unixknight

Where was all this "ZOMG people are saying the Prezident is a Nazi!!!!!" outrage when protesters were putting swastikas on pictures of Bush?

What I meant was that by her being a virgin, there'd be no doubt as to who the father was.

I see what you're saying, but the value of having the Electoral College is the same as the reason we have a Senate as well as the House. If it were really only about the strict majority of the population, we wouldn't need a Senate at all. The Senate and the Electoral College are both ways in which the states as entities can be represented in some way. Thanks, but I didn't feel picked on. I don't know the exact figures of cost of living vs. average income but I think everybody would agree that those factors vary widely from region to region. What constitutes "need" in one area may not represent a true "need" in another. Again, I do agree that there are problems and gaps in the system as it is. I just think universal healthcare is the wrong solution. Opponents do indeed use that as a point. What do YOU think? Are you satisfied with your taxes going up? Do you believe it will be a small increase or a large one? If you're one of the people whose income and expense amounts are such that you can't afford private care, how will you afford the higher taxes? If you can afford it, are you secure with the idea that somehow a Government program will be superior to your private insurance?

^This. I once heard a good guideline for keeping one's behavior within the bounds of the LoC... namely, if you wouldn't do it in front of your Bishop, don't do it. Now, that's a guideline. Like, sharing an extended kiss might be fine, and yet not something I'd do with the Bishop present, so on some level it may be overcautious, but as they say, "aim small, miss small."

I really wish those questions had been asked in regards to an illness that I could really take seriously. It's just that H1N1 is just another flu strain that has everybody scared because we know it by NAME and because back in the '70s a bunch of people died from faulty flu vaccines for it. It isn't really any different from the other common strains of influenza (which are plenty bad enough.) As was said earlier, we hear more deaths from it because the media is reporting every single one. Anybody remember the "summer of the shark" on the East Coast? It was in 2001 and we hears about all these shark attacks. The Governors of MD, DE and VA commissioned a scientific study on why there were so many shark attacks. We heard theories like Global Warming, pollution, excessive fishing, etc. The truth: There were fewer attacks that year than average. Why did we get this idea it was an unusual year? Because the media turned it into a crisis. They reported every single shark attack where normally they'd never have bothered. IT all started from a truly interesting story of a boy whose uncle saved him from a shark by beating the fish to death and retrieving the severed arm from it. THAT was newsworthy, but it did trigger the media feeding frenzy (pardon the pun) on shark attacks. So it is with H1N1. Sorry my answer wasn't spiritual .

Oh boy, quote mining. I said it was a "sort of" universal. What's the difference? The difference is that a truly "Universal" healthcare system would be exactly the same for everybody, and you pointed out yourself that it isn't consistent across state lines. Also, a "Universal" system would be used by EVERYBODY, and not everybody used Medicaid. The specific need is people who apply for it and meet the eligibility requirements of their state. It is a temporary measure deigned to keep people covered until they can afford their own. If there are gaps in that system, the solution is to fix those gaps, not toss out the entire system in favor of one that will screw everybody. Different regions have different costs of living. A $20,000 a year income would probably support somebody living in a rural area out in the Midwest, but won't last more than a few months in a place like New York City. Each state has its own tax codes, its own minimum wages, etc. Hence, the eligibility requirements will naturally be different. If there are places where people can't afford to buy their own AND can't qualify for the state program, then that's where the problem needs to be addressed. Further, suppose I didn't have any insurance and I get ill or injured. By law I can still go to the hospital and be treated. This, by the way, is another example of why a true universal system isn't going to fill the needs of every person. When you nationalize something it becomes a "one size fits all" proposition. Bad medicine. First of all, that's pretty much what you DID say. Second, "In so many words?" C'mon. Third, "evidenced?" That is a matter of your opinion, not a point of evidence. I am against a national socialized healthcare system. I believe in, and have used, state level temporary measures for people who require it. They're *not* the same thing. I don't think you're being as obvious as you might think. As I said, if there are gaps in that coverage, the solution is not to turn over the entire thing to an entity like the Government, which couldn't find its backside with both hands and a road map. This, by the way, is another good example of how healthcare costs too much in the first place. First of all, a Government subsidized private HMO isn't socialism. That's like saying purchasing F-16s from General Dynamics is socialism. In fact it's quite the opposite. It's the Government buying services from private industry. Second, again, I oppose Nationally Socialized Healthcare. Third, I paid back into the system when I got a job (as you note later on.) That's how it works. (Or at least, how it's supposed to.) A National Universal system does *NOT* work that way. Such a system would tax everybody all the time at a vastly higher rate than we pay now. Which, as a side note, I have no idea how anybody can possibly believe the politicians who say we'd get national socialized healthcare for everybody and it won't raise taxes. They really *DO* think we're stupid. I understand, and I know what you meant, but I appreciate you making the effort to be clear on that.

Well I dunno if I can... I have many examples but they're on other forums.

Welcome to my world

I agree. I have no problem with the Electoral system, but I do with there were safeguards to prevent this sort of manipulation.

Not necessarily. My understanding (and I'm sure this varies from state to state) the districts are defined by an election committee. There have been several examples of this happening over the last few years where said committee defines the boundaries along partisan lines to boost the chances of their candidate winning an election. Both sides do this.

If I may... The Electoral College can be seen as benefiting parties because of the way congressional districts are defined. You see this happen all the time where the boundaries of specific districts are changed on order to manipulate the demographics of who is voting and who is in the majority in the district. This would also impact the electoral votes.

I never said Medicaid was universal healthcare. It fills a very specific need, and it's not for everybody. Do you know why that is? And? Please show me where I've said I would deny anybody healthcare who needed it. Quote me directly, please. As I said in a subsequent post, healthcare in this country is far more expensive than it needs to be. THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. Socializing healthcare isn't the solution.

Hey guys, let's try to be a little more understanding. Marrying somebody who isn't a member isn't an easy decision to make, and I think a lot of people do it without really thinking it through. I mean, unless you do it assuming they'll convert (which is a recipe for disaster) then you're willingly and knowingly sacrificing your Celestial future. It's easy to see why so many LDS parents try to steer their adult children toward fellow members. I think the OP has a genuine concern here. She's got a household that doesn't have the blessings of the priesthood in it, she has no Temple Sealing to look forward to, and has to show up in church alone. While it may be true that she asked for it, a lot of the replies I'm seeing here are "You asked for it, now suck it up." That's cold, guys. My suggestion is this: Pray for him. Pray that he will receive a testimony. If you feel drawn to the missionaries because they bring the priesthood into the home then that's okay, but if you feel like it's crossing some line then maybe it would be better to request the sister missionaries and then bug your Elders' Quorum President to get on your home teachers to provide you with the priesthood benefits you need. (It sort of sounds like maybe that isn't happening.) I'd also suggest talking to the Bishop. There may be books or resources he can recommend. You're not by any means the only person in this situation so if yuo can connect with others in the same boat it may help. Pray also for yourself. Ask for the strength and the patience to endure. Whatever you do, don't put any pressure on your husband. If he's like me, that will only result in him pushing back. Oh, and uh, pray some more

I don't agree, because any Universal Healthcare system would necessarily have to be run by the Government or it's not universal. Why? Because if it's provided by private industry it has to be purchased by the consumer. I do agree with your comments on what's wrong with our current system, but I'd point out that #1 and #3 are really only problems in the hands of the Government. Private companies can't afford to lose too much efficiency to bureaucracy or they cease to be profitable. Innovation is encouraged under capitalism. The soaring cost of healthcare IS a problem, but the solution isn't to scrap the system and hand it to the Government, nor is having the Government provide an "alternative" plan. Pharmaceuticals cost too much. Medical school costs too much. Malpractice insurance costs too much. Equipment costs too much. Why is it surprising, then, that medical care is stupidly expensive? Mind you, we already have a sort of Universal healthcare in that people who can't afford it can get health care from programs funded at the state level. The way it works is that the state essentially pays for an HMO plan just as if it was coming from a job. (At least, that's how it worked in Maryland for my family when we couldn't afford to get coverage.)

QFT = "Quoted for truth" Or sometimes an abbreviation for "quite true!"

This from a post I wrote on another forum in a debate, that I thought I'd share here. Have you ever heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, he will eat a single meal. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime?" That's what we Conservatives are about. We want to help people, but we want to do it in a way that encourages them to return to self-sufficiency if at all possible. In fact, I'd say we have a GREATER moral obligation to help people to become self reliant than to simply throw money at them. Want to know why? Imagine you have to rely on me for your food. Let's pretend that, for whatever reason, I am the source of your meals. You have to come to me 3 times a day or you go hungry. Am I really helping you? Sure, I'm giving you free food, but is this truly an act of charity? Think about your answer for a second. The answer is that it is NOT an act of charity. That's because as long as you rely on me for your food, I have POWER over you. I can CONTROL you. I can withhold food from you if you do not do what I want. I can dictate what you eat. I can dictate how often you eat. I can dictate how much you eat. I have power over you because I have made you dependent upon me. On the other hand, we Conservatives believe in empowering YOU to make those decisions. We would rather teach you to fish, to farm, to cook, to gather, to harvest. Sure, we'll give you food in the meantime so that you won't starve, but you will learn to feed YOURSELF so that NOBODY may have power over you, even us. You alone will decide what you eat, when you eat, how much you eat, and you needn't submit to ANYONE in order to feed yourself. Statists perfer the former. Conservatives prefer the latter.

Used to spend (read:waste) a lot of time on an Internet forum where there was heavy emphasis on political debate, and the majority were toward the liberal side of the spectrum. That meant more often than not I'd be debating multiple people at once, and when people were pleasant and reasonable, it was a lot of fun and very rewarding. The problems came when people took on the attitude "The only reason for us to disagree is that you simply don't understand." The idea of coming at a concept form a different worldview is completely alien to a lot of people. To me, a reasonable discussion will eventually boil down to those worldview differences, at which point all you can do is agree to disagree. I debate for fun, and to learn about how other people see things. Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes my opponent does, but changing minds should never be the purpose for these debates, because at some point you'd have to change a worldview, and that doesn't happen easily.

Jesus has to be born of a virgin because of lineage, guys. He is literally the Son of God, not just spiritually (like the rest of us) but physically as well. There needs to be *no* ambiguity when He says things like "I am about my Father's business" and He's not building a table. If all family trees are restored through Sealing, then Jesus Christ's place is as the Son of God the Father. At any rate, I'm not sure I buy the interpretation that says "virgin" really meant "young woman." What kind of prophecy is that? "Born of a young woman..." As opposed to what? Who WASN'T born of a young woman in those days???

"And you, you're new. You're supposed to be stupid. Don't abuse the privilege." -Blue Thunder

"I don't have to put up with this, I'm rich!" -Spaceballs

"A jelly doughnut!" -Full Metal Jacket

"I would like to play a game." -Saw

I, for one, do not understand the motive for this. I mean, do people REALLY find that extreme waif look attractive? Do the marketing people for these magazines really believe this is what gets mens' attention? And why aren't more guys out there speaking up? I find this incredibly unattractive, not only because these are obviously not human proportions, but because even when not airbrushed most supermodels these days are ridiculously thin. I find healthy looking women attractive. I think most men do. And if we're talking more than just healthy but into the chubby range, that's fine too. Still way more attractive than these waifs. I'd much rather be married to an overweight woman than one I can count the ribs on from twenty paces. Curves, people!

*is waiting for the "See?!?!? Abstinence doesn't work! Dispense more condoms!" mantra to erupt in the media.*

I'm not a member of the military so I may be speaking out of turn here, but there's a sort of pattern I've noticed in the last few posts and I think it is interesting because it may be indicative of the effect the mass media has had on even those who typically disagree with it. Why do men and women generally have separate facilities? Is it to protect the men or the women? Most people will agree that it's more to protect the privacy of the women than the men. So when we talk about integrating facilities in a co-ed arrangement we're typically going to look more closely on how it impacts the women, and we're more concerned with their comfort than the guys'. Which is fine. It's because of behavioral differences between men and women. I have no problem with that. But now let's look at the current topic: Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. When we talk about integrating them and our focus is on privacy, whose privacy would we be worried about? The heterosexuals. We know the straight guys aren't going to be peeking at the gay guys. It's the reverse scenario that is of concern. (I know we also need to worry about anti-gay violence, but I'm keeping that separate at the moment.) And yet not much has been said about that in his thread. Just as women have a reasonable expectation of privacy from members of the opposite sex, do straight men not have a similar right to this expectation? (under reasonable circumstances. Obviously there will be conditions where such considerations need to be put aside for everybody.) Now, I'm not vain enough to presume that if I'm in a locker room with a homosexual that he's going to be checking me out, and frankly if one did I'd probably be more flattered than angry, but not everybody feels the same way. Some people do feel threatened by that idea and I don't think that's so unreasonable. Shouldn't straight men have the right to expect the same level of privacy that we accord to women? I don't know the answer to that and that isn't the point anyway. My point is to bring everybody's attention to the fact that this doesn't seem to be much of a factor. Why is that? I think it's because we've been trained, on some level, to disregard that argument as being just a knee-jerk reaction by paranoid (or insecure) straight men. We've been taught that the idea of a homosexual being interested in looking at the men surrounding him is preposterous. But is it really? I like to think of myself as a moral man in reasonably good control of myself but I'd be lying if I told you I'd absolutely not notice undressed females in the same locker room as me. And in no way am I unique in that. Are we to believe now that homosexual men are somehow magically more moral or exercise better self control than their heterosexual brethren? Watch what happens if you try and argue that point to the people who are the subject of the OP.