patrick.net

ZippyDDoodah says

Does the answer really need to be spelled out for you? Any employer who offered insurance before, did so for a reason - to attract and retain quality employees in order to prevent them from jumping ship to a competitor who offered insurance. Now with federally subsidized insurance, those incentives have been obliterated. Workers and chronically unemployed individuals not covered by an employer plan are incentived not to purchase insurance at all, waiting years until they need it to “buy” it, facing a penalty of only $95/year for not being covered. Perverse incentives to the extreme. But in utopia-world, those added costs from changes in behavior are never considered

If you would spell it out correctly, perhaps. That's not at all how it works. Think it all the way through. Wouldn't an employee want a higher salary if their employer didn't offer insurance? Employer offered insurance will remain an incentive for employees. Don't you think families will want insurance for their kids? Or if they get pregnant?

And I'm not 100% familar with the way the penalties will work, but my guess is that it is considered and you just don't understand it.

Think it all the way through. Wouldn’t an employee want a higher salary if their employer didn’t offer insurance? Employer offered insurance will remain an incentive for employees. Don’t you think families will want insurance for their kids? Or if they get pregnant?

Employee offered insurance used to be a valued benefit, something that would cost the employee on average, about $10k/year if he had to purchase similar insurance coverage out-of-pocket. Now that the govt is offering federally subsidized insurance in which pre-existing conditions cannot be denied, individuals and families can pay a token amount $95 penalty (rising to $695/yr by 2016 with exceptions for hardship cases) and then "buy" (many won't have to pay) insurance only when they need it and still be covered, not substantively different than if they had an employer plan. Not much different than paying for auto insurance only for the month when you've had an accident, since individuals only have to pay for insurance when they're receiving treatment. Employer provided insurance will no longer be such a valued incentive for that reason. Worse, there are perverse unintended consequences in play to incentivize employers to drop insurance coverage.. $750 or $3,000 annual penalty per employee for dropping insurance with penalty exemptions for small businesses with under 30 employees (flood of new business created by breaking into 30 employee legal subsidiaries to get that loophole?), a significant savings from what they would have to pay in annual insurance for their employees.

As for your "guess" that I don't understand the penalties, please tell me where I'm mistaken http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-18-health-bill-table_n.htm

First off, I'm not sure I trust USA today to break down a 2000 page bill into a one page chart, but even so it appears to me that you've misread parts of that chart. It's the greater of the fees you listed and 2% of income. Still not a large amount, but in most cases more than $95.

But I still maintain that the vast majority of families want to have health insurance all the time. At least in my family, the kids get sick pretty regularly. It would be ridiculous to continually drop, then reapply, then drop, then reapply for insurance.

We'll see--if there are obvious unintended consequences, I'm guessing that they will get fixed. I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. The bill is not perfect--I agree 100%. But it's a step in the right direction.

tatupu70 says

We’ll see–if there are obvious unintended consequences, I’m guessing that they will get fixed. I’m not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. The bill is not perfect–I agree 100%. But it’s a step in the right direction.

This is a very emotional issue - one that Sarah Palin is exploiting along with the $100,000 she received to speak in Nashville and the cushy travel arrangements she received to incite the crowd in Searchlight. Not to mention the exclusive dinners for high donations...

We're all fucked.

But I still maintain that the vast majority of families want to have health insurance all the time. At least in my family, the kids get sick pretty regularly. It would be ridiculous to continually drop, then reapply, then drop, then reapply for insurance.

Think about it, what would the financial incentive be to maintain insurance all the time, when the government mandates that insurers must cover pre-existing conditions and imposes paltry drop-in-the-bucket penalties for not carrying insurance? If your kids are sick all the time, unless it's a major illness, doctor visits paid in cash + prescriptions shouldn't average over $200 out of pocket a month, maybe less, still way less than a monthly insurance payment. Your employer could give you a $2,000 bonus to pay for incidentals and he'd still come out way ahead, at taxpayers' expense of course.. that's may not be how it was "supposed" to work, but unintended consequences of big govt legislation are inevitable, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. If a serious illness or accident occurs, fine, then you could switch on the insurance for as long as needed. Why would you handle it any differently unless you like wasting money? The government has skewed incentives to an extreme. Most everyone will game the rules to benefit themselves and their families most. And if they do "fix" it, expect other unintended consequences as a result. I've read about these penalties from several sources, not just USA Today, so it's not like they're the only ones reporting it. And their article wasn't supposed to summarize the entire bill, just some of the highlights.

Telling how some focus on Sara Palin while ignoring the other side's emotional appeals bringing in the children, passing out white lab coats and demonizing of political opposition.

I understand what you are saying Zippy--I just don't agree. Have you tried to get a Drs appt recently without insurance? Good luck.

Like I said--if there are unintended consequences, I'm betting that they'll get fixed. It wouldn't be all that difficult really.

ZippyDDoodah says

Telling how some focus on Sara Palin while ignoring the other side’s emotional appeals bringing in the children, passing out white lab coats and demonizing of political opposition.

lol--I think Palin brings it on herself. She is guilty of some of the worst distortions in the whole debate. Neither side has brought distinction on theirselves on this one...

I love it you can debunk the Myths but you supply no facts.

CNN had a link on their page, that said...

"Healthcare Reform, how it effects you."

I expected a bullet of facts, but it was bevy of the milk chuggers, rattling on about how they it's going to benefit them. Which of course this is purely "Speculation" at this point, even for those poor saps.

just wondering if anyone has read through parts of the bill, it's H.R.3590, and can comment on the accuracy of the reporting.

HR 3590 is the Senate bill passed in 2009. I've looked at parts of it. The $95 penalty for individuals is dead accurate. In fact, they reduce the penalty based on # of months that you may have paid that year by 1/12 per month. I didn't see any percentage of income in the Senate bill as part of the penalty for individuals not paying for insurance coverage as was reported. If you have something specific to challenge or question Juan, then be specific, because it's a 2,400 page bill.. No one, including the politicians voting on it, could possibly understand all the implications. One reason why a majority of Americans oppose this bill is because it's so long and complicated. It's not straightforward at all. http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Please copy and paste and send to everyone you know.

Copy and paste? Hell, I'll start another thread just to show the outright lies that are being thrown around.

Troy says

The stupid thing is that the only criticisms that carry any weight are those from the left, not the right.
ObamaCare’s mandate-with-subsidies (what is causing the most sand-in-the-vag reaction here) is basically what the f—ing Heritage Foundation was proposing not too long ago:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-heritage-and-health-care/
And of course it’s a lot like RomneyCare.
Most of this song and dance has been by the establishment to avoid any actual radical reform (single payer or the public option that would lead to single payer). The public has in fact been mau mau’d to accept something less than what we could have gotten with all three policy elements in Democratic hands.

Ah yes, good ol Paul Krugman. The man can't make a coherent argument or stick to one stance for more than a few weeks or months. This is the man who said (paraphrasing here) healthcare is different, its not a standard commodity or effected by normal supply and demand. This is silly utopian feel good nonsense. It doesn't even consider the hypocrisy that medical providers (docs, nurses etc.) should be held to a certain standard of pay but everyone else who busts their hump and earns more cash for said hard work is not a selfish jerk? Joe/Jane Average decides to leave a job thats a deadend for one that pays more or has less travel or less hours or a better chance of advancement but John/Judy Average goes into the medical field, well we should just force altruism on them. How dare they want to profit from their hard work. Krugman should donate the cash from his Nobel prize instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor.

As for Heritage, yeah no one ever makes mistakes. Romneycare (he walks it back and forth depending on the news cycle) appears to be anything but stable financially or providing decent care.

My main point anymore regarding HCR/Obamacare besides the "no more money left to pay for it" is the government mandate. I've heard the line for most of my 32 years that its "her body, her choice" regarding abortion/reproductive rights along with the mantra "get your sexist hands off my body!". Now I'm supposed to buy into the line that Uncle Sam knows better than me and will look out for me? My body, my choice. Get government hands off my body. I supposedly a sexist pig asshole if I tell Nancy Pelosi how to deal with her reproductive rights but her mandating healthcare insurance and coverage regs is just fine?

AltonS says

Now I’m supposed to buy into the line that Uncle Sam knows better than me and will look out for me? My body, my choice. Get government hands off my body.

You're free to choose any f---ing insurance plan you want. If you already have a health insurance coverage this bill is a nothing-burger, other than some side benefits like recission and preexisting conditions (making it much easier to transition from one plan to another), and some negatives as insurances companies raise rates to match the increased presence of medically needy people in their pools.

When I was laid off in 2008 one of the first things I did was shop for health insurance.

NOT having any sort of health insurance in your 30s and 40s may be freedom, but if that's the kind of freedom you libertarians insist on then count me a card-carrying communist because your ideology sucks.

Regarding insurance company profits, don't forget the oft ignored fact that despite sharing a name, they usually are not joined at the hip between state and regions. Bluecross of Tenessee is not the same company as Bluecross of Oregon/Washington. Some of them are not for profit companies too. Thats not to say I trust insurance companies but studying history, I have come to trust governments far far less.

Troy says

AltonS says

Now I’m supposed to buy into the line that Uncle Sam knows better than me and will look out for me? My body, my choice. Get government hands off my body.

You’re free to choose any f—ing insurance plan you want. If you already have a health insurance coverage this bill is a nothing-burger, other than some side benefits like recission and preexisting conditions (making it much easier to transition from one plan to another), and some negatives as insurances companies raise rates to match the increased presence of medically needy people in their pools.
When I was laid off in 2008 one of the first things I did was shop for health insurance.
NOT having any sort of health insurance in your 30s and 40s may be freedom, but if that’s the kind of freedom you libertarians insist on then count me a card-carrying communist because your ideology sucks.

You seem to ignore the fact that the government will have to approve of all plans offered. If I don't report that I have an approved plan or refuse to tell the gov. my status, I get fined. Given the huge bill, who knows exactly whats going to happen. Odds are my current plan will change somewhat. I already knew price hikes were coming this year, I expect they will next year as well despite cost reductions being a major selling point. I self insure and I will likely stay that way (lucky I can afford it definately). I've never liked insurance being tied to a job, it makes no sense anymore.

AltonS says

You seem to ignore the fact that the government will have to approve of all plans offered. If I don’t report that I have an approved plan or refuse to tell the gov. my status, I get fined.

oh noes. You libertarians make the most stupidest arguments on the internet.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/derek-kieper-individual-rights-buckle-under-seat-belt-laws-1.998553

"The duty of government is nothing more than to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and not infringed upon. Uncle Sam is not here to regulate every facet of life no matter the consequences."

vs.

http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

twelc says

Here’s a sample of what is included in Federal Health Care Reform:
Thomas Edwards, editor of The River Cities Tribune, was contacted to get
legal permission to quote David Kithil’s comments. Permission was
granted, so here are excerpts from the article, giving EXACT pages and
paragraphs in the bill and why it is so bad.
hits everything right on the head, and the opposition you may encounter
cannot argue over these points:
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
“I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable
that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill
loaded with so many wrong-headed elements.
We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to
make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us
believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than
the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program?
“Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial
mess of those two programs.
“I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is
estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees
will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion
of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are
going to hire 150,000 new employees, let’s put them to work protecting
our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law
enforcement/firefighters out there.”
NOW, here comes the good stuff:
JUDGE KITHIL continued: “Other problems I have with this bill include:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S.
residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic
fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government)
for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
(such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be
treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with
that?)
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of
specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.
** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to
the patient’s age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital
expansion;however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning
consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an
“end-of-life planning” seminar every five years.
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can
write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
“Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members
of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social
Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their
retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe
they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for
the future.”
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas
…and more…
Obama included a revision to the healthcare bill that provides hime with his very own private army…didn’t see THAT coming:
http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=3549&sms_ss=facebook
Please copy and paste and send to everyone you know.

Just for future reference--Anything that ends with either please forward to everyone you know or please copy and paste and send to everyone you know is probably a lie.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/frazer.asp

twelc: you cut & pasted this in multiple threads, and I'm sure that you forwarded this to everyone that you know. We get it, you buy into the hype that the bill is bad. If we all agree that you know how to cut & paste, will you stop cutting & pasting this particular thread? It waters down your message, if you have one.

Every muslim isn't a terrorist. Every white guy from the south isn't a white supremecist. Every jewish person isn't wealthy. Every catholic priest isn't a child molester. Shall I go on?

Your rant is duly noted. You hate muslims, from what I can tell. Otherwise, why would you take the time to cut & paste (and we're so proud you know how to search for something that supports your point of view, and cut & paste it here!) something that is so blatently hateful?

So far as I can tell, no Scientologists were present for any of these historic moments. Do you blame them for 9/11 too?

This is not a conservative or liberal issue. This is a wing nut issue.

Wing nut? What a salty answer!

When I read it, I was sitting on the beech in Brazil. They charge extra for the drinks - but you don't realize it until they cashew out. It would be oak-kay, but the way the drinks down there make you pecan really cause you problems.

Please notice I left out the political reference to Acorn. :)

No cracks about nuts please since that's not suite.
I'd like to post meatier comments but I'm relaxing and listening to an old Allman brothers record, which I had to shell out for by trading a Planter. I had to barter cause unfortunately I work for peanuts and didn't squirrel anything away. But right now I gotta go to the can and take a pistachio.

You're very silly. (that's all I've got)

Call me un-PC, but the Koran and Mohammed's own example clearly encourage violence against non-Muslims. The bible does say some nasty things too, but Jesus didn't kill anyone. Mohammed killed a lot of people.

Most Muslims are fine human beings, but that's because most of them don't take Islam too literally. The minority who are more honest about Islam are the problem. They know exactly what it instructs them to do and they intend to do it.

There is a deep conflict in western society about tolerance. Should tolerance include tolerance of intolerance? Sounds crazy, but it's a really important question.

And if you start to point out that Islam causes violence, you might have to look at these factors at the bible too, even if they are weaker there. Uncomfortable for many.

It appears that Obama was being a politician in this instance. Politicians are in the business of placating. It's their stock and trade. Especially when on foreign soil.

And if you start to point out that Islam causes violence

Islam doesn't cause violence. Nutjobs and/or life pressures cause violence. Islam has sufficient textual and historical teaching to support a violent way of life, but so does Christianity, as the recent events concerning our home-grown "Hutaree" in Michigan attest

There's like a billion f--ing muslims in this world so we're going to have to learn to live with 'em. Our friends on the right harbor sociopathic holocaust desires that would give Himmler a stiffy but it's simply impossible to wipe out a billion people. Leave one or two with the knowledge and tools alive, and they can return the favor.

I lean toward the theory that a f---ed islam is caused by a f---ed society, not the other way around. Kurdish Christians got in the news last decade for stoning a girl who dared to date outside their religion (it was videoed on a phone).

Just recently the thought occurred to me that WWs I and II occurred due to insufficient socialization between the war powers. In WW I the major states had grown-up war toys but a childish view of their place in history and warfare. WW I disabused most in that, but a second helping of war was necessary to fully drive the point home.

The story of this century might, hopefully, be a continued socialization of the various traditions. Before there was a term for it, I thought "Soft Power" was America's greatest strength. I have faith in our institutions and mores -- that they are effective and basically empirically the best things going.

Funny thing, the warmongers to my right don't share this faith in culture. They want to f--k people's shit up too. I think this can cause more problems than it solves.

# Limit Congress from serving more than two terms. That is all that presidents are allowed.

Yeah, maybe. I could go for term limits, but I don't think that would address the larger problem of campaign finance.

# Stop Congress from voting for their own raises. How did that ever get started?

This is kind of, you know, a matter of public record. Congress doesn't vote for "their own" raises either, by the way -- they vote for raises for their successors, which are frequently themselves. You could let their pay stagnate, certainly, but then you'd just see more bribes.

# Stop paying for lawmakers’ high-priced insurance premiums. After all, they are only part-time employees. They might pass some law changes on the insurance companies, if they had to find one.

How do you figure that they're "part-time employees"? You think that a congressman's job is limited to the time he's sitting in the chamber?

# Stop paying lawmakers their full salary after serving just one term, or at retirement. We need to get rid of that pension plan; they’ve let other companies get rid of theirs. You were lucky to get 40 to 50 percent of your salary after working somewhere for 35 years, but they get 100 percent.

Where on earth did this lie come from? Congressional pension doesn't work this way at all -- it's a scaled system, just like most private pension plans. If you retire before 62, you need at least 20-25 years of service.

# Make Congress pay into the Social Security system. They make laws for it. If they spent some of their own money, they might be interested in making it solvent.

Why do you believe that they don't? Congress has been required to pay into social security since 1984, when the CSRS (an equivalent program for government employees) was ended.

# Stop handing out aid to illegal aliens. If we did, then Medicaid and the food stamp program would have enough money to aid the aged and the poor.

Please show me one example of an illegal alien receiving medicaid or food stamps (or really any federal handout). Yes, Some STATES (like California and Texas) choose to give aid to illegal immigrants. That doesn't have much to do with federal programs though.

# Secure our borders.

And how would you propose to do that?

# Stop allowing babies born to illegal aliens in the United States automatic U.S. citizenship.

Yeah, lets rewrite citizenship to suit our arbitrary definition, since our ancestors had to come to america on a BOAT, and these guys only have to walk through deserts. Oh, but our ancestors weren't brown so I guess it's OK.

# Stop the abuse of our benevolent welfare system. We feed children free meals three times a day until they are 17. Churches give away good, clean clothes. Companies buy and donate school supplies. Emergency rooms provide health care at taxpayer expense and the food stamp program is buying food at home. What are parents doing for their children?

Fuck children!

# Have a computer program that cross checks Social Security numbers with fingerprints to stop fraud on many fronts. Use it on voter registration, too.

Holy crap, there's a magic system to stop fraud using only social security numbers and fingerprints? (do you know anything about fraud detection?)

# Stop bailing out mortgage companies and banks that give loans to people who cannot afford them.

# Stop companies from paying CEOs and other executives outrageous salaries and bonuses while doing away with workers’ pensions.

Yeah, stop meddling with the private sector -- and while you're at it, make more rules for the private sector!

# Stop all unnecessary spending so we will have the money for our nation’s security, and to help needy and elderly Americans.

In other words:

"Cut every program except for the military, medicare, and social security, even though those three programs are 90% of the federal budget"

Fucking clueless.

# Stop permitting anyone to have a photo with their face covered on driver’s licenses.

Yeah, and fuck privacy too!

Troy says

Islam has sufficient textual and historical teaching to support a violent way of life, but so does Christianity

No, that's wrong. Islam explicitly and repeatedly, in both word and example of the founder, calls for the murder of those who, say, insult Mohammed. Official stories of Mohammed's life include the murders of the 100-year old man and the pregnant woman who each mocked Mohammed in poetry. It's hyper-violent. Not just a minor or "sufficient textual" thing.

Christianity is just the opposite, with "turn the other cheek" and Jesus forgiving those who insulted and then killed him, and preventing the crowd from stoning the prostitute, for example. The Kurds who stoned that girl were not following Jesus' example for sure.

I'm not religious at all, but the difference is huge. Islam literally means submission. As in "submit or we'll kill you."

Scripture refers to Christ as the "Prince of Peace." Nowhere is there any reference or teaching in the NT where Jesus or his disciples prescribes violence. Christ's kingdom is of a spiritual nature and is clearly stated as such. Islam on the other hand is a conquering religion where its followers are forced to obey with the real threat of death over their heads if they do not. The oppressive governmental systems that Islam produces is the antithesis of freedom of the individual.

It seems that Islam is or has become more or less a political movement rather than a religion. And Christianity seems to be headed in the same direction.
I have no idea what the Agnostics are up to in this regard.

mikey says

It seems that Islam is or has become more or less a political movement rather than a religion. And Christianity seems to be headed in the same direction.
I have no idea what the Agnostics are up to in this regard.

When I think about the vile lance that pierced my muslin this morning, I feel a surge of rage and I slam my fist down in protest. Religion and politics seem to agnostics as one in the same like my friend Jesus Garcia told me. Dj'you wish a plague to fall on others during this time of Passover? If so you are in denial while swimming with crocodiles.

Twelc, great post. One thing Norma forgot would be to force all "elected officials" to be on the same health care "system" they are forcing on the rest of us.

Elected Official = a politician with ethics deficit disorder.

Honest Abe says

Twelc, great post. One thing Norma forgot would be to force all “elected officials” to be on the same health care “system” they are forcing on the rest of us.

Please explain how they are not.

My employer pays for (most of) my health insurance. My congressman's employer pays for his health insurance. We get treated at the same hospitals where they perform the same procedures.

I can't tell if these fucking idiotic arguments are being made by smart people who are trying to fool stupid people, or by stupid people who just don't know what they're talking about.

mikey says

It seems that Islam is or has become more or less a political movement rather than a religion. And Christianity seems to be headed in the same direction.

I have no idea what the Agnostics are up to in this regard.

We mostly wish the religious people would shut the hell up.

Christianity is just the opposite, with “turn the other cheek” and Jesus forgiving those who insulted and then killed him, and preventing the crowd from stoning the prostitute, for example. The Kurds who stoned that girl were not following Jesus’ example for sure.

I’m not religious at all, but the difference is huge. Islam literally means submission. As in “submit or we’ll kill you.”

...and yet isn't it ironic that its christian troops who are continuously invading and occupying muslim countries?... Those Muslim countries sure have been dealt a shitty hand by all the christian cheek turning that's been going on for the past several decades.

As for the "Would our president lie" dingle-berry, check the history books over the previous two terms and get back to me.

also, this article by Chris Hedges seems appropriate here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25100.htm

"Left unchecked, the hatred for radical Islam will transform itself into a hatred for Muslims. The hatred for undocumented workers will become a hatred for Mexicans and Central Americans. The hatred for those not defined by this largely white movement as American patriots will become a hatred for African-Americans. The hatred for liberals will morph into a hatred for all democratic institutions, from universities to government agencies to the press. Our continued impotence and cowardice, our refusal to articulate this anger and stand up in open defiance to the Democrats and the Republicans, will see us swept aside for an age of terror and blood."

Kevin says

We mostly wish the religious people would shut the hell up.

Try living in Utah for awhile!

twelc says

“Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial
mess of those two programs.
“I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is
estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees
will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion
of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are
going to hire 150,000 new employees, let’s put them to work protecting
our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law
enforcement/firefighters out there.”

So we ought to put 150k people at the borders and fighting the impossible war on drugs instead of providing healthcare. Do you see it more so important to keep Mexican people out of our country than to improve our healthcare system? Dont you think the war on drugs is as lost a cause as prohibition?

elliemae says

Every muslim isn’t a terrorist. Every white guy from the south isn’t a white supremecist. Every jewish person isn’t wealthy. Every catholic priest isn’t a child molester. Shall I go on?
Your rant is duly noted. You hate muslims, from what I can tell. Otherwise, why would you take the time to cut & paste (and we’re so proud you know how to search for something that supports your point of view, and cut & paste it here!) something that is so blatently hateful?
So far as I can tell, no Scientologists were present for any of these historic moments. Do you blame them for 9/11 too?

Geez...your going hard on TWELC and his white power movement. I think he is a member of the angry white peoples party: REPUBLICAN

Troy says

Islam has sufficient textual and historical teaching to support a violent way of life, but so does Christianity

No, that’s wrong. Islam explicitly and repeatedly, in both word and example of the founder, calls for the murder of those who, say, insult Mohammed. Official stories of Mohammed’s life include the murders of the 100-year old man and the pregnant woman who each mocked Mohammed in poetry. It’s hyper-violent. Not just a minor or “sufficient textual” thing.
Christianity is just the opposite, with “turn the other cheek” and Jesus forgiving those who insulted and then killed him, and preventing the crowd from stoning the prostitute, for example. The Kurds who stoned that girl were not following Jesus’ example for sure.
I’m not religious at all, but the difference is huge. Islam literally means submission. As in “submit or we’ll kill you.”

However, the Pope did send in millions of crusaders to "defend" the Jesus movement during the crusades. All of this was done in Jesus name, so neither group is safe from the hypocrisy of their past or present. I refute both religions based on the fact that if you put people in a desperate enough situation they will revert to animal like behaviours.

The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, pagan Balts, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, often called an indulgence.

4X says

Troy says

Islam has sufficient textual and historical teaching to support a violent way of life, but so does Christianity

No, that’s wrong. Islam explicitly and repeatedly, in both word and example of the founder, calls for the murder of those who, say, insult Mohammed. Official stories of Mohammed’s life include the murders of the 100-year old man and the pregnant woman who each mocked Mohammed in poetry. It’s hyper-violent. Not just a minor or “sufficient textual” thing.
Christianity is just the opposite, with “turn the other cheek” and Jesus forgiving those who insulted and then killed him, and preventing the crowd from stoning the prostitute, for example. The Kurds who stoned that girl were not following Jesus’ example for sure.
I’m not religious at all, but the difference is huge. Islam literally means submission. As in “submit or we’ll kill you.”

However, the Pope did send in millions of crusaders to “defend” the Jesus movement during the crusades. All of this was done in Jesus name, so neither group is safe from the hypocrisy of their past or present. I refute both religions based on the fact that if you put people in a desperate enough situation they will revert to animal like behaviours.
The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, pagan Balts, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, often called an indulgence.

So, in a Christian opinion....is it also to sin if you murder Muslims, right?