|
|
|||||
Free Fire Zone ~ June 09
This is the Free Fire Zone message board for June . The previous FFZs can be found by using the search engine located below the Google/dictionary box, by doing a search of "Free Fire Zone" you will be able to see all previous ones. Feel free to reply to any post there or restart the thread here.
Comments
Behind the Insult
by
Marty
on Mon 01 Jun 2009 09:17 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
We have all known someone who came across as an unpleasant person. Such will speak in an insulting manner and just be plain nasty. The normal reaction is to act with anger and strike back, but some times if we can imagine what that person might has gone through to become that way and from that we can overlook their lack of civility.
When I first finished college I took an internship in a little church. Where there was an older woman on the board of that church who seemed to not be able to control some of her comments. They were too often on the edge of incendiary and directed at me. The Chairman of the board was bothered by this to the point that he and the Pastor told me that they were going to speak with the woman. I was able to persuade them to let it be, as this woman was dealing with a dying husband and a few years back had lost her son. I think that I must have made her think of that loss and it was out of that pain which she spoke. If we look deep enough, we can usually find buried anguish behind those who quickly insult. That all was close to thirty years ago and now as I am rapidly approaching retirement from the Teamsters I can reflect back. Working the loading docks of one of the largest trucking companies has brought me into contact with some of the rudest, most unsavory of men. Most people cannot even imagine what the working environment has been like. This has actually been a blessing for me, as it has given me a rather thick skin. It has allowed me to ignore insults and see pass to that person's pain. Some times their pain is minor and they just crave attention, and some times they have Grand Canyon size sorrow. It is real difficult to tell which it might be, but I think back to that one woman and think how badly I would have felt had I slashed back at her only to later find out about her pain. It is not always an easy task to turn a deaf-ear to insults, but when we respond to them, we often join in that person's pain. Re: Behind the Insult
by
zonne
on Tue 02 Jun 2009 03:22 AM PDT | Permanent Link
So what you're saying is that we'd should have patience with the meanspirited posters because of their supposed pain?
Online board are completely different from real life. On online boards, the anonymity ensures that people will go to much further extremes and will say things they wouldn't dare to say in the face of another human being. It's often sad to see, but I doubt there is any real pain involved, just attention seeking and the kick to be rude and still suffer no real consequences for it. It's a sad observation one must make on human nature. Re: Behind the Insult
by
Baruch
on Tue 02 Jun 2009 09:43 AM PDT | Permanent Link
You are nicer than I would have been I see it as a duty to be polite, and a failure of duty to allow personal upset to cause me to outburst. I don't work in a blue collar situation. In my office work situation it could cause me to lose my job, it is not an accepted part of the job. And yes, at times I have failed my duty. The woman who sits next to me utters small epithets frequently, but then she is from West TX, and that is how we speak. So I just say to her, you are talkin' like West TX again ;-) I often get small insults from my boss too, often in front of other people, but I have learned to grin and bear it, but that doesn't excuse him. I can't judge either of them either, and usually I like them both. And I will not slap my boss with a glove and ask him to duel with me ;-)
We are all in pain, and we should all shut up, if it causes us to be uncivil. Shalom Re: Re: Behind the Insult
by
Charla
on Tue 02 Jun 2009 04:00 PM PDT | Permanent Link
I rarely need to lash out at anyone, myself, its when the other person is messing with my daughters, or my grandbabies, in a way that causes them to be scared, then I will be all over that person. It rarely happens anymore, but a few times when my daughters were younger. Its happened often over my grandbabies with their parents who wont take care of the babies the way I think the babies ought to be taken care of. My oldest daughter doesn't even smile at me anymore and we rarely have anything good to say to each other. I hate being angry at her and seeing her angry face at me, but my grandbabies can't defend themselves.
Re: Re: Re: Behind the Insult
by
Baruch
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:37 PM PDT | Permanent Link
You are justified as a mother and grandmother!
Religious terrorism.
by
Bard Amergin
on Tue 02 Jun 2009 01:44 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Terrorism is an action which is intended to induce fear in a selected group of people. It is not a crime of robbery, vengeance, or military strategy.
We are all familiar with the terrorism recently coming from the Islamic World. This terrorism has no hopes of conquering anyone in battle. It is designed to frighten people and thus influence their leaders to change policy. You have been told to be scared of Muslim Terrorists or Islamic Terrorism. In their case it is clearly terrorism. It is action intended to frighten the people of democracies whose military is too strong for Islamic forces to defeat on a battlefield. This terrorism is directed against the West and Israel. In America there have been violent actions, bombings, fires, murders, telephone threats, internet threats, and implied threats from witless Crawthumper Televangelists, Religious fringe leaders, fascist congressmen, and the Reichsfuhrer of Rectal Cysts Rush Limbaugh. Yet, it has been noticed that the media routinely call Mid-East Terrorists, "Muslim Terrorists" but almost never call an American Christian who is a terrorist, a "Christian Terrorist." Was Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, Paul Hill, John Salvi, Bob Matthews (the Order), and numerous other killers who claim Christian justification. They are never called "Christian Terrorists." The Christian Anti-Abortionist Extremist who killed Dr. Tiller in Kansas is very obviously a terrorist. His goal, encouraged by US Terrorist Randall Terry, was to intimidate doctors from performing abortions. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice the act of murder to strike fear in the medical community and even in pregnant women. That killer is clearly a "Christian Terrorist" if you are supposed to be unbiased between Christianity and Islam, or if you become dedicated to the truth. I doubt if anyone disagrees with me on this. I am not supporting abortion. I am condemning TERRORISM. If terrorism is simply called terrorism, then some terrorists who are Muslms should not be called terrorists if Terrorists who are Christian are not so labeled. I personally feel that all Terrorists should be identified by their belief systems if those beliefs influence, instigate, or are justified by a religion. Amergin Re: Religious terrorism.
by
Charla
on Tue 02 Jun 2009 03:54 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Its true they are Christian terrorists, but it isn't justified by the Christian religion. I don't even think the pope would agree with the way the terrorists are doing things. There are a lot of Christians who don't approve of the way Christian terrorists do. Sure we don't wanna say Christian terrorists and be put into the same category as Muslim terrorists. Even though it is true that Christian terrorists are no better than Muslim terrorists, just because they're Christians and they live in the USA.
Re: Religious terrorism.
by
davidbenariel
on Tue 02 Jun 2009 09:53 PM PDT | Permanent Link
They belong to the Cult of Choice and are very dangerous with their misguided zeal that proves deadly to innocent preborn. Re: Religious terrorism.
by
Kasey
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:12 PM PDT | Permanent Link
It's the scale of the terrorism that often determines whether the identity is worth a mention and if religion itself was the motivation behind the action. In sri Lanka for instance, is it racial or religious terrorism which prevailed, behind the Tiger terrorism and the resistance to it by the majority?
Regards, Kasey Re: Re: Religious terrorism.
by
Baruch
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:32 PM PDT | Permanent Link
And external interference: In India, in Hinduism, they have a popular myth epic, the Ramayana, where the king of India beats up the king of Sri Lanka. The king of India (Rama) being literally divinized, and the king of Sri Lanka (Ravana) being literally demonized. I think the Tamil folks, as Hindus, thought that they had a mythological imperative, to not be under Sri Lankan sovereignty. This is also why the opposed having a new canal cut thru the coral barrier tying India to Sri Lanka, because in the myth, the ally of Rama, the monkey king Hanuman, built that as a causeway. Of course, those same Tamils were immigrants ... so where have we heard before of immigrants trying to double cross their hosts? And in Hinduism, Buddhism is demonized as well, and Sri Lankan folks are Buddhist. So I think you had national, religious, ethnic and nationalist influences there.
Shalom Camden's stance vindicated
by
Kasey
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:02 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Camden's stance vindicated by court ruling that the application to build a 1200 student Muslim school on the outskirts of this country town, [where these students would be bused and cared there every day]from Sydney's western suburbs], and the appeal has been rejected by the Land and Environmental Court, as being in conflict with the area's rural zoning. The Quranic Society, which had applied to build the school [after it had bought the land] indicated that it will accept the decision now and sell the land. This little known group, regarded by many as very peaceful, yet the International Crisis Group[?] claims its members "reject any discussions on subjects they deem controversial, such as politics or jihad". This may be why locals claim TQS have barely shown their faces in town, have never asked the council for a forum [to discuss matters] and are as secretive as they were 18 months ago. Police were concerned that the site, on a busy intersection of a high speed road, could cause congestion and serious accidents. It has been claimed religious factors played little part in the rejection of the application or its appeal, however it is known that a coalition of Catholic and Protestant church leaders argued verhmently against the proposal. The local rural population, mainly of Anglo-Celtic origin, did likewise with many claiming that the school could become a breeding ground for terrorism.
All this makes one wonder why a secular society should ever support any religious schools with funding as the tendency for exclusiveness and thus separation from mainstream society, is always accentuated and away from inclusion and integration in the social and economic life of a nation? Regards, Kasey Re: Camden's stance vindicated
by
Baruch
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 09:12 PM PDT | Permanent Link
A lose-lose situation ...Australia hasn't shown itself to be post-modern, but old fashioned ethno-centric ... how American, and how un-European you are ;-) And of course the madrassah lost out. In America, zoning contests are very political ... in my town, usually money has to be passed under the table to the city council members, to move a zoning dispute in a "favorable" direction. Perhaps the Quranic society had too much integrity to offer the usual bribes or were too poor?
Shalom Limbaugh compares Obama to al-Qaida
by
Jessica
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:21 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Re: Limbaugh compares Obama to al-Qaida
by
Jessica
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:29 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I posted the video too quickly: I think that Limbaugh's attacks on the President are totally outrageous! Obama has only been in office for a few months and has a big job ahead of him and doesn't need these unpatriotic jerks filling the airwaves with hate. I think that Wanda was right and it's time that Limbaugh had his come uping.
Re: Re: Limbaugh compares Obama to al-Qaida
by
blondiegoin
on Fri 05 Jun 2009 08:35 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Come on, Rush is only joking. He didn't really mean that Obama was in Al-Qaida, but Obama is doing the same things to America that Al-Qaida wants to do... That is destroy America.
If possible live at peace with everyone.
by
Marty
on Wed 10 Jun 2009 01:50 AM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I have prided myself over the years as standing my ground and never backing down from a fight. Oh, I have been a manly man; I had hardened the shell around me so that no one could penetrate. I grew cold and indifferent; and concluded that this was no way to live. My relationship with God was also growing cold. Being cold, tough and callous made me feel safe. The trouble is that a heart so guarded allows no room for the caring of others. Such a heart becomes only consumed with it's own pleasure. This however, was no for a Christian to be, Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."(1)
Deny ones own pride, that is a tough one and giving up on the world of ‘if it feels good do it’ bites. The question is what fulfills life best? Jesus said if we lose our lives for His sake we would find them, but what did He mean by that? As I harden that shell around me to save my life I was actually losing it. Only by reaching out with a forgiving hand and giving of myself could I genuinely gain my life back. I still have a rather thick skin which makes it a bit easier to shrug off the arrows of the world, but the natural instinct is to fight back, to utterly destroy any and all that would attack. Then the words of Jesus come, "Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God."(2) And "If possible, on your part, live at peace with everyone."(3) By the grace of God this is possible, but some times those who engage in personal attacks bate a reprisal. However, the epistle to the Romans says this, "Never take your own revenge"(4)… "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."(5) So, I try to ignore the insults and reach out to the person when ever possible. "So then, we must pursue what promotes peace and what builds up one another."(6)
Re: If possible live at peace with everyone.
by
Baruch
on Wed 10 Jun 2009 01:53 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Your situation is a common one for men it takes special circumstances for my heart to thaw from the daily insults inflicted on it by myself and others.
I visited another heaven again early this morning. A vivid dream. I was in an area, where there used to be people, but the houses were all gone, you could just barely tell there had been people there once upon a time. I came thru the tall grass to a copse of trees, and there was a little stream there. All sorts of birds had come down to drink, I suppose it was their turn. I love animals in general. None of the animals were afraid of me. One little owl-ette was particularly cute. Then I saw there was a little human presence, an improvised shelter. There was a small trailer or VW bus further in. Three young adults were there, dressed funny, in clothes that were natural instead of artificial. And they were inviting me to stay with them. California heaven. Shalom Re: If possible live at peace with everyone.
by
Charla
on Wed 10 Jun 2009 03:22 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Its very hard when its your own child you have to deal with as one who is ungreatful to you no matter that you have given your all for that child. You made them your life and never once thought of your own pleasure. Then when the child grows up and leaves home--sometimes a parent will fight to keep the child a child, like I foolishly did--and then you give in to someday being totally left alone by the rest of your children as well. So if you do decide to begin finding things you enjoy that make you feel good now for a change since your children only think of themselves at this time, and then you are struck with having to take your grandchildren in and raise them, and you get no appreciation for it and no thanks at all, you only get the disrespect of a grown child who doesn't care about you the parent or even the babies shes had even over all of your warnings when she was still single and totally free. Anyway, it hurts like hell when you see a grandchild begging your own child to take him with her, because he wants his mommy. And all shes thinking about is herself and getting some peace away from the child that she never sees anyway, hardly. It hard to see the child then dealing with the fact that his mom just ain't going to take him and then he begans to call his grandparents mom and dad. I'm not healthy enough to watch the babies, but I am patient enough for them, my daughter is healthy enough, but shes not patient enough. And the main sad fact is shes never liked being at home, staying with us and doesn't even like us, thinks we're trashy. But yet she can leave her babies with us. Shes lived next door to us for the last several months and the babies still haven't hardly seen her any. She stays gone camping 24/7 almost. She really loves her freedom, but she wasn't careing about her freedom any when she was treating me like I didn't know what I was talking about when I was trying to get her to not have sex when she was a teenager, when I was telling her to enjoy her freedom while she still could. She was the one who loved to play with other friends babies and todlers and she wanted a baby more than anything, THEN!!! Boy how much that eats me up inside even when she shrugges her shoulders at me and says I don't care.
Re: Re: If possible live at peace with everyone.
by
Baruch
on Wed 10 Jun 2009 03:50 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Appreciation and gratitude are definitely virtues ;-)
Is There Anything Wrong With Asking For Charity,
by
Charla
on Wed 10 Jun 2009 04:16 PM PDT | Permanent Link
I have been on this penpal site for several years now, and the first thing I noticed from the beginning of my first ad there is that a lot of the people don't want, people they feel will ask them for charitable donation, to e'mail or to write them. Its a whole lot of people who do this. It was so much and so sad that I began by answering all of the unwanteds that others would not. Actually, there were a great amount of the people who did want charity in some form or way. However, there were a few people who did wanna just be penpals, did just wanna be e'mail pals, and I was glad that I had went to find out for myself instead of just reacting to others peoples ads who were in some way prejudiced. I just wanna know is it so terribly wrong for people to ask for charity from others. Re: Is There Anything Wrong With Asking For Charity,
by
Baruch
on Wed 10 Jun 2009 05:26 PM PDT | Permanent Link
If one needs charity, ask for it. If you don't, and ask for charity, you are stealing from those who do. Just don't expect anyone, in a world filled with sinners, to respond to your pleas for assistance. It hasn't worked for the people of Darfur ;-(
Shalom Re: Re: Is There Anything Wrong With Asking For Charity,
by
Charla
on Wed 10 Jun 2009 05:56 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Thats true, not everybody likes to think about helping, especially if its not for their own personal favorite cause, like maybe animals when theres starving people in the world. Anyway people are too struck with their own personal problems to even think about someone else who might be in worser shape. And then especially thay don't wanna think about it if its a long way off from where some people don't even consider existing.
I bought some chinese food, at a china buffet, and got way too much food to eat--cause I thought I was hungry, it was the first of the month and I hadn't eat good in a long while, maybe two weeks--but I couldn't eat all of the food and just even consider leaving it and wasting it gave me too much guilt, so I kept trying to eat it, it wasn't that much more only half a plate full but it seemed like a ton left. Anyway, I went to the bathroom and it was all gone when I got back out there. My foster mom told me about folks in the world who were going hungry that I can't stand to leave food and I fuss at any in my family who does it. I couldn't stand myself for doing it either. Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
Bard Amergin
on Sat 13 Jun 2009 07:03 AM PDT | Permanent Link
Another domestic terrorist strikes. This time was at the Holocaust Museum. James von Brunn, a white supremacist Christian Identity extremist murdered an African American guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Is there a falling domino catastrophe involving the extreme right wing psychopaths in the USA? We were warned that the election of our first African American President would trigger the borderline psychotics of the Right Wing to a series of "lone wolf" terrorist killings.
James Von Brunn (appropriate name for a neo-Nazi) is part of the domestic US fringe loony movement called “Christian Identity” with a heavy dose of KKK. Like the KKK, von Brunn openly hates African Americans, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, and interracial marriage. That is indistinguishable from the Southern Baptist KKK when recruits give the KKK oath on a Bible. This is not to be confused with Mainline Christian ideology. Mainline Christians are insulted that these right wing nuts call themselves "Christians." Anti-Catholicism is always part of American fascist extremism. They cannot win power in an election so they ultimately resort to terrorism against good Americans. In a short time we have seen, a right wing anti-abortion extremist kill a doctor. He was motivated by an extremist Christian Cult belief. A Muslim convert in Arkansas killed a young American soldier and patriot at a recruiting station. He is part of Right Wing Islamic Fascism. Then today we saw on TV a Christian Identity White Supremacist wacko who had terrorized the Holocaust Museum. Von Brunn is anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Black, anti-Latino nut case. He follows the teachings of Christian Identity. This is Neo-Nazi, with classical KKK style Christian Ultra fundamentalism. It is anti-African, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, and pro-Nazi. The shooting today like that of Dr. Tiller and the young soldier were intended to terrorize. I fear that copycats may surface. Tubaisteach brónach! Amergin Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
mark saffer
on Sat 13 Jun 2009 07:11 AM PDT | Permanent Link
yes i belive this is the trend i think hate is easy, i also belive hate comes from not understanding a person,or a race, its for the closedminded, to be tollernt,and understanding takes to much thought process for some,hate is lazy, i have a question for the shooter if he survives" did you get to pick the color of your skin? id really like to see him rencarnated as a black man, that would be fitting,
Re: Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
Baruch
on Sat 13 Jun 2009 07:19 AM PDT | Permanent Link
It is racism or just the Anglo-Saxon pagans invading everywhere and oppressing everyone, since 450 CE? Ever see the 2003 remake of King Arthur, the Roman one? Those Germanic speaking folks (this is a Germanic language I am typing, because my Celtic ancestors were conquered) get pissed if they face too much opposition, don't have their fantasies of plunder and rape fulfilled. Ah, but if there was just one ethnic group, and they were Anglo-Saxon, then they would only have themselves to oppress.
Shalom Re: Re: Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
Bard Amergin
on Sat 13 Jun 2009 07:29 AM PDT | Permanent Link
Agreed, the right wing fringe loonies have the habit of saying that everything they do not like is a choice by those whom they hate.
For example, they hate gays or want them penalised for being gay because "they chose to be gay." That is bollocks of course. I am fully heterosexual because I was born that way. I only desire sex with women and limited to my wife since marriage in 19**. I can not personally understand sex with another man. So it makes sense to me that if heterosexuality is genetic and biological, homosexuality must also be biological and not a choice. I did not choose to desire women. It just happened. Gay people would not choose to be gay. There is no advantage in doing that. Being gay means discrimination, overt hate towards them, risk of being beaten, and risk of diseases spread by homosexual acts. If it were pure choice, none would pick being gay. Some rigid Christians have accused me of chosing to not believe in god. That is silly. Why would I do that? Growing up in the north of Scotland, the majority of people were Christians. All but 4 of my friends in primary school class were Christians. I did not choose. I just doubted the existence of God because it did not make sense to me. Did the Southern Baptist Segregationists justify black slavery because they believed Africans chose to be black. Did they justify segregation and Jim Crow because Blacks were black by choice? Were women penalised and not allowed to vote because they had chosen to be female? Amergin Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
Baruch
on Sat 13 Jun 2009 06:21 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Reincarnation solves that problem in India and progress can be followed by regress, with each incarnation. Then what goes around comes around ... be a misogynist, become a woman on your next incarnation etc.
Shalom Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
blondiegoin
on Fri 19 Jun 2009 09:03 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
There's no such thing as a Christian terrorist!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
Jessica
on Sat 20 Jun 2009 07:46 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
A real Christian wouldn't be a terrorist, but not everyone who calls themselves a Christian really is. I'm not trying to judge anyone, but I think if people can't figure out that you are a follower of Christ by your life, that should tell people something. Carolyn, I'm not writing that pointing at you, I know I used the word you but I meant it generally.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
Karen
on Mon 29 Jun 2009 06:30 AM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I don't think that she will think you were talking to her personally. By the world's standards there most certainly are Christian terrorists. The world thinks of a Christian as anyone who espouses some or all of the doctrines, goes to church, wears a cross and calls him/herself a Christian. The truth is that being a Christian means to be Christ like and we know that Jesus would NEVER in a million years have committed an act of terrorism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christian terrorist strikes again in America
by
Donna MM
on Wed 01 Jul 2009 01:47 AM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
That's what gets me about some people that you will see on the internet, they call themselves Christian and in the very next line will insult those they disagree with. How do we explain that isn't Christianity to an un-Christian world. All we can do is to try to show Christ all the more to overcome that stain.
current healhcare state
by
mark saffer
on Sat 13 Jun 2009 07:10 AM PDT | Permanent Link
in 2008 i went to dr. for abdominal pain{emergecyroom} i was givin some tums and sent home, few days later i got a bill for 2000+ dollars, i saw a dr. for less then 15 min. i have no benes, tums didnt work, 2000 dollar bill scared me from going back to dr. but the pain was still there so i went to a clinc, they threw pain pills my way,and said nice day, after i went thru pain pills ,another dr told me to get xray,so i did,i didnt see anything out of the ordenary,but still had pain,jan 2009, hospitalized for 7 days,xrays,catscans,bloodtests,still nothing, feb2009, 33 days in hospital, stomach cancer took 100% of my stomach,my spleen,and 6 lymphnodes,2 surgeries,13 hours on the first one and 3 on the second,bloodtranfusions, and a feeding tube thats still in me today,im going thru radiation and kemo, but this is what i think about current healhcare system in the usa, hmo are nothing more then an insurance company,a company whoose real purpose is to keep profits high and exspenses low,and i see the only way of achiving this goal is to stop treating humans as humans and start treating them as objects,im in a position to see a transformation of the healtcare system from a bussness to a govt run medi pool, the current system didnt catch my cancer till a year later, im wondering if the socalized medicne would have done better or worse,since the govt. runs it i dont trust it. people say that if we create more hmos, then the influx of new copation will bring lower costs,i see it diffrenetly, i see it as more of the same,only worse because there are more of them{hmos} i applied for medical and they sent me alot of directories with drs that acceppted medicare, it took me more then an hour to find one that would, all the dr.s are running away from medical and i dont know why,i dont fully understand socolized medicine and was hoping someone from canada or someplace else can fill me in on what comming my way, will it be better for me, or worse? i feel the current system failed me because im poor,i hear alot about people coming down from canada to seek help here,is it really that bad?i dont know ,thats why im asking, the ceo of kiaser made millions of millions of dollars last year,i forget the sum, but i didnt forget the feeling of disgust i had for hmos,forgive my spelling.
Re: current healhcare state
by
blondiegoin
on Fri 19 Jun 2009 09:01 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Its a little hare to believe, 2000 for one visit? You can choke up a lot of those raising health coasts to law suits.
Re: Re: current healhcare state
by
Jessica
on Sat 20 Jun 2009 07:49 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I don't know about the dollar amount, but the cost of health care isn't from law suits. Its the insurance and drug companies and paying for the uninsured.
Re: current healhcare state
by
Mirage
on Fri 19 Jun 2009 10:49 PM PDT | Permanent Link
I've had problems, too, without hmo I actually have good insurance, which costs more than my rent every year because I need it so much. Right now I have a whole bunch of specialists most of which don't accept my insurance because the insurance companies pressure them to save money rather than do what is best for the patient. A lot of doctors just refuse now to deal with them. HMOs are sometimes really bad. I heard that of them was giving type 1 diabetic children medicine which is intended for type 2 diabetics. Oral medication does not do anything at all if your body makes no insulin, and type 1 (juvenile diabetics) do not make any insulin at all. Basically a death sentence, because they didn't want to pay for insulin and syringes for those kids I guess, and the longer the kid lives, the more the kid costs right? There was some big lawsuit going on over that, but it makes me so mad if there were little kids dying and they had to have KNOWN it was like giving them nothing. I don't blame you for being angry at hmos. Your story makes me angry at them too.
I am going through a big medical nightmare right now. So sorry to hear about yours. Best of luck to you. Canada I have heard has good medicine but some patients have to wait much longer to get surgery there, which I think is why some cancer patients come here if they can. I remember you said you're not religious but if you'd like good thoughts sent your way I would be glad to do that for you. I read online a few years back that Denmark has free healthcare even for tourists, but I don't know if it's true. You might want to check if there's a chance you could go there. In India you can get surgeries that cost 100k in the US for 8k, at a hospital that is approved by Harvard. I was checking that out awhile ago. That hospital is totally deluxe. It's almost like a health spa, including having beds for family members, internet, ambulance meet you at the airport, etc. but it has top notch equipment and doctors educated in the US and EU. Most of their patients are from the US, Canada, and the UK. I kind of think one thing Obama should consider is giving patients vouchers to travel to approved hospitals in other countries and get their care there if it would save the government a whole lot of money. I think it might. Obviously that wouldn't help emergencies, but we outsource all kinds of stuff already. Maybe we should look at whether outsourcing some medical care could help us. Watching out for the health care police
by
Jessica
on Sat 20 Jun 2009 08:13 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
This is perfect and I have only one thing to add; Go Ed!
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy New video: Stop rape as a weapon of war in DRC
by
Christianity and the Confusion
on Wed 24 Jun 2009 05:31 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
We received this in an e-mail:
"They took me into the forest, where we spent three months. Every day, I was raped." Sifa is a 23-year old woman living in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where mass rape is routinely being used as weapon of war to destroy women, families, and communities. The brutality she faced was one of more than 15,000 reported sexual violations against women and girls, even babies as young as 10 months and women as old as 80. Watch this powerful video and learn how YOU can help thousands like Sifa:
In January 2008, the Congolese people felt hopeful. A peace agreement was in the works, and stability seemed near. But a year and a half later, the violence rages on. And it's created human suffering on a massive scale: more than 5.4 million people have died, many from starvation and disease, and more than 1.5 million have been forced from their homes. Today, Oxfam America is working with local groups to protect and advocate for women like Sifa who have suffered sexual violence. And we are one of the leading agencies providing emergency assistance – including water, sanitation, and public health outreach – to more than 500,000 people forced to leave their homes because of the fighting. But with the situation on the ground at its worst point in two years, Oxfam must immediately extend its efforts in the region to reach an additional 150,000 displaced persons. Oxfam's work around the world depends on the continued support of people like you. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Raymond C. Offenheiser P.S. It's the start of the growing season in the eastern DRC. Food is scarce, and water is hard to come by. Unfortunately, the issues Congolese farmers face are echoed globally; to read more about Oxfam's innovative work with poor farming communities, check your mail for a letter on what we're doing. And please make a contribution today.
Re: New video: Stop rape as a weapon of war in DRC
by
Jessica
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 07:45 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Thank you for posting this, too many men look at women cattle.
What is the GOP up to?
by
Frankie B
on Wed 24 Jun 2009 09:27 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
To Be Watched Revealed: Emails Between Gov. Sanford And Lover 
from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
blondiegoin
on Wed 24 Jun 2009 09:59 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
This is so not right, talk about kicking a dog when it's down. Yeah, a few Republicans have yielded to temptation, but that's just because they have spent so much time with Democrats. Everybody knows that the whole Democrat Party is corrupt and it shouldn't come as a surprise that some of that rubbed off on to God fearing Republicans.
Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Marty
on Fri 26 Jun 2009 09:45 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
One interesting thing which has come to light with the escapades of Governor Mark Sanford is that South Carolina still has laws against adultery. I submit to you that such laws are justified and should be enforced. The only question in my mind is the level of punishment and who would be subject to that punishment. Such laws can be justified because there is a legal contract between married couples. We might not want the punishment to be harsh, perhaps no more than like a traffic ticket and only given to someone breaking that contract. The reason that such a thing would be good is that it makes a record. Think about it, if you were about to get married and saw that the person you were about to marry had say a hundred of these tickets, you might just think twice about marrying that person.
Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Charla
on Fri 26 Jun 2009 11:36 PM PDT | Permanent Link
I agree, & I also think teenaged & new young mothers ought sat to have to go through parenting classes. I think parenting classes ought to be free of charge and available for new mothers who feel overwhelmed before they go home from the hospital. It ought to be a law. Like reporting suspected child abuse is reported in hospitals. I think parents ought to be fined for letting their teenagers get pregnant as well.
Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Ceallaigh O'Garailt (Kelly Garre
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 06:40 AM PDT | Permanent Link
Contract law is civil law, not criminal and there already is "punishment" for it. It is called divorce court...a civil process, not a criminal one. The secular, legal "domestic parnership" contract some call "marriage" is nothing more than an blanket, "permenant" Power or Attorney that allows non-related individuals to operate in a legal "partnership" relating to civil matters. It is not at all the kind of "contract" that is entered into between corporations, or individuals in business matters.
This "need" to inject religious "morality" into this process using the power of the state to do the churchs work is sick...it is chattel law. Each is the property of the other (earlier, it was women being the property of the husband). Who's "morality" should be the basis? Which religion's scriptures should be used for the basis of making these "judgements?" The "contract" wording you are talking about does not (and should not) exist in the application for a secular, civil "marriage" license, nor is it a part of the secular civil ceremony/requirements of the secular civil recognition process. The kind of "contract" you are talking about is a religious one, where the "marriage vows" are above and beyond the civil requirements to form the legal, secular recognition of the partnership. I will agree with divorce records being more public, since civil marriage and divorce are public processes by definition. That way a potential "partner" can determine if the individual they are interested in is a serial divorcee. This need to "punish" those that do not behave exactly the way you want them to is disturbing and just a backdoor approach to forcing one sects religious code on others, like the sodomy laws that christians used to abuse and "punish" gay people for hundreds of years in this country. There already is "punishment" for adulterers, if the family and surrounding community deems it necessary. The divorce courts dole out the property split, alimony, child custody and other matters according to facts in the case and according to the laws that each state has (the community conscience) as to what shold be considered. If there is some religious "punishment" that needs to be applied, that is up to the religious community to exact that "punishment" themselves...without the hammer of the state to back their petty need for "retribution." The catholics can ostracize them, their old friends and neighbors can ostracize them...they can "suffer" the admonition of their "peers." This "need" and this arrogant "god-given right" to inject yourselves into other people's personal lives...and things that do not affect you directly...is a sickness, backed by a god in a book called the bible. People should be free to develop their own personal relationships without chritianity, through the power of the state, interfering. There may be circumstances where "adultery" as defined by you and your bible is allowed by agreement between the two involved for various reasons. If later, one gets mad at the other then used some state law to "punish" the other, even though both agreed to the situation before hand, then there is an "injustice" on the other party. One can use the state, and the religion that state uses, to punish the other. If you want to follow the dictates of a god, and his rules as to how people must behave, then keep those rules. You have no right to force them on others. You are right, it is intersting that South Carolina has "adultery" laws. This church-craft needs to be ripped from the hands of the government there. The state needs to be extracted from the personal lives, and bedrooms, of the people of that state. Laigh Wedda Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Bard Amergin
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 06:14 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Again your post is so complete I have nothing to add. I can only repeat the essence of what you say. Humans married humans for at least 2 million years. That was long before humans invented religion or designed anthropomorthic gods. We do not need some crawthumpers telling us that their religion defines our marriages. Bollocks! As you might say, we should expel theistic and religious superstition from marriage, parenting, love, family associations, raising children, and how we conduct our public conduct. Those who wish to have some Fundy preacher, arcane bible verse, or irrational belief organisation order the precise nature of their relationships, let them have it. But we must fight the attempts of those crawthumpers to impose their hypocritical ideas on us. You are spot on about contract law being civil not criminal. However, those who violate your Constitution and Bill of Rights to impose their Christian Cult dogma on you are CRIMINALS. They are violating Constitutional rights. Violating an American citizens constitutional rights or freedoms is criminal. Amergin Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Baruch
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 08:24 PM PDT | Permanent Link
I agree but let there be a pre-nup, and let people get educated what should be in them, unless the belong to some off-shoot Mormon cult. Then let the pre-nup be enforced in civil court.
It is a red herring, easily done, since we confabulate marriage, with civil union, with living together ... to think this a religious question at all (in the US). Equate them all legally as civil unions, even when without a pre-nup. No pre-nup, then no civil protection for either party stupid enough to lack one. Oh, and let us all go down, like General Sherman, and burn S Carolina down again, because us Yankees are are so "New England" self-righteous (not you I know). I would brand divorcees (no fault) with a big D ... so everyone knows not to remarry them, except at hazard (I am a D myself). Problem is, we need to keep people from misrepresenting who they are, including prior adultery. That was satire ... with Internet open legal records, branding should prove unnecessary. Shalom Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Ceallaigh O'Garailt (Kelly Garre
on Sun 28 Jun 2009 06:29 AM PDT | Permanent Link
Pre-nup is still civil...
This christian is talking about tickets and you were talking about jail time...about religious police enforcing the definition of adultery by a certain religion...his. Tickets are not civil...jail time is not civil. In criminal code, there is only one plaintiff necessary, the state. When activity is covered by criminal code, the police have the right to "gain access" with "reasonable cause" if they believe criminal activity is taking place. The state can bring criminal charges as the plaintiff whether the "victim" "files charges" or not. This falacy that the victim must file charges for criminal prosecution to commence is just that, a falacy. Once something becomes criminal all kinds of things change. Criminal charges are not to be taken lightly. I have seen many faggots lives ruined because of christian laws...the sodomy and "crimes against nature" laws to be more specific. Being a straight Judeo-christian you can find this light hearted...I assure you, from personal experience, this attitude these christians have is very, very destructive when they get their way. They love to make "crimes against their god" into criminal offenses that the state can use it's powers to prosecute. This christian's definition of adultery is religious, and is no red herring. He implies a religious definition of marriage that does not exist in civil law...some "contract" that has some kind of guarantee that there will be monogamy. South Carolina has not even been able to enforce the "increased alimony" punishment for adultery in their own divorce cases because they cannot do it constituionally. Well, that is it cannot be "automatic" anymore. The complaining side will have to make their case. In practicallity it still may be "enforced," until attitudes change...but the "automatic" adultery penalty is gone. Due to court rulings and case law, civil marriage has been reduced to a "Super Power of Attorney." These is no "agreement" even to monogamy anymore in the provisions of state "marriage" laws that they can enforce. The "ownership" of the sexual and physical capabilites of the spouse is gone. If monogamy is a requirement of one of the partners, then it would have to be in a pre-nup...because the state cannot enforce that even through their own civil laws. The pre-nup IS a "commercial contract" or "quid pro quo agreement" as Mr. Mortella uses and understands the term...the Civil Marriage the state can regulate, is not. The state cannot make the wishes of a religion a punishable offence without action by the legislature (thier "religious contract law" cannot be enforced by the state under criminal code), and the legislature can no longer produce any such laws that would pass Constitutional muster any more. If these christians want that kind of "commercial contract" then they will have to create a pre-nup...the civil marriage laws are not able to do that anymore. In thier fight to make the American definition of marriage a religious one, they have forced it to be gutted as a defense by those they sought to exclude. Laigh Wedda Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Mirage
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 05:54 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Sorry, but men and women are not cars. As long as nobody is being physically harmed and the participants are consenting adults, where people park their private parts really should not be handled like traffic law. I think the wish for this kind of law stems from the desire to protect other people from emotional pain, but it's misguided. Perhaps you have been betrayed by someone at some point, or you were caught up in the fallout of someone else's infidelity and it hurt you. If so, I can empathize, truly, but it is not the job of government to force people to be monogamous in marriage or else suffer punishment and a public brand. Do we really want to bring back the Scarlet Letter?
Throughout history, men and women have made both private and public contracts of many flavors, regarding their unions. Some of those you and I would not want to be in, such as open marriages, but there are people who do want to make those arrangements, and I don't think they should be punished or fined by outsiders for making marital choices I would not. Do some people make private promises of fidelity which are violated by one or both parties? Absolutely. Is there a potential for emotional harm there? Of course. But even then, branding people with a record wouldn't help matters. Those involved need to work things out for themselves in whatever way they can that works best for them and any children of the marriage. Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Bard Amergin
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 06:11 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Block religion from abusing non-believers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Baruch
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 08:08 PM PDT | Permanent Link
So drop civil justice, since it is a mere religion?
Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Baruch
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 08:06 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Then let us have no binding agreements at all ;-)
Civil union is a contract, and adultery violates that contract (if one isn't a total idiot, one will not allow free sex in monogamy), which should be handled in civil court, same as any other commercial matter. And if one is a perpetrator ... one should go on official record (same as prior divorce) as a scoundrel ... so anyone wanting to do business with you, including civil unions ... will know in advance who they are dealing with. What I am saying here, is a pre-nup ... not criminal law. Now if people want to have "open marriage" as their pre-nup, then it is their business to be foolish about the other person's interests including avoiding VD. Marriage ... that is a religious matter (hence your desire to bring up the specter of Puritan New England as a rhetorical bugbear), lets leave marriage aside, apart from civil unions ... otherwise we cannot allow gay marriage if marriage and civil union are confabulated (for straight or gay). And yes, I mean let civil unions have all the civil law rights as marriages currently have. Consenting adults ... you mean like Mafia? In illiterate societies, yes let the Mafia wear a big M on their clothes, and adulters a big A. But I agree, that caught in flagrante delicto, let us not, as in Arabia and Brazil, leave the man the right to kill the perps outright. We are civilized, so the woman who is wronged should at least be equal to the man who is wronged, and let us leave off violence ... civil court would be bad enough given that no one is killed by the adultery itself. Shalom Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the GOP up to?
by
Mirage
on Sun 28 Jun 2009 07:25 AM PDT | Permanent Link
Where is monogamy in the contract? To make a marriage in California, you need to currently unmarried. You need to be a citizen, or have a green card, and you need witnesses for a regular marriage, or just the notary for a confidential one. There is no requirement that you be sexually monogamous. At least here, there is nothing on the form regarding that. I suspect there probably is not even in states which have not decriminalized adultery. Here there is an optional vow which can be given to you by the officiating person. In my state that person can be basically deputized for a day, so it can be a friend if you like. That vow now excludes til death do us part. I can't remember if it also excludes forsaking all others, but I think so. It is not legally required to share vows. You can just show ID, pay the fee, and sign the papers. In some states you also need to take a blood test to determine whether there is an rh issue, which is rather unfair to couples who cannot have children, but so it goes. California is also a community property state and a no fault divorce state. For that reason, the courts are not clogged with "he slept with", "no! she slept withs" when people want to divorce. It is not like a religious marriage, as you have pointed out. I raised the spectre of Hawthorne, because it should not be like a religious marriage. That is a different thing. Churches can make any rules they like. So can individuals. I am fine with that.
Some people are in fact indirectly killed by adultery. AIDS can do that. HPV can do that (cancers), and suicide can do that, too. I still do not think it should be illegal to have sex outside of a marriage, as much as it bothers me on a personal level. There are increased risks to both married people and to unmarried people who have multiple partners. That does not change. Government Run Healthcare Plan
by
blondiegoin
on Wed 24 Jun 2009 09:54 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
All of you who think that Obama is some sort of savior, should think twice. The last thing that we need in America is a government run healthcare plan. If we go for a Canadian style where will all the Canadians go to get fast - high quality care?
WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee today released a statement from Chairman Michael Steele on the Democrats’ government-run health care agenda. Re: Government Run Healthcare Plan
by
Jessica
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 07:38 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
That is all that you said, a bunch of BS. It's not a government-run health care plan as if the government will be making the decisions. All the Government will be is the insurer who will pay your doctor and it will be your doctor who will decide what you need. BTW, 72% of the public wants signal payer and you know who doesn’t want it? The insurance companies! Re: Re: Government Run Healthcare Plan
by
blondiegoin
on Sat 27 Jun 2009 07:58 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
It's not BS, you won't have your own doctor any more, the government will own everything, hospitals, clinics and all the doctors will work for the government and the government will say what type of medical help you get. We don't need to be like Canada, American health care is so much better.
Re:Free Fire Zone ~ June 09
by
testking 642-533
on Sun 23 Aug 2009 10:10 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Online board are completely different from real life. On online boards, the anonymity ensures that people will go to much further extremes and will say things they wouldn't dare to say in the face of another human being.testking 70-631
It's often sad to see, but I doubt there is any real pain involved, just attention seeking and the kick to be rude and still suffer no real consequences for it. It's a sad observation one must make on human nature.testking 642-481 |
Login
How to use images, icons and fonts in you post 
by Tammy
by Karen
by Jack
by blondiegoin
by blondiegoin
by Jessica
by Karen
by Donna MM
by Marty
by Jack
OperationHomeFront.net - Supporting Our Troops by Helping the Families They Leave Behind
Billy Graham: "Decision" Magazine News Papers from Around the World 
Air America
Search
Commentary on The Dangers of the Love of Money.  THE WHITE HOUSE ~ Government Guide
Christian music online
|
||||
