|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:58:18 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? ?????? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/18/13, 6:19 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:58:18 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? ?????? It's just conjecture, Tim, for the sake of argument. There's no proof of the existence of a "supreme being" or anything else that supports the validity of religious beliefs. You are free to believe what you want in regard to a god, of course, but your belief doesn't make it so. There's nothing there but...faith. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/18/13, 6:47 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/18/13, 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. You don't understand the 1st Amendment or the disdain many of the founding fathers had for religion. And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? You did not learn the 1st amendment was to prevent a state religion? Ala Church do England? The First Amendment is there for a number of reasons, including the desire to prevent establishment of a state religion. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/18/2013 6:19 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:58:18 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? ?????? It's a troll Tim... |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Friday, October 18, 2013 5:24:37 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
You are free to believe what you want in regard to a god, of course, but your belief doesn't make it so. There's nothing there but...faith. Agreed to a point, but I have 'faith' that there is an omnipotent God. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Friday, October 18, 2013 5:50:04 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
The First Amendment is there for a number of reasons, including the desire to prevent establishment of a state religion. that's what Bill said earlier. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:09:41 PM UTC-5, Charlemagne wrote:
On 10/18/2013 6:19 PM, Tim wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:58:18 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? ?????? It's a troll Tim... Oh, I figured so. like most threads started here.... |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote:
Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/18/13, 8:19 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2013 5:24:37 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: You are free to believe what you want in regard to a god, of course, but your belief doesn't make it so. There's nothing there but...faith. Agreed to a point, but I have 'faith' that there is an omnipotent God. To which you are entirely entitled, and which I entirely respect. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? There are sick *******s like you that seem to have to own firearms and threaten others with them. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/18/13, 6:47 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/18/13, 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. You don't understand the 1st Amendment or the disdain many of the founding fathers had for religion. And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? You did not learn the 1st amendment was to prevent a state religion? Ala Church do England? The First Amendment is there for a number of reasons, including the desire to prevent establishment of a state religion. The religious clause was there for just one reason. NO STATE RELIGION! |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
In article 417142672403824078.069666bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. So you don't consider that a "wall" between church and state? Now, I never, ever said that the founding fathers ever intended for there to be no religion, no prayer etc. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
In article 417142672403824078.069666bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. History isn't your strong point, as well as reading comprehension.... http://tinyurl.com/7o44m |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
In article 1910862206403841873.295628bmckeenospam-
, says... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/18/13, 6:47 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/18/13, 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. You don't understand the 1st Amendment or the disdain many of the founding fathers had for religion. And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? You did not learn the 1st amendment was to prevent a state religion? Ala Church do England? The First Amendment is there for a number of reasons, including the desire to prevent establishment of a state religion. The religious clause was there for just one reason. NO STATE RELIGION! http://tinyurl.com/7o44m |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/19/13 6:58 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1910862206403841873.295628bmckeenospam- , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/18/13, 6:47 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/18/13, 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. You don't understand the 1st Amendment or the disdain many of the founding fathers had for religion. And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? You did not learn the 1st amendment was to prevent a state religion? Ala Church do England? The First Amendment is there for a number of reasons, including the desire to prevent establishment of a state religion. The religious clause was there for just one reason. NO STATE RELIGION! http://tinyurl.com/7o44m Where does it say it in the Constitution? Free exercise of religion is also supported. Harry can not stand that part. Do we have a state religion? How many times was God invoked by the founding fathers? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/19/13 6:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 417142672403824078.069666bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. History isn't your strong point, as well as reading comprehension.... http://tinyurl.com/7o44m Is a strong point. Do we have a State Religion? How many religions are allowed in Congress? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but be against healthcare for everybody? They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance? Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance, and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most likely yourself also. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/19/13, 12:26 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but be against healthcare for everybody? They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance? Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance, and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most likely yourself also. You obviously have *no* idea of what I am for, in health care "insurance." What I am for is a single-payer system that keeps health care insurers out of the equation, ala Medicare, although it might be possible to allow health care insurers to provide "supplemental" coverages to those who want them. I also have no use for privately owned "for profit" hospitals. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/19/13, 12:26 PM, Bill McKee wrote: On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but be against healthcare for everybody? They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance? Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance, and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most likely yourself also. You obviously have *no* idea of what I am for, in health care "insurance." What I am for is a single-payer system that keeps health care insurers out of the equation, ala Medicare, although it might be possible to allow health care insurers to provide "supplemental" coverages to those who want them. I also have no use for privately owned "for profit" hospitals. You are for a health insurance formulated plan, with everybody forced to buy health insurance! May not be a bad idea, but the way this plan is organized is. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/19/13, 3:46 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/19/13, 12:26 PM, Bill McKee wrote: On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but be against healthcare for everybody? They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance? Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance, and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most likely yourself also. You obviously have *no* idea of what I am for, in health care "insurance." What I am for is a single-payer system that keeps health care insurers out of the equation, ala Medicare, although it might be possible to allow health care insurers to provide "supplemental" coverages to those who want them. I also have no use for privately owned "for profit" hospitals. You are for a health insurance formulated plan, with everybody forced to buy health insurance! May not be a bad idea, but the way this plan is organized is. Let me rephrase a bit. I am for a health care system that doesn't involve private, for-profit insurance companies, except, possibly, to offer "supplemental" programs. I think what we have now through the ACA is the first step. I think it will lead to single-payer, eventually, and then evolve into an "indirect" payer system, in which everyone in the country can get needed health care without worrying about whether he or she can pay for it directly. Virtually every other modern country in the western world has such a system. Here's an interesting anecdote. A friend of mine has a serious illness and requires a very expensive medication to stay alive. That medication, even with help from his health insurance company, costs him nearly $3000 a month. That *same* medication in Canada would run him about $100 a month and, in several European countries, even less. He's working on a way to obtain his needed meds from a pharmacy in Canada. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/19/13, 3:46 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/19/13, 12:26 PM, Bill McKee wrote: On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but be against healthcare for everybody? They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance? Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance, and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most likely yourself also. You obviously have *no* idea of what I am for, in health care "insurance." What I am for is a single-payer system that keeps health care insurers out of the equation, ala Medicare, although it might be possible to allow health care insurers to provide "supplemental" coverages to those who want them. I also have no use for privately owned "for profit" hospitals. You are for a health insurance formulated plan, with everybody forced to buy health insurance! May not be a bad idea, but the way this plan is organized is. Let me rephrase a bit. I am for a health care system that doesn't involve private, for-profit insurance companies, except, possibly, to offer "supplemental" programs. I think what we have now through the ACA is the first step. I think it will lead to single-payer, eventually, and then evolve into an "indirect" payer system, in which everyone in the country can get needed health care without worrying about whether he or she can pay for it directly. Virtually every other modern country in the western world has such a system. Here's an interesting anecdote. A friend of mine has a serious illness and requires a very expensive medication to stay alive. That medication, even with help from his health insurance company, costs him nearly $3000 a month. That *same* medication in Canada would run him about $100 a month and, in several European countries, even less. He's working on a way to obtain his needed meds from a pharmacy in Canada. Part of that cost is the good old USA pays for all the development costs! Europe and Canada only allow manufacturing costs plus a decent profit. So we pay a lot more. Fair, nope, but that is the way the game as been setup. If everybody had to pay for the development costs, the. The USA would be cheaper and EU ann Canada would pay more. But we as a country are idiots when it comes to trade agreements, why we allowed China to fix the Yuan way below market value. But when other countries hold enough of our debt, they get to set most of the rules. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/19/13, 8:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/19/13, 3:46 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/19/13, 12:26 PM, Bill McKee wrote: On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but be against healthcare for everybody? They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance? Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance, and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most likely yourself also. You obviously have *no* idea of what I am for, in health care "insurance." What I am for is a single-payer system that keeps health care insurers out of the equation, ala Medicare, although it might be possible to allow health care insurers to provide "supplemental" coverages to those who want them. I also have no use for privately owned "for profit" hospitals. You are for a health insurance formulated plan, with everybody forced to buy health insurance! May not be a bad idea, but the way this plan is organized is. Let me rephrase a bit. I am for a health care system that doesn't involve private, for-profit insurance companies, except, possibly, to offer "supplemental" programs. I think what we have now through the ACA is the first step. I think it will lead to single-payer, eventually, and then evolve into an "indirect" payer system, in which everyone in the country can get needed health care without worrying about whether he or she can pay for it directly. Virtually every other modern country in the western world has such a system. Here's an interesting anecdote. A friend of mine has a serious illness and requires a very expensive medication to stay alive. That medication, even with help from his health insurance company, costs him nearly $3000 a month. That *same* medication in Canada would run him about $100 a month and, in several European countries, even less. He's working on a way to obtain his needed meds from a pharmacy in Canada. Part of that cost is the good old USA pays for all the development costs! Europe and Canada only allow manufacturing costs plus a decent profit. So we pay a lot more. Fair, nope, but that is the way the game as been setup. If everybody had to pay for the development costs, the. The USA would be cheaper and EU ann Canada would pay more. But we as a country are idiots when it comes to trade agreements, why we allowed China to fix the Yuan way below market value. But when other countries hold enough of our debt, they get to set most of the rules. We pay a lot more because a few years ago, the Congressional Republicans wouldn't let the government negotiate for pharmaceutical prices for many programs, and hasn't legalized the ability for individuals to buy across our northern border. Republicans say they are for free enterprise but, of course, they aren't. What a surprise. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:38:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:31 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? He has been getting pretty sick here lately. Wishing death, having sexual fantasies about children, and encouraging gun play in churches.... Most have stopped talking to him, he is getting desperate.. if we keep it up, alt.kooks will likely be unleashed on us yet again:) This from a person who claims to have had email contact with a minor child of one of the posters here. What is inappropriate about someone having email contact with the minor child of Kevin or anyone else? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 20:43:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: snippage Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Well, that sure puts down the continuous 'gun violence' **** posted by jps, doesn't it? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/19/13, 8:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/19/13, 3:46 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/19/13, 12:26 PM, Bill McKee wrote: On 10/19/13 6:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/18/13, 8:24 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:54:03 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote: Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Harry, that wasn't funny even as a joke. We don't take gun violence seriously in this country, so what else is there but sarcasm? Who but the right would want everybody to own a dangerous firearm, but be against healthcare for everybody? They do not require you to own a firearm, so why require insurance? Freedom of choice? I think if someone chooses to not have insurance, and they are of the age of majority, you get minimal health care. Just ease your way to the next state of the body. The other day, driving by the entrance of Walmart, there is a young couple with the obligatory begging sign. Girl is sitting down with Tattoos all over her body, and lighting up a cigarette. Just lazy. Why should the rest of us take care of these people. They will not get insurance anyway, and if they did apply they would have 100% subsidy and no deductibles. Just like they now get from the welfare system. Except the insurance corporations would get more profit. Harry is for that, corporate profit. Most likely yourself also. You obviously have *no* idea of what I am for, in health care "insurance." What I am for is a single-payer system that keeps health care insurers out of the equation, ala Medicare, although it might be possible to allow health care insurers to provide "supplemental" coverages to those who want them. I also have no use for privately owned "for profit" hospitals. You are for a health insurance formulated plan, with everybody forced to buy health insurance! May not be a bad idea, but the way this plan is organized is. Let me rephrase a bit. I am for a health care system that doesn't involve private, for-profit insurance companies, except, possibly, to offer "supplemental" programs. I think what we have now through the ACA is the first step. I think it will lead to single-payer, eventually, and then evolve into an "indirect" payer system, in which everyone in the country can get needed health care without worrying about whether he or she can pay for it directly. Virtually every other modern country in the western world has such a system. Here's an interesting anecdote. A friend of mine has a serious illness and requires a very expensive medication to stay alive. That medication, even with help from his health insurance company, costs him nearly $3000 a month. That *same* medication in Canada would run him about $100 a month and, in several European countries, even less. He's working on a way to obtain his needed meds from a pharmacy in Canada. Part of that cost is the good old USA pays for all the development costs! Europe and Canada only allow manufacturing costs plus a decent profit. So we pay a lot more. Fair, nope, but that is the way the game as been setup. If everybody had to pay for the development costs, the. The USA would be cheaper and EU ann Canada would pay more. But we as a country are idiots when it comes to trade agreements, why we allowed China to fix the Yuan way below market value. But when other countries hold enough of our debt, they get to set most of the rules. We pay a lot more because a few years ago, the Congressional Republicans wouldn't let the government negotiate for pharmaceutical prices for many programs, and hasn't legalized the ability for individuals to buy across our northern border. Republicans say they are for free enterprise but, of course, they aren't. What a surprise. Someone has to pay development costs. Or did the corporations do it for grins? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
In article ,
says... On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:38:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:31 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? He has been getting pretty sick here lately. Wishing death, having sexual fantasies about children, and encouraging gun play in churches.... Most have stopped talking to him, he is getting desperate.. if we keep it up, alt.kooks will likely be unleashed on us yet again:) This from a person who claims to have had email contact with a minor child of one of the posters here. What is inappropriate about someone having email contact with the minor child of Kevin or anyone else? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! See what he claims others have done above, the answer is therein, and very obvious. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
Johnny is re-living his army days.
One standard for him and another to be ordered for the rest of the unit. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:54:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:38:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:31 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? He has been getting pretty sick here lately. Wishing death, having sexual fantasies about children, and encouraging gun play in churches.... Most have stopped talking to him, he is getting desperate.. if we keep it up, alt.kooks will likely be unleashed on us yet again:) This from a person who claims to have had email contact with a minor child of one of the posters here. What is inappropriate about someone having email contact with the minor child of Kevin or anyone else? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! See what he claims others have done above, the answer is therein, and very obvious. In other words...nothing. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:08:08 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
Johnny is re-living his army days. One standard for him and another to be ordered for the rest of the unit. One step at a time, Don. I've been asking if you'd care to exchange only sociable posts with me. The rancor and anti-social behavior isn't necessary. Are you willing? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/21/2013 10:07 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:08:08 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Johnny is re-living his army days. One standard for him and another to be ordered for the rest of the unit. One step at a time, Don. I've been asking if you'd care to exchange only sociable posts with me. The rancor and anti-social behavior isn't necessary. Are you willing? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! It's obvious that Donnie questions his manhood, as does Harry. They lash out at folks who have more courage and sense of duty and responsibility. Although Donnie is responsible enough to pay his taxes. I'll have to give him credit for that. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/21/13, 8:08 AM, True North wrote:
Johnny is re-living his army days. One standard for him and another to be ordered for the rest of the unit. Are you referring to "his army days" when he helped kill women and children in Vietnam? Herring is racist trash. There's really nothing more about him to say. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/21/2013 10:23 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/21/13, 8:08 AM, True North wrote: Johnny is re-living his army days. One standard for him and another to be ordered for the rest of the unit. Are you referring to "his army days" when he helped kill women and children in Vietnam? Herring is racist trash. There's really nothing more about him to say. Well, I don't think John pulled the trigger, he was just like you, supporting the war, he over there, you here with your tax money and electing the people who put us there.... I mean, you were here taking advantage of the spoils of living in the greatest nation in the world back then, weren't you? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
In article ,
says... On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:54:47 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:38:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:31 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? He has been getting pretty sick here lately. Wishing death, having sexual fantasies about children, and encouraging gun play in churches.... Most have stopped talking to him, he is getting desperate.. if we keep it up, alt.kooks will likely be unleashed on us yet again:) This from a person who claims to have had email contact with a minor child of one of the posters here. What is inappropriate about someone having email contact with the minor child of Kevin or anyone else? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! See what he claims others have done above, the answer is therein, and very obvious. In other words...nothing. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Well, to you, but then again you have comprehension problems, I'd guess from senility. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/21/13, 10:30 AM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 10/21/2013 10:23 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/21/13, 8:08 AM, True North wrote: Johnny is re-living his army days. One standard for him and another to be ordered for the rest of the unit. Are you referring to "his army days" when he helped kill women and children in Vietnam? Herring is racist trash. There's really nothing more about him to say. Well, I don't think John pulled the trigger, he was just like you, supporting the war, he over there, you here with your tax money and electing the people who put us there.... I mean, you were here taking advantage of the spoils of living in the greatest nation in the world back then, weren't you? You really are living in a world of psychosis. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com