Bernice: lol... I wouldnt call it a complete disaster.... he and cronies like him have awoken the average person against their so called "progressive" agenda

Snoopy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240988/France-tops-list-best-places-live-world-fifth-year-row--Britain-languishes-25th.html


Looks like you have more problems than you care to admit!

You can go on and on about our supposed infant mortality ranking as some sign about the US over all, but seems you need to take a look in the mirror before throwing more stones

Übergeek 바둑이: If it fails, it will be because the Republican party cares more about protecting the business of private insurers than about the lack of adequate care for the poor.


I disagree.... I think it will be because republicans care more about doing something right than what the democrats are willing to do. I live in a state with a couple of the more liberal republicans, who side with democrats way more than I would prefer, and they have never been ones to tote a party line just for that sake, yet they have not been able to back this latest health care plan.


Doesnt it bother you at all that Obama won the election basically because he called for a change in the way politics were run, and more bipartisanship, and openness and all that happy horse crap? This health care law would not take effect for 4 years, whats the rush to pass it like this anyway?

Übergeek 바둑이: lack of adequate care for the poor. Well, the US is the only modern industrialized country without universally available health care.


I am not sure you stated your point the way you meant to?

We already do have universally available health care.... even non citizens can walk into any emergency room and never be turned away services because they dont have the ability to pay for it.

as for the poor having adequate care.... I think if you are very poor you have a better chance to get you health care paid for you than any other income groups.

Übergeek 바둑이: I will go tell all the families who have no dead people, I am sure they will agree with me too!

You can never win this debate, since there is no way for you to prove that the losses would not have been greater had we left the status quo

I know you are smarter than that argument, really? You can always ask the family of a dead person, and they will not agree they like their son dead..... and I can agree on one point, that it is a lot easier to say a cost was worth it, when it isnt your familys life that was part of the cost.

But my point is still valid, we could have spent untold money and time keeping Saddam fenced in, and who knows, still end up having to take him out, and maybe it would cost a lot more if done down the road... maybe saying we got off cheap is wrong, but saying that we got off "cheaper" this way than any other way, how can you say I am wrong?

Übergeek 바둑이: ...and the CBO knows what the total cost would have been keeping him "fenced in" for who knows how many years, and then his sons, and then who knows, maybe some many years down the road, we end up having to go after him anyways, what is that total cost in lives and money?????

My guess is thsat we got off cheap!

BTW, you must be against our recent health care bill? Its funny I dont hear the media or liberals calling Obama a liar over this one, even though the CBO(yes the same trusted CBO that you just quoted) has said that their liberals' numbers are simply lies!

(V): What amount of endless resources were used to "fence" Saddam in? I still believe that taking him out was worth the cost, and that the cost to fence him in would have ended up greater in the long run

Bernice:

(V): so what? Two different fights, Saddam caused us more of a distraction alive than taking him down ever did.

And the point is, that once you have them captured, letting them go makes zero sense.

(V): Only 2???? Thats 2 too many

Artful Dodger: Dont you get it yet???? Neither Bush nor Obama had to react, because they both were the ones to orchestrate the attacks themselves!

Czuch: Okay, now there is witness to some accomplice, who helped this guy get on the plane without a passport..... CIA for sure, and points again to an inside job by Obama

It is obvious to me that this latest "terrorist attack' attempt was nothing more than an inside job by Obama and his neocon cronies, as a rouse to gain more support for their illegal wars on terror!

When are we all going to wake up?

rod03801: Unfortunately, their strategy seems to be, "Let's just get this through, we can unruffle feathers later"


To me it is eerily similar to Bush and the Iraq war.... Most republicans wanted to take Saddam out of power, and they just said and did what they had to, just to get it done and worry about the consequences later

The BIGGEST issue I have right now is that Bam was elected to change this sort of tone and so it is worse now, when the democrats have an issue they want done, no matter the consequences, because they were elected to not be like that!

Just goes to show politics is no different, Bam is no different, democrats are no different, there has not been, nor will there be, change anyone can believe in. The democrats are more frauds than Bush ever was, because they ran on being different, at least Bush never lied to the world like the dems have!

I would love to see the likes of nance Pelosi to be out on term limits and have no benefits and have to then find a real job... it makes me sick, the entitlements that she will have the rest of her life simply for being a representative in our government!!!!

We need to make representing charity work, something someone does to be altruistic, with little or no personal gains involved, then see what happens to that smug smile on Pelosis' face, the one where she knows no matter what she is set for a privileged life simply because she is a representative in our government????

Artful Dodger: I just saw a tv commercial that said "if real people debated the health care bill" in support of the democrats law.....

lmao, it showed a mother with a baby and a doctor and a contractor etc. all telling us "facts" about how great this law will be.... tells me exactly what democrats consider "debate" to be, them telling us what is right for us, and not letting any other opinions to the contrary be heard from!!!

Debate.... yeah right

Nobody wants to talk about our new health care, the one that has to be voted on now, even though it will be 4 years before it goes into effect? Dont bother reading it, or have any chance to amend some late changes, or even the fact that ZERO republicans support it.....


Bam, change we can believe in

(V): Thanks for the link... thats the first time i have seen it, and it more than confirms what I was thinking... the guy was being obstinate, he was purposely obstructing their policing duties, maybe they could have simply wasted more time and effort, and arrested this guy, but they just wanted him to move along, as everyone else was doing.

It is also obvious that this shove in the back is not what killed him, as he got up and walked away on his own afterward... really? If you have contact with the police and end up having a heart attack later, its police murder???

The guy was far from "minding his own business"

btw, here in the US, we respect the police, and once you choose to ignore any command they give you, no matter what your personal feelings are about the command, you obay it, and when you dont, then anything that happens to you after this is all your own fault. You can always after the fact make some action if you think what they did was wrong, but if they tell you to get out of the way, for any reason, you take your hands out of your pockets and you move out of the way

These police will never be charged with murder, as you would have them

Bernice:

(V): How do you know from the video that the police didnt tell him that they were arresting him for obstructing justice, and then he still ignored them, and they were trying to subdue him for arrest?

(V): Not to misuse violence. Not to hit someone then push them to the floor if the person is not causing or in the way of a greater harm.


That is all true.... BUT, the video tape does not tell you anything about that, the video does not tell you if the police thought he was concealing a weapon, or if he was a known suspect, or if he was told to take his hands out of his pockets and move away,.. my instincts tell me that with all the other stuff the police needed to tend to that day, he was obstructing justice, he was the negligent one, who caused his own death because he neglected to follow the direct orders of the police, and if he was still alive, he should be charged with manslaughter for his own death

(V): And the video did show a man with his hands in his pockets being hit and pushed from behind.... since when has that been legal?

Its legal if during a riot, the police command you to show your hands, and to move out of the way.... as far as i know, it is ilegal to disobay any command from a police officer, and they always have a right to force you to comply.

Now if, during this procedure, you have a heart attack, or you bang your head and end up dead, then that is not murder, and it is your own fault you are dead, or it is a coincidence, and you would have died of a heart attack anyway.

I am NOT saying this is what happened, but it is possible that a video doesnt tell the whole story, and like Snoopy said, if it was all as clear, cut and dry, as it appears n the video, then this investigation would have ended long ago, so the length of time it is taking tells me that your first assumption, that it was clearly murder, is WRONG

(V): Gut feeling... instinct. Knowing that something ain't right, or that the police were not telling the truth.

You never said that it was only your opinion that it was murder, you said that it was the police who murdered this poor bloke.... you didnt say that you would like to see an investigation into the incident, because it seemed like a murder to you.... you said it was a clear cut murder,

If you Brits were so into investigations, you would have called for an investigation, but instead, you called it a murder the day it happened

(V): Well, how could you call it murder the day happened, if you are so interested in investigations?

(V): Thats my point.... it was so clear cut murder, with not much investigation needed, was your attitude when it first happened!

If that was the case indeed, it wouldnt take 4 years to sort it out.... my guess is you were wrong

(V): Hey, what about the police who murdered the guy for no reason on the streets????
So cut and dry, should be cleared up by now???

Ferris Bueller: I agree with Charlie on this one... you have something that works, dont worry about the name, just tell us how it works. If it is better than what we have, we will let you know ;)

(V): Its true.... again the gay marriage debate... The courts made their rulings on it, and then the legislation is made, then the people vote it all down! But if we had not voted it down, then the courts would have definite influence on the law.

Pedro Martínez:

OMG!!!! I was totally ready to give a quick post about how stupid the majority of the people are, and then I read your and ADs posts.... LMFAO!!!!

Ferris Bueller: You keep saying that we are interfering with personal lives, but the issue is, if it is such a personal thing, then why make a big stink about not being included in such a public thing as marriage?????

Artful Dodger: One that i know of is that we own a couple of property together, but the tax breaks we can get from the taxes and insurance on the mortgages is not the same for us now as if we were married???

(V): Well, I can marry a woman who is not even a legal resident, even if I never met her before, and tomorrow she is legal and we have all the rights and benefits of marriage, and we can get divorced anytime we want to as well....

Artful Dodger: Well, you dont have to be married to get a tax deduction for kids under 18.... What exactly is the reason the state gives rights and breaks to marrieds anyway?

Artful Dodger: I think ubergeek said it already, but there is a portion of the gay marriage movement that is less interested in rights as they are in just making homosexuality more legitimate, and they are interested in all the semantics as well as changing the definition of marriage and the trimmings that would go with that.

Artful Dodger: Yes we have a will and other legal means to make up for a lot of things... there are a few sticky issues still, like inheritance tax and gifting money come to mind.... but except for the time and expense in drawing up legal documents, we can basically get most what we want done, as can gay unmarried couples!

Artful Dodger: Really... what are you doing for the state, as a married person, that I am not doing as an unmarried person? You pay them a fee for a license, thats one. What else? Its not like it is against the law for you to get a divorce. What does the state get in exchange for your marriage vows? Have you promised to raise x amount of children? Tell me the advantage the state gets in exchange for your tax breaks and other benefits?

Artful Dodger: Easy dude... read what I have written.... the only thing I ever said is that I have a right to fight for more rights... I also said that it was not discrimination to deny me those rights, and i also said that things are not always equal, nor do they need to be, and that a state has the right (with permission from its voters) to do whatever they believe is in their best interest!


I also never wanted anything just by living with someone, there has to be some form of intent and contract involved.


Question... do you believe that I should not be able to legally set up assurances that my girlfriend will inherit and any other rights I want to infer (or whatever the word should be) upon her?

Übergeek 바둑이: Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!


I am with you..... but I cannot sit here and say, that as an unmarried couple, we are discriminated against by the state

Another example.... the state gives out tax credits etc. if I do energy efficient upgrades to my home. Is it discrimination because someone who doesnt meet these criteria dont get the same tax benefits????

Übergeek 바둑이: As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together.

But, isnt there some merit to the argument that the states have a right to promote certain lifestyles that they believe will benefit them? If I have a good job and a healthy life style and have 5 children who grow up with a good education and these children end up productive, tax paying members in my state, then that is a good thing, as far as my state is concerned.

States already give tax incentives and other benefits to certain businesses that they want to attract to do business in that state. The state does not have to give the same incentives to a business they do not want. I might want a wind farm company in my state, but not a tobacco company, so I give incentives to the wind company to come here.

Well, they have the same right to promote families the way they want to as well. They give certain incentives for families that meet the criteria they want to promote, and those that dont meet that criteria, they dont give those incentives.

Gay couples cannot have 5 children to add to the tax revenues for the state.... single parent families are traditionally not as stable, and therefore less likely to produce productive tax paying members of society...

The state isnt discriminating against gay families etc, as much as they are simply giving extra reward and incentives for what they think will benefit the state more!

So to the state, gay families are akin to a tobacco company, and traditional families are like the wind farm

Tuesday: I understand that gays are hard wired that way, and that they wonder how someone could be attracted to the opposite sex in the same way we (heterosexuals) do not understand how anyone could be attracted to the same sex.....


But now talk about someone being hard wired to be attracted to children, everyone thinks that is abnormal and against what nature intended, (except for ubergeek, who seems to only have an issue with the consent issue) That is a clear example where nature has messed up, and it is not a hard leap to feel the same about being hard wired attracted to the same sex either

Tuesday: I dont know for sure, except that for me it seems more like I am hard wired to be attracted to women, not men, and I know gay people say the same about themselves.

I also know that nature has evolved us to be attracted to the opposite sex so we will propagate our species.... I dont know, maybe being gay is just another step forward in our evolution, and we are to evolve into a being that doesnt require sex to propagate our species, in which case, all of us still hard wired to be heterosexuals are someday going to be the abnormal ones.... EW! making babies by having intercourse with the opposite sex, how disgusting!

Tuesday: BTW we are above the other species right?

I thought you might be being factitious...

Because of the advancement in our brains, yes we are above other species.... and that does make us unique in nature, and in that regard it is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges when you try to talk about humans and other parts of nature.

Artful Dodger: Not really.... there are tax and other issues where single couples cannot compete with married ones.

However, there are many legal estate planning measures that do help give single couples, including gay ones, the same protections as married couple enjoy, it just takes a little bit of foresight and time!

Tuesday: Having sex outside of marriage is just as "abnormal" as being gay.

Really???? I am not using a religious argument..... in nature there is really no such thing as marriage, all other species have sex outside of marriage, so in nature, it is not abnormal to have sex outside of marriage.

(V): You cant do that.... thats the whole point! It is impossible for "gay" to be normal in nature, since it is impossible to propagate your species.

Lets say for example that you are right though.... gay people propagate the species and heterosexuals dont....
I am heterosexual, I am in the minority by a long shot, my tact is to forget the sex label and to fight it as I have said before, as equal rights for a caring couple, and not based on who I have sex with!

My situation right now is no different from a gay couples.... I am not married, (except that I choose not to be) But I am in a loving and committed relationship, and I want the same legal protections that married folks have!

Thing is, I am fighting for equal rights without getting married, and gays want equal rights to be able to marry.... we should simply get together and have equal rights without getting married!

From what I see , Gays are fighting for the right to be like heterosexuals, but what they(we non married folk) should be fighting for together, are the same rights without being married!


Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!

(V): But that does not mean that gay folk have to have their lives intruded on by your own prejudice.


Explain to me how I have intruded on any ones life, with prejudice or otherwise?

Because I have voted against changing the definition of marriage?

Because I believe that hard wired sexual attraction to someone else of the same sex is abnormal in nature?

(V): Point is, in fact my girlfriend and I can enjoy most of the protections etc. that married folks enjoy, we can leave property to each other and have visitation in hospital etc.... I am not sure what gay couples cant get through other means than marriage anyway?

Ferris Bueller: I dont give a crap about your bedroom, and it id obvious that it is much more than "right wing garbage" when 30 states have held elections against "gay marriage".

I have a close personal friend who voted against gay marriage and her brother is gay.

I believe that there should be rights and protections given, the same ones marriage provides, for committed couples in loving relationships.... lets put the shoe on the other foot for a minute..... gays want to get married, but what about someone like myself that doesnt want to get married???? I am in a committed loving relationship, why should I have to get married to enjoy the benefits and protections that marriages allow?

You tell us to stay out of your bedroom, but it is you who shoves the bedroom in our faces! Gay and homosexual refers to nothing but the bedroom, they are words that only describe your sexual(IE bedroom) preference... so when you say you want "gay marriage" you are saying you want to get married based on what you do in the bedroom!!!!

You may call it absurd, but that does not make it so, explain why it is absurd to say that being attracted to the same sex is a quirk in nature?

(V): You will never convince me that a man doing it to another man in his anus is a normal and natural attraction

The reason nature makes us hard wired to be attracted to the opposite sex is to propagate our species... because of the advancement of our brains, we are able to do more that what we are hard wired for(IE have sex for pleasure purposes only), but if you are hard wired to be attracted to the same sex, that is not the normal condition as nature meant it to be (notice I did not say "how God meant it to be") To me it is no more normal than if you are hard wired to be sexually attracted to small children, it is a natural abnormality, and taken to the extreme, our species would die if this would happen more often than it does!

But again... why would it have to be a legal commitment between only two people, or only no related people?