SeVeR

Someone tell me, what are American health insurance companies other than middle-men who take a profit for hooking you up with a doctor? They're like who mafia who take monthly payments so that you won't end up dead in a gutter. They end up making a profit because the health-care paid for by them is less than what they take out of your pockets. So really, the fact that this bill doesn't completely get rid of the health insurance companies altogether means it is a complete failure. Still, I am convinced that Obama would rather get rid of them all, but I am also certain that the system is too corrupt to let this happen. Socialised health-care is more than just for the poor, it's also there for the rich should they become poor. If you are successful and resent having to pay taxes for a National Health Service, then think about what would happen if your life went to shit. Your taxes would have helped to keep the Health Service running while you were successful, and now that you need it, it's there. While you don't need it, you can afford to pay the same taxes that poor people pay. Simple really. ...But the whole idea of health insurance companies acting as middle-men, channeling money away from ill people that should go into paying solely for health-care, has to be one of the most evil things I have ever encountered. It's like a vulture picking away at a dying animal, or a pack of lions stalking an injured wildebeast. They make money out of people getting ill because they make money out of everyone who fears getting ill. How can healthcare even be a business!!!???

I've already explained what I meant.

Christian Nutter: Do you believe in God? Me: No. Christian Nutter: Then you must believe with certainty that he doesn't exist. Exactly the same principle. When I talk of General Petraeus' bullshit I am referring to it's use as negative propaganda against Iran. His comment talks about something that assumes certainty in something else he is not talking about. It's bullshit, it's propaganda. So you see, for me to assume the opposite would make me a complete hypocrite. You know I am agnostic, and you know I object strongly to Christians, so you should realise I object to people assuming certainty when there is none... even more so when it has the kind of influence this comment will have. EDIT - my apologies for replying too quickly: I think it's quite reasonable to say that people should have a right to something, but that they shouldn't choose to have it. Perhaps that is the current consensus in the gun-control debate. -EDIT- And before giving credence to anything Dr Brain says, maybe you should see the tone of all his recent posts. I think I've turned the guy into my own personal troll since that tax topic. Quite amusing really.

Actually, it doesn't. I don't expect you to figure out why it doesn't. If anyone else other than Dr. Brain wants to ask why it doesn't, then feel free, and I'll assume the answer is one that evades more than just simpletons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8570842.stm Speak of the devil. Turkey obviously aren't convinced Iran wants to build a bomb. You gotta love General Petraeus: "Tehran's weapon development programme appeared to have suffered delays. It has, thankfully, slid to the right a bit and it is not this calendar year, I don't think" Wow, that comment assumes Iran wants a nuke and is building one covertly. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?

can =/ will. EDIT: What i mean is just about any act of immorality can have a positive effect. Ever heard of "the ends don't justify the means"? Should spying be something done by everyone just because it might prevent wars? It might cause wars too, but who cares right?

You say the LoNAN claims don't stack up but you say this is due to jealousy: "they have always been on the outside looking in. They have noticed the world has been pushing them out of the global community, and have decided it is easier to blame the big bad US". Any conclusion you make that implies you have direct knowledge of what is going on the heads on political leaders is going to be a conclusion built without foundation. So to make a baseless claim in support of the United States (as the LoNAN claim is against the US and the UN), you must be talking from a position of prejudice. If you think Iran is starting Armageddon, then by virtue of the worlds agreement that Armageddon is a bad thing, you can only be saying that someone acting to prevent Armageddon is "good". I don't think Iran is starting Armageddon so I don't think the US is doing the right thing. I also find this "guilty until proven innocent" routine deplorable. Your lack of morality astounds me. Did you learn this at the CIA school for espionage? You know, torture can also stop wars. Would you say torturing the Grand Ayatollah would be worth knowing if he plans to nuke Israel? Assassination can also stop wars. Genocide would do the trick too. Russia being closer to the US has coincided with them moving away from Iran. A cynic might say a deal has taken place behind closed doors. Iran don't have the world convinced they want to build nukes. The right-wing American media is convinced because the American government is making lots of noise about it... that translates to most of America being convinced. Britain wants their special relationship to continue with the US, and France/Germany are possibly jealous of that relationship, or they've simply bought the US agenda, or they don't give a damn about Iran and are just doing what is in their interests... because that's the key point, it is in a countries interests to side with America. Who else other than American allies "think" Iran wants nukes. Does this hiker situation happen in other countries without being reported? You know it probably does happen all over the world. It would probably happen in America if I entered your borders without a visa wouldn't it? So why the media frenzy. For that matter how did the media even get this story? It's very relevant to this debate and not at all off-topic to remark upon the US false incrimination of Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346524.stm) because it establishes an ulterior motive for being hostile towards Iran. Why is the US so desperate to incriminate Iran? History is important as well, as remarked upon in my last post, Iran has every reason to distrust the US. The US performed a crime of massive proportions against Iran and it's people, and that can never be forgiven, especially as the Iranian revolution that followed put in power the same regime that currently reigns there.

Couple that with the fact that the US has a history of spying and CIA intervention in Iran. The CIA even toppled from power a democratically elected Iranian leader in 1953, installing the Shah to power, who ruled so violently that in 1979 the Iranian revolution took place. Iran has every reason and justification to regard the US with immense distrust. Perhaps this more than a differing quality of civility is the principle reason for strict rules against Americans "drifting" across into Iranian territory.

I was referring to this sentence: But then, you could have been talking about the League of Non-Aligned Nations and not France/Germany. It was difficult to differentiate between who you were referring to when you said "they". I concede that you meant something else. It's not an opinion from me, it's what I genuinely thought you said. However, my point is actually the same, there are over a hundred countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, and you are describing all of them as jealous and apathetic. Why is this? Is it because those countries have their own political agenda which is clearly distinct from the political agenda of United States? You don't give the LoNAN claim any attention, you just call them jealous, and if you seriously think the UN's view on Iraq wins your argument then you are sorely mistaken. The UN did nothing about Iraq, they couldn't because the US and her allies determine policy in the Security Council in that regard. If the war was illegal in the eyes of the UN then the UN should pass sanctions or threaten military action on the US. They didn't, they made an empty statement to remain credible and appease the masses. The Iraq issue makes LoNANs point, not yours. You also seem to think that France and Germany disagree with the US on many issues and that this makes the LoNAN claim defunct. All you've said on the issue before is France and Germany don't care what the US have to say and that their political agenda is different. Both points mean squat without some explanation as to specific disagreement. You said yourself that these two countries agree with the US on Iran. So does this support LoNANs claim? So as I originally said you are claiming: "America as the good guy and Iran as the bad guy, with everyone else to be at fault in some way." Just about everyone else is the League of Non-Aligned Nations. Yes I summarised a bit, but 100+ countries makes up most of the rest of the world, and you covered China separately for me anyway. I think that part of my quote is covered. Now it's quite clear you paint Iran as the bad guy with your ridiculous Armageddon talk, but what about your good ol' America? 1. Your claims about the League of the Non-Aligned Nations directly result from their disagreements with the US. By painting the League in a bad light you can only be referring to the US as the good guys.2. You refer to the US as stopping Armageddon by threatening Iran. Clearly this opinion of yours paints the US as the good guys. 3. You talk about how Iran thinks the US is spying on them. You say it in a sarcastic tone as if to say that the US is above this, would never do it, and is never wrong. 4. You continually refer to the US as "we" and "our". 5. You miss every opportunity to say anything remotely bad about the US. For example, maybe the US is spying on Iran and they are wrong to do so? Maybe Iran is developing civilian nuclear power as there is no evidence to the contrary, and maybe the US are wrong do assert the opposite with no evidence to back it up? Maybe the US is incriminating Iran based on ulterior motives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346524.stm)? Maybe the US does dominate the UN, they obviously have economic and political power that many countries would not want to get on the wrong side off? Anyway, by painting Iran in such a bad light you obviously see the US as the "Armageddon" saviours of man-kind, who are battling against the world to see justice done. Am I right or wrong here? Sorry for the misunderstanding earlier. I wasn't trying to insert opinions into your post, I genuinely thought you said that. It would fit because France/Germany are not the world powers they used to be.

I guess you're asking me to elaborate on my post. You accuse me of being extreme and claim yourself as being in the middle ground, yet your post is clearly painting America as the good guy and Iran as the bad guy, with everyone else to be at fault in some way. I on the other hand am claiming your warped one-sidedness, and whether I am right or wrong, my criticism of you cannot make me extreme. Do I really need to quote you to prove my point? You cover France and Germany as being guilty of evil inaction through bitter jealousy of American power, China as a surreptitious untrustworthy sleeping dragon, and Iran as the epitome of all that is unjust. Your middle ground is red, white and blue mate. Not once have you said America is in the wrong, or even that they could be in the wrong. So when I summarise your post with the implication that you think America is blowing flowers out of their ass while the rest of the world is plotting against you, then I think I am giving your post more thought than it deserves, which would be to not post at all. Elaborate enough? There would be no point in contending anything you've said because firstly you would never listen, and secondly because there is no black-and-white in this issue. There is no black and white for anyone in the middle ground. Everything you've said is as uncertain as an Agnostic, so that is my argument against you, prove you're right or admit where you stand, but don't claim to be anywhere other than staunchly in the camp of Uncle Sam. You accuse me of not reading your post, I obviously did, and even said so in my reply. What I claim to be the conservative point of view is not a Straw Man, it's you, you are what I have come to associate as a raving conservative, and that is probably to the detriment of most conservatives out there. Your post demonstrates xenophobia, or at least extensive distrust, for the whole bloody world it seems. Tell me how I am "pretty far to the left"? What actual evidence is there of this, or have you just painted a picture of me like you have of the rest of the world? I trade stocks, am I anti-capitalist? I criticise Communism as being unable to allow man to compete in the way our biology dictates, my whole philosophy is based on natural selection. I support British sovereignty over the Falklands. I support the building of more nuclear power stations. I despise most environmentalists who don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps your own government and media should stop supporting liberals in Iran and promoting their cause on the basis that they are liberal?

In Summary: America is great, everyone else is evil. Just realised I didn't need to read that to know what it was going to say.

American = fat, stupid, owns a Bible and a gun, has no geographical or historical knowledge outside of America, probably a product of incest somewhere along the line, likes baseball and doesn't know what the word football means. Usually seen outside a McDonalds trying to carry twelve cheeseburgers, two family tubs of rocky-road ice-cream and a bucket of chicken nuggets to their over-sized gas-guzzling SUV whilst sweating profusely from between the rolls of fat rippling across their bursting gut.

The war on terror is a war on fear. A war on fear is a war against being scared. A war against being scared is a war against whatever the media scares us with. SO GET READY FOR TERRORIST COMMIE PEDOPHILE DEVIL-WORSHIPPING RACISTS FROM HELL! THEY'LL BEAT THEIR WIVES, AND YOURS! <*WOMAN SCREAMS*> COMING TO A CINEMA NEAR YOU SOON! PREPARE TO SHIT YOUR PANTS. ...The current terror alert is "SEVERE", please be vigilant and report any suspicious behaviour to your local gestapo... i mean police. FILM BEGINS: Chuck Norris: "If this war ever ends then we will have lost it! It must last forever or they will come and kill us!" Somewhere in Rajikiflikistan: Terrorist Commie Pedophile Devil Worshipping Racist from Hell: "Hey Abdul, we don't need to fight this war, they do the fighting for us" Abdul Kalashnikov Putin Bin Laden LaVey: "Yea I know dude, I didn't even know who the Americans were until yesterday, apparently we're in this Al-Qaeda thing now, at least that's what I was paid to join up with." TCPDWR from Hell: "Who paid you to join that?" Abdul: "I dunno, but he paid me in dollars." Back in the Pentagon: Chuck Norris: "Hey if we kill these guys then the war will end. So we will have lost the war then because we will stop fighting and they will come kill us. Superman: "Who will?" Chuck Norris: "they will" Superman: "Who is they?" Chuck Norris: "The people who will start hating us because we are good Christians with lots of money and white skin" Superman: "Oh right, I forgot, so what do we do?" Chuck Norris: "Give them money of course." Superman: "...the fuck, why?" Chuck Norris: "That way we can control our enemy and it all works out in the end." Superman: "I love you Chuck, lets get frisky" Chuck Norris: "Suck my"............. Back in Rajikiflikistan: Abdul: "If I had a dollar for every time I burnt an American flag in front of a video camera I would be rich.... oh wait I do." Terrorist: "Lets get some hookers." THE END

Should work, since everyone likes ASSS

Yes, I'm the son of a pastor. My father endeavored to inculcate me with the doctrine of our Lord and Savior from the tenderest of ages. In my teenage years I struggled to deal with the loss of my dearest friend and confidant Cassandra. My rebellious teenage years focused singularly on rejecting the web of doctrine that had once comforted me, shielded me from pain. A plethora of grief dismantled the religious stable and outed my pain in a paroxysm of betrayal for my tainted faith. I welcomed the cold touch of science and the empty words of heretic philosophers. A bitterness arose that formed a new comfort, a pride, built on a hostility of irreligious contempt for any vestigial faith. Blah. Why the interest in me?

Well they chose to ignore my original argument. What can I do?

... If you'd taken the other topic any more personally you would be flying to England to break my fingers so I couldn't type anymore.

Basically you've just said three times in three different ways that there is variation in what Christians believe. I accept that, but also think the variation is not big enough to change my conclusion. Whether some Christians believe 1000 of the Bible's truths and others believe 500, the conclusion is the same, that there is a saturation point for the influence of every thought that occurs below the number of truths that is required to be a Christian.

From observing the range of actions pertaining to religious people in our society, it is clear that these thought patterns occur, and given that we can only determine this from the actions we witness, it is common sense to believe that the thoughts are prevalent in more religious people than the number who act on them. The thoughts would have to be 100% convincing otherwise. Whether someone goes to Church is probably the one thought that is most acted upon by someone belonging to a religion. Therefore it is the best example, based on actions, of a religious person. This is all fairly simple to grasp. If you believe in God you don't have to be religious. You are religious if you belong to a religion (duh). Belonging to a religion requires the acceptance of all the truths connected with that religion. If you don't accept these thousands of truths then you are not of that religion! Acceptance of all these truths provides alternatives to a number of choices that would not be present otherwise. The more truths, the more choices that are affected. The Bible has enough truths to affect all choices a person makes in my opinion. Thus, if a person believes in the Bible, they cannot make a decision without a religious thought linking back to God in some way. One thing that affects every thought I make? My one belief that it is impossible to know whether we know anything. That uncertainty relates to every thought in my brain. Conversely a Christian has the certainty that God exists and the Bible is true, and with such ultimate reliable truth, it is ardently applied to every thought in a Christian's brain. I don't know this is a fact, but the range of applications that I have seen for religion, and the prevalence of religion in everyday trivial tasks, has led me to conclude that these thoughts exist in all Christians. Why can I make such a leap to say all Christians possess these thoughts? Because they all fit a mould, they have to because they all believe in the same truths.

You're a theist, you don't have the mind-set of a religious person if you haven't accepted the thousands of assumptions (dogma) that come from a religious holy book and the associated Church.

Devotion, as I have understood it over the years, is when someone follows God's rules and worships him. A devoted Christian will never deny that he/she believes in God, just to fit in with others. Devotion doesn't mean you always think about God, it just means you are friends really. Do you honestly spend all your time with a certain friend? Husbands and Wives usually have some time apart. God doesn't consume all my thoughts, but I do pray on a regular basis for forgiveness and guidance. If God wasn't real, it wouldn't bother me (not saying I'm doubting his existence). I'm glad I was fortunate enough to be part of something that is loving, hopeful, and forgiving. That's good enough for me. I don't expect Christians to acknowledge and remember all the times they think about their religion, just like I don't remember how often I think about sex. Some people say it's every six seconds, but I've always found that hard to believe. Anyway, if you trust in God's guidance, then don't you often find yourself asking God what to do, or thinking "What would Jesus do?". Whether you can actually communicate with God or not, I expect most conclusions you reach are in line with the Bible.

Utter rubbish NBV, if religious thoughts enter your brain whenever you are confronted with a choice then you are religious whether you act on them or not.

I'm not saying every trivial thing is Christian or non-Christian, I'm saying that religion has an affect on the choices a religious person makes, because any kind of devotion (to God or otherwise), by definition, must affect all or many of one's choices. It wouldn't be devotion otherwise. Devotion to Christianity requires a belief in the righteousness of the Bible and the thousands of assumptions and inferences the Bible makes. The number of these inferences is so great that I believe there is a saturation effect where no thought can be without the influence of one of these inferences.

The choice of house would depend on what Churches are nearby, the choice of work would depend on whether the company is involved in practices abhorrent to their religion like investing in pornography or the wrong kind of charity, the choice of television is obvious as anything agreeable with their religion or politics will be watched, and if nothing is on that meets that requirement, the sin of "sloth" may be an incentive thought to abandon the TV for the gym. As usual you are thinking about actions, I am talking about thoughts. The choice of apple or orange might trigger a thought about Adam and Eve which could influence the act (but doesn't need to for my definition that only talks about thoughts), the choice of when to wash might trigger a thought about the countless mentions in the Bible about washing yourself, for example you must wash before going to Church. The Bible enforces a mind-set receptive to traditions as opposed to change, so I would guess that most Christians go for a standard rather than an automatic. Conversely Bible study also detracts from any other form of study, reducing one's will to learn about anything non-Biblical or religious, this could result in an automatic being chosen. This is an example of a subconscious choice though, as these arguments are probably not acknowledged at the time. Dance, whether it should or not, provokes thought of homosexuality, at least many dances do in youth culture. Karate's aggression may provoke the pacifistic Jesus-loving Christian to choose dance. Religion can and does infect every thought in the mind of someone devoted to the religion. Whether they act on it is another matter. There ya go.

Actions of a small few? You are trying to turn my definition of religion into your definition of a radical (suicide bombers). For what my definition actually is, there are many more than "a few" religious people who fit it. Second, I'm not even talking about actions. And, yes I can "stereotype" like that, because I believe my definition of a religious person and the dictionary definition to be the same. Dictionary: "faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity" Me: "infecting every thought in a person's mind" Faithful devotion to an ultimate reality is exactly what I am talking about. How can you have this kind of devotion without letting religion permeate through your brain? I feel that my definition includes both religious people and radicals. Since radicals are also religious, I think that's a thorough definition. Translation: OK Master Brain.