Is this poll accurate?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[CCC460]

it makes no sense for Steve to believe anything about Satan. If one doesn't believe in God, then it would certainly be illogical to believe in the fallen angels as well.

Steve's just trying to play you guys.

[Palmtree]

it makes no sense for Steve to believe anything about Satan. If one doesn't believe in God, then it would certainly be illogical to believe in the fallen angels as well.

Steve's just trying to play you guys.

Is he playin' us, or are we playin' him??

As previously mentioned, Steve's whole shtick is: contrariness. He correctly perceives Satan in opposition to God, and thinks that his exaltation of Satan, will degrade the plans of God, or somehow cause those whom believe in God, to marvel at his opposition stance. So of course, Steve doesn't make sense, but that's beside the point. If Steve didn't have his shtick, we wouldn't hear from him at all!

Anyway, Satan has been exalting himself since the beginning of time, so it's not a new game, at least not for those whom are in the know....



<sup>2 Corinthians 14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Isaiah 14:13-16
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit (the grave). They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?</sup>

[SteveC]

Don't worry, CCC, I don't measure all Christians against the Palm yardstick, or should I say cheapo plastic grade school ruler.

[Howiedds]

CCC:

ust as the democrats opposed civil rights.

That was when there was a mix of liberals and conservatives in both parties, which led to more cross aisle cooperation. Those Dems that opposed civil rights all became Republicans in the next decade.

But the democrats do the same thing, pandering to the poor and minorities that they cannot achieve social equality without them in power. The great social experiements started in the 60's haven't yet accomplished their goal. And why should they. to liberate people from poverty and injustice would then solve the problem and they would have nothing left to do.

I agree that all the politicians pander to their constituencies and sometimes blatantly. I just think the Dems are 10% better in taking care of those who are in need than the Republicans. I think there are more Democrat voters who don't vote their own self interest than there are Republican ones.

I live in a very red, conservative state where the Republican party is practically a church. In my circle of friends, however, there are many Democrats, probably because we are active in Democratic politics and in our Jewish community. Most of these folks are financially secure and are probably in the top 5%-10% of income earners in the country as a whole. Despite the fact that we are in Texas and these folks have little need of the social programs that "pander' to the needy, they all vote for Democrats. It really surprises me when we attend dinner parties around election times and the conversation turns to politics to see so many Democrats who one would expect to be Republican by their income levels and business interests. They vote Democratic despite their own economic self interest because they were once strangers in Egypt. They can step outside themselves and their own best economic self interest, ready to pay more of their own to help those who are not as well off.

Political parties need to promise things to their constituents, but in the end they really can't afford to completely deliver because political parties thrive on creating the need and then keeping the business of selling themselves as the only ones to fix the need, but they don't fix it.

That's way to cynical for me. I agree that all politicians, as do most people, have as a priority their own self-interest; they want to be re-elected. I also agree that there is greed and corruption in both parties. I agree that social programs cannot eradicate the inequalities in our society. But to think that it is a conspiracy to keep the poor, poor so they will vote a certain way...

It's just the nature of the protoplasm and gray matter that we all share that  inequalities will always be with us. I just prefer to be on the side of erring too much in favor of food, housing, and health. I know there will be waste and corruption whether it is government or business running the show; it's just flawed people in every walk of life.

There is much hypocrisy in the democrats. I just depends upon whether or not one is really willing to look objectively at what both sides do and not sugar coat that they are morally bankrupt.

That's true of both parties. I just like the one that tries to help the least among us the most, even as they sometimes do so for their own interests or the wrong reasons.

It's not that the Democrats have been 100% better, just  10% more concerned for the least among us.

Or they are just better at marketing.

I think it's more than that. Just go down the list: family leave, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, Chip, head start, etc.

I found out something interesting about health care here in China, from talking to our interpreter. Their medical system is such that you pay first, and at the end of the year, you go to civil affairs to register your costs, and the system determines your payment. She even told us that an ambulance ride costs 200 RMB (about $38 dollars). If you don't have the money up front, you don't get drive to the hospital. And if you have a stroke or something and you live on the 12th floor of a condiminium, you need to make your own provisions to get yourself downstairs. People either carry you down or, literally, they leave you there.
I was floored to learn about that.

You will never hear me suggest that a European or Canadian plan (never mind the third world example you gave) would work here. I am convinced that capitalism is the way to go. I believe that socialism, like civil service, or the non combatant military (I was in the US Army Dental Corps for nearly 3 years) sucks the incentive to work hard and get ahead right out of you.

I also know, however, that unbridled capitalism, insurance companies for example, whose primary goal is the short range, bottom line to show their stock holders is inimical to a caring health system. They can more be allowed to function without government oversight to rein in their running roughshod over their clients than car companies can produce cars without the government imposing safety standards or the government imposing standards for air safety. We have never had uncontrolled capitalism. Yes it creates bureaucracy. Yes it can lead to waste and corruption. Yes it may increase the cost of the things we buy. But the price we pay in abuses from laissez faire capitalism is far greater. There needs to be a mix.

America might not have the best system, but from what I am learning about the health care system in China, we have the cadillac. You don't automatically get E.R. service here. I ahve been told that people who have a heart attack are left to die if their family cannot pay. It's unbelievable the way things are here.

I don't doubt that we are living a standard far greater than the Chinese have. I don't even doubt that for many of us, our system is better than that of Europeans or Canadians. But we have to find a way of extending some level of care, even if it's a Chevy and not a Cadillac to all Americans who need it. It will probably mean that some of us who have earned the health care we have from our hard work and educations, which allowed us to afford health insurance will have to spend some of what we ordinarily conspicuously consume to give others the basics they need to live.

I don't think that if this health care bill passes it will not need continuing legislation to correct the unforeseen abuses and flaws that will occur in the living of it. We had to do it with Social Security, Medicare, and our tax code; it's a start. It is outrageous that the Republicans won't even accept what they had suggested in prior years because it means giving a some kind of health care accomplishment to Democrats for November. 
 

Interestingly, in China, chronic illnesses are not paid for. If someone has cancer, for instance, they have to pay for treatment, or find a way to raise the money. There is no automatic system here. It's really been an eye opener.

I know you just came back but what does the Chinese experience have to do with anything we are talking about. My question was do you know anybody close to you, a relative or coworker, who cannot get the health care they need because they don't have the money or the insurance and are suffering from it?

[CCC460]

Hi Howie,

I also know, however, that unbridled capitalism, insurance companies for example, whose primary goal is the short range, bottom line to show their stock holders is inimical to a caring health system.

I would agree. Unbridled capitalism is unworkable either.

I know you just came back but what does the Chinese experience have to do with anything we are talking about.

Actually, I'm still here for another week. But i'm ready to go home. the food and air quality is beginning to weigh on me.

My question was do you know anybody close to you, a relative or coworker, who cannot get the health care they need because they don't have the money or the insurance and are suffering from it?

i was trying to draw a bit of perspective. Maybe I am too cynical, but i don't see how any new plan can really effectively address getting health care. i think that the core problem is the economic mess this country is in. We are in an unsustainable spending situation that will only worsen everyone's ability to receive health care. Perhaps I would be a little more open to some of these reforms if we had a real way to control spending, but the current plan doesn't. Eventually, when we are soon unable to finance the national debt and national deficit, we are going to go to a point where more people will be without health care. The way I see it, the suffering is inevitable because of the poor fiscal policies of the past.

[Acumen]

That was when there was a mix of liberals and conservatives in both parties, which led to more cross aisle cooperation. Those Dems that opposed civil rights all became Republicans in the next decade.

That's not true, Howie.

[Howiedds]

CCC:

... but i don't see how any new plan can really effectively address getting health care.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of us know all that's in it, but some things have been praised and criticized by both sides so have made the news: extending insurance to 30 million uninsured, no turn down for pre-existing conditions, small businesses being able to use exchanges to get better rates that the big boys get, tax credits for those of who pay wages that average $40,000, extending benefits for children till age 25 or 26, subsidies to buy insurance if you make under 43,000, closing the doughnut hole (the gap in drug coverage when bills reach $2700 and don't resume until the bills have reached $4500), insurance companies would have to spend 80% of revenue on health care (up from present 70%).

i think that the core problem is the economic mess this country is in. We are in an unsustainable spending situation that will only worsen everyone's ability to receive health care.

We will continue to be in an unsustainable spending situation regardless of health care as long as raising taxes remains the 3rd rail that no one dares touch. The taxes collected now only pay for military spending, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt. Everything else is funded by borrowed money. Certainly cutting waste from the military budget and ending our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (are we ready to do that?) would help. Medicare and Medicaid needs to be more efficient which would also save some dough. Getting rid of the infamous earmarks would help as well.

The hard truth, however, is that all of the above is not enough. The  idea that tax cuts are the way out of this is fantasy. Republicans and Democrats need to hold hands and jump off the cliff, the cliff being to level with the American people that there needs to be a broad based tax increase to cover our expenses. Eliminating waste, more efficiency, and getting rid of ear marks are not going to cut it; don't hold your breath until the two parties take the plunge. 

The way I see it, the suffering is inevitable because of the poor fiscal policies of the past.

I agree, but most will not agree on what that poor policy was, i.e. cutting taxes when the deficits were mounting over the last 10 years.

[Howiedds]

Acumen:

That was when there was a mix of liberals and conservatives in both parties, which led to more cross aisle cooperation. Those Dems that opposed civil rights all became Republicans in the next decade.

That's not true, Howie.[/quote]

Which part is not true?
That was when there was a mix of liberals and conservatives in both parties, which led to more cross aisle cooperation.

When I was your age there were liberals and conservatives in both parties. Nelson Rockefeller, Percy, Javits, Keating were Republicans who would not recognize the Republican party today. Shoot, even I voted for them (except Percy who was from Illinois).

Those Dems that opposed civil rights all became Republicans in the next decade.

The conservative southern Democrats didn't start voting Republican after the 1960's?
Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott don't come to mind?

Again, what part was not true?

[CCC460]

Howie,

But it is also a fools errand to say that raising taxes is the way out. We cannot raise taxes. This country is taxed into oblivion already. It is well demonstrated that raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't create jobs and doesn't lead to higher tax revenues.

However, there are some areas in which there is broad-based agreement on health care. Why not pass legislation piece by piece where the reforms that everyone wants can be implemented and the more contraversial ones can be hashed out? I realize that both sides are part of the problem here, but I directly blame the Obama administration for not having the vision or the guts to go this route. He wants the large bill for political gain. If he were really concerned about the people, he would insist that we pass where there is broad-based consensus.

[kwd111]

It is my "opinion and viewpoint" that it isn't that the R & D people don't want to help other people but rather a difference of approaches.

My position is that any president should attack this problem with this method.  "Congress, listen to me!!!!  You can play with the numbers in whatever method you want.  BUT, you will not add one more dollar to the budget.  YOU, will adjust the numbers however you want, but YOU will have to decide what areas will be cut so as to not add ONE MORE PENNY TO THE EXPENSES!  NOT ONE MORE PROGRAM WITHOUT CUTTING ANOTHER AREA TO FINANCE THAT PROGRAM!"

And then let the congress hash it out.  That would prevent any earmarks, it would force them to remove useless spending, get out of the areas that they should be in and any other "favored" program.  It would also force the military to be wiser in how they use their finances, close unnecessary bases that are still open because of political favor reasons, force the Space Program to look on how to save money etc etc etc.

[Palmtree]

It is my "opinion and viewpoint" that it isn't that the R & D people don't want to help other people but rather a difference of approaches.

My position is that any president should attack this problem with this method.  "Congress, listen to me!!!!  You can play with the numbers in whatever method you want.  BUT, you will not add one more dollar to the budget.  YOU, will adjust the numbers however you want, but YOU will have to decide what areas will be cut so as to not add ONE MORE PENNY TO THE EXPENSES!  NOT ONE MORE PROGRAM WITHOUT CUTTING ANOTHER AREA TO FINANCE THAT PROGRAM!"

And then let the congress hash it out.  That would prevent any earmarks, it would force them to remove useless spending, get out of the areas that they should be in and any other "favored" program.  It would also force the military to be wiser in how they use their finances, close unnecessary bases that are still open because of political favor reasons, force the Space Program to look on how to save money etc etc etc.

So you see it's a ruse! It's not really about health care at all, but rather, it's about a bloated central government, fleecing the wealth of the nation, and acquiring MORE power. It's all about the government's lust for money and power, and it is NOT about health care! The majority in this nation understand that too.

Howie is the exception. He thinks that he is being sooo righteous towards the poor by handing this government more power. And anyone standing in the way is greedy and evil, oh yeah, and they want sick people to be sick and to die alone in the streets! We are to believe these are the same people who want to pollute the air and kill the whales, etc, etc! Right!

But, the reality is that a bloated, wasteful, central government causes more harm to the poor, than any Capitalist CEO on the planet. So Howie is being the evil one here, not the conservatives in Washington, (R or D), whom are preventing this awful legislation from passing for the right reasons!

Capitalism lifts the poor out of their poverty through the growing and thriving economy, by providing an abundance of competitive services; which drives costs down, so many people can afford to buy health care. Is Capitalism perfect? No! Should there be health care reform to protect the needy. Of course! But for the needy to rely on the government for anything is suicide. Charities across the nation are much more capable, and willing, to help the needy than an out-of-control central government.

Government has its role, a limited role, but people directly and voluntarily helping people, is what will make this nation Great. Not government forcibly taking money from the public, to waste as they choose. Government needs to get out of the way, and let the people provide health care, (and everything else too), to those whom really need it. America has produced the greatest health care system in the world, and handing that system over to the government, will destroy it!

[kwd111]

It is my "opinion and viewpoint" that it isn't that the R & D people don't want to help other people but rather a difference of approaches.

My position is that any president should attack this problem with this method.  "Congress, listen to me!!!!  You can play with the numbers in whatever method you want.  BUT, you will not add one more dollar to the budget.  YOU, will adjust the numbers however you want, but YOU will have to decide what areas will be cut so as to not add ONE MORE PENNY TO THE EXPENSES!  NOT ONE MORE PROGRAM WITHOUT CUTTING ANOTHER AREA TO FINANCE THAT PROGRAM!"

And then let the congress hash it out.  That would prevent any earmarks, it would force them to remove useless spending, get out of the areas that they should be in and any other "favored" program.  It would also force the military to be wiser in how they use their finances, close unnecessary bases that are still open because of political favor reasons, force the Space Program to look on how to save money etc etc etc.

So you see it's a ruse! It's not really about health care at all, but rather, it's about a bloated central government, fleecing the wealth of the nation, and acquiring MORE power. It's all about the government's lust for money and power, and it is NOT about health care! The majority in this the nation understand that too.

At the base of it... yes.

Howie is the exception. He thinks that he is being sooo righteous towards the poor by handing this government more power. And anyone standing in the way is greedy and evil, oh yeah, and they want sick people to be sick and to die alone in the streets! We are to believe these are the same people who want to pollute the air and kill the whales, etc, etc! Right!

It is righteous to help the poor and I think you are giving Howie a bad rap.

Let us look at the root of what is really happening.  It was and is the responsibility of people to help other people.  Because the general populace has reneged on their responsibility, those whose heart are in the right place, seek other means to address the heart problem of insensitivity. 

There are, however, two basic problems when we do that.

1)  Those in power, whose hearts are not right, use the righteous effort to consolidate their power for unrighteous reasons.

2)  In so many cases, over a period of time and after the programs are instituted, those who are paying the taxes and even those who were for it righteously, begin to harden their hearts when the see someone in need. 

No longer to they try to help the person but rather simply pray for them and say "now go to the government and get your help" because they already pay their taxes.  Not a good thing over time.

3) The last consequence (and I have first hand experience in this) those who administer the govt. program get so overwhelmed and understaffed, that they don't have time to check out who is abusing the system and they system eventually crumbles under the weight of abuse.

This, of course, is very generalized in scope and hardly complete in thought.

[Palmtree]

It is righteous to help the poor and I think you are giving Howie a bad rap.

It is righteous to help the poor, if Howie helps the poor with his own money, voluntarism, free teeth cleaning, whatever HE wants to give. However, Howie is NOT just talking about "personally" helping the poor, but rather, He is wants to empower a centralized government, to take money from the public, (which is essentially engaging in thievery).

Then that bloated government bureaucracy charges an astronomical administration fee to remain a bureaucracy, and only after that, it supposedly gives a pittance of what is remaining to the poor; which keeps them poor, and dependent on the government. That's not helping the poor, that is simply growing government, destroys the middle class; which creates even more poor and dependency on the government.

Whatever happened to the righteousness of: "Thou shalt not steal?" There is no exception built into that commandment if some of the money eventually goes to the poor. Remember what God did to Ananias and Sapphira when they tried to employ that fuzzy math??


So, Howie needs to be badly rapped!

[kwd111]

It is righteous to help the poor and I think you are giving Howie a bad rap.

It is righteous to help the poor, if Howie helps the poor with his own money, voluntarism, free teeth cleaning, whatever HE wants to give. However, Howie is NOT just talking about "personally" helping the poor, but rather, He is wants to empower a centralized government, to take money from the public, (which is essentially engaging in thievery).

I understand... but thievery?  God didn't call it that...

1 Sam 8:9-18

9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.
KJV


He didn't call it thievery... however He did promise that eventually people would "cry out", which is what we are doing today.

Then that bloated government bureaucracy charges an astronomical administration fee to remain a bureaucracy, and only after that, it supposedly gives a pittance of what is remaining to the poor; which keeps them poor, and dependent on the government. That's not helping the poor, that is simply growing government, destroys the middle class; which creates even more poor and dependency on the government.

I believe that it what I intimated although you took it to the next level.

Whatever happened to the righteousness of: "Thou shalt not steal?"

It still is in place.

There is no exception built into that commandment if some of the money eventually goes to the poor. Remember what God did to Ananias and Sapphira when they tried to employ that fuzzy math??

Yes... they were judged.  I don't think any person will be exempt from that.

So, Howie needs to be badly rapped!

but still don't agree with rapping Howie.   

[Palmtree]

1 Sam 8:9-18

Great passage and highly relevant!

but still don't agree with rapping Howie.   

Which is why I'm here! Somebody's gotta do it, so, it may as well be me.   

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC