in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before
the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I
wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in
the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel,
etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that
put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY).
If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go
before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I
imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions? Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom. What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for? Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over 80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American. (David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department, released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities. The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the defendant
was African-American.

"Šracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every stage of
the processŠ. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May 1999

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before
the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy
us
all?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I
wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in
the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel,
etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear
from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that
put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words
ONLY).
If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go
before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with
the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I
imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the
religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed
the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would
primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you
would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so
dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again.
I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you
as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play
the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will
see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I
understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand
the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction
and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real
world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the
Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder
would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is
nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to
kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support
your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions?
Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and
all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings
are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death
penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you
are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've
just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death
penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel
rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just
about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom.
What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for?
Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of
justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I
don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to
learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would
not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over
80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although
African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office
found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study
concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death
if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other
studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race
of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions
to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more
harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value
when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white
juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making
allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in
Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American.
(David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post
Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial
Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use
statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that
race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it
has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on
executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias
in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on
death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state
death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department,
released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities.
The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal
prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved
racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the
defendant
was African-American.

"=8Aracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every
stage of
the process=8A. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and
the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United
States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with
Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May
1999

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick. If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject. I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if some
how that strengthen your arguement with me. It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
bearsbuddy says:
==============
Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.
==================

so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant?

Well yes! As jesus is the god of the old testament, if you accept the
trinity. Thus, jesus is the god of the gen. creation.

is the trinity some kind of timemachine?

I suppose it is to some christians, but not all , in a sense, as it links
jesus to the god of the old testament.

Mark --pick your poison: http://tinyurl.com/57o7w --



frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM:


snip..

as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well.
So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.

It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused
about that.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK,
if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it,
liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got
sick in Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet
undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the
administrator could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a different
type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are
problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to
remote areas. We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national
will to do so.
============================
Willful ignorance. Thanks agian for proving you want to remain
ignorant...



snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting
for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group
of
people in
Newfoundland.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.



This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.
================
Because you did, as I have again explained to you.


Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
================
I've no need to, liarman.



Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote
as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for
treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that
makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

I have not lied about anything.
================
Yes, you have. And continue to do so, liarman.


This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:
===============
Too many drugs last night, liarman? Seeing and thinking double?


====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
======================
You may not believe it now, because the proof has been given.
But, you did say it, liarman, just as you have proven above.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:05 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:14 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



But I much
prefer what we have to a system where poor people
and/or
minorities get
inferior treatment to rich and/or white people.
===========================
Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm
in
Canada
that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either.

Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort
of
asking the KKK
for information on immigration policies.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that
discuss
the
problems of your health care system.



But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the
system
is eroding,
and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot
of
will to turn
that around, and I think that will be the direction of
things.
The vast
majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where
something as basic
as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines
in
Canada.

No lies have been told.
=====================

snip tired old crap

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
==================
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting
for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group
of
people in
Newfoundland.
=============
Already been done, liarman. many times...

I have not lied about anything.
=======================
Yes, you have liarman. You continue to lie about no one dying
waiting for treatment, and you lied about no one waiting.


This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:


====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
========================
No need for me to. You made the statement, and have now admitted
it was wrong. I have accepted that you made a mistake and moved
on. You however seem to be stuck on the small details while
ignoring the fcat that people still die waiting for treatment.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:04 PM:


snip..

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that
you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting
for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group
of
people in
Newfoundland.
====================
Keep trying to tell yourself that liarman. maybe someday even
you will believe it. That reply was not at the time I posted
the
link. The discussion was all about waiting for treatment in
Canada, ou claimed then that that did not happen. You have
since changed your tune.



Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote
as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for
treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that
makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined. Now,
how
about the rest of your lies about wait lists, liarman?

I have not lied about anything.
=================
Yes, and you continue to do so. Why is that, liarman? Just
can't help yourself?


This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
================
No need, you lied and have retracked your lie. I have accepted
that. Now, talk about those that are dying while waiting,
liarman.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before
the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy
us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I
wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in
the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel,
etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear
from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that
put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words
ONLY).
If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go
before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with
the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I
imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the
religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed
the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would
primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you
would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so
dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again.
I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you
as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play
the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will
see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I
understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand
the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction
and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real
world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the
Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder
would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is
nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to
kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support
your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions?
Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and
all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings
are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death
penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you
are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've
just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death
penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel
rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just
about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom.
What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for?
Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of
justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I
don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to
learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would
not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over
80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although
African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office
found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study
concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death
if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other
studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race
of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions
to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more
harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value
when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white
juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making
allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in
Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American.
(David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post
Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial
Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use
statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that
race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it
has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on
executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias
in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on
death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state
death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department,
released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities.
The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal
prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved
racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the
defendant
was African-American.

"Sracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every
stage of
the processS. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and
the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United
States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with
Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May
1999

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick. If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

What does my "controversy" with rick have to do with it?

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

On what basis have you decided that I am not qualified to present scriptural
evidence?

As someone who has studied History and Religious Studies it is not that I
could "care less about it" it is that I think it is rather insane to blame a
fictional work featuruing mythological characters for current day practices.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject.

On what basis?

I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

As is often the case, I actually have no idea what you are rambling on about
here.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if some
how that strengthen your arguement with me.

Surely the alleged nature of "god" is relevant to arguments about...god?

It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

No idea what hook you think I am on, nor have I asked to be let off. This
smacks of pomposity and piety. But it could just be your routine bizarre
behaviour.

So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you
will. TnT

My friendly response to that is to go suck eggs, Tinkerntom :-)

You are not in charge of setting the agenda, nor are you in charge of
setting the terms of engagement.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM:


snip..

as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.

It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused
about that.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it, liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got sick in Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the administrator
could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a different type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to remote areas.
We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national will to do
so.
============================
Willful ignorance.

Will to do better. Ignorance infers not knowing about the problems involved,
and I do.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to
your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that
the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that
no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about your
ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not be able to
get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting' for treatment. I
pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of the system that is making
them wait, as in Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to claim that
NO one is waiting for treatment in Canada.

Where did I say that? Quit being so obscure. If I said "no one is waiting
for treatment in Canada" post that quote with the full context so it can be
explored.

You've just spent several days insisting that my quote about Newfoundland
proved your case, now you are dropping that (duh) and moving on to some
other accusation. Have some guts. Stop being a scumbag. You were wrong, just
apologize and move on. But now, you are too big of a scumbag and a coward.

snip same old crap

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

snip boring old crap


Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
========================
No need for me to. You made the statement, and have now admitted it was
wrong.

I never stated that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment, and thus I
have not admitted it was wrong, because I never said it, nor do I believe
it.