Obama gets SwiftBoated

[Shanti418]

People in general will grow up to do good things - why? because when somthing bad happens in life, u dont like it, so people tend not to emulate it on others unless they have mentall issues - basis sociology 101 there.

True enough, although that's more Pavlovian than anything. Sociology 101 would also give scads of examples of people who had bad things happen to them and then they DO emulate it. Like a guy who grows up in an abusive home who then grows up to beat his wife, or someone who is molested at a young age has a higher probability of being a sex offedner.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Obviously.

My point is that we learn how to behave, billions of people have, and you do not need religion to be 'good' - if anything, if you do need religion, to be 'good' than you have serious social issues.

[Professor Smooth]

I make precious little distinction between Obama's brand of faith and Bush's. Both are potentially dangerous.

In other words, "If you're not WITH the atheists, you're against us!"

Obviously. And I'm not joking.

[sprunkner]

Well three cheers for dogmatism in all forms. As long as you're right, it's okay to be exclusivist and narrow-minded.

[Leatherneck]

I'm gonna skip the quoting and just kinda go off of memory from the posts..


What would be the problem with the real world dictating what is taught instead of BS No Child Left Behind garbage? Would it be so terrible if kids learned useful stuff instead of half the crap I had forced down my throat in high school? Would a mandatory business & money management class be so horrible in place of reading comp XXXI? How about if teachers were let go and hired like in the real world; in a performance based system? Would that be bad? I had my share of piss poor teachers; and while i loved their classes, I didn't learn anything useful in them.

If people didn't have a government funded never ending safety net to fall into every year for six months [see unemployment.] perhaps they'd work a bit harder or do something they're good at. Is abandoning welfare and unemployment the best course of action? As much as I'd like it to be, it isn't. But throwing money at people for... well, basically the [composite word including 'f*ck'] of it... that's not the solution.


The US's healthcare system has produced the -best doctors in the world- and attracts doctors of similar caliber. I'd rather take out a second mortgage on my house to pay for surgery from the best than have the government pay for it and get some third rate, c+ in med school doctor... after waiting 6 months. That's how this kinda thing works; the best go to the money. Sorry, but if Doctor Smooth can get $50 bucks for slicing someone open or $100 he's sticking with the c note.


And, on the religion thing, Smooth covered it. Seriously, religion grew out of a fear of the unknown because science wasn't yet able to explain things, and in some respects, still can't. There's NO reason that a logical, sane person can believe that Jesus turned water into wine with a flick of the wrist. Or that he can look at you, touch you, and cure your leprosy/blindness.

[Shanti418]

What would be the problem with the real world dictating what is taught instead of BS No Child Left Behind garbage? Would it be so terrible if kids learned useful stuff instead of half the crap I had forced down my throat in high school? Would a mandatory business & money management class be so horrible in place of reading comp XXXI?

There's no problem with specialized training. I think an increase of vocational school, or "career path" schooling, like what's employed in some other countries, is part of a solution.
But a mandatory buisness class in place of English? That's just silly. For millions of students, a buisness class would be just as useless and unwanted as the English classes which you feel were so unneeded in your case.

How about if teachers were let go and hired like in the real world; in a performance based system? Would that be bad? I had my share of piss poor teachers; and while i loved their classes, I didn't learn anything useful in them.

Well, I'm pretty sure that teachers ARE hired and fired, and I would imagine that it has something to do with their performance.
Again, the problem is, looking at education through a free market, capitalist lens, school is not out to make a profit, nor should it be. It's there to teach, not to make money. So as a result, our culture has no way to qualify teaching to the point where teaching is a lucrative enough profession to attract high quality teachers across the board. Simply put, there aren't a lot of great teachers because teaching doesn't pay enough, and teachers don't pay enough for a multitude of reasons, like the fact that people think teaching is easy, or the fact that it's a female dominated profession (It's statistically proven that professions where females are the majority make less than male dominated professions, and even past that, male teachers eventually cluster at higher paying jobs, like high school/college teachers, or administrators of a school), or the fact that because it doesn't make a profit people can't justify paying well (Policemen, firefighters, and the like make more than teachers only because we can understand their training and our need for them better), plus the fact that our government has been dominated by small government conservatives (the non neocon conservatives) for the last two decades, so when you're shrinking the budgets that the US educational system gets, that means less teachers with less resources and the ones that are there don't have any incentive to be any better because it won't result in a higher salary generally.

If people didn't have a government funded never ending safety net to fall into every year for six months [see unemployment.] perhaps they'd work a bit harder or do something they're good at. Is abandoning welfare and unemployment the best course of action? As much as I'd like it to be, it isn't. But throwing money at people for... well, basically the **** of it... that's not the solution.

People WANT to work. People on welfare HAVE to work. It's require to recieve welfare. And what if peopole DIDN'T have a safety net to fall into in these days of temporary employment, massive layoffs, and Service Industry America? The second they don't have a job, they should be out on the streets? I'm not saying there aren't freeloaders on the system, but they are in a minority. Most people want to have jobs and to make their own money. How is it that European countries have SOOOO much more of a social welfare state than we do, yet the employed or able don't curse those who have fallen on hard times for stealing their money?

The US's healthcare system has produced the -best doctors in the world- and attracts doctors of similar caliber. I'd rather take out a second mortgage on my house to pay for surgery from the best than have the government pay for it and get some third rate, c+ in med school doctor... after waiting 6 months. That's how this kinda thing works; the best go to the money. Sorry, but if Doctor Smooth can get $50 bucks for slicing someone open or $100 he's sticking with the c note.

And so those who don't own a house should basically suffer and/or die for their lack of money? Don't you think modern medicine has advanced far enough, your great capitalist machine has created enough production and lowered enough costs to where now, like other countries, America could make basic Health Care a RIGHT instead of a priviledge? "That's how this kinda thing works" shows a basic lack of imagination and blind acceptance to the status quo.

The US health care system is good at advance, complicated, highly technical health care. It's not so good as fixing broken bones, treating the flu, or providing medicine at a reasonable cost. Again, just like teaching, Health Care is based on CARING FOR HEALTH. The Hippocratic Oath. Stuff like that. NOT profits.

Another thing: People are always like, "Doctors HAVE to charge an arm and a leg because they have to pay off med school!" And the conclusion usually drawn from that is that Doctors should charge an arm and a leg instead of maybe Doctors shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg in loans that hangs over them like a dark cloud for med school. In other countries, Doctors are just another middle class profession, like manager or architect or carpenter. And yet people still go to school to be a doctor, people still have a high degree of respect for the medical profession, and doctors still give out care to the maximum amount of patients. You know why? Becasue the Doctors care more about curing people than maximizing their profits.

And I don't mean to get up in the grill of Doctors: I know their hands are tied to the HMOs, which are the REAL problem.

And, on the religion thing, Smooth covered it. Seriously, religion grew out of a fear of the unknown because science wasn't yet able to explain things, and in some respects, still can't. There's NO reason that a logical, sane person can believe that Jesus turned water into wine with a flick of the wrist. Or that he can look at you, touch you, and cure your leprosy/blindness.

Actually there IS a reason, and that reason is faith. If a logical, sane person could do something more than believe (like, for example prove) that Jesus turned water into wine, or cured blindness, then ALL the logical, sane people could see that Jesus had extraordinary powers, and people would begin to believe in him, not because they BELIEVED, but because it's been proven, which would be a lot less sexy.

Also, that doesn't do anything towards explaining how the fact that Barack Obama is a non-atheist makes him unfit for the presidency.


On a related note, speaking of miracles, I saw a pretty cool show on Moses parting the Dead Sea. It turns out, instaed of him just kinda wandering over to the seas and having them part, Moses knew the area intimately well, and was aware that the Dead Sea was EXTREMELY shallow and resembled more a marsh than a sea, and that periodically, it receeded. So he basically had his people walk through the Dead Marsh once it receeded a bit. The pursuers went in after them, but instead of being swept away by the incoming sea, they simply got bogged down in the muddy marsh when it returned, at which point they said, "Screw this, let's go back to town and have a beer," and slogged out.

[sprunkner]

Word, Shants. Good post. All the stuff I didn't have time to type. Except for that Red Sea thing.

[Leatherneck]

What would be the problem with the real world dictating what is taught instead of BS No Child Left Behind garbage? Would it be so terrible if kids learned useful stuff instead of half the crap I had forced down my throat in high school? Would a mandatory business & money management class be so horrible in place of reading comp XXXI?

There's no problem with specialized training. I think an increase of vocational school, or "career path" schooling, like what's employed in some other countries, is part of a solution.
But a mandatory buisness class in place of English? That's just silly. For millions of students, a buisness class would be just as useless and unwanted as the English classes which you feel were so unneeded in your case.

Perhaps I worded that wrong. Not in place of like, English Comp I or something useful, but after the 15th lit/poetry class... teaching people some good tips in how to take care of their money is more useful than being able to talk about the finer points of The Stranger.

How about if teachers were let go and hired like in the real world; in a performance based system? Would that be bad? I had my share of piss poor teachers; and while i loved their classes, I didn't learn anything useful in them.

Well, I'm pretty sure that teachers ARE hired and fired, and I would imagine that it has something to do with their performance.
Again, the problem is, looking at education through a free market, capitalist lens, school is not out to make a profit, nor should it be. It's there to teach, not to make money. So as a result, our culture has no way to qualify teaching to the point where teaching is a lucrative enough profession to attract high quality teachers across the board. Simply put, there aren't a lot of great teachers because teaching doesn't pay enough, and teachers don't pay enough for a multitude of reasons, like the fact that people think teaching is easy, or the fact that it's a female dominated profession (It's statistically proven that professions where females are the majority make less than male dominated professions, and even past that, male teachers eventually cluster at higher paying jobs, like high school/college teachers, or administrators of a school), or the fact that because it doesn't make a profit people can't justify paying well (Policemen, firefighters, and the like make more than teachers only because we can understand their training and our need for them better), plus the fact that our government has been dominated by small government conservatives (the non neocon conservatives) for the last two decades, so when you're shrinking the budgets that the US educational system gets, that means less teachers with less resources and the ones that are there don't have any incentive to be any better because it won't result in a higher salary generally.

Really? Because generally after 3-5 years, teachers are tenured and it takes nothing short of gross misconduct for them to get the ax. And even then, there are some pretty terrible teachers who earned tenure in my HS and it's in the top 10% in the country, as high schools go.

I think we're on the same page but on opposing sides on the "profit" end of schools. Yes, you're correct in stating that they don't exist to generate wealth for their shareholders. However, the school is being paid [through taxes] to provide a service, and that's what the organization generates. They aren't producing widgets or software, but an education. Hell, most 501(c3)s are run substantially better than schools and they're also not profit driven.

If people didn't have a government funded never ending safety net to fall into every year for six months [see unemployment.] perhaps they'd work a bit harder or do something they're good at. Is abandoning welfare and unemployment the best course of action? As much as I'd like it to be, it isn't. But throwing money at people for... well, basically the **** of it... that's not the solution.

People WANT to work. People on welfare HAVE to work. It's require to recieve welfare. And what if peopole DIDN'T have a safety net to fall into in these days of temporary employment, massive layoffs, and Service Industry America? The second they don't have a job, they should be out on the streets? I'm not saying there aren't freeloaders on the system, but they are in a minority. Most people want to have jobs and to make their own money. How is it that European countries have SOOOO much more of a social welfare state than we do, yet the employed or able don't curse those who have fallen on hard times for stealing their money?

Let's take my brother for example. He's 16 and is off from school for the summer. He "wants" a job, but it has to meet certain criteria: only one day a weekend, not later than like 7 pm and he doesn't want to work more than 30 hours a week. Under welfare law, if he wasn't a dependent of my parents, he would qualify for a welfare check. It's not "working" that's required, it's "pursuing work."

And I was referring to unemployment [those FUTA and SUTA taxes taken out of your paycheck at a low percentage], not welfare. People are eligible to receive unemployment compensation if they are involuntarily terminated from their job [for anything other than gross misconduct] for 6 months after that date. Why? It puts businesses in a crappy position [having to keep people on board who aren't pulling their weight but aren't stealing from the company] and basically says to people "take a 6 month vacation." I know that from first hand experience in talking to the receptionist at [one of] my job[s].

There should never be a need to rely on the government. Don't blow all your money on worthless crap, maybe manage your credit so you aren't paying $200 in interest on your 85 credit cards a month, learn to perhaps invest or at least get CDs instead of just a checking account, etc. I'm 21 and the money I have could carry me for about 9 months without work. And that's maintaining my standard of living, not going delinquent on my credit card/car/etc.

As I said [I think?], look at the election of conservatives in France in the past months. The analysts decided it was a result of people being fed up with the country being a welfare state with its 32 [35?] hour work week, etc.

The US's healthcare system has produced the -best doctors in the world- and attracts doctors of similar caliber. I'd rather take out a second mortgage on my house to pay for surgery from the best than have the government pay for it and get some third rate, c+ in med school doctor... after waiting 6 months. That's how this kinda thing works; the best go to the money. Sorry, but if Doctor Smooth can get $50 bucks for slicing someone open or $100 he's sticking with the c note.

And so those who don't own a house should basically suffer and/or die for their lack of money? Don't you think modern medicine has advanced far enough, your great capitalist machine has created enough production and lowered enough costs to where now, like other countries, America could make basic Health Care a RIGHT instead of a priviledge? "That's how this kinda thing works" shows a basic lack of imagination and blind acceptance to the status quo.

The US health care system is good at advance, complicated, highly technical health care. It's not so good as fixing broken bones, treating the flu, or providing medicine at a reasonable cost. Again, just like teaching, Health Care is based on CARING FOR HEALTH. The Hippocratic Oath. Stuff like that. NOT profits.

Another thing: People are always like, "Doctors HAVE to charge an arm and a leg because they have to pay off med school!" And the conclusion usually drawn from that is that Doctors should charge an arm and a leg instead of maybe Doctors shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg in loans that hangs over them like a dark cloud for med school. In other countries, Doctors are just another middle class profession, like manager or architect or carpenter. And yet people still go to school to be a doctor, people still have a high degree of respect for the medical profession, and doctors still give out care to the maximum amount of patients. You know why? Becasue the Doctors care more about curing people than maximizing their profits.

And I don't mean to get up in the grill of Doctors: I know their hands are tied to the HMOs, which are the REAL problem.

We're going to go back and forth on this forever, because you expect people to do things out of the goodness of their heart and I expect them to do it for their pockets.

Basic health care is a right as defined by laws that make it illegal to deny emergency treatment. That's what I consider basic health care. Outside of that... what more do you need? To go to the doctor for a skinned knee? Or every cough that lasts two days? I'm so heavily against the idea of socialized medicine in this country because of stuff like that. I was at the ER with a friend a couple of weeks ago and I saw a couple of people sitting there with what looked like nothing more serious than a paper cut and so during our 1983678 year wait, I chatted them up. One got a cut playing with his friends [young kid, maybe 12] and his mom freaked out and brought him to the ER. Left with no stitches, no shots, nothing. Just a bill for mommy, an unnecessary one at that. That would be paid by ME if there was nationalized healthcare. The other was an older-ish woman [40-50 i guess] who nicked herself with a pair of scissors while she was cutting thread while sewing something. ER. Same result as the kid.

Doctors charge a lot because they can, because they're educated and in demand. The same reason that me, as an intern at an accounting firm, has my time billed out at $110/hr, and why lawyers/CPAs/etc. can bill you at $400+/hr. Because our services are in demand and that's the cost that the market has decided is acceptable. Costs go down, demand goes up, and there aren't enough people to fulfill the demand. Works across the board for just about everything that's an economically normal product.

Further, do you really believe that if you go to a hospital, your $50k hip transplant is going straight to the doctor? Of course not. There's costs to cover in materials, time, etc., plus those of the nursing staff, rent on the land, utilities, research, etc. Our medicine didn't get good by not trying new things, things which cost money.

And, on the religion thing, Smooth covered it. Seriously, religion grew out of a fear of the unknown because science wasn't yet able to explain things, and in some respects, still can't. There's NO reason that a logical, sane person can believe that Jesus turned water into wine with a flick of the wrist. Or that he can look at you, touch you, and cure your leprosy/blindness.

Actually there IS a reason, and that reason is faith. If a logical, sane person could do something more than believe (like, for example prove) that Jesus turned water into wine, or cured blindness, then ALL the logical, sane people could see that Jesus had extraordinary powers, and people would begin to believe in him, not because they BELIEVED, but because it's been proven, which would be a lot less sexy.

Also, that doesn't do anything towards explaining how the fact that Barack Obama is a non-atheist makes him unfit for the presidency.


On a related note, speaking of miracles, I saw a pretty cool show on Moses parting the Dead Sea. It turns out, instaed of him just kinda wandering over to the seas and having them part, Moses knew the area intimately well, and was aware that the Dead Sea was EXTREMELY shallow and resembled more a marsh than a sea, and that periodically, it receeded. So he basically had his people walk through the Dead Marsh once it receeded a bit. The pursuers went in after them, but instead of being swept away by the incoming sea, they simply got bogged down in the muddy marsh when it returned, at which point they said, "Screw this, let's go back to town and have a beer," and slogged out.

Sooooooo, I fail to see how this falls into the [your words] miracle category. A dude spent a bunch of time by the water and knew the tides? Wow. Better praise him.

As for the first point you made on the religion thing, I have an image to describe your argument:

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Actually there IS a reason, and that reason is faith. If a logical, sane person could do something more than believe (like, for example prove) that Jesus turned water into wine, or cured blindness, then ALL the logical, sane people could see that Jesus had extraordinary powers, and people would begin to believe in him, not because they BELIEVED, but because it's been proven, which would be a lot less sexy.

yeah,

Faith is not logicall, its the complete opposite to logic - faith requires people to belive in somthing that cannot be proven.
If 'it' can be proven, you would not require faith.

[Shanti418]

Really? Because generally after 3-5 years, teachers are tenured and it takes nothing short of gross misconduct for them to get the ax. And even then, there are some pretty terrible teachers who earned tenure in my HS and it's in the top 10% in the country, as high schools go.

I think we're on the same page but on opposing sides on the "profit" end of schools. Yes, you're correct in stating that they don't exist to generate wealth for their shareholders. However, the school is being paid [through taxes] to provide a service, and that's what the organization generates. They aren't producing widgets or software, but an education. Hell, most 501(c3)s are run substantially better than schools and they're also not profit driven.

RE: First Paragraph - Like I said, part of the problem of replacing below average teachers is that because of the low prestige and salary our society gives teaching, you're most likely going to replace experienced below average teachers with unexperienced average to below average teachers. Plus, IMO, for every teacher fired for having sex with her students or smoking weed with the kids after class, there's a teacher fired for discounting creationism, or teaching about Karl Marx.

RE: Second Paragraph - Exactly. AND, so when your line of thinking bubbles to the surface, when people think, "Hey, I'm putting my tax dollars into education, I want a service put into easily measured, identifiable benchmarks, because I need to see just how "productive" the schools are," THIS is when you get school reduced to standardized tests, because then you have something to show people.
What becomes less important is how educated and intelligent the students are. What become more important is that 75% of them passed some sort of test which shows that their education hasn't been a waste, when really, all their education is is learning how to pass a test.

Let's take my brother for example. He's 16 and is off from school for the summer. He "wants" a job, but it has to meet certain criteria: only one day a weekend, not later than like 7 pm and he doesn't want to work more than 30 hours a week. Under welfare law, if he wasn't a dependent of my parents, he would qualify for a welfare check. It's not "working" that's required, it's "pursuing work."

Yes, the system is not perfect. Yes, there are cracks for freeloaders to get through, although IMO, if you're a 16 year old going to school(fall and spring) and working less than 30 hours a week without anyone claiming you as a dependant, you certainly deserve a welfare check to help you. There ARE certain standards that qualify the phrase "pursuing work," just like those who aren't actively "pursuing work" because they've given up don't count as unemployed as far as the government's concerned, just likethe man who lost his 50K/yr job and now works at Outback Steakhouse and Starbucks is just a man who has two jobs compared to the one before, regardless of income. The point is, though, to say "My 16 year old brother could get welfare even though he's just looking for a summer job! Welfare sucks and is needless!" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And I was referring to unemployment [those FUTA and SUTA taxes taken out of your paycheck at a low percentage], not welfare. People are eligible to receive unemployment compensation if they are involuntarily terminated from their job [for anything other than gross misconduct] for 6 months after that date. Why? It puts businesses in a crappy position [having to keep people on board who aren't pulling their weight but aren't stealing from the company] and basically says to people "take a 6 month vacation." I know that from first hand experience in talking to the receptionist at [one of] my job[s].

The idea of unemployment is this: You lost a job, there's no exact guarentee of you finding a new one the next day, so we're (and by we, I mean fellow American taxpayers) going to help you stay on your feet, because we don't think you should have your entire financial situation/life crash down upon you because a buisness is downsizing.
The idea of corporations keeping bad employees because they're scared of incurring some sort of gigantic unemployment fee is quite a crazy one, but if a receptionist said it, it must be true.
It says to people, "You have up to 6 months to find a new job." And there's nothing wrong with that. YES, there are plenty of people who take that as an invitation to take 6 months off, but that's not a fault of the system, that's a fault of American culture and values.

We are a nation where 125 years ago, it would have been obscene to have a lottery. People believed in earning what you had. People, first and foremost, were workers. The American Dream was building a life through the power and strength of your own character. Self-made men, from Lincoln to Rockefeller, were some people's heroes.
Now, we are a nation where the American Dream is to get rich quick. Win a lottery. Buy some stocks at the right time. Sue a corporation for hot coffee. People believe in getting as much of what you can, as quickly as you can. Reality starts are celebrities. People, first and foremost, are consumers.

There should never be a need to rely on the government. Don't blow all your money on worthless crap, maybe manage your credit so you aren't paying $200 in interest on your 85 credit cards a month, learn to perhaps invest or at least get CDs instead of just a checking account, etc. I'm 21 and the money I have could carry me for about 9 months without work. And that's maintaining my standard of living, not going delinquent on my credit card/car/etc.

Remember, when you say "rely on the government," you're really saying, "rely on other American taxpayers."

I agree that America's spend/buy now, have bad credit later mentality is bad (see a couple paragraphs above), but the idea that most Americans who must rely on the government do so because they're blowing all their money on crap is fallacious. The idea that most Americans (and esp. Americans who rely on government) have enough excess income to stow some away regularly in CDs is fallacious. The idea that, "Well, I'm 21, and I'VE got enough money to last me for 9 months, so why shouldn't everybody?" is fallacious.

Quick question: Why is socialized medicine and unemployment the devil, yet you seem to have no problem with socialized libraries/postal services/police, fire, and other rescue workers/education?

As I said [I think?], look at the election of conservatives in France in the past months. The analysts decided it was a result of people being fed up with the country being a welfare state with its 32 [35?] hour work week, etc.

It's 35 hour. But what's the etc.? Is France fed up with universal health care? Extended maternity leaves and state subsidized day care? 5 weeks of paid vacation a year? I don't think so. Or perhaps so, but the point is, there's more to France's welfare state than "Everyone works less and the government pays for anyone who doesn't want to work."
Let's also not forget that the French presidential election was a runoff, so to say that FRANCE is fed up with a 35 hour work week/welfare state is basically like saying that George W. Bush had a "mandate from the American people" in 2000 or 2004.
Just because France wants to tweak their government and bring it back to the right some doesn't mean that they've collectively rejected social welfare and are dying for some good ol' "Sink or swim" American free market ideology.

We're going to go back and forth on this forever, because you expect people to do things out of the goodness of their heart and I expect them to do it for their pockets.

No, I'm saying that people will do things for reasons OTHER than their pockets. Pockets are fine, but it's not like if Doctors didn't make 6 figures tomorrow, no one would give a s*** about helping the sick and injured. Although my original argument was somewhat wrong in the sense of I just saw "Sicko" and apparently the average British doctor manages to live quite well, despite working in evil "socialized medicine"

Basic health care is a right as defined by laws that make it illegal to deny emergency treatment. That's what I consider basic health care. Outside of that... what more do you need? To go to the doctor for a skinned knee? Or every cough that lasts two days? I'm so heavily against the idea of socialized medicine in this country because of stuff like that. I was at the ER with a friend a couple of weeks ago and I saw a couple of people sitting there with what looked like nothing more serious than a paper cut and so during our 1983678 year wait, I chatted them up. One got a cut playing with his friends [young kid, maybe 12] and his mom freaked out and brought him to the ER. Left with no stitches, no shots, nothing. Just a bill for mommy, an unnecessary one at that. That would be paid by ME if there was nationalized healthcare. The other was an older-ish woman [40-50 i guess] who nicked herself with a pair of scissors while she was cutting thread while sewing something. ER. Same result as the kid.

But if there WAS nationalized healthcare, that doctor visit, since it consisted of nothing, would be DIRT cheap. So, yes, you might pay 5 cents towards a unnessecary doctor visit, but lighten up.
So the crux of your argument is "Well, this one time, there were some people in the ER who didn't need to be, therefore SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS HORRIBLE and I don't want to have to help out anyone ever because they probably don't need it."

Doctors charge a lot because they can, because they're educated and in demand. The same reason that me, as an intern at an accounting firm, has my time billed out at $110/hr, and why lawyers/CPAs/etc. can bill you at $400+/hr. Because our services are in demand and that's the cost that the market has decided is acceptable. Costs go down, demand goes up, and there aren't enough people to fulfill the demand. Works across the board for just about everything that's an economically normal product.

Further, do you really believe that if you go to a hospital, your $50k hip transplant is going straight to the doctor? Of course not. There's costs to cover in materials, time, etc., plus those of the nursing staff, rent on the land, utilities, research, etc. Our medicine didn't get good by not trying new things, things which cost money.

I understand these things. They're a bit too capitalisty for me to want to get into detail about, but, as I am a sociologist and you are a CPA, that's to be expected. The main thing is this: Those same rules of economics in terms of supply/demand, costs, etc. are in play in most Western countries, yet most of those countries have universal health care. What is it about America, in a strictly economic/GDP/financial sense, prevents us from doing the same thing?

On a related note, speaking of miracles, I saw a pretty cool show on Moses parting the Dead Sea. It turns out, instaed of him just kinda wandering over to the seas and having them part, Moses knew the area intimately well, and was aware that the Dead Sea was EXTREMELY shallow and resembled more a marsh than a sea, and that periodically, it receeded. So he basically had his people walk through the Dead Marsh once it receeded a bit. The pursuers went in after them, but instead of being swept away by the incoming sea, they simply got bogged down in the muddy marsh when it returned, at which point they said, "Screw this, let's go back to town and have a beer," and slogged out.

Sooooooo, I fail to see how this falls into the [your words] miracle category. A dude spent a bunch of time by the water and knew the tides? Wow. Better praise him.

Well, the idea was that I was using miracles in jest, as I proceeded to debunk the "Moses parts the Red Sea" miracle after using the world "miracle". I didn't really think anyone would read that and then think, "Hey, that's not a miracle! And Shanti thinks it's a miracle? Oh, what a fool!", but apparently I was wrong.

As for the first point you made on the religion thing, I have an image to describe your argument:

And this first point of course was:

Actually there IS a reason, and that reason is faith. If a logical, sane person could do something more than believe (like, for example prove) that Jesus turned water into wine, or cured blindness, then ALL the logical, sane people could see that Jesus had extraordinary powers, and people would begin to believe in him, not because they BELIEVED, but because it's been proven, which would be a lot less sexy.

And the image in question is:


And I must say, I agree, I made a HUGE point with that one, although you could have just told me that instead of giving me the visual assistance.

EDIT: Apologies in advance to TLA for nationalizing the term "American."

[sprunkner]

Actually there IS a reason, and that reason is faith. If a logical, sane person could do something more than believe (like, for example prove) that Jesus turned water into wine, or cured blindness, then ALL the logical, sane people could see that Jesus had extraordinary powers, and people would begin to believe in him, not because they BELIEVED, but because it's been proven, which would be a lot less sexy.

yeah,

Faith is not logicall, its the complete opposite to logic - faith requires people to belive in somthing that cannot be proven.
If 'it' can be proven, you would not require faith.

Lots of things aren't proven. This math formula seems obviously true even to me, but look at all the effort that went into proving it. Proof is harder than it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

Belief is based on some kind of connection of conjecture. "I feel good when I go to church and lousy when I don't go... there must be a God." That's not proof any more than the lack of a whole number cube root for 35, 72 or 133 proves Fermat's Last Theorem. But it's a good enough reason for most people to go to church.

Everyone believes some things that aren't proven. I believe that if I worked hard enough, I could learn to play the drums. How do I know that? Well, I can play guitar, piano and bass pretty well. So I believe if I had a drum set I could get the hang of it. That's not proven. But I believe it, based on connections I've made.

Everyone bases some things in their lives on that kind of conjecture. Maybe the old break in your knee jitters every time the humidity reaches a certain point. Does that prove they're connected?

Now do I think it's a good idea to, say, give some money to Amnesty International or be nice to your kids or remain faithful in your marriage because of that reasoning? Of course. There are a lot of other things to back that up. Do I believe you should invade another country based on faith alone? Hell no. Everything I've seen about Bush convinces me that he thought he was, from the beginning, on a mission from God to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

There are people--like Barack Obama seems to be--who can deal maturely with an unproven connection to the unknown and also let their reason rule when it needs to. People are dicks for all sorts of reasons. Religion is just another reason to be a dick. And yet some people--as Obama points out again--use it as a reason to become a really decent person.

[Aaron Hong]

Back on topic - I have a newspaper in front of me now, saying that all this business hasn't put a dent in Obama's campaign at all.

'Obama breaks campaign funding record'.

Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama broke party fund-raising records by raking in at least US$32.5 million in the past 3 months, outpacing top rival Senator Hilary Clinton by nearly US$10 million.

Article also says that the funds 'came from 154,000 individual donors'.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Lots of things aren't proven. This math formula seems obviously true even to me, but look at all the effort that went into proving it. Proof is harder than it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

Belief is based on some kind of connection of conjecture. "I feel good when I go to church and lousy when I don't go... there must be a God." That's not proof any more than the lack of a whole number cube root for 35, 72 or 133 proves Fermat's Last Theorem. But it's a good enough reason for most people to go to church.

No, thats maths, some things are hard to prove in maths, its a complicated subject you know. - that is not a magical faith fairy.
Its absurd that because our own human number system is not perfect I should BELIVE IN A FAIRY!

Everyone believes some things that aren't proven. I believe that if I worked hard enough, I could learn to play the drums. How do I know that? Well, I can play guitar, piano and bass pretty well. So I believe if I had a drum set I could get the hang of it. That's not proven. But I believe it, based on connections I've made.

Again, thats not faith, thats just the fact that many people on earth have learnt to play a drum, so why cant you?
You dont need to have faith, just go and get some lessons, ffs.

Everyone bases some things in their lives on that kind of conjecture. Maybe the old break in your knee jitters every time the humidity reaches a certain point. Does that prove they're connected?

It might, but its got nothing to do with faith, why do I need faith in my knee joint being suseptible to a temp change, its plausible it has perfectly good scientific reason.
Lets see, using my amazing no faith based mind, I will use some logic.
Things expand in heat, so perhaps the watery cartilidge in my knee, that would be suseptible to humidity changes expands, and your knee socket, wich is flawed from the break, moves slightly, and gives u the jitters!
Wow, I must be life freaking god or somthing.

You did not need faith to understand that, all u needed was some logic based on proven science.

Now do I think it's a good idea to, say, give some money to Amnesty International or be nice to your kids or remain faithful in your marriage because of that reasoning? Of course. There are a lot of other things to back that up. Do I believe you should invade another country based on faith alone? Hell no. Everything I've seen about Bush convinces me that he thought he was, from the beginning, on a mission from God to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Again, thats got nothing to do with faith, what on earth are you talking about.
U belived Bush wanted to dick suddam, I wonder why? his freaking dad did it!!!! doesnt take a scientist to make the link.
Just because you have an idea does not mean its faith, its somthing u have put together using a myriad of thoughts from your life untill u reach a conclusion.
This is not a reason to belive in fairys.

My orginal quote stands perfectly well. you can give me problems all day and I will give u answers, the only problem I cannot answer for you, is the existance of God, because it cannot be proven and requires faith to belive in. Hence my first quote.

Faith cannot be proven, thats the entire point of it, thats what the word means, its used as a catch 22 because if God could be proven then you wouldnt need faith now would you?
Thats a s clear as crystal now isnt it.

[Shanti418]

Faith cannot be proven, thats the entire point of it, thats what the word means, its used as a catch 22 because if God could be proven then you wouldnt need faith now would you?
Thats a s clear as crystal now isnt it.

Well yeah, that's basically what I was saying in my first response to you. But you type it with such apparent vitriol.