, and though she would hate being associated with both anarchy and libertarianism, she would fit more closely into an "anarchist" label.

So ... are you just horrible at trolling, or are you really this stupid?

[Shine Dalgarno]

Obamacare is the bill that was passed, not Obama's original plan. I'm really not sure how you can be a functional human being without the capacity to understand simple concepts like this -- I compared NHS with Obama's original plan. Neither of which are Obamacare.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." -Barack Obama, 2003

Saying you want something, 5 years before you take office, is not a plan. Its something you want. In fact he didnt even say he wanted it, he just said he was a proponent (that means he likes it)

plan. noun. a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance

Im guessing you will cling to the developed in advance part, but its not a scheme of acting.

and Obama has taken that opportunity to push through what will evolve into a single-payer system.

speculation. citation that he is planning this? (remember, a plan is a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc.)

See, again, I'm not saying that Obamacare is a fully single-payer system. I haven't said that at all. But the fact remains that it does have a single-payer mandate for a certain portion of the population.

Source? (dont bother looking it doesnt have any single payer mandidate)

I haven't had the government "give" me any money at all.

But you did take it

So if it's a white guy, you think I'm fine with it, but if it's somebody fron Detroit or Cleveland -- hence, a minority -- then you think I'd just assume they're "lazy and ambitionless parasites".

Lemme guess ... next, you're going to try to BS your way into "well I never said it was a black guy from Detroit or Cleveland ..."

Is there anything else that you want to ignorantly assume about me? (By the way, I won't need to be "first in line" for Social Security, because I'm responsible enough to save for my own retirement.)

The point remains the same. Anything for you is okay, anything for anyone else is a waste. And you'll still be cashing those SS checks.

Anybody who pays their fair share into Social Security deserves to get their own money back out. Why wouldn't they?

You mean, you think "people like me" serve in a state or military position for long enough to earn a pension, then use their pension? Oh no, what freeloaders! Taking what they've earned, how dare they?

Again, the point remains the same. If you're going to complain about government handouts, then ya you're gonna be called out whenever you take government money.

Never cared for Beck, either.

Of course you dont. And you dont like Rand either and you dont Kiss Reagan's ass and you vote with an open mind, just like everyone else on the internet

According to whom?

Or are you truly ignorant enough to believe that somebody who works a public job is being "given" a paycheck?

Everyone gets government money. Its difficult to determine what is worth the money, and what isnt. John McCain may not think studying bear DNA is worth it. Other people might think that state employees are compensated too much. The decent thing to do is to take what money is yours, and stop complaining like a little girl whenever someone else gets something.

Not everybody in the private sector relies on government funding of some sort

source

Which is why you have federal grants going towards students who get accepted to college with ACT scores of 15 that will obviously not finish, federal funding going to farmers for leaving their fields empty, etc. etc.

source (this one is not common knowledge, so you have to source it. Idk wtf college you went to, but mine didnt have anyone who "obviously will not finish"

Actually, I didn't say how I paid for college because it's none of your business. But you know how I mentioned the millions upon millions of people who either work their way through college or work for a few years to save money, or both? I did both, which is why I had a job through every semester of college, which I didn't start until four years after I graduated high school. I didn't receive, nor did I request, one cent of taxpayer money, though I qualified for multiple types.

All colleges receive public money, even private ones (although they obviously do less). Example: NIH funding. And all that factors in to tuition costs

No, I haven't. I've said that they share many of the same principles, but I have not "actually said capitalism is one of its principles".

Honestly, is there a big difference? so what if you havent. its still disgusting