Father-in-Law gone nuts over Obama.... Help me!

Coury - posted on 06/10/2009

my father in law is the exact same way i found out at my sons fourth birthday party. i know it is hard to ignore especially when he takes turns antagonizing all the family and friends we invited. i can relate to this so well you have no idea!! but i try to let my husband ans sister in law smooth out the pavement. my sister in law pulled him to the side and had a conversation with him. he was born and raised jewish and is a reformed born again christian........my husband and i are covered in tattoos and we are tru obama fans!!

JL - posted on 06/04/2009

I understand my in laws are the same way especially my father in law he has been on the crazy train since the election. I seriously think he needs anger management courses, some meds, and needs to be checked for early signs of dementia. I just ignore him because sadly most of the time it is just to exhausting to fight against ignorance. I actually looked at him once when he was on a tirade and told him hey guess what sometimes the people you vote for don't win. This man went totally off on me because I had vote Democrat and vote Obama signs up at my house during the election. It was absurd seeing how he has known me for 13 years and knows that I have always been a Liberal Democrat who volunteers every local and national election for Democratic candidates so why would it be a surprise that I was voting for Obama or putting up signs like I do every election. I mean hello I have an undergraduate degree in polisci and was an officer for the young Democrats at my university. But for some reason he insisted that I only put up signs to incite him. Every time this man hears Obamas name he goes off. I honestly don't get it. I didn't vote for Bush either election but I didn't act crazy or ignorant when he won even though I personally thought the things he was doing were screwing up the nation. I just want to yell out...Geez, act civilized because all this ignorance is going to destroy us. WHy don't you offer up some actual solutions.

Traci - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Esther:

OMG - I can't believe I spelled "acceptable" as exceptable. I must be tired. The downside of motherhood.

LOL...I hear ya!  They call that "mommy brain".  lol

Traci - posted on 05/20/2009

Quoting Esther:

Traci - I will devote one more post to this. You and I, despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum, undoubtedly still have a lot of things that we can agree on. I don't doubt that you are a devoted mother and want the best for your kids, as do I. We both want them to grow up happy & healthy and be productive citizens.

I think we can even agree on a lot regarding the abortion issue. I think abortion is a horrible horrible thing and should be avoided. I think women who go out and have irresponsible sex and then just have an abortion as if it's nothing, should be derided. I had a miscarriage before I got pregnant with my son. The foetus never developed beyond the 6 week stage and we never heard a heart beat. It was the most devastating experience of my life. I did not have a spontaneous miscarriage so at 12 weeks I had to undergo a D&C (after weeks of test after test after test and hoping that maybe, just maybe the baby was somehow alive after all). Someone at the hospital casually mentioned the word "abortion" because the D&C I was undergoing is essentially the same procedure. I wanted to strangle the woman. The thought that I was undergoing an abortion made me want to throw up. When I got pregnant again, I chose not to have an amnio as I was not willing to increase the risk for another miscarriage even by half a percent, and besides, whether the baby was 100% healthy or not or had Down syndrome made no difference to me. This was my baby. I don't understand all the praise that was heaped upon Sarah Palin for undergoing the amnio and then deciding not to have an abortion. I don't even know why she underwent the amnio, but maybe she needed to know. Either way, it seems to me a no brainer that she would have kept the baby, especially being the pro-life woman she says she is.

That being said, I'm still firmly pro-choice. I do think that sometimes the abortion is the lesser evil. I don't think abortions should be allowed past the first tri-mester, I don't think abortion should EVER be used as a form of contraceptive. I think overall women should be more responsible and smarter about the choices they make (regarding sex, relationships, the works) and not play the victim card as often as they do. I think unwanted pregnancies should be avoided with the help of sex education. I think pre-natal counseling and care should be more widely available. I think abortions should be a LAST resort, not a first. But I think the issue is too complicated to be set-up as black & white. As I've stated before, I think it is unthinkable that we would force a 14-year-old who was raped by her father, to carry a baby to term. I don't doubt that that is only a small portion of all abortions, but there should at the very least be an exception for those types of cases. However, even for women who have been irresponsible, sometimes I still think an abortion is the lesser of two evils. And I think most women who undergo abortions don't take it lightly either. You said before that we may be aborting Einsteins, Beethovens, the doctor who can cure cancer etc. You are right, we may be. But we may also be aborting serial killers, rapists and child abusers. And my guess is that the odds that we are aborting people along those lines may be greater because if these kids are born and they then have to grow up living a life of neglect or abuse because they are unwanted and born into a bad situation, they are more likely to grow up to be a disfunctional person than the next Einstein. Also, we may be letting Einsteins die in Africa right now as well. Or they could have been "collateral damage" during our invasion of Iraq. So to me, that's not a very powerful argument. And then there are situations like the one with Octomom. She did the ultimate pro-life thing (at least in her mind) but her kids are likely to suffer the consequences and there are no good options anymore in my mind. Do we take the kids away and place them into foster care? Do we let her keep them without the means to provide for them financially or otherwise? Do we put them up for adoption, where they will most likely be split up and will have to grow up without their siblings? They were all born prematurely and are likely to have health issues for the rest of their lives. To me, it would have been much better if those embryos had never been placed. Hands down. But that means an embryo would have been destroyed. Not in the mother's womb, but an embryo that could (and did) live would have been destroyed. That's why I say, this is not and cannot be a black & white issue and we should not pretend that it is.

On gay rights - I think the prejudice and fear that many people on the conservative spectrum exhibit toward gays is born of prejudice and religious indoctrination. There are many many many people who get married who do not have children. They are either too old, don't have the desire or are unable to. If marriage should be strictly about reproduction we should subject everyone to a fertility test when they apply for a marriage license and we should annul any marriage that does not produce kids within a reasonable period of time (2 years? You decide). We would NEVER impose such ridiculous restrictions on marriage. EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuals. Most people get married for love, to show their commitment to eachother. Kids follow from that love and commitment. It's no different for homosexuals. And many homosexuals are raising kids too and doing a fabulous job. Homosexuals have no more choice in their sexuality than you or I do. I did not wake up one day and decided to be straight. I just am. I also didn't decide to be green eyed, freckled or caucasian. But I am. I know you say we should just give them equal rights but not the word "marriage". Separate but equal has been tried. It does not work because it's wrong. It's wrong to discriminate against people for something they had no choice in. You should read this article by Andrew Sullivan: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...,9171,588877,00.html

On the torture issue - now there's a black & white one for you. TORTURE IS WRONG. No matter how much you torture the facts or use different terminology to make it sound better, torture is torture and it is wrong. It is also not about who we torture. It's about US. It's about OUR morals, values and collective soul. It's about us being better than that. It is also proven to be ineffective. If it wasn't - why did they feel the need to waterboard Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times in one month? Wouldn't he have given it all up sooner? The term "enhanced interrogation" was coined by the Gestapo. The waterboard was a favorite of the Khmer Rouge and is part of a museum dedicated to recording the history of torture techniques in Cambodia during the genocide. The reason we subject our special forces to these techniques during SERE training is precisely BECAUSE it is torture and we are trying to train them to resist these techniques as best they can. Jesse Ventura was on TV the other day. He went through SERE training. He confirmed unequivocally that this is torture, that it should be condemned and that those who authorized these techniques should be prosecuted. Quote: Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law."

Larry King: You were a Navy S.E.A.L.

Jesse Ventura: Yes, and I was waterboarded [in training] so I know... It is torture...I'll put it to you this way: You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

McCain was subjected to torture that was far less severe than waterboarding, but nobody doubts it was torture. What if that American journalist who was arrested and convicted in Iran of being a spy had been subjected to waterboarding and had "confessed" to some kind of assassination plot against Ahmedinejad? Would you have believed that "confession"? Would you have argued that she "just got some water poured over her face"? That these were just "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "harsh interrogations"? If you argue that this is exceptable for us to do with people we suspect of being terrorists, how can we EVER argue that other regimes cannot do this to our people? Or to our allies?

Esther, first let me say I am SO sorry to hear about your loss.  I have no idea what that must feel like , I can only imagine, and I am so sad to hear that happened to you.  Yes, I think we are both just passionate mothers wanting what is best for our children's future and that is why we are so solid in our beliefs.  That's what being an American is all about. 

With the abortion thing, I've debated and debated on this in so many threads I'm about sick of talking about it.  I see where you are coming from, I just think that this administration's stance on abortion is scary.  The FOCA bill he will sign if it gets to his desk will take away states rights concerning abortion.  We have parental notification laws in my state which will go away, for instance.  What kind of sense does it make to let a minor get an abortion without their parents consent?  You have to have a note in order to get an aspirin at school, but its okay if they kill your grandchild with out your knowledge?  What about partial birth abortion?  They are cool with that, which is insane!  I understand the whole there will always be abortions thing, but there will also always be murders and we don't expect the gov't to legalize that.  I say its better to err on the side of life rather than death, but that's my opinion.  I think its dangerous to say that because a pregnancy was unwanted, chances are that person will grow up to be a criminal or something.  More often than not, these women are poor and the whole eugenist (who were Progressives) movement wanted to tamp down the lower classes of people and what better way to do that than through abortion?  I don't think anybody can decide the fate of a human, especially before it is even been born.  Like I said, I'd rather err on the side of life.  I appreciate your views and I understand where you are coming from, even if I don't agree with you. :)

About the gay marriage thing, my beliefs have nothing to do with religious indoctrination.  I think the last time I stepped foot in a church was 10 years ago (something I'm not proud of and am hoping to change very soon!).   My beliefs are about changing the meaning of marriage.  You and I are definitely not going to ever see eye to eye on that one, so I'll spare you. :)

About the waterboarding thing, I've just got a couple of rebuttals for you, I don't think it'll change your mind in any way, but here goes...First thing, I know Gov Ventura is opposed to waterboarding, but you can find many service members who have done it that are fine with it.  I don't take that man's opinion as gospel because he also is a "9-11 Truther"--those people are nuts!  That being said, I don't think that method should be used for every thug they pick up, but when looking through the eyes of our leaders of that time, I totally understand why they allowed it to be done so sparingly.  They only did it to those three men, that's all.  And a couple of points of information you may not be aware of, I'd like to tell you about.  KSM was waterboarded because he knew a lot, he was a higher up, so they did it not so much as to get a confession, but to gain infromation on the whereabouts of other terrorists and to gain info on possible future attacks, etc.  I agree with you, anybody would confess to anything under such duress.  Information is different than confessions.  Another thing, according to the 2007 Red Cross report, KSM was waterboarded not 183 times, as you said, it was a total of FIVE times.  The 183 number you cited was the number of POURS, with each pour lasting a matter of seconds.  Uncomfortable, yes.  Deadly, no.  There were doctors present, that man was in no danger of dying.  Zubaydah told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times.  I sleep just fine at night knowing that.  John McCain was beaten repeatedly during his capture, which is a lot more torturous than a little waterboarding.  After waterboarding, the guy gets up, is maybe a little tired, but not too worse for the wear.  McCain's injuries still hurt him today.  I would say what McCain went through was worse, in my opinion.  Also, I have to disagree with them being SUSPECTED terrorists.  Those three guys were KNOWN terrorists, which undoubtedly were guilty of killing many.  I don't have an ounce of compassion for that.  The only compassion I feel is for the people they had murdered. 

When we've got politicians hand wringing over what went on, and then we come to find out that they, in fact, knew exactly what was going on, I think its safe to say that BOTH parties were okay with it, and rightly so considering what the state of the world was at the time.  When these same politicians are then wanting to prosecute officials, I see that as setting a BAD prescedent for future administrations.  We surely didn't see Truman prosecute FDR for the internment of the Japanese during the war did we?  We decided, as a nation, that that was wrong and we will not do it again.  That is what we should do now.  Many, not all, but many, agree that waterboarding should not be done and so we have stopped it (in 2007).  The end. 

Great conversation, Esther.  Hope you have a great day! :)

Traci - posted on 05/20/2009

Allright, Toots, I've said before, someone made a comment about Repubs and I decided to respond. I never ment to break up your little "kumbaya" moment here. I said it before. About the hating whitey thing where you implied I was racist. Get over yourself. Obama is just as much black as he is white (actually, more white since he was raised in a white family), so what kinda sense would that make. Gimme a break, you can put that card back in your pocket. I was referring to Rev Wright hating whitey, which most undoubtedly true. I don't think Obama is racist, but I find to hard to believe that he sat in front of that man listening to him spill that hate for 20 years and never once heard anything like that. Even Oprah had the sense enough to leave that church because of that hateful man. To tell you the truth, I think the reason he stayed there in order to beat Bobby Rush for the Senate seat, and being from the city I know how hateful Bobby Rush is, Mr. Black Panther himself. Obama had to show he was real, and not just some Harvard boy, that's why he stayed in that church. Which makes him politically expedient, but not a racist, which I never called him. So that ends that.



PS...If you are ignoring my posts, as you claim, then how come you keep responding to them either directly or indirectly? You're not being truthful, my dear.



There is your "kicking and screaming," I'm sure I'll see yours soon enough.

Evelyn - posted on 05/19/2009

Well said Esther. I agree w/you on much of what you've said although personally I am against abortion except in the cases of rape/incest. I value the sanctity of human life (not to imply that you do not) and also believe too many women use it as a form of contraception. While I may feel this way, I also think it would be very dangerous to abolish abortion. I feel it would start a wave of "back alley" abortions putting many young, desperate women in danger. Abortion has become commonplace in this and many other countries and sex education is lacking. Especially in urban/rural areas where there are millions upon millions of teenagers and young adults who just do not have access to resources.

Surprisingly enough I too feel that I may have much in common w/Traci. Have I been sarcastic? Absolutely. Why wouldn't I be when I join a group of supposedly like-minded people whom I wished to share ideals/ideas with, support and have spirited discussions about our President whom we all voted for and stand behind. Only to see members constantly being berated and insulting us for being duped? (my favorite was when she wrote Obama was hating whitey and then asked whomever she was responding too if they felt stupid for voting for him...that speaks of a whole other issue she most likely has w/our president) I mean...seriously? I wouldn't join a pizza fan site and try to convince everyone why burgers are better. They are not there for that, they are there to discuss why the like pizza. If someone wants a debate, then they should either join or create a group for that purpose. I debate constantly w/my family/friends who are on the right, and that's great, but I joined this group for a different purpose. Hence the name, OBAMA MAMAS. I'm not going over to the republican group and break up their kumbaya moments...I mean why would I do that? What does that say about me if I did? Why would I want to be where I'm not wanted? I appreciate a good debate like anyone else, but this is ridiculous. I've chosen to ignore the posts by this person simply because they are inconsequential to me. Where I did respond was when I was accused of insulting someone's child by calling them a repub in training, (which is not an insult by the way) right after said person called another forum members children "poor dears" insinuating that their mother was mentally unstable and they were somehow less than fortunate for being her children. This is why this vexatious, objectionable person is, in my mind, a typical republican hypocrite.

What you wrote about gay rights and torture? You hit it dead on. :) I am sooooo done w/this subject lol. You delivered that so eloquently Esther, I just had to respond. :-) Now I'm going to sit back and watch the kicking and screaming ensue.

Sara - posted on 05/19/2009

Quoting Esther:



On the torture issue - now there's a black & white one for you. TORTURE IS WRONG. No matter how much you torture the facts or use different terminology to make it sound better, torture is torture and it is wrong. It is also not about who we torture. It's about US. It's about OUR morals, values and collective soul.

I couldn't agree more, Esther.  You go, girl.

Esther - posted on 05/19/2009

OMG - I can't believe I spelled "acceptable" as exceptable. I must be tired. The downside of motherhood.

Esther - posted on 05/19/2009

I think the link I sent did not work. Let me try again: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...,9171,588877,00.html - otherwise go to www.time.com/time/magazine and do a search for "Why The M Word Matters To Me"

Esther - posted on 05/19/2009

Traci - I will devote one more post to this. You and I, despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum, undoubtedly still have a lot of things that we can agree on. I don't doubt that you are a devoted mother and want the best for your kids, as do I. We both want them to grow up happy & healthy and be productive citizens.



I think we can even agree on a lot regarding the abortion issue. I think abortion is a horrible horrible thing and should be avoided. I think women who go out and have irresponsible sex and then just have an abortion as if it's nothing, should be derided. I had a miscarriage before I got pregnant with my son. The foetus never developed beyond the 6 week stage and we never heard a heart beat. It was the most devastating experience of my life. I did not have a spontaneous miscarriage so at 12 weeks I had to undergo a D&C (after weeks of test after test after test and hoping that maybe, just maybe the baby was somehow alive after all). Someone at the hospital casually mentioned the word "abortion" because the D&C I was undergoing is essentially the same procedure. I wanted to strangle the woman. The thought that I was undergoing an abortion made me want to throw up. When I got pregnant again, I chose not to have an amnio as I was not willing to increase the risk for another miscarriage even by half a percent, and besides, whether the baby was 100% healthy or not or had Down syndrome made no difference to me. This was my baby. I don't understand all the praise that was heaped upon Sarah Palin for undergoing the amnio and then deciding not to have an abortion. I don't even know why she underwent the amnio, but maybe she needed to know. Either way, it seems to me a no brainer that she would have kept the baby, especially being the pro-life woman she says she is.



That being said, I'm still firmly pro-choice. I do think that sometimes the abortion is the lesser evil. I don't think abortions should be allowed past the first tri-mester, I don't think abortion should EVER be used as a form of contraceptive. I think overall women should be more responsible and smarter about the choices they make (regarding sex, relationships, the works) and not play the victim card as often as they do. I think unwanted pregnancies should be avoided with the help of sex education. I think pre-natal counseling and care should be more widely available. I think abortions should be a LAST resort, not a first. But I think the issue is too complicated to be set-up as black & white. As I've stated before, I think it is unthinkable that we would force a 14-year-old who was raped by her father, to carry a baby to term. I don't doubt that that is only a small portion of all abortions, but there should at the very least be an exception for those types of cases. However, even for women who have been irresponsible, sometimes I still think an abortion is the lesser of two evils. And I think most women who undergo abortions don't take it lightly either. You said before that we may be aborting Einsteins, Beethovens, the doctor who can cure cancer etc. You are right, we may be. But we may also be aborting serial killers, rapists and child abusers. And my guess is that the odds that we are aborting people along those lines may be greater because if these kids are born and they then have to grow up living a life of neglect or abuse because they are unwanted and born into a bad situation, they are more likely to grow up to be a disfunctional person than the next Einstein. Also, we may be letting Einsteins die in Africa right now as well. Or they could have been "collateral damage" during our invasion of Iraq. So to me, that's not a very powerful argument. And then there are situations like the one with Octomom. She did the ultimate pro-life thing (at least in her mind) but her kids are likely to suffer the consequences and there are no good options anymore in my mind. Do we take the kids away and place them into foster care? Do we let her keep them without the means to provide for them financially or otherwise? Do we put them up for adoption, where they will most likely be split up and will have to grow up without their siblings? They were all born prematurely and are likely to have health issues for the rest of their lives. To me, it would have been much better if those embryos had never been placed. Hands down. But that means an embryo would have been destroyed. Not in the mother's womb, but an embryo that could (and did) live would have been destroyed. That's why I say, this is not and cannot be a black & white issue and we should not pretend that it is.



On gay rights - I think the prejudice and fear that many people on the conservative spectrum exhibit toward gays is born of prejudice and religious indoctrination. There are many many many people who get married who do not have children. They are either too old, don't have the desire or are unable to. If marriage should be strictly about reproduction we should subject everyone to a fertility test when they apply for a marriage license and we should annul any marriage that does not produce kids within a reasonable period of time (2 years? You decide). We would NEVER impose such ridiculous restrictions on marriage. EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuals. Most people get married for love, to show their commitment to eachother. Kids follow from that love and commitment. It's no different for homosexuals. And many homosexuals are raising kids too and doing a fabulous job. Homosexuals have no more choice in their sexuality than you or I do. I did not wake up one day and decided to be straight. I just am. I also didn't decide to be green eyed, freckled or caucasian. But I am. I know you say we should just give them equal rights but not the word "marriage". Separate but equal has been tried. It does not work because it's wrong. It's wrong to discriminate against people for something they had no choice in. You should read this article by Andrew Sullivan: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...,9171,588877,00.html



On the torture issue - now there's a black & white one for you. TORTURE IS WRONG. No matter how much you torture the facts or use different terminology to make it sound better, torture is torture and it is wrong. It is also not about who we torture. It's about US. It's about OUR morals, values and collective soul. It's about us being better than that. It is also proven to be ineffective. If it wasn't - why did they feel the need to waterboard Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times in one month? Wouldn't he have given it all up sooner? The term "enhanced interrogation" was coined by the Gestapo. The waterboard was a favorite of the Khmer Rouge and is part of a museum dedicated to recording the history of torture techniques in Cambodia during the genocide. The reason we subject our special forces to these techniques during SERE training is precisely BECAUSE it is torture and we are trying to train them to resist these techniques as best they can. Jesse Ventura was on TV the other day. He went through SERE training. He confirmed unequivocally that this is torture, that it should be condemned and that those who authorized these techniques should be prosecuted. Quote: Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law."



Larry King: You were a Navy S.E.A.L.



Jesse Ventura: Yes, and I was waterboarded [in training] so I know... It is torture...I'll put it to you this way: You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.



McCain was subjected to torture that was far less severe than waterboarding, but nobody doubts it was torture. What if that American journalist who was arrested and convicted in Iran of being a spy had been subjected to waterboarding and had "confessed" to some kind of assassination plot against Ahmedinejad? Would you have believed that "confession"? Would you have argued that she "just got some water poured over her face"? That these were just "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "harsh interrogations"? If you argue that this is exceptable for us to do with people we suspect of being terrorists, how can we EVER argue that other regimes cannot do this to our people? Or to our allies?

Traci - posted on 05/18/2009

Quoting Esther:

Traci - I'm really done arguing with someone with such a simplistic and "every man for himself" kind of world view. Please go rejoin your friends on Fox.

You know, up until your little Fox comment, I have to say, that at least you pointed out actual reasons for your feelings, which I've got to give you credit for.  Which is more than I can say for most of your counterparts.  Most of these women did nothing but insult and use foul language ( so far, we've got   troll, racist, idiot, misogynist,bigot,  and lets not forget all the eff you's and such), and so, for that, I thank you.  At least you debate like an adult.  I wish the rest of these chicks would converse like you....

Traci - posted on 05/17/2009

Ouch, I guess Mr. Obama and I are bigots. Too bad you feel that way! ;)

Hannah - posted on 05/17/2009

Quoting Traci:

"Whatever."




oooooh! What great facts! How can I argue with that? :)

Look, you are just a bigot and not worth anymore words from me.

Traci - posted on 05/17/2009

"Whatever."









oooooh! What great facts! How can I argue with that? :)

Hannah - posted on 05/17/2009

Quoting Traci:

What about "torture" did I say that wasn't true? I'm listening....

In terms of aboriton, all it does is allow women to be permiscuous pigs. Never mind waiting until you're in a committed relationship, go ahead get drunk, sleep around, it's cool, no worries! You don't have to be responsible! You can vacuum out that baby with beating heart and go on and do it all again! No responsibilities!!!

I bet you're glad your mom didn't just consider you a "cluster of cells." EVERY innocent human life has value, you can't say that, just because it will be poor, doesn't mean that it should die. Look at the man you all worship who is the all-knowing, all-seeing, messiah himself, President Obama (should I bow here?). His mom had every reason to abort him according to the pro-choice reasons, and he became the president. How many scientists, authors, historians, poets, inventors, etc are we aborting??? We'll never know, because they are just 'cells', I guess. Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest. So that means 99% of these abortions are being done by women who should have been responsible. You are rationalizing something that cannot be rationalized. It's funny, the woman in the case Roe vs Wade that legalized abortion just got arrested for protesting abortion at Notre Dame today. Abortion is wrong, it is stopping a beating heart, and you have no place saying a baby will not grow up to be a productful human being. Neither do I, none of us do. That being said, the people who go and terrorize aboriton doctors are no worse than those doctors they are prostesting against. I'm not gonna defend that, just as I don't think you can defend Obama's record of voting against medical attention being given to babies who survive botched abortions. I think any doctor who performs an abortion is sick, but I don't think we should go around shooting them or anything.

You're quote DON'T LIKE ABORTIONS? DON'T GET ONE. is like saying, If you don't like drugs, than don't do them. Drugs are, and should be illegal. Just like doing drugs, abortions effect more than just you, it effects a life, and unlike drugs, another person dies. Abortions do not make you unpregnant, they make you the mother of a dead baby. What a wonderful gift for a parent to give their child, eh? We prosecute women who throw their minutes old newborns in the dumpster. Why is it legal to kill the baby a couple months before birth and throw it into a red bag marked BIOHAZARD? I really fail to see the distinction.

I also don't understand how you can equate STOPPING A BABY'S BEATING HEART and throwing it in the trash with pouring a little water over a murderer's face with a doctor present in an effort to save American lives. unreal. Think about what you are trying to equate. The most perfect, innocent life versus an animalistic terrorist who would lop off your head and parade through the streets with it and smile and sing about it. Yeah, you are making a great case for yourself there.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are for whoever the heck wants to be linked together. It should be kept as such. Marriage means something, and we shouldn't let a small minority of the popluation change it. Sorry! That is how I feel. Every American can already get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's what a marriage is. And, for the record, that is how MOST of America feels and, consequently, how your beloved president has stated he feels.

Whatever.

Traci - posted on 05/17/2009

What about "torture" did I say that wasn't true? I'm listening....



In terms of aboriton, all it does is allow women to be permiscuous pigs. Never mind waiting until you're in a committed relationship, go ahead get drunk, sleep around, it's cool, no worries! You don't have to be responsible! You can vacuum out that baby with beating heart and go on and do it all again! No responsibilities!!!



I bet you're glad your mom didn't just consider you a "cluster of cells." EVERY innocent human life has value, you can't say that, just because it will be poor, doesn't mean that it should die. Look at the man you all worship who is the all-knowing, all-seeing, messiah himself, President Obama (should I bow here?). His mom had every reason to abort him according to the pro-choice reasons, and he became the president. How many scientists, authors, historians, poets, inventors, etc are we aborting??? We'll never know, because they are just 'cells', I guess. Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest. So that means 99% of these abortions are being done by women who should have been responsible. You are rationalizing something that cannot be rationalized. It's funny, the woman in the case Roe vs Wade that legalized abortion just got arrested for protesting abortion at Notre Dame today. Abortion is wrong, it is stopping a beating heart, and you have no place saying a baby will not grow up to be a productful human being. Neither do I, none of us do. That being said, the people who go and terrorize aboriton doctors are no worse than those doctors they are prostesting against. I'm not gonna defend that, just as I don't think you can defend Obama's record of voting against medical attention being given to babies who survive botched abortions. I think any doctor who performs an abortion is sick, but I don't think we should go around shooting them or anything.



You're quote DON'T LIKE ABORTIONS? DON'T GET ONE. is like saying, If you don't like drugs, than don't do them. Drugs are, and should be illegal. Just like doing drugs, abortions effect more than just you, it effects a life, and unlike drugs, another person dies. Abortions do not make you unpregnant, they make you the mother of a dead baby. What a wonderful gift for a parent to give their child, eh? We prosecute women who throw their minutes old newborns in the dumpster. Why is it legal to kill the baby a couple months before birth and throw it into a red bag marked BIOHAZARD? I really fail to see the distinction.



I also don't understand how you can equate STOPPING A BABY'S BEATING HEART and throwing it in the trash with pouring a little water over a murderer's face with a doctor present in an effort to save American lives. unreal. Think about what you are trying to equate. The most perfect, innocent life versus an animalistic terrorist who would lop off your head and parade through the streets with it and smile and sing about it. Yeah, you are making a great case for yourself there.



Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are for whoever the heck wants to be linked together. It should be kept as such. Marriage means something, and we shouldn't let a small minority of the popluation change it. Sorry! That is how I feel. Every American can already get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's what a marriage is. And, for the record, that is how MOST of America feels and, consequently, how your beloved president has stated he feels.

Hannah - posted on 05/16/2009

Quoting Traci:

It seems to me the ultimate show of how much you value human rights would be not allowing an innocent life a chance to prove its worth and get a chance at life.  What is more of a human rights travesty...not letting Steve and Justin have their star-studded wedding of their dreams being sanctioned by the gov't or vacuuming an innocent baby from the warmth of its mothers womb, the place which it should feel most safe in this world? 

Torture policies?  Three, count 'em three dudes were waterboarded.  *tear*  Three men who would just as soon lop your head off with their machete as look at you.  *tear*  They underwent this "torture" with a doctor in the room, which is more than I can say for poor Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl or the guys in Falleujah.  I don't think we should be waterboarding every guy we pick up off the battlefield, but what they did under the conditions our country was in was perfectly acceptable.  I mean, really.  Our own military go through that in SEER school.  I think those who are so quick to judge are looking through their 9/10 glasses.  This is a 9/12 world we are living in.  One guy they stuck a bug in with him, so under that line of reasoning half the city of Chicago is undergoing torture as we speak.  Heck, they do worse than that to their own women over there!  *wah*  I don't have much compassion for that.  I think calling that torture is a stretch, considering what was going on at the time. 

That "innocent life" could have a terrible existance because it is born to woman incapable of raising it. Could be put up for adoption and have a wonderful life, sure, my husband was adopted. Then there could be foster home after foster home and the sense that you just dont belong anywhere.

Some young teenager could get pregnant experimenting and get kicked out of her home by her parents.

Some woman could be raped on the way home from work. Would you want to give birth to a child from a man who raped you?

If you are thinking of "human rights" in terms of the unborn, not yet human, cluster of cells....And not the women who they are affecting, then you have it all wrong.

Did you here about the anti-abortion fool that shot a doctor dead to keep him from doing abortions the next day? As horrible as that is it is laughable in how ironic it is.

There is a pain in stoping life, and it is a terrible hard choice to make. But it is absolutely imperative that women have this option. A safe, legal way to abort an unwanted pregnancy. That little start of life will be better off in "heaven" or non-existance than it would be in life in some cases.

DONT LIKE ABORTIONS? DONT GET ONE.

And again why do you care about "Steve and Justin" getting maried? What is it to you? Did God tell you it was bad? Does it disgust you? What the fuck doesn it matter?

And as far as torture goes, you are buying what you are being told. And you are an idiot to think that its OK to torture people but not OK to have an abortion. WTF?

Oh yeah your all for human rights. uh-huh.

Hannah - posted on 05/16/2009

Quoting Traci:

It seems to me the ultimate show of how much you value human rights would be not allowing an innocent life a chance to prove its worth and get a chance at life.  What is more of a human rights travesty...not letting Steve and Justin have their star-studded wedding of their dreams being sanctioned by the gov't or vacuuming an innocent baby from the warmth of its mothers womb, the place which it should feel most safe in this world? 

Torture policies?  Three, count 'em three dudes were waterboarded.  *tear*  Three men who would just as soon lop your head off with their machete as look at you.  *tear*  They underwent this "torture" with a doctor in the room, which is more than I can say for poor Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl or the guys in Falleujah.  I don't think we should be waterboarding every guy we pick up off the battlefield, but what they did under the conditions our country was in was perfectly acceptable.  I mean, really.  Our own military go through that in SEER school.  I think those who are so quick to judge are looking through their 9/10 glasses.  This is a 9/12 world we are living in.  One guy they stuck a bug in with him, so under that line of reasoning half the city of Chicago is undergoing torture as we speak.  Heck, they do worse than that to their own women over there!  *wah*  I don't have much compassion for that.  I think calling that torture is a stretch, considering what was going on at the time. 

That "innocent life" could have a terrible existance because it is born to woman incapable of raising it. Could be put up for adoption and have a wonderful life, sure, my husband was adopted. Then there could be foster home after foster home and the sense that you just dont belong anywhere.

Some young teenager could get pregnant experimenting and get kicked out of her home by her parents.

Some woman could be raped on the way home from work. Would you want to give birth to a child from a man who raped you?

If you are thinking of "human rights" in terms of the unborn, not yet human, cluster of cells....And not the women who they are affecting, then you have it all wrong.

Did you here about the anti-abortion fool that shot a doctor dead to keep him from doing abortions the next day? As horrible as that is it is laughable in how ironic it is.

There is a pain in stoping life, and it is a terrible hard choice to make. But it is absolutely imperative that women have this option. A safe, legal way to abort an unwanted pregnancy. That little start of life will be better off in "heaven" or non-existance than it would be in life in some cases.

DONT LIKE ABORTIONS? DONT GET ONE.

And again why do you care about "Steve and Justin" getting maried? What is it to you? Did God tell you it was bad? Does it disgust you? What the fuck doesn it matter?

And as far as torture goes, you are buying what you are being told. And you are an idiot to think that its OK to torture people but not OK to have an abortion. WTF?

Oh yeah your all for human rights. uh-huh.

Esther - posted on 05/16/2009

Traci - I'm really done arguing with someone with such a simplistic and "every man for himself" kind of world view. Please go rejoin your friends on Fox.

Traci - posted on 05/15/2009

Quoting Esther:

Quoting Traci:

You're not addressing the larger issue here. Why is everybody all in a tizzy over healthcare? Because everything is so darn expensive, right? Why is everything so darn expensive? The number one reason is that we are not the ones footing the bill for it. When you walk into the doc's office, do you know what his prices are? Do you really even care? If you have insurance, then you probably don't and that's because you are not paying for it directly. The only way to drive down cost is to have people become consumers in their own healthcare. You shop around for the best rate when it comes to your car insurance, don't you? Homeowner's? Then why should we have to take the insurance that our employer provides? Wouldn't it be better to be able to shop around for the plan that you need? We pay for coverage that we do not even need and that too drives up the cost. My insurance covers smoking cessastion and alcolhol/drug abuse. Why am I paying for that? I've never even smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't drink. It also covers other things I will never need. When I get my car insurance premiums, I get to choose the coverage I would like, and they quote me based upon that. The whole idea of just handing it over to the government is just a bad idea. What does the government do well? Really? The post office never makes a profit, they are losing almost 2 billion dollars this year. How bout Amtrak? They have never made a profit since being taken over by the government so many years ago. And if the healthcare providers do end up making a profit, its because we tax payers will be getting raped. Right now they are talking about counting the healthcare coverage I currently receive from my husband's employer as income and it will be taxed. Why should I be for this? The only thing in it for me is higher taxes. Yeah! I just looooove April 15th, how bout you? I thought Obama promised people who make less than 250,000 dollars will not see their taxes increase? Mine sure as heck will if that passes!

Our country does not have the money for this. This current budget is putting us almost 2 trillion dollars more in debt. That is for one year!!! And, that's before this healthcare baloney! To cover their debt, the gov't is printing record amounts of money everyday and borrowing the rest from China. That means both you and I are now poorer because our money isn't worth crap anymore. Inflation is about to go up as well as interest rates. And we are talking about healthcare? We need to get our finances in order before even thinking about that. Every baby born in America is already in debt to a tune of about 33.000 dollars, in terms of our national debt. Social Security is going to run out in 2016....the list goes on and on...I don't want my kids growing up to become slaves to their tax burden. I wouldn't think you would want the same for your own children.

I was addressing the "larger issue" as defined by you in your earlier post:

Quoting Traci:

Allright, but there is a reason the US is the place that the rich people in those countries go to when they get seriously ill or need some new, innovative surgery. How much of the new technologies and vaccines and medicines did your country invent? Without profit, there is no reason to create or invent. Look at the larger picture.

 

But since I debunked that I guess we have to go larger still. I'm appalled by the debt that was racked up by the Bush administration, even more so since it was largely the result of handouts to people who don't need it and a war we shouldn't have been in. It's mindblowing to me that for 8 years we were throwing money out the window with nearly a peep out of the "fiscal conservative" crowd and now that we want to spend money on actually trying to improve the lives of the general public they are throwing tantrums (aka "teaparties"). If my tax dollars are spent to reduce infant mortality rates among certain sections of the populace, that would thrill me! No, I don't like April 15, but I love the police, the fire department, the roads I drive on, the military etc. And someone has to pay for that. Your argument re. health insurance makes no sense. In one sentence you advocate the right of insurance companies to turn a profit and how important that is for innovation etc. but you don't want to pay for services you don't need like smoking cessation. How do you think they turn a profit? By people paying for services they don't need or paying more for services that they do need than they actually cost. More goes into the system than comes out. That's what profits are made up of. And I have paid doctor's bills in full myself because of the insurance situation I described before. So yes, I care. And when I had no insurance to cover it, I was required to pay full price for all my services, whereas the insurance company gets a HUGE discount. So people who cannot afford insurance not only have to pay for their care out of pocket but they have to pay 3 times more what the doctor would have billed if they HAD had insurance.

As for the government not turning profits - they're not in the business of turning profits. They should try to break even. And you can slam the post office all you want, but they are still able to get a letter from me on the East Coast to someone in CA pretty darn fast and for only a few cents. I think that's pretty good service. I don't think the military is turning a profit either. Want to get rid of them too?

Believe it or not though, out of all the topics mentioned in my original exchange with you, health care is not at the top of the list. For me there can be nothing more important than human rights so at the top of my list of priorities is full equality for homosexuals (and on an unrelated, but other human rights issue - an immediate and unqualified end to torture policies and accountability for those that authorized those policies so that that can never happen again in this country).

It seems to me the ultimate show of how much you value human rights would be not allowing an innocent life a chance to prove its worth and get a chance at life.  What is more of a human rights travesty...not letting Steve and Justin have their star-studded wedding of their dreams being sanctioned by the gov't or vacuuming an innocent baby from the warmth of its mothers womb, the place which it should feel most safe in this world? 

Torture policies?  Three, count 'em three dudes were waterboarded.  *tear*  Three men who would just as soon lop your head off with their machete as look at you.  *tear*  They underwent this "torture" with a doctor in the room, which is more than I can say for poor Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl or the guys in Falleujah.  I don't think we should be waterboarding every guy we pick up off the battlefield, but what they did under the conditions our country was in was perfectly acceptable.  I mean, really.  Our own military go through that in SEER school.  I think those who are so quick to judge are looking through their 9/10 glasses.  This is a 9/12 world we are living in.  One guy they stuck a bug in with him, so under that line of reasoning half the city of Chicago is undergoing torture as we speak.  Heck, they do worse than that to their own women over there!  *wah*  I don't have much compassion for that.  I think calling that torture is a stretch, considering what was going on at the time. 

Traci - posted on 05/15/2009

Quoting Esther:

It’s one thing to say that universal coverage COULD lead to less innovation or reduce the availability of high-tech care. It is quite another to say that it WILL do those things, which is the claim that opponents frequently make. That argument requires several leaps of logic, many of them highly suspect. The forces that produce innovation in medicine turn out to be a great deal more complicated than critics of universal coverage seem to want to acknowledge. In fact, it’s quite possible that universal coverage could lead to better innovation.

The single biggest source of medical research funding, not just in the United States but in the entire world, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH): In 2006, it spent more than $28 billion on research, accounting for about one-third of the total dollars spent on medical research and development in this country (and half the money spent at universities). The majority of that money pays for the kind of basic research that might someday unlock cures for killer diseases like Alzheimer’s, aids, and cancer. No other country has an institution that matches the NIH in scale. And that is probably the primary explanation for why so many of the intellectual breakthroughs in medical science happen here.

There’s no reason why this has to change under universal health insurance. NIH has its own independent funding stream. And, during the late 1990s, thanks to bipartisan agreement between President Clinton and the Republican Congress, its funding actually increased substantially—giving a tremendous boost to research. It so happens that, starting in 2003, President Bush and his congressional allies let NIH funding stagnate, even though the cost of medical research (like the cost of medicine overall) was increasing faster than inflation. The reason? They needed room in the budget for other priorities, like tax cuts for the wealthy. In this sense, the greatest threat to future medical breakthroughs may not be universal health care but the people who are trying so hard to fight it.

While you did make some fair points, but funding for the NIH actually increased under Bush, so on that point you are  mistaken. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...)

That, however, is part of the reason I wasn't much a fan of Bush.  Spending.  Prescription drugs. NCLB.  Immigration.  Johnny Sutton.  the list goes on...

The NIH isn't necessarily the reason we have all this wonderful medical technology.  You said NIH has its own independent funding stream but you said Bush cut the funding.  Which is it?  You also said it provided one third the funding, which means the other two thirds were from private funds, am I following ya?  I'm just trying to follow what you're saying, sometimes it's confusing over the computer.  It seems kind of contradictory to me as its written though.

Either way, whenever the gov't is involved, there is room for corruption and fraud, waste, and abuse.  Don't get me wrong, the private sector has room for that too, but in the private sector people can get fired.  There's more accountability.  There is profit motive.  Who gets fired when they work for the gov't, really?  In the private sector, if there aren't results, people get fired.  In the gov't they give them more money.   We also seem to forget that just because you throw money at stuff, doesn't mean it makes it better.  Look at how Johnson's War on Poverty has gone.  It has only made more people more dependent on other people.  Instead of providing the poor ladders out of poverty, it made them comfortable in their poverty.  Ben Franklin said "the best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty".  That's not to say we should laugh and point-that can happen to anybody, anytime and the circumstances can sometimes be out of their control.  But for a majority of those living in that lifestyle, they are perfectly content with it.  That is what we should frown upon. 

Traci - posted on 05/15/2009

Quoting Hannah:

Quoting Traci:

You're not addressing the larger issue here. Why is everybody all in a tizzy over healthcare? Because everything is so darn expensive, right? Why is everything so darn expensive? The number one reason is that we are not the ones footing the bill for it. When you walk into the doc's office, do you know what his prices are? Do you really even care? If you have insurance, then you probably don't and that's because you are not paying for it directly. The only way to drive down cost is to have people become consumers in their own healthcare. You shop around for the best rate when it comes to your car insurance, don't you? Homeowner's? Then why should we have to take the insurance that our employer provides? Wouldn't it be better to be able to shop around for the plan that you need? We pay for coverage that we do not even need and that too drives up the cost. My insurance covers smoking cessastion and alcolhol/drug abuse. Why am I paying for that? I've never even smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't drink. It also covers other things I will never need. When I get my car insurance premiums, I get to choose the coverage I would like, and they quote me based upon that. The whole idea of just handing it over to the government is just a bad idea. What does the government do well? Really? The post office never makes a profit, they are losing almost 2 billion dollars this year. How bout Amtrak? They have never made a profit since being taken over by the government so many years ago. And if the healthcare providers do end up making a profit, its because we tax payers will be getting raped. Right now they are talking about counting the healthcare coverage I currently receive from my husband's employer as income and it will be taxed. Why should I be for this? The only thing in it for me is higher taxes. Yeah! I just looooove April 15th, how bout you? I thought Obama promised people who make less than 250,000 dollars will not see their taxes increase? Mine sure as heck will if that passes!

Our country does not have the money for this. This current budget is putting us almost 2 trillion dollars more in debt. That is for one year!!! And, that's before this healthcare baloney! To cover their debt, the gov't is printing record amounts of money everyday and borrowing the rest from China. That means both you and I are now poorer because our money isn't worth crap anymore. Inflation is about to go up as well as interest rates. And we are talking about healthcare? We need to get our finances in order before even thinking about that. Every baby born in America is already in debt to a tune of about 33.000 dollars, in terms of our national debt. Social Security is going to run out in 2016....the list goes on and on...I don't want my kids growing up to become slaves to their tax burden. I wouldn't think you would want the same for your own children.

 

We may never be out of debt. The way its going now, I dont think the central bank WANTS us to be out of debt. They are only making more profit.

I want to be able to take my daughter to the hospital for her monthly check ups AND be able to pay rent and get food. It sounds like you have plenty of money and health coverage. Good for you. Then you have no place whining about us that are asking for more.

I want to be able to live NOW and protect my child and get her the treatment she needs NOW. I dont want to wait until some miracle from Heaven itself makes the debt vanish.

Well, I'm not destitute, but I wouldn't say I had PLENTY of money, who couldn't use more?  There is a reason for that though.  I have lived a responsible life.  I feel really bad for people who come on hard times, conservatives don't like seeing people suffer as you all like to fantasize about.  But where has personal responsibility gone?  That goes for the rich and the poor and the middle class.  I know that many people come on hard times, but back in the day we used to fall back on family and friends.  Now everybody thinks they are entitled to other peoples money via tax dollars just by virtue of being an American.  I DO have a place whining about people asking for more!  When you are asking for free stuff from the gov't it is everybody's business!!!  Get out there and buy it.  I wonder how many people who are not currently covered by an insurance plan own cell phones, big screen tvs, iPods, etc etc.  For a time we didn't have insurance and we sacrificed a lot in order to pay for a major medical insurance plan in case we got into a car accident or whatever.  Rather than take a chance on something happening, we paid for our own stuff.  Fortunately, we never needed to use the plan, but if we had, we wouldn't have moseyed into some ER without having a way to pay for it. 

It's awfully selfish to worry about getting free stuff today than to worry about what kind of country your kid will live in years from now.  Personally, I'd rather forego the iPod, buy my own insurance, and know my kids won't be burdened by gov't taxation. I wish more people felt the same.   Sacrifice is what made our country great, not entitlements. 

Like I said, I've got lots and lots of compassion for the downtrodden, but at what point do we say enough's enough?  Especially when you've got almost half the country paying absolutely zero federal tax dollars.  No wonder they want more.

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

You're not addressing the larger issue here. Why is everybody all in a tizzy over healthcare? Because everything is so darn expensive, right? Why is everything so darn expensive? The number one reason is that we are not the ones footing the bill for it. When you walk into the doc's office, do you know what his prices are? Do you really even care? If you have insurance, then you probably don't and that's because you are not paying for it directly. The only way to drive down cost is to have people become consumers in their own healthcare. You shop around for the best rate when it comes to your car insurance, don't you? Homeowner's? Then why should we have to take the insurance that our employer provides? Wouldn't it be better to be able to shop around for the plan that you need? We pay for coverage that we do not even need and that too drives up the cost. My insurance covers smoking cessastion and alcolhol/drug abuse. Why am I paying for that? I've never even smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't drink. It also covers other things I will never need. When I get my car insurance premiums, I get to choose the coverage I would like, and they quote me based upon that. The whole idea of just handing it over to the government is just a bad idea. What does the government do well? Really? The post office never makes a profit, they are losing almost 2 billion dollars this year. How bout Amtrak? They have never made a profit since being taken over by the government so many years ago. And if the healthcare providers do end up making a profit, its because we tax payers will be getting raped. Right now they are talking about counting the healthcare coverage I currently receive from my husband's employer as income and it will be taxed. Why should I be for this? The only thing in it for me is higher taxes. Yeah! I just looooove April 15th, how bout you? I thought Obama promised people who make less than 250,000 dollars will not see their taxes increase? Mine sure as heck will if that passes!

Our country does not have the money for this. This current budget is putting us almost 2 trillion dollars more in debt. That is for one year!!! And, that's before this healthcare baloney! To cover their debt, the gov't is printing record amounts of money everyday and borrowing the rest from China. That means both you and I are now poorer because our money isn't worth crap anymore. Inflation is about to go up as well as interest rates. And we are talking about healthcare? We need to get our finances in order before even thinking about that. Every baby born in America is already in debt to a tune of about 33.000 dollars, in terms of our national debt. Social Security is going to run out in 2016....the list goes on and on...I don't want my kids growing up to become slaves to their tax burden. I wouldn't think you would want the same for your own children.

I was addressing the "larger issue" as defined by you in your earlier post:

Quoting Traci:

Allright, but there is a reason the US is the place that the rich people in those countries go to when they get seriously ill or need some new, innovative surgery. How much of the new technologies and vaccines and medicines did your country invent? Without profit, there is no reason to create or invent. Look at the larger picture.

But since I debunked that I guess we have to go larger still. I'm appalled by the debt that was racked up by the Bush administration, even more so since it was largely the result of handouts to people who don't need it and a war we shouldn't have been in. It's mindblowing to me that for 8 years we were throwing money out the window with nearly a peep out of the "fiscal conservative" crowd and now that we want to spend money on actually trying to improve the lives of the general public they are throwing tantrums (aka "teaparties"). If my tax dollars are spent to reduce infant mortality rates among certain sections of the populace, that would thrill me! No, I don't like April 15, but I love the police, the fire department, the roads I drive on, the military etc. And someone has to pay for that. Your argument re. health insurance makes no sense. In one sentence you advocate the right of insurance companies to turn a profit and how important that is for innovation etc. but you don't want to pay for services you don't need like smoking cessation. How do you think they turn a profit? By people paying for services they don't need or paying more for services that they do need than they actually cost. More goes into the system than comes out. That's what profits are made up of. And I have paid doctor's bills in full myself because of the insurance situation I described before. So yes, I care. And when I had no insurance to cover it, I was required to pay full price for all my services, whereas the insurance company gets a HUGE discount. So people who cannot afford insurance not only have to pay for their care out of pocket but they have to pay 3 times more what the doctor would have billed if they HAD had insurance.

As for the government not turning profits - they're not in the business of turning profits. They should try to break even. And you can slam the post office all you want, but they are still able to get a letter from me on the East Coast to someone in CA pretty darn fast and for only a few cents. I think that's pretty good service. I don't think the military is turning a profit either. Want to get rid of them too?

Believe it or not though, out of all the topics mentioned in my original exchange with you, health care is not at the top of the list. For me there can be nothing more important than human rights so at the top of my list of priorities is full equality for homosexuals (and on an unrelated, but other human rights issue - an immediate and unqualified end to torture policies and accountability for those that authorized those policies so that that can never happen again in this country).

Hannah - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

You're not addressing the larger issue here. Why is everybody all in a tizzy over healthcare? Because everything is so darn expensive, right? Why is everything so darn expensive? The number one reason is that we are not the ones footing the bill for it. When you walk into the doc's office, do you know what his prices are? Do you really even care? If you have insurance, then you probably don't and that's because you are not paying for it directly. The only way to drive down cost is to have people become consumers in their own healthcare. You shop around for the best rate when it comes to your car insurance, don't you? Homeowner's? Then why should we have to take the insurance that our employer provides? Wouldn't it be better to be able to shop around for the plan that you need? We pay for coverage that we do not even need and that too drives up the cost. My insurance covers smoking cessastion and alcolhol/drug abuse. Why am I paying for that? I've never even smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't drink. It also covers other things I will never need. When I get my car insurance premiums, I get to choose the coverage I would like, and they quote me based upon that. The whole idea of just handing it over to the government is just a bad idea. What does the government do well? Really? The post office never makes a profit, they are losing almost 2 billion dollars this year. How bout Amtrak? They have never made a profit since being taken over by the government so many years ago. And if the healthcare providers do end up making a profit, its because we tax payers will be getting raped. Right now they are talking about counting the healthcare coverage I currently receive from my husband's employer as income and it will be taxed. Why should I be for this? The only thing in it for me is higher taxes. Yeah! I just looooove April 15th, how bout you? I thought Obama promised people who make less than 250,000 dollars will not see their taxes increase? Mine sure as heck will if that passes!

Our country does not have the money for this. This current budget is putting us almost 2 trillion dollars more in debt. That is for one year!!! And, that's before this healthcare baloney! To cover their debt, the gov't is printing record amounts of money everyday and borrowing the rest from China. That means both you and I are now poorer because our money isn't worth crap anymore. Inflation is about to go up as well as interest rates. And we are talking about healthcare? We need to get our finances in order before even thinking about that. Every baby born in America is already in debt to a tune of about 33.000 dollars, in terms of our national debt. Social Security is going to run out in 2016....the list goes on and on...I don't want my kids growing up to become slaves to their tax burden. I wouldn't think you would want the same for your own children.

We may never be out of debt. The way its going now, I dont think the central bank WANTS us to be out of debt. They are only making more profit.

I want to be able to take my daughter to the hospital for her monthly check ups AND be able to pay rent and get food. It sounds like you have plenty of money and health coverage. Good for you. Then you have no place whining about us that are asking for more.

I want to be able to live NOW and protect my child and get her the treatment she needs NOW. I dont want to wait until some miracle from Heaven itself makes the debt vanish.

Hannah - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

Quoting Esther:

Quoting Traci:

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.

There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.

PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

I agree that every president speaks of god and I wish they wouldn't. Including the democrats. But to get elected in this country you have to. I wish that would change. We should elect people based on their vision for the country. On their policy ideas. Not on whether or not they give us warm & fuzzy feelings (which btw Obama does give me) or whether or not they subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular religion.

On the healthcare issue, we do not have healthcare for all because some people cannot afford to pay for the healthcare they need. I think it is insane beyond belief that people ESPECIALLY kids in a country as rich as this one are being denied basic care because their insurance won't cover it or because they cannot afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not a socialist. I believe in capitalism. But I do not think it is acceptable that kids are dying because their parents have to fight with a hospital or an insurance company to get their kids the care they need. And I don't think that's right for adults either. I have health insurance and so does my husband. Both his company and mine use the same insurance company. However, when I tried to get a comparison from them between what was covered under his health plan and what was covered under mine (to see if I should become a dependent on his policy or he under mine and which one to add our newborn to). I was unable to get that. And I'm an educated, intelligent, resourceful person. And we ended up literally paying for the choice we made because the policy we went with turned out to exclude all sorts of expenses related to the birth of my son. We switched over to the other policy (again same insurance company) and lots more was covered. We were able to pay those bills and I had a normal delivery and a healthy son. But what if there had been complications? What if my son had needed specialist care? All we could do is hope for the best. And now we have a seemingly superior policy, but I still have no guarantees that if I really need them to come through, they will (most likely they won't).

On the human rights / pro life issue - I was not speaking about pro choice vs pro life, which btw I think is a RIDICULOUS distinction to begin with. Nobody who is pro choice is pro death. Everyone is pro life. Including me. I think abortions are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. But I am pro choice. It is far too complicated an issue to draw the lines as black and white as pro life advocates would like. I would never dream of forcing a child who was impregnated by her father to carry that baby to term. I would not dream of putting a mother's life in jeopardy for the sake of a 4 week old embryo. I believe that abortions should be limited to the first trimester except under exceptional urgent circumstances but I do believe it should be an option. I think sex education is critical. I believe trying to alleviate poverty is critical. I believe it is a disgrace that the infant mortality rate in some parts of the country is that of a third world country. I think some people have no business having kids in the first place and that many people take the decision to have them much too lightly, so sometimes I really do believe that an abortion is the lesser of two evils. Take octomom for example. She did the ultimate "pro-life" thing but her kids will pay for it for the rest of their lives.

On being created equal - I fully agree. But our policies don't seem to. Homosexuals were created gay. But they are not offered equal rights. Based on religion. So if that's what religion in politics stands for - I think I'll pass.

Obama gives you warm fuzzy feelings?  Really? 

 

Gays are not offered equal rights?  What the heck are civil unions for then?  They are trying to change the very definition of marriage.  Sorry!  You're not going to cheapen my marriage by saying any two breathing humans can be "married".  There is no law saying they can't have a wedding.  The gov't has no reason to recoginze homosexual relationships as they do not bring about children, or a future generation.  I think the gov't should remain neutral on this issue.  They can have civil unions in order to afford the same rights financially and medically and stuff, but don't call it marriage, because its not.  Marriage between a man and a woman is special and more important than a different kind of relationship because children are more often than not the result of such a relationship.   I know you all are going to bring up divorce rates, but why do you think there are so many divorces?  It's because of no-fault divorce laws that the left brought about which has made it way too easy to get a divorce.  This was purposeful. That's just my humble opinion though.  (Notice I did not cite religion as any of my reasons.  I think that is important in a country that seperates church and state.)

 

On the abortion thing, I've got LOTS of posts in the moms 20-30 group under abortion.  My arguments are all there.  But one thing about the sanctity of life...

On Capito Hill the other day, they are talking to experts about how to deal with the cost of healthcare and how we are going to reform it and I'd like to show you what is being proposed up there. 

 At the Senate finance committee hearings on healthcare reform, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University said that resources get wasted in the American healthcare system. Wasted. Well, what does that mean?

He means that it gets wasted specifically in one segment of the population. Old people.   Here's the audio record.

Voice: Remember, our population is aging and at the very, very elderly, the costs go down so that percentage should be falling and it's not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much so at the same percentage it's worth a lot more. So let's go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness which we're supporting. That's where that can have a big impact. It's not the only place. But that's where the waste is. That's where people are using technologies that really either don't work at all or keep people alive for very limited and very high costs. Hospice is one option, but we do need to take account of the cost you know, I hate to say it, the cost benefit of some of the things we do and either we can do it directly or we can do it by bundling payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it's a combination of the delivery system dealing with it or?? and/or you providing more information for people that make the right decisions, both for themselves and for their care.

 

What that man was saying is that,' Sorry, Grandpa, it costs too much to take care of you now, you've served your purpose, we can't pay for your care anymore.  May God have mercy on your soul. '  We need to stand up for life at both ends of the spectrum otherwise we cannot call our society civil.  We will all be old one day and I don't know about you, but I'd rather be in control of my own health coverage rather than some bureaucrat who thinks I've outlived my usefulness.  Don't be so quick to give up control over such an important issue.  There are better ways to do this than letting the gov't constantly creep into it and eventually take it over.  I could go on and on, but I'll spare you.  Just an outsider's opinion...but please consider that. 

What a sad little world yours must be...

1) If the love lives and Marriages of other people "threaten" yours, you are lacking in your own life. and have no right to blame others.

2) "Marriage between a man and a woman is special and more important than a different kind of relationship"

What are you talking about? How the Hell do you know??  I have many homosexual friends and a few with children...Why do you care? What is it to you, othere than a persieved threat towards your relationship status. (Which makes no sense.)

Kristin - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

Quoting Esther:

Quoting Traci:

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.

There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.

PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

I agree that every president speaks of god and I wish they wouldn't. Including the democrats. But to get elected in this country you have to. I wish that would change. We should elect people based on their vision for the country. On their policy ideas. Not on whether or not they give us warm & fuzzy feelings (which btw Obama does give me) or whether or not they subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular religion.

On the healthcare issue, we do not have healthcare for all because some people cannot afford to pay for the healthcare they need. I think it is insane beyond belief that people ESPECIALLY kids in a country as rich as this one are being denied basic care because their insurance won't cover it or because they cannot afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not a socialist. I believe in capitalism. But I do not think it is acceptable that kids are dying because their parents have to fight with a hospital or an insurance company to get their kids the care they need. And I don't think that's right for adults either. I have health insurance and so does my husband. Both his company and mine use the same insurance company. However, when I tried to get a comparison from them between what was covered under his health plan and what was covered under mine (to see if I should become a dependent on his policy or he under mine and which one to add our newborn to). I was unable to get that. And I'm an educated, intelligent, resourceful person. And we ended up literally paying for the choice we made because the policy we went with turned out to exclude all sorts of expenses related to the birth of my son. We switched over to the other policy (again same insurance company) and lots more was covered. We were able to pay those bills and I had a normal delivery and a healthy son. But what if there had been complications? What if my son had needed specialist care? All we could do is hope for the best. And now we have a seemingly superior policy, but I still have no guarantees that if I really need them to come through, they will (most likely they won't).

On the human rights / pro life issue - I was not speaking about pro choice vs pro life, which btw I think is a RIDICULOUS distinction to begin with. Nobody who is pro choice is pro death. Everyone is pro life. Including me. I think abortions are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. But I am pro choice. It is far too complicated an issue to draw the lines as black and white as pro life advocates would like. I would never dream of forcing a child who was impregnated by her father to carry that baby to term. I would not dream of putting a mother's life in jeopardy for the sake of a 4 week old embryo. I believe that abortions should be limited to the first trimester except under exceptional urgent circumstances but I do believe it should be an option. I think sex education is critical. I believe trying to alleviate poverty is critical. I believe it is a disgrace that the infant mortality rate in some parts of the country is that of a third world country. I think some people have no business having kids in the first place and that many people take the decision to have them much too lightly, so sometimes I really do believe that an abortion is the lesser of two evils. Take octomom for example. She did the ultimate "pro-life" thing but her kids will pay for it for the rest of their lives.

On being created equal - I fully agree. But our policies don't seem to. Homosexuals were created gay. But they are not offered equal rights. Based on religion. So if that's what religion in politics stands for - I think I'll pass.

Marriage between a man and a woman is special and more important than a different kind of relationship because children are more often than not the result of such a relationship.   I know you all are going to bring up divorce rates, but why do you think there are so many divorces?  It's because of no-fault divorce laws that the left brought about which has made it way too easy to get a divorce.  This was purposeful. That's just my humble opinion though.  (Notice I did not cite religion as any of my reasons.  I think that is important in a country that seperates church and state.)

 

 

Traci,

 

There are A LOT of gay couples that adopt children...so those children are a result of such a relationship.  Are adopoted children less important or special than yours or my biological child?  If children in a relationship is the thing in your eyes that make a marriage a marriage or more special/important than...why shouldn't two gay people get married and have a family?  Do married couples who chose not to or who cannot have child...have a less important/special marriage than you? 

Also..if your reasons for being against gay marriage are not religious ones...please explain..because all of the arguements I have heard againist it are from the religious believe that it will "cheapen" the sanctity of marriage, it is a sin to be gay, marriage is bw a man and a woman, etc...

 

If people truly beleive that there should be separation bw Church and State, then Gay marriage should be allowed.  If being Gay is a sin/wrong/or otherwise....who are we to judge?  It is between that individual and God.

Kristin - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

Quoting Esther:

Quoting Traci:

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.

There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.

PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

I agree that every president speaks of god and I wish they wouldn't. Including the democrats. But to get elected in this country you have to. I wish that would change. We should elect people based on their vision for the country. On their policy ideas. Not on whether or not they give us warm & fuzzy feelings (which btw Obama does give me) or whether or not they subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular religion.

On the healthcare issue, we do not have healthcare for all because some people cannot afford to pay for the healthcare they need. I think it is insane beyond belief that people ESPECIALLY kids in a country as rich as this one are being denied basic care because their insurance won't cover it or because they cannot afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not a socialist. I believe in capitalism. But I do not think it is acceptable that kids are dying because their parents have to fight with a hospital or an insurance company to get their kids the care they need. And I don't think that's right for adults either. I have health insurance and so does my husband. Both his company and mine use the same insurance company. However, when I tried to get a comparison from them between what was covered under his health plan and what was covered under mine (to see if I should become a dependent on his policy or he under mine and which one to add our newborn to). I was unable to get that. And I'm an educated, intelligent, resourceful person. And we ended up literally paying for the choice we made because the policy we went with turned out to exclude all sorts of expenses related to the birth of my son. We switched over to the other policy (again same insurance company) and lots more was covered. We were able to pay those bills and I had a normal delivery and a healthy son. But what if there had been complications? What if my son had needed specialist care? All we could do is hope for the best. And now we have a seemingly superior policy, but I still have no guarantees that if I really need them to come through, they will (most likely they won't).

On the human rights / pro life issue - I was not speaking about pro choice vs pro life, which btw I think is a RIDICULOUS distinction to begin with. Nobody who is pro choice is pro death. Everyone is pro life. Including me. I think abortions are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. But I am pro choice. It is far too complicated an issue to draw the lines as black and white as pro life advocates would like. I would never dream of forcing a child who was impregnated by her father to carry that baby to term. I would not dream of putting a mother's life in jeopardy for the sake of a 4 week old embryo. I believe that abortions should be limited to the first trimester except under exceptional urgent circumstances but I do believe it should be an option. I think sex education is critical. I believe trying to alleviate poverty is critical. I believe it is a disgrace that the infant mortality rate in some parts of the country is that of a third world country. I think some people have no business having kids in the first place and that many people take the decision to have them much too lightly, so sometimes I really do believe that an abortion is the lesser of two evils. Take octomom for example. She did the ultimate "pro-life" thing but her kids will pay for it for the rest of their lives.

On being created equal - I fully agree. But our policies don't seem to. Homosexuals were created gay. But they are not offered equal rights. Based on religion. So if that's what religion in politics stands for - I think I'll pass.

Marriage between a man and a woman is special and more important than a different kind of relationship because children are more often than not the result of such a relationship.   I know you all are going to bring up divorce rates, but why do you think there are so many divorces?  It's because of no-fault divorce laws that the left brought about which has made it way too easy to get a divorce.  This was purposeful. That's just my humble opinion though.  (Notice I did not cite religion as any of my reasons.  I think that is important in a country that seperates church and state.)

 

 

Traci,

 

There are A LOT of gay couples that adopt children...so those children are a result of such a relationship.  Are adopoted children less important or special than yours or my biological child?  If children in a relationship is the thing in your eyes that make a marriage a marriage or more special/important than...why shouldn't two gay people get married and have a family?  Do married couples who chose not to or who cannot have child...have a less important/special marriage than you? 

Also..if your reasons for being against gay marriage are not religious ones...please explain..because all of the arguements I have heard againist it are from the religious believe that it will "cheapen" the sanctity of marriage, it is a sin to be gay, marriage is bw a man and a woman, etc...

 

If people truly beleive that there should be separation bw Church and State, then Gay marriage should be allowed.  If being Gay is a sin/wrong/or otherwise....who are we to judge?  It is between that individual and God.

Kristin - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

Quoting Esther:

Quoting Traci:

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.

There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.

PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

I agree that every president speaks of god and I wish they wouldn't. Including the democrats. But to get elected in this country you have to. I wish that would change. We should elect people based on their vision for the country. On their policy ideas. Not on whether or not they give us warm & fuzzy feelings (which btw Obama does give me) or whether or not they subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular religion.

On the healthcare issue, we do not have healthcare for all because some people cannot afford to pay for the healthcare they need. I think it is insane beyond belief that people ESPECIALLY kids in a country as rich as this one are being denied basic care because their insurance won't cover it or because they cannot afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not a socialist. I believe in capitalism. But I do not think it is acceptable that kids are dying because their parents have to fight with a hospital or an insurance company to get their kids the care they need. And I don't think that's right for adults either. I have health insurance and so does my husband. Both his company and mine use the same insurance company. However, when I tried to get a comparison from them between what was covered under his health plan and what was covered under mine (to see if I should become a dependent on his policy or he under mine and which one to add our newborn to). I was unable to get that. And I'm an educated, intelligent, resourceful person. And we ended up literally paying for the choice we made because the policy we went with turned out to exclude all sorts of expenses related to the birth of my son. We switched over to the other policy (again same insurance company) and lots more was covered. We were able to pay those bills and I had a normal delivery and a healthy son. But what if there had been complications? What if my son had needed specialist care? All we could do is hope for the best. And now we have a seemingly superior policy, but I still have no guarantees that if I really need them to come through, they will (most likely they won't).

On the human rights / pro life issue - I was not speaking about pro choice vs pro life, which btw I think is a RIDICULOUS distinction to begin with. Nobody who is pro choice is pro death. Everyone is pro life. Including me. I think abortions are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. But I am pro choice. It is far too complicated an issue to draw the lines as black and white as pro life advocates would like. I would never dream of forcing a child who was impregnated by her father to carry that baby to term. I would not dream of putting a mother's life in jeopardy for the sake of a 4 week old embryo. I believe that abortions should be limited to the first trimester except under exceptional urgent circumstances but I do believe it should be an option. I think sex education is critical. I believe trying to alleviate poverty is critical. I believe it is a disgrace that the infant mortality rate in some parts of the country is that of a third world country. I think some people have no business having kids in the first place and that many people take the decision to have them much too lightly, so sometimes I really do believe that an abortion is the lesser of two evils. Take octomom for example. She did the ultimate "pro-life" thing but her kids will pay for it for the rest of their lives.

On being created equal - I fully agree. But our policies don't seem to. Homosexuals were created gay. But they are not offered equal rights. Based on religion. So if that's what religion in politics stands for - I think I'll pass.

Marriage between a man and a woman is special and more important than a different kind of relationship because children are more often than not the result of such a relationship.   I know you all are going to bring up divorce rates, but why do you think there are so many divorces?  It's because of no-fault divorce laws that the left brought about which has made it way too easy to get a divorce.  This was purposeful. That's just my humble opinion though.  (Notice I did not cite religion as any of my reasons.  I think that is important in a country that seperates church and state.)

 

 

Traci,

 

There are A LOT of gay couples that adopt children...so those children are a result of such a relationship.  Are adopoted children less important or special than yours or my biological child?  If children in a relationship is the thing in your eyes that make a marriage a marriage or more special/important than...why shouldn't two gay people get married and have a family?  Do married couples who chose not to or who cannot have child...have a less important/special marriage than you? 

Also..if your reasons for being against gay marriage are not religious ones...please explain..because all of the arguements I have heard againist it are from the religious believe that it will "cheapen" the sanctity of marriage, it is a sin to be gay, marriage is bw a man and a woman, etc...

 

If people truly beleive that there should be separation bw Church and State, then Gay marriage should be allowed.  If being Gay is a sin/wrong/or otherwise....who are we to judge?  It is between that individual and God.

Traci - posted on 05/14/2009

You're not addressing the larger issue here. Why is everybody all in a tizzy over healthcare? Because everything is so darn expensive, right? Why is everything so darn expensive? The number one reason is that we are not the ones footing the bill for it. When you walk into the doc's office, do you know what his prices are? Do you really even care? If you have insurance, then you probably don't and that's because you are not paying for it directly. The only way to drive down cost is to have people become consumers in their own healthcare. You shop around for the best rate when it comes to your car insurance, don't you? Homeowner's? Then why should we have to take the insurance that our employer provides? Wouldn't it be better to be able to shop around for the plan that you need? We pay for coverage that we do not even need and that too drives up the cost. My insurance covers smoking cessastion and alcolhol/drug abuse. Why am I paying for that? I've never even smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't drink. It also covers other things I will never need. When I get my car insurance premiums, I get to choose the coverage I would like, and they quote me based upon that. The whole idea of just handing it over to the government is just a bad idea. What does the government do well? Really? The post office never makes a profit, they are losing almost 2 billion dollars this year. How bout Amtrak? They have never made a profit since being taken over by the government so many years ago. And if the healthcare providers do end up making a profit, its because we tax payers will be getting raped. Right now they are talking about counting the healthcare coverage I currently receive from my husband's employer as income and it will be taxed. Why should I be for this? The only thing in it for me is higher taxes. Yeah! I just looooove April 15th, how bout you? I thought Obama promised people who make less than 250,000 dollars will not see their taxes increase? Mine sure as heck will if that passes!



Our country does not have the money for this. This current budget is putting us almost 2 trillion dollars more in debt. That is for one year!!! And, that's before this healthcare baloney! To cover their debt, the gov't is printing record amounts of money everyday and borrowing the rest from China. That means both you and I are now poorer because our money isn't worth crap anymore. Inflation is about to go up as well as interest rates. And we are talking about healthcare? We need to get our finances in order before even thinking about that. Every baby born in America is already in debt to a tune of about 33.000 dollars, in terms of our national debt. Social Security is going to run out in 2016....the list goes on and on...I don't want my kids growing up to become slaves to their tax burden. I wouldn't think you would want the same for your own children.

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

It’s one thing to say that universal coverage COULD lead to less innovation or reduce the availability of high-tech care. It is quite another to say that it WILL do those things, which is the claim that opponents frequently make. That argument requires several leaps of logic, many of them highly suspect. The forces that produce innovation in medicine turn out to be a great deal more complicated than critics of universal coverage seem to want to acknowledge. In fact, it’s quite possible that universal coverage could lead to better innovation.



The single biggest source of medical research funding, not just in the United States but in the entire world, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH): In 2006, it spent more than $28 billion on research, accounting for about one-third of the total dollars spent on medical research and development in this country (and half the money spent at universities). The majority of that money pays for the kind of basic research that might someday unlock cures for killer diseases like Alzheimer’s, aids, and cancer. No other country has an institution that matches the NIH in scale. And that is probably the primary explanation for why so many of the intellectual breakthroughs in medical science happen here.



There’s no reason why this has to change under universal health insurance. NIH has its own independent funding stream. And, during the late 1990s, thanks to bipartisan agreement between President Clinton and the Republican Congress, its funding actually increased substantially—giving a tremendous boost to research. It so happens that, starting in 2003, President Bush and his congressional allies let NIH funding stagnate, even though the cost of medical research (like the cost of medicine overall) was increasing faster than inflation. The reason? They needed room in the budget for other priorities, like tax cuts for the wealthy. In this sense, the greatest threat to future medical breakthroughs may not be universal health care but the people who are trying so hard to fight it.

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

I am - and none of the rich people where I'm from come to the US to get treatment. The treatment they receive there is just as good and a lot of innovation is done there too. Also, it's not socialized medicine there either, it's still for profit. But they worked out a system where everyone gets coverage and medically necessary treatments are covered period. That's where this country needs to go. And re. my earlier point about not being in charge of my health care here, there is a thread elsewhere on circle of moms from a mom who's insurance company is making her drive 4+ hours each way to a pediatric urologist in another state because the specialist that is closer to her is not in network. So who's in charge again? Where I'm from, all doctors are "in network" for any private, for-profit insurance company.

Traci - posted on 05/14/2009

Allright, but there is a reason the US is the place that the rich people in those countries go to when they get seriously ill or need some new, innovative surgery. How much of the new technologies and vaccines and medicines did your country invent? Without profit, there is no reason to create or invent. Look at the larger picture.

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

I have heard all the arguments. And I don't buy them. Also, I grew up in a country (and still hold a passport for that country) where there was universal healthcare. Nobody there has ever gone untreated. Nobody there has ever gone bankrupt because of a health issue. And if anyone in my family gets seriously ill (meaning my husband, myself of god-forbid my son), I will be on the next plane back there because I would not run the risk of not receiving treatment because my insurance company deems it to be too expensive and a threat to their bottom line.

Traci - posted on 05/14/2009

Ma'am, that's exactly what they are going to do. In the stimulus package they passed in the beginning of the year, they put in there a provision and money to convert all of our medical records into electronic files in which they are making a database. They are going to set up a government agency that will analyze who gets what treatments, who they work for, who they don't and everything else. It already passed. It's done. They are partnering with GE to come up with the software as we speak. All our files are supposed to be converted within a couple of years. What in Washington is done all at once? Everything is incrimental. They keep inching and inching and before you know it, its too late. They aren't doing away with commercial healthcare today, but that's what is coming. Did you see all the protesters at the hearings saying ther has to be single payer coverage? This is nothing but a stepping stone. Already in Canada and the UK they have denied surgeries to the obese or who are smokers. It's one thing to have private companies do this, as you can always go to another, but where do you turn when the gov't runs everything?



I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm just trying to show you some different ideas that you may not have thought of before. :)

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

Just one more thing I really need to get off my chest now though - the way you speak about marriage between loving committed people of the same sex (who were born gay and had no choice in the matter) being inferior to marriage between people of the opposite sex makes me want to alternately throw up, cry or scream. You are on the wrong side of history and morality. Just as people during segregation were on the wrong side of history when they opposed marriage between people of different skin colors. I can't wait for the time when people finally realize how utterly wrong this stance is and how much damage they have wrought by holding on to it for as long as they did. And as for the government being neutral on it - they are not. Remember DOMA? Remember DODT? And just the fact that there is no full equality under the law (including the use of the word marriage to describe a relationship that is in EVERY way equal to the marriage I enjoy wiht my husband) shows that they are not neutral.

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

I'm at work so I'll have to address most of the above later on, but on being in charge of my healthcare - I'm not in charge now. My insurance company is! And the proposal is not to put bureaucrats in charge or to do away with commercial health care.

Traci - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Esther:

Quoting Traci:

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.

There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.

PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

I agree that every president speaks of god and I wish they wouldn't. Including the democrats. But to get elected in this country you have to. I wish that would change. We should elect people based on their vision for the country. On their policy ideas. Not on whether or not they give us warm & fuzzy feelings (which btw Obama does give me) or whether or not they subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular religion.

On the healthcare issue, we do not have healthcare for all because some people cannot afford to pay for the healthcare they need. I think it is insane beyond belief that people ESPECIALLY kids in a country as rich as this one are being denied basic care because their insurance won't cover it or because they cannot afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not a socialist. I believe in capitalism. But I do not think it is acceptable that kids are dying because their parents have to fight with a hospital or an insurance company to get their kids the care they need. And I don't think that's right for adults either. I have health insurance and so does my husband. Both his company and mine use the same insurance company. However, when I tried to get a comparison from them between what was covered under his health plan and what was covered under mine (to see if I should become a dependent on his policy or he under mine and which one to add our newborn to). I was unable to get that. And I'm an educated, intelligent, resourceful person. And we ended up literally paying for the choice we made because the policy we went with turned out to exclude all sorts of expenses related to the birth of my son. We switched over to the other policy (again same insurance company) and lots more was covered. We were able to pay those bills and I had a normal delivery and a healthy son. But what if there had been complications? What if my son had needed specialist care? All we could do is hope for the best. And now we have a seemingly superior policy, but I still have no guarantees that if I really need them to come through, they will (most likely they won't).

On the human rights / pro life issue - I was not speaking about pro choice vs pro life, which btw I think is a RIDICULOUS distinction to begin with. Nobody who is pro choice is pro death. Everyone is pro life. Including me. I think abortions are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. But I am pro choice. It is far too complicated an issue to draw the lines as black and white as pro life advocates would like. I would never dream of forcing a child who was impregnated by her father to carry that baby to term. I would not dream of putting a mother's life in jeopardy for the sake of a 4 week old embryo. I believe that abortions should be limited to the first trimester except under exceptional urgent circumstances but I do believe it should be an option. I think sex education is critical. I believe trying to alleviate poverty is critical. I believe it is a disgrace that the infant mortality rate in some parts of the country is that of a third world country. I think some people have no business having kids in the first place and that many people take the decision to have them much too lightly, so sometimes I really do believe that an abortion is the lesser of two evils. Take octomom for example. She did the ultimate "pro-life" thing but her kids will pay for it for the rest of their lives.

On being created equal - I fully agree. But our policies don't seem to. Homosexuals were created gay. But they are not offered equal rights. Based on religion. So if that's what religion in politics stands for - I think I'll pass.

Obama gives you warm fuzzy feelings?  Really? 

Gays are not offered equal rights?  What the heck are civil unions for then?  They are trying to change the very definition of marriage.  Sorry!  You're not going to cheapen my marriage by saying any two breathing humans can be "married".  There is no law saying they can't have a wedding.  The gov't has no reason to recoginze homosexual relationships as they do not bring about children, or a future generation.  I think the gov't should remain neutral on this issue.  They can have civil unions in order to afford the same rights financially and medically and stuff, but don't call it marriage, because its not.  Marriage between a man and a woman is special and more important than a different kind of relationship because children are more often than not the result of such a relationship.   I know you all are going to bring up divorce rates, but why do you think there are so many divorces?  It's because of no-fault divorce laws that the left brought about which has made it way too easy to get a divorce.  This was purposeful. That's just my humble opinion though.  (Notice I did not cite religion as any of my reasons.  I think that is important in a country that seperates church and state.)

On the abortion thing, I've got LOTS of posts in the moms 20-30 group under abortion.  My arguments are all there.  But one thing about the sanctity of life...

On Capito Hill the other day, they are talking to experts about how to deal with the cost of healthcare and how we are going to reform it and I'd like to show you what is being proposed up there. 

 At the Senate finance committee hearings on healthcare reform, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University said that resources get wasted in the American healthcare system. Wasted. Well, what does that mean?

He means that it gets wasted specifically in one segment of the population. Old people.   Here's the audio record.

Voice: Remember, our population is aging and at the very, very elderly, the costs go down so that percentage should be falling and it's not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much so at the same percentage it's worth a lot more. So let's go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness which we're supporting. That's where that can have a big impact. It's not the only place. But that's where the waste is. That's where people are using technologies that really either don't work at all or keep people alive for very limited and very high costs. Hospice is one option, but we do need to take account of the cost you know, I hate to say it, the cost benefit of some of the things we do and either we can do it directly or we can do it by bundling payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it's a combination of the delivery system dealing with it or?? and/or you providing more information for people that make the right decisions, both for themselves and for their care.

What that man was saying is that,' Sorry, Grandpa, it costs too much to take care of you now, you've served your purpose, we can't pay for your care anymore.  May God have mercy on your soul. '  We need to stand up for life at both ends of the spectrum otherwise we cannot call our society civil.  We will all be old one day and I don't know about you, but I'd rather be in control of my own health coverage rather than some bureaucrat who thinks I've outlived my usefulness.  Don't be so quick to give up control over such an important issue.  There are better ways to do this than letting the gov't constantly creep into it and eventually take it over.  I could go on and on, but I'll spare you.  Just an outsider's opinion...but please consider that. 

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.

There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.

PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

I agree that every president speaks of god and I wish they wouldn't. Including the democrats. But to get elected in this country you have to. I wish that would change. We should elect people based on their vision for the country. On their policy ideas. Not on whether or not they give us warm & fuzzy feelings (which btw Obama does give me) or whether or not they subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular religion.

On the healthcare issue, we do not have healthcare for all because some people cannot afford to pay for the healthcare they need. I think it is insane beyond belief that people ESPECIALLY kids in a country as rich as this one are being denied basic care because their insurance won't cover it or because they cannot afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not a socialist. I believe in capitalism. But I do not think it is acceptable that kids are dying because their parents have to fight with a hospital or an insurance company to get their kids the care they need. And I don't think that's right for adults either. I have health insurance and so does my husband. Both his company and mine use the same insurance company. However, when I tried to get a comparison from them between what was covered under his health plan and what was covered under mine (to see if I should become a dependent on his policy or he under mine and which one to add our newborn to). I was unable to get that. And I'm an educated, intelligent, resourceful person. And we ended up literally paying for the choice we made because the policy we went with turned out to exclude all sorts of expenses related to the birth of my son. We switched over to the other policy (again same insurance company) and lots more was covered. We were able to pay those bills and I had a normal delivery and a healthy son. But what if there had been complications? What if my son had needed specialist care? All we could do is hope for the best. And now we have a seemingly superior policy, but I still have no guarantees that if I really need them to come through, they will (most likely they won't).

On the human rights / pro life issue - I was not speaking about pro choice vs pro life, which btw I think is a RIDICULOUS distinction to begin with. Nobody who is pro choice is pro death. Everyone is pro life. Including me. I think abortions are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. But I am pro choice. It is far too complicated an issue to draw the lines as black and white as pro life advocates would like. I would never dream of forcing a child who was impregnated by her father to carry that baby to term. I would not dream of putting a mother's life in jeopardy for the sake of a 4 week old embryo. I believe that abortions should be limited to the first trimester except under exceptional urgent circumstances but I do believe it should be an option. I think sex education is critical. I believe trying to alleviate poverty is critical. I believe it is a disgrace that the infant mortality rate in some parts of the country is that of a third world country. I think some people have no business having kids in the first place and that many people take the decision to have them much too lightly, so sometimes I really do believe that an abortion is the lesser of two evils. Take octomom for example. She did the ultimate "pro-life" thing but her kids will pay for it for the rest of their lives.

On being created equal - I fully agree. But our policies don't seem to. Homosexuals were created gay. But they are not offered equal rights. Based on religion. So if that's what religion in politics stands for - I think I'll pass.

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.

There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.

PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

I agree that every president speaks of god and I wish they wouldn't. Including the democrats. But to get elected in this country you have to. I wish that would change. We should elect people based on their vision for the country. On their policy ideas. Not on whether or not they give us warm & fuzzy feelings (which btw Obama does give me) or whether or not they subscribe or do not subscribe to any particular religion.

On the healthcare issue, we do not have healthcare for all because some people cannot afford to pay for the healthcare they need. I think it is insane beyond belief that people ESPECIALLY kids in a country as rich as this one are being denied basic care because their insurance won't cover it or because they cannot afford to pay for insurance in the first place. I'm not a socialist. I believe in capitalism. But I do not think it is acceptable that kids are dying because their parents have to fight with a hospital or an insurance company to get their kids the care they need. And I don't think that's right for adults either. I have health insurance and so does my husband. Both his company and mine use the same insurance company. However, when I tried to get a comparison from them between what was covered under his health plan and what was covered under mine (to see if I should become a dependent on his policy or he under mine and which one to add our newborn to). I was unable to get that. And I'm an educated, intelligent, resourceful person. And we ended up literally paying for the choice we made because the policy we went with turned out to exclude all sorts of expenses related to the birth of my son. We switched over to the other policy (again same insurance company) and lots more was covered. We were able to pay those bills and I had a normal delivery and a healthy son. But what if there had been complications? What if my son had needed specialist care? All we could do is hope for the best. And now we have a seemingly superior policy, but I still have no guarantees that if I really need them to come through, they will (most likely they won't).

On the human rights / pro life issue - I was not speaking about pro choice vs pro life, which btw I think is a RIDICULOUS distinction to begin with. Nobody who is pro choice is pro death. Everyone is pro life. Including me. I think abortions are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. But I am pro choice. It is far too complicated an issue to draw the lines as black and white as pro life advocates would like. I would never dream of forcing a child who was impregnated by her father to carry that baby to term. I would not dream of putting a mother's life in jeopardy for the sake of a 4 week old embryo. I believe that abortions should be limited to the first trimester except under exceptional urgent circumstances but I do believe it should be an option. I think sex education is critical. I believe trying to alleviate poverty is critical. I believe it is a disgrace that the infant mortality rate in some parts of the country is that of a third world country. I think some people have no business having kids in the first place and that many people take the decision to have them much too lightly, so sometimes I really do believe that an abortion is the lesser of two evils. Take octomom for example. She did the ultimate "pro-life" thing but her kids will pay for it for the rest of their lives.

On being created equal - I fully agree. But our policies don't seem to. Homosexuals were created gay. But they are not offered equal rights. Based on religion. So if that's what religion in politics stands for - I think I'll pass.

Esther - posted on 05/14/2009

Quoting Traci:

Quoting Shelley:

Quoting Traci:

All this Christian bashing...I feel like I'm in the middle of the book "The Illuminati" by Larry Burkett!!!

To state that our government or top officials in our govt should not affiliate itself/themselves with a particular religion is not 'Christian bashing'. I'm sorry if you see it that way, but we do not have a homogenous Christian society. Our govt should not act as if we do. Politics SHOULD NOT be about religion.

I see your point, but here's another way of looking at things.   Although I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, it is nice to know your president is a religious man.  It shows a sense of humility.  I want my president to be on his knees every evening praying for wisdom.  He (or she) needs to be able to look at the bigger picture and not try to be God.  Historically speaking, many of the leaders who committed genocide were atheists who tried to play God.  I think that is a reason our officials tend to affiliate publicly with religion.  That being said, we should not only be voting on these people because of what church they belong or don't belong to.  It does show where their values lie, so I think it's an important piece of their puzzle. 

Being religious does not equal having values. NOT being religious does not equal NOT having values. Many millions of people have been killed throughout history in the name of God. My guess is (and I haven't done the math) that more people have been killed in the name of one religion or another than have been killed in the name of atheism. Osama bin Laden is killing people as we speak in the name of god or allah. Being religious does not necessarily show a sense of humility at all. I would think that 8 years of Bush (god appointed me) has sufficiently debunked that. I was raised religious and although I do not attend church (for a variety of reasons) I still believe in god and in heaven (definitely not in hell though) but I do not want any religion in any way influencing policy. I also have HUUUUUUGE problems with a whole section of society (homosexuals) being discriminated against in the name of the bible. During the civil war people quoted the bible too to back up their "right" to slavery (and they could rightfully quote the bible to do that). I would be much more comfortable if we kept religion private.

Traci - posted on 05/13/2009

Quoting Shelley:

Quoting Traci:

All this Christian bashing...I feel like I'm in the middle of the book "The Illuminati" by Larry Burkett!!!

To state that our government or top officials in our govt should not affiliate itself/themselves with a particular religion is not 'Christian bashing'. I'm sorry if you see it that way, but we do not have a homogenous Christian society. Our govt should not act as if we do. Politics SHOULD NOT be about religion.

I see your point, but here's another way of looking at things.   Although I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, it is nice to know your president is a religious man.  It shows a sense of humility.  I want my president to be on his knees every evening praying for wisdom.  He (or she) needs to be able to look at the bigger picture and not try to be God.  Historically speaking, many of the leaders who committed genocide were atheists who tried to play God.  I think that is a reason our officials tend to affiliate publicly with religion.  That being said, we should not only be voting on these people because of what church they belong or don't belong to.  It does show where their values lie, so I think it's an important piece of their puzzle. 

Traci - posted on 05/13/2009

I was just saying, if you are not going to change a family member's mind, what is the point of arguing to the point you don't speak or can't stand to be around eachother? That is silly. Family is the only thing that matters in life.



There's a big difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. How many times did our founders reference God? Lots. Just about every president speaks about God, including the democrats.



PS. We already have healthcare for all, you've just gotta pay for it (what a thought!). We are also all CREATED equal, from there, its up to YOU to take care of yourself. I also wonder...isn't being pro life the ultimate way to show you are for human rights? Just wondering.

Esther - posted on 05/12/2009

Quoting Traci:

[ ] Your FIL is obviously passionate in his beliefs, you won't change his mind and he probably won't change yours. Life's too short to be wrapped up in all that nonsense.

I don't think being passionate about wanting a separation of church & state, equality for all, human rights, no torture policies, health care for all, etc. is "nonsense". I think life is too short NOT be passionate about that.

Shelley - posted on 05/12/2009

Quoting Traci:

All this Christian bashing...I feel like I'm in the middle of the book "The Illuminati" by Larry Burkett!!!

To state that our government or top officials in our govt should not affiliate itself/themselves with a particular religion is not 'Christian bashing'. I'm sorry if you see it that way, but we do not have a homogenous Christian society. Our govt should not act as if we do. Politics SHOULD NOT be about religion.

Traci - posted on 05/11/2009

All this Christian bashing...I feel like I'm in the middle of the book "The Illuminati" by Larry Burkett!!!



Your FIL is obviously passionate in his beliefs, you won't change his mind and he probably won't change yours. Life's too short to be wrapped up in all that nonsense.

Esther - posted on 05/08/2009

Quoting Rabaab:

Well firstly Barack Obama is a muslim, his name is Barack Hussein Obama which makes him a muslim. [ ]

You're joking right?

Esther - posted on 05/08/2009

Quoting Amanda:

[ ] He also came to the conclusion that if as a country we elected him we would sign on for the end of the world in November 2012 [ ]

Maybe you just need to hang in there until November 2012 and if we're all still around, that'll prove he's wrong - heh. I don't have any advice for you as my head would explode around someone like that (just reading your post is driving up my bloodpressure) so I wish you lots of strength!!!!

Shelley - posted on 05/08/2009

I'm in the middle of a very Red State, so I feel your pain. I have a brother 9 years older than me that is SO mad Obama is president, we can't even really talk anymore. It's impossible to have a decent conversation w/o him wanting to tell me what he's mad about now. Last time we talked was 4-15, and he was at Legislative Plaza in Nashville protesting against .. taxes? He doesn't make over 250,000, so I don't get it. He said I should be mad because 'they' are spending my children's money. What?! I don't think he understands the good that comes from helping those less fortunate, of being on good terms with the world (or most of it), of not being judgemental and discriminatory against those who are different, etc. Oh the list goes on. I find it interesting that religion is such a large part of our politics these days. If you read the writings of our founding fathers, it is very clear that the line between church and state was intended to be very thick, Madison in particular. To include religion in politics at all is distracting from the real issues of the state. For a president to endorse one particular religion (and hold religious events at the White House as Bush did), for a legislature to pass laws based on the ideas of any church is absolutely absurd and exactly the opposite of the way our country was intended to be governed. Write it off as ignorance, avoid the conversation (even if you just smile and grit your teeth) and smile because Barack Obama is doing wonderful things for our country. There's not a damn thing your father-in-law can do about it!

Maria - posted on 05/03/2009

I've had some similar interactions with my parents at times. My typical response is to not take it personally (I am well-informed, but aware none of us know everything). I treat them respectfully, and if a verbal reply is necessary, say, "Well, maybe." Or a simple, "I don't think so." But I never feel the need to defend or explain my beliefs, and I don't share them unless I feel they'll respond respectfully in turn, or if I feel confident enough not to feel threatened or hurt by their response.

Most importantly, it is not possible nor is it necessary to defend your beliefs against your father-in-law's opinions. He is so deeply mired in his beliefs at this time, he is incapable of respecting yours. If it comes up again, all you can do is to say you won't discuss the subject with him. If he asks why, continue to tell him that you have decided it's in everyone's best interest, and leave it at that.

Do not let him pull you any deeper into the conversation. Let him rant and make a fool of himself, if he wants. Do not respond to him, emotionally. At least, not in his presence. Or you can leave the room. Silence is often the best retort.

I think this is actually the best way to defend yourself. He may eventually calm down if you give him no fuel for his fire. And by not fueling him, you may help him give himself the headspace to see where he is going wrong. But don't have any expectations for him in this regard.

Na'sia - posted on 05/03/2009

Just curious, why do you think that Barack's name makes him a muslim? I have a muslim name (Na'sia) and I am not muslim. My mom said she seen the name in a book and liked it. Although there is nothing wrong with being muslim, I cannot remember one time that he claimed to be muslim.