NBVegita

I agree with what you said Bak. For most people its not a matter of helping out people who need it, it's being forced to help a lot of people, without them always needing it. (See my post above for the problems with the U.S. welfare system.)

I think welfare is something we should have in place, but the current U.S. welfare system is one of the most broken systems in the world. Welfare should be around to help people through rough times, until they can get back in their feet. Welfare should not completely subsidize a person in every capacity. I see where both sides are coming from. My concern is that welfare already provides more for most people than a entry level job could. Assuming you keep moving forward with it and provide them full health care too, it really eliminates the incentive to work. Sure you will have poor people who want to work (my father did) and who are too proud for welfare, but in a society where people are becoming more and more "entitled" I see that being the exception and not the rule. If you're going to provide such benefits, you need to be very strict as to who gets welfare and for how long they can receive it. In fact if you did this and added the proper staff to the system (as it's terribly understaffed) I would whole heartedly support it. Unfortunately I do have a problem further expanding a broken system, thus making it even more difficult to fix.

You do realize that you can do that today. If an uninsured motorist hits you, you have every right to sue them. You do realize that is bull pucky. First, the insurance company can only sue for the cost to fix your car and the costs of them taking the company to court. You also realize that 95%+ of these cases won't go to court because they settle. So if it costs $4,000 to fix your car, there is no way the insurance company can get $40,000. The only way you could get more money than the cost of the repair (and rental for time without vehicle) is if you're suing for injury/trauma, in which it would be illegal for the insurance company to make such a case on your behalf and not give you the money. If your concept were true, there would be THOUSANDS of car insurance companies because any industry where you can turn around 90% is the most lucrative field in the world. The only real way insurance companies make money is by the deductibles they make you pay, the same as health care (most drivers won't need it at once) and that they try to find anyway possible out of having to pay for your claim (or the claim against you). Also, if everyone drove around with no insurance and planned to sue someone to pay to fix your vehicle, it's going to take you months, to years (depending if that was the system for every claim), mean while you still have no car. If you are financing for a car, you still have to make the payments on the car, even if you can't drive it. So now if you want a car to drive, you've got to make payments on two vehicles. Now reverse it. You're the one at fault and someone sues you. You will need to pay out of pocket to not only fix your car, but their car too. It's not hard to rack up, 10k, 20k, or even 30k worth of damage on a car (depending on the car). Even if you do win the case and they have to pay you, if they only make $1000 a month, how long do you think it's gonna take for you to get $5000? Years. I could go on and on. Again, not saying that car insurance is a perfect system, but in reality it is much much better than nothing at all.

What the health care industry does it allow you to pay for things you wouldn't be able to otherwise. For example, I had to have surgery to repair a torn ligament in my wrist. With no insurance, the surgery would have cost me ~12k. With insurance I paid a $100 co-pay and that was it. Now that insurance cost me $50 a month (employer paid the difference). In order for me to save up enough money by saving my insurance payments it would take me 20 years to pay for that one surgery. That is what insurance companies do. I'm not stating it's perfect by any means, but the whole concept of insurance is based on the fact that healthy people won't get the same benefit as the sick, until the healthy become the sick people. I mean a friend of my parents had to go in for quadruple bypass surgery. His bill (with out insurance) would have been in the range of 175k. Even if you managed to put away $1000 a month for your health care, it would take just about 15 years to pay for that surgery, assuming that you have no illness of any sort in those 15 years. With insurance I think he payed $2000. Even if we had completely socialized health care, how can you fund health care for everyone without using that same system? Another thing the health insurance companies do is negotiate a rate with the practitioner. For example, the location I went to for physical therapy charges $125 a session if you have no insurance. With insurance they can only charge the insurance company $50 and you only pay a copay on that $50. The way it was explained to me is that insurance companies negotiate with practitioners and then give them a maximum value they will pay for that service, which is always lower than what they want to charge. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to accept that insurance, but then you may loose a huge client base if you won't accept that insurance. I guess I'm wondering what is it that you don't like about insurance companies?

There are a lot of things I don't like about this bill and very few things I do like. Just for starters: I don't like the fact that the government can mandate you to have health care, or else fine you for not having it. Health care should be a choice. I don't like the fact that the government has excluded themselves from this health care reform. If this were really so good for the people, why is it not good enough for you? If you're going to try to penalize small companies for not providing health care, don't deduct the 30 employee's when you calculate. I bet that a company with 50 employees will still rather pay the fine for not having health care, as they only have to pay for 20 employees than provide health care for all 50. I don't like the government being able to "fine" you if you as an employer pay either too little or too much towards your employee's benefits. I do not like that they can tax your investment income for medicaid if you make 200k single or 250k. I don't like having to pay an extra fee for non-generic medicine. I think the concept of invoking an excise tax on industrial medical equipment manufacturers will cost us money in the long run. Things I do like: Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause. I do like the student loan reform, although there are things I wish they would focus on more. For example, instead of providing money for minorities (with some going to low income students) simply remove the "minority" part and put all of the funding towards simply low income students. Ultimately I feel that this really is not doing anything to address the "health care problem" in the country. Yes it is providing more coverage, but the bill does little to nothing to prevent the loop holes for insurance carriers and also creates a bigger loop hole. I feel that this is a very expensive plan that will cost Americans a lot of money and really does not accomplish very much. I believe that our health care industry does need some sort of reform, but this bill is not the answer. It isn't even a step in the right direction. But before everyone gets scared of this bill, really most clauses don't take effect until 2014-2018. Also I think no matter who is in office after Obama, be it republican or democrat, that they will reverse a large chunk of this bill. Just my two cents.

I think there is a much different debate. A lot of people (concerning gun control) believe that ALL weapons should be banned from civilian use. My personal opinion is to allow all civilians (based on mental and criminal background checks) have weapons but regulate it so that everyone can't own a tank per say. In this case its quite the same as my opinion. No one is trying to state that they want to deny new countries (as in countries who cannot currently produce nuclear weapons) the ability to have a powerful and expansive military, simply that they don't want them to have nuclear weapons. I think 95% of the people who are even pro gun would agree that you wouldn't want people running around with mortars and missile launchers, predators, tanks ect. I agree as a whole with your point that just because you have the right to do something that you will choose to exercise it. Yet very similar to my views on gun control, when you're talking about a power that could destroy the planet (As one nuke fired would not be the only nuke fired, be it from that country or others) you have to take special considerations. Sever, there is a huge difference between: "Christian Nutter: Do you believe in God? Me: No. Christian Nutter: Then you must believe with certainty that he doesn't exist." and "Christian Nutter: I am pretty sure God is real. Me: Wow, that comment assumes God is real. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?" And don't dare say you can't see the difference. As I stated in my above post, your comment was not very indicative of taking the middle ground. Does it absolutely mean you don't take the middle ground? No. But the tone in which you make that statement would, the majority of time, come from someone taking the opposite viewpoint.

Actually, when you read it: If assuming nuclear weapons = bullshit wouldn't assuming no nuclear weapons = not bullshit? I know there is a middle ground, but usually if you're going to take the middle of the road you would say something like: "I don't believe that you can validly state that Iran is, or is not, pursuing nuclear weapons based on the information we have today." Stating: "Wow, that comment assumes Iran wants a nuke and is building one covertly. CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL THE BULLSHIT!?!?!?" In defining very strongly that assuming they are building a weapon is "idiotic"(my own word not yours), if you strongly oppose one side of the argument they will assume you're taking the other side. Of course that coupled with the fact that you have previously asserted (multiple times) that Iran is not planning to build nuclear weapons, I don't believe his assumption is invalid. I would say that the comment alone does not necessarily define that you don't believe they are planning to build a nuke, but the fact that you have already stated that you don't, you can't really take that comment as playing the "middle ground". Oh and the other hand: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm) Oh and for the Turkish president, a direct quote from your article: "Countries with nuclear weapons are not in a position to turn to another country and say: 'You are not supposed to produce nuclear weapons,'" That is kind of a contradiction. In one breath he states that he doesn't want to see weapons in the middle east, but on the other hand he wants them to be able to produce them. I guarantee that whether or not they are trying to today, if there was no U.N. resolution against producing nuclear weapons, Iran would already be producing them today.

Actually, historically assassinations and genocides start wars, not prevent them. My point is that regardless of if they would be breaking the law, the person who puts themselves in a bad situation knowing it's bad is more at fault in my book.

Yes there are people running Iran, but the problem is that you can't hold every person/country up to the same standards of the U.S./Western countries and then act shocked when they do what they've done historically. If I take a vacation to Afghanistan/SA/Iraq and get kidnapped by , it is my fault for putting myself in the situation. If I decide to try to help people out in Darfur/Burma and I get kidnapped/killed, it's my fault for putting myself in that situation. If I go hiking near/in the border of a country that is openly against my country and get kidnapped, it's my fault for putty myself in that situation. I think there is this whole new age movement about "Don't worry about the consequences of your actions" and I was raised under the concept "Don't be a dumb ass" I remember back in college, close to campus there was this park that was always renown for being a very bad place to be. Every 2-3 weeks we'd get a notice of a rape that occurred in the park because some girl would be walking through the park alone at 2:30 in the morning after the bars closed. To me that is completely her fault, based on the "dumb ass" rule. Ultimately you can try to blame everyone else who doesn't hold up to your standards of civility, but the problem is that the world does not work that way. If you willingly put yourself in a situation where you could use a small amount of logic to realize that it is not a good situation to be in and something bad happens to you, it is your fault for putting yourself into that situation to begin with.

I'm by no means stating that Iran is in the "right". I'm stating that these hikers are complete and utter idiots. See I personally set the blame on hikers. I mean that's like know there is this mean dog on the street. He's behind a fence and is known to bite/harm people. Now you decide for giggles to climb that fence. Whoops, you fall off the top into the dogs yard, now you get attacked. To me, the dog isn't to blame, it's the idiot who got close enough to the dog to let it bite him/her. I know there are politics involved that make it more complicated than that, but you're got it coming for messing around near/in a country like Iran.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/10/iran.us.hikers/index.html?hpt=T2 Ok after reading the story, do you find it to be injustice that they're being held, or sheer stupidity on their part? Personally I think you're a plain idiot to be going to Kurdistan and decide that you're going to take a hiking trip to the Iranian border. I don't care if you didn't mean to cross the border, you're a plain idiot for going there in the first place. That is tantamount to driving through the Bronx with the confederate flag painted on the side of your car and looking for sympathy because you were assaulted. Honestly they should be happy to be alive. Iran could have easily just killed them and disposed of the bodies and we never would have known what happened. Now I'm not saying that Iran wouldn't welcome (on some level) travelers from the U.S., through legal means, but if you enter any country in the Middle East illegally, intentionally or not, you have a death wish.

Wait...to go along with that... ...and the Jews are renown for controlling the media...so the Jews are the heart of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!!?!?!! Maybe Hitler was right...damn Jews. I say we go all Jihad on them, where all my mujahideen at?

Politically - I'm not actually sure how you can be "politically" American, short of voting on American politics. In that case all you need is legal citizenship in the U.S. and to be over the age of 18. I really don't think politics in American culture are that different from other cultures (as a whole). Inherently - Well this is a very relative concept as you could argue that you are inherently American if you are raised in the culture even if you are not a citizen (on a visa or illegal immigrant). Or you could argue that if your parents are "American" but you were not born in the U.S. you're inherently American as you will learn American culture from your parents. Genetically - You can't be genetically American. American, as I believe you're referring to, is a culture. There is no way to be genetically aligned with a culture. Natural born citizen - Well this simply makes you a citizen of the U.S. not a necessarily part of the American culture. In fact if you watched any of the Olympics, there was an American figure skater who was given citizenship in Georgia so she could skate for them in the Olympics. Officially she is a Georgian citizen, but she is not a Georgian by culture. She is still an American in reference to her culture. Non-natural born citizen - All this necessarily means is that you were not actually birthed in the U.S. If you are British but have a work Visa here and have a child, the child is an American citizen. Nationality - You are American by nationality simply if you are a U.S. citizen. If you are not a U.S. citizen, you cannot have an "American" nationality. Native tongue - Well being there is no language called American I think this is yet again a very relative concept. You can speak "Americanized" English or any of a dozen languages but I don't think that defines you as part of the "American" culture. Ultimately trying to define, or more so stereotype any groups of behaviors as being "American" is nearly impossible. America has one of the most vastly diversified cultures of any country in the world. In fact I would dare say that we have the most diverse culture. There really are no values that are necessary to be present or absent to be American. I feel just as the United States of America is made up of many states working together and yet separately, that the "American" culture is made up of many cultures all together and yet at the same time distinctly separate from each other. I would guarantee that 95% of the American stereotypes would not have any statistical backing. lol Now if I'm not mistaken, isn't it proven that throughout the royalty in Europe there was a very close tie with incest to keep the royal bloodlines strong and for political gain? Just sayin...at least in America our incest is limited to West Virginia

I don't believe the government organized it. I do believe, much like pearl harbor, that they knew it was coming (maybe not to the full extent) yet allowed it to happen because of the aftermath they wanted. Remember when you're talking conspiracy theories and Ahmadinejad, he believes that the holocaust wasn't real and is simply a giant conspiracy.

the only other way would have been that you made the 11k in bigger paychecks over a short period of time and you made the 17k over a bunch of small paychecks or multiple jobs. Either that or your deductions are actually f'd up. Also it's been a while since I've been a dependent, but it does mean you lost out on things like the $400 making work pay credit and the like.

Root, you did your taxes wrong. The only way you can possibly be that different on your taxes is if your deductions were adjusted to take out considerably less, or someone claimed you as a dependent on your taxes this year and did not last year. (There are other things as if you took certain credits pertaining to college or the like last year and not this year but I'm talking under a simplistic manner)

No no no. This is your first mistake. The Catholic religion does not require this. As I've stated before, Christianity (as it is the religion at the heart of this matter) does not require "unwavering faith" in their teachings, the bible or God. It is taught that questioning your faith is not wrong but natural. Also, even the bloody Pope doesn't take the literal meaning of the Bible and dictate it as law. The last 3 Popes have talked of the bible and that there are many interpretations and that there is not necessarily a supreme meaning as such. You are terribly misguided on your idea of religion. The only sects of religion that require the aforementioned are the radical ones. Wrong again. Every Christian, like any other person has varying levels of beliefs. Simply the fact that I believe there are...11? recognized "sects" of Christianity, some with vastly differing ideas substantiates that. If you go further, even within those sects you will find vastly different ideals. I again state that it is impossible to have anything "infect your every thought" and that if it comes close you are actually clinically insane, as in have a serious mental disorder. Ultimately I'm arguing with a brick wall. You have an extremely outlandish position that you can only solidify based on your own "personal experience" concerning people whom you have stated many times that you dislike, that is extraordinarily illogical. If anyone else had posted the same "argument" based on another topic, you would attack it until the topic died. Honestly I can say that although I've disagreed with you on many things, you at least post a logical argument. I do have to say this is the most illogical argument you have ever posted. As such, debating this issue is simply a waste of time.

Can you please provide a source for this? Could you even provide one documented case of the above? In fact I dare you to try to think of one thing in concurrence with every thought you have for a day. I bet you don't last an hour before you slip and think of something without your tie in. It is impossible for you to know that unless you were either psychic or it was reflected in every single one of their actions. Do you disagree? In fact even if it were reflected in all of their actions you would have no way to tell that they don't have nonreligious thoughts they don't act on. Also ironic that in one breath you claim that you don't need actions to define you as religious but: Not going to church is a supporting fact for people being nonreligious when you state it, but on the other hand when I state it, it's utter rubbish? Regardless my assertion that you are referring to a vast minority still holds true.

I'd love to find a single person who acts/thinks this way. Ultimately if your actions don't match your thoughts you are not religious. If you think really hard about going to church but never go, that does not make you religious. If you think really hard about not sinning, but still do, that doesn't make you religious. If you think about saying a prayer yet you don't, that doesn't make you religious. If I thought about going to work on time, but I didn't, I'm still tardy no matter what my thoughts were. Over 90% of Americans act against your concept of being devoted to their religion, so I would daresay that you can very easily make the correlation that a very small minority of people actually fit your concept of being religious.

Well how can you determine that religion has infected everyone of their thoughts if it is not shown by their actions? Are you psychic? Very easily. To be devoted to your religion does not mean that your religion affects every one of your thoughts. I am faithfully devoted to my wife, yet that does not mean every thought I have involves my wife. In a more pragmatic manner, how does someone's religion infect the thought if they should eat an apple or orange? If they should live in a house in this city, or that city? If they should work for this company or that? If they should shower before lunch or after? If they drive a standard or automatic? If they should work out at the gym or watch TV? If they should vote to repave roads or if they shouldn't? If they should take dance class or Karate? I mean honestly I would say that the majority of all of your decisions, unless you are one of the clergy are devoid of religion. Simply basing it off America, 90% of American's admit to having premarital sex. That means that at least 90% of American's are not religious by your definition. If you survey that 10%, I guarantee that they regularly commit some other sin that goes against Christianity. So you're basically only including a very small percentage. Unless you're saying that you only need to "think" religious and not "act" religious to be religious.

That's Merriam Webster, mainstream enough for you? No where, in any definition of religious does it come remotely close to "infecting every thought in a persons brain". I don't see how "infecting every thought in a persons brain" can not be deemed radical no matter if you're talking about teletubbies, sports, religion, ect. That is radical. I would say that the only way you could kill someone in the name of your religion is if your religion is extremely influencing your thoughts. Or you were being paid handsomely to do so. There is a stark difference from being devoted to your beliefs and having your faith permeate every thought. How can you disagree with that? I don't even know how anything religion or not could even remotely start to infect every one of your thoughts. Firstly why do you have to go to church to be religious? Remember there are multiple sects of Christianity where piety is taken to many different levels. Second I have already amended my comments concerning the fact that I was being facetious to your facetious comment with something very well defined. As I doubt you will find many people who "thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science". I can't believe you were being serious with that one. My statement was applied to the "whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science" part. That part accounts for the majority. It really seems the only people who have to think about God are the agnostics. Most people simply believe or don't, there usually is not much hesitation, unless they feel it's social unacceptable in their current setting. I will state my stand yet again adding even more definition for you, You cannot stereotype all religious persons as having religion infect every thought in their brain because of the actions of a small few ..., any more than you could classify all Muslim's as radicals based on the actions of suicide bombers. Simply because someone belongs to a religion does not mean that every thought in their brain is infected by their religion.

But you cannot bend the definition of a word to fit your concept. Religious and fanatical are not tied together. Yes a religious person can be fanatical, yet a fanatic can be nonreligious. There, like anything are many degrees of being religious, fanatic being a very minor and extreme. That is what I'm saying, let me make it further clear and to exclude a particular religion, as you're still trying to pick on syntax. You cannot stereotype all religious persons as radical because of the actions of a small few radicals any more than you could classify all Muslim's as radicals based on the actions of suicide bombers. Simply because someone belongs to a religion does not mean they are a radical. There is a stark difference between being religious and being fanatically religious.

A disagree at all costs? You're turning your individual hatred toward the Christian faith and manifesting it in any way you can. Honestly I don't think any one can argue that the vast majority of people fall out of the "fanatical" religious mentality and inversely only a small amount of people account for that. Simply put you're arguing as if the majority of Christians are fanatical and I don't believe a single person would help substantiate your claim. Regardless of how you bend syntax that is my point. I will reiterate it to make it clear. You cannot stereotype all Christians as radical because of the actions of a small few radicals any more than you could classify all Muslim's as radicals based on the actions of suicide bombers. Simply because someone belongs to a missionary does not mean they are a radical. I hope that makes my stance clear enough for you.

No, I would say your 5% includes sects like Opus Dei, "suicide bombers" and the like. Not to say that someone in a missionary cannot fall into that 5%, but I don't believe the majority do.

Your definition of religion is that of an extremist. There are very few people of any religion that accurately fit into that category. You've just described 95% of the worlds population. Also note to go along with your science idea, some of the best scientists in history were stoutly religious. So I suppose atheist are non people? They've had no religion to define the sort of person they are, so they are no one? I am about as nonreligious of a man as there is and I would say that education is what has defined my opinions. Everything (in a broad sense) you learn helps you define opinions on politics, philosophy and life in general. I've never once made a political, philosophical or any other decision in my life, but as you see I hold many opinions about everything you've stated. Even the majority of pro-lifers don't simply say "oh God doesn't want you aborting babies", it's based on the fact that they believe that once a sperm has fertilized an egg you have a living person. The problem with Islam is that in the Middle East your religion is greatly tied into your law. Simply put you follow most of the constructs of your religion because it is against the law not to do so. Just a simple example, I believe it something like 95% of Americans admit to having pre-marital relations. That is against the Christian faith. Now if you made it illegal to do so and the women would be severely injured, jailed and or killed, I guarantee that number drops like a rock. The fact that our law is not tied to our religion is why our religions are practiced so casually.