virgil

Why does no one ever ask that an insane person, an idiot, moron, retard, or just plain anti-American have to be registered with the state to speak? Why can't they be precluded based on their mental non-acuity? Careful what you wish for.

Virgil, am I to understand you do not think religious people can be highly educated? Am I to believe some of the greatest minds of our time, Scientists, Doctors, Physicists, etc. do not, or didn't believe in God? Is that what you believe? No. I never said nor intended to imply any such thing. I do, however, think that someone's religious beliefs can negatively impact their ability to be receptive to science and reason.

Why is it always only a one way street? Politics, and religion have been intertwined since time immemorial. Ra, the sun god of Egypt was the "king of Egypt.' A politcal/religious figure. Nimrod was a great king, and the author of the Babylonian religion, which later was inculcated into the Roman Catholic religion with some minor changes to "Christianize" the unGodly (see Jeremiah 10) things which God/Jesus denounced in the Pagan/Heathen religions. The Pope was in cahoots with Charlemagne. Successive kings in Europe have always worked for the blessing of the Pope. The Vatican is it's own country within a country, has its own military. History is replete with rulers thought of as gods. The Nipponese(Japanese), and more. The ignorance of the people here astounds me. They are worried about typo's more than education. The point was, and still is, that religion has no place in government in this country. Sure, history is filled with examples where there are one and the same- that's no longer relevant. Your refusal to acknowledge anyone else's beliefs or opinions, and your ability to copy and paste examples of your outdated ideas does not make our opinions invalid. I'm really not hung up on typos- we all make mistakes. But, when you're trying to represent yourself as having a more valuable opinion than anyone who doesn't agree, the least you can do is use basic english skills. And, the ability to regurgitate or use Google to find information to support your beliefs does not imply that you have a superior education. In my opinion, more educated people are usually more open-minded and forward thinking.

I have to agree with the name calling complaint. I'm all for a spirited debate. But, we should keep in mind that we probably have more in common that we'd like to admit.

It relates to the statement in your post. "Anyone who uses theology in the context of a political discussion is not to be taken seriously." My statement was referring to a politician who uses his own personal religious leanings to form his political platform.

Must kill you to read what Gingrich says and realize that it is spot on... tough to argue when the facts keep smacking you in the face huh virgil... no critisizing here just plain common sense observations based on facts... not the "What I think" crap that comes out of your mouth. So lets remove Sarah Palin from the analogy and replace her with any conservative of choice and the point Gingrich makes still stands... your way of shrugging off common sense, facts and reality is what is laughable. You have a hard time understanding things that are laid right out for you... we keep proving our point and you call it laughable.. yet you have yet to show any proof that anything you say or think is true or has any merit to the majority of American people... you're starting to become laughable Antler, you give yourself far too much credit regarding your ability to 'prove your point'. What you consider 'proving your point', i consider 'preaching to the choir'. You haven't proven anything, only stated your opinions and gotten the support of the guys who share those opinions. That doesn't prove anything. Face it, the world is evolving and guys like you are being left behind.

I still don't get your point about the Pope declaring war in the first place. How was that relevant?

Well that's news. Newt Gingrich criticizing the President and riling up the right wingers- opportunism at it's most obvious and most predictable. And using Sarah Palin as a hypothetical example is laughable. Admit it, she's peaked- in two years she'll be a punchline. And none of you will ever admit to having supported her.

the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest." Aren't you the guy who just said that another person's needs are not your responsibility or concern? This is a nice quote that you just posted. But, it's counter to everything you've been saying.

And, no, I don't want your money in reality. But, how is stealing mine to promote someone else to my benefit, and why should I comply, except that force is used to take it from me, and threat of harm to my person, individual liberty & rights is threatened if I don't? How does such advance freedom? Are you suggesting that there should be no taxes at all?

Socialism is a bad deal, except to the person who receives its benefit. Thus, I can only assume that someone who likes, or is drawn to it, likes taking from others, stealing, in essence, to support their belief. That, is immoral, and against God's commandment that "Thou shalt not steal." Again, what exactly are you talking about? I know that you guys like to use words like 'socialism'. But, how is it relevant to this conversation?

Virgil & his pal are most likely paid by the administration to keep hard working folks from their other duties. Protecting our country happens to be something I believe important. Protecting us against further intrusions into our 2A, and other rights starts with being able to have that right. The foolish cannot understand this because their mids are wrapped around a concept other than our constitutional republicanism. they support leftist programs, and denials of right, or even portion of right, so as to advance that agenda. I understand their reasons, i know exactly what they are trying to do. It's trying to get our goat so as to get us mad. Then, they feel they have the moral high ground, because rather than shoot out on the field of battle for their priorities, they have won some major victory in the political, or alliterative, or vocal battlefield. Problem is, I reject their leftist philosophy. I reject their nonsensical admission that they are right, while I am wrong. that they have some superiority by being amoral, then complaining that I am immoral because I wish to give money to those projects I would support instead of the projects they would support. And, worse, their projects proposed, and paid for by the power of the government to tax me to aid them. Socialism is a bad deal, except to the person who receives its benefit. Thus, I can only assume that someone who likes, or is drawn to it, likes taking from others, stealing, in essence, to support their belief. That, is immoral, and against God's commandment that "Thou shalt not steal." Forget what i said before- maybe you should cut the pills in half instead. Nice job though- interjecting religious overtones always makes a person seem more rational.

I see no deception here at all. My issue is with a sitting President who is acting like a dictator to impose his will on the entire American populace, with full disregard for the rule of law, on any issue he so chooses. Especially when more than half of the country is not in agreement with him. I still think that you're being less than completely honest here- and your little cartoon confirms my suspicion. You've made your point about laws not being enforced. The cartoon makes no reference to the point that you're explicitly making regarding non-enforcement of the law. But, it is an obvious reference to the point that you're trying to avoid.

Just trying to post things in a manner you might be able to understand them. Then, try encouraging him to make a coherent argument, instead of defending him for acting like a clown.

Why won't you just be honest? Is you issue with the political maneuvering, or is it because the topic is 'gay marriage'?

You guys do like your cartoons.

The Pope isn't the current one. The premise is that religion & politics is intermingled. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and maks you look ignorant, and ridiculous. So, exactly which Pope did declare war? And, who ever said that politics and religion are not intermingled? And, in my opinion, mispelling simple words makes you look more ignorant.

It is not the presidents personal beliefs, or his constitutional interpretations, which should guide his job. His job is as executive, top cop, CinC. Those who serve under him do so at the pleasure of the congress. He has a duty to protect the citizens of this country, and to promote the policies of the laws of the United States. He can't pick & choose which he will, or will not, advocate for, or against. His duty, as is the duty of his AG, to promote the laws whether they be in direct opposition to the constitution, as he sees it, or not. The courts are supposed to make those distinctions. If someone argues against the act, then he must argue for it, regardless of his personal preferences, or beliefs, or the status of his presidency according to polls. If you don;t understand this distinction, then why do you even bother to argue on here? I understand the distinction perfectly well. That's actually the first rational argument you've made on this thread. I don't disagree that laws should be enforced as written. My question was regarding the law- how do you perceive not defending the DOMA as a threat, aside from the principle that we've just agreed on.

So, a Pope who advocated against another religion (Islam), sought to wage war on that religion, for a region of the world (political) which he did not control is injecting theology into politics, and should be discounted? You're insane! Your belief trumps everyone else? You may not be religious, but religion and politics ism and always has been, interconnected. Even our nation was founded on religious principles, and morality. You leftists on here will say you can speak freely, but someone else may not because they inject religion? Last I saw, the first amendment covered both speech and religion. Can you accept one while denying the other? Well, the same applies to the 2A. Yet, you have no trouble insisting that some limits may be placed if they are "common sense," or have some other value to "state security." Bunch of BS. What the hell are you talking about? Did you forget to take your meds? You're all over the map. And, when exactly did the Pope declare war? I must have missed that one. I've been to the Vatican- didn't see any signs of an army. Seriously, what are you talking about?

Quote from: virgil on Today at 11:56:15 am <blockquote>Yep, so typical. Lip service. I admit it, but ain't willing to give up what I have to support my belief, but I'll do whatever I can to tax you to take what you have away to give to these others who deserve your wealth, but not mine. Bunch of leftist jerks. These troll types are on every right thinking group. Huh??? </blockquote> Yep, didn't think you'd understand it. I didn't understand it because it doesn't make any sense. Or, maybe it was just the fourth grade level grammar.

Yep, so typical. Lip service. I admit it, but ain't willing to give up what I have to support my belief, but I'll do whatever I can to tax you to take what you have away to give to these others who deserve your wealth, but not mine. Bunch of leftist jerks. These troll types are on every right thinking group. Huh???

The Obama Justice Department dropped all pretenses this week and announced that it won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. I've got to ask. So, what? I'm honestly curious as to how you perceive this as a threat.

Everyone has access to those treatments. Just as everyone has access to hier a lawn service. I don't want to pay one cent for anyone to avail themselves of either. There is no right to any service one cannot pay for and there is no way I should be made to cover it for them. so, how would you suggest we handle it? do you not think that society would be impacted by having massive amounts of people without access to healtcare?

Right, but the % that is paid back is significantly lower from MC than it is from Ins companies is it not? What I meant was the rest of the general public with ins and jobs makes up difference that hospitals and dr.'s are not getting from MC through higher pay back rates. Actually, that is not necessarily the case. It entirely depends on the individual provider's (Hospital, practioner, clinic) contract with each individual private payor. MC is government sponsored- MC decides how much they will pay for treatment, regardless of what is charged. You can charge $300 for an office visit, but they will only pay their published rate. However, in many cases, MC pays much better than private insurance. When you refer to 'insurance companies', you're referring to private 'for profit' businesses.There are a lot of private insurance plans that pay only a few dollars per visit- which is why so many providers are choosing not to accept these plans. Nobody is making up the difference between what is charged and what is paid. That is why hospitals are going out of business and primary care physicians are in short supply.

It is the Law.. a hospital cannot deny any person treatment because they can not pay that's what i thought you were referring to. that law covers emergency care only. what about someone with a chronic condition- cancer, HIV, heart disease? should they not have the right to healthcare? these conditions are not treated in the emergency department, and, by your rationale, anyone who cannot afford health insurance would not be able to receive treatment.