From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
>> No, it really is quite simple: single-payer (with all the power and
>> control that implies, and that power and control being used to protect
>> patients and keep costs in control) and progressive (income-based) rates
>> so everyone is covered. Works great.
>
>No, it really is NOT that simple.
>
>Medicare is a single-payer system. It's broke.

Unless it isn't "broke" and rightards just want to screw over
Americans and eliminate Medicare.

>All of those and similar programs have far, far exceeded their original cost
>estimates.

Let's see those "original cost estimates".

> The government can run these programs even though they keep
>running in the red, because it's the government and essentially just creates
>money as needed

There's a lie. SSA does not create money.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes

>>>All this talk of "permitting" or "banning" misses the point entirely.
>>>Marriage has been -- until quite recently at least -- defined as the legal
>>>union of a man and a woman.
>>
>> I thought we had got way past this... I posted a whole load of links in
>> a thread recently (don't me it was this thread and is STILL going on!)
>> that show that "marriage" has NEVER EVER been solely one man to none
>> woman since time began.
>
>I remember (more or less) your examples. My recollection is that they were
>EXTREMELY rare or obscure cases that someone or other called "marriages." I
>did not find that particularly convincing.

It is apparent that HArrington is literally incapable of accepting the
truth. He insists that he propaganda is the truth and will reject any
evidence that proves him wrong.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: tony cooper on
On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> You do know that "bigotry" is the obstinate or intolerant devotion to
>> one's own opinions and prejudices? Atheists who are intolerant of the
>> religious can be bigots.
>
>Agreed.
>I believe those of faith are free to worship as they please.

The gist of your rant was that the "betrayed" should abandon their
religion. If they want to continue to be a member of that religion,
even though that religion holds them to be wrong on this issue,
shouldn't they be free to worship as they please? Where is your
tolerance?

>>> I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one
>>> religion over another.
>>
>> So am I. However, I would never suggest to someone else that they
>> should leave their religion or question why they don't. That seems
>> exceedingly presumptious to me.
>
>I would only suggest that move if the person in question is being
>tormented by that religion and leaving the religion is the only action
>which makes sense.

Makes sense to who? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it
makes sense or not to you. It's what makes sense to *them* that
counts.

The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that we have the devoutly
religious who want the rest of us to do as they want, and then we have
the unreligious who want the religious people to change.

I don't really see a difference between a bible-thumper who says "I
suggest you become religious" and a nonreligious person saying "I
suggest you leave your religion". They are both proselytizing.







--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on
On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> You do? Who are these "upper echelon" people?
>
>Where do you want to start? The Papacy, The College of Cardinals,

Get serious, Duck. Who has any idea of what the College of Cardinals
do except when its puff-of-smoke-time?

We don't even know what conference they play in.

I even had to look it up to see if the "the" is capitalized. It
isn't.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Atheist Chaplain on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050222410175249-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-02 21:39:14 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net>
> said:
>
>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You do know that "bigotry" is the obstinate or intolerant devotion to
>>>> one's own opinions and prejudices? Atheists who are intolerant of the
>>>> religious can be bigots.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>> I believe those of faith are free to worship as they please.
>>
>> The gist of your rant was that the "betrayed" should abandon their
>> religion. If they want to continue to be a member of that religion,
>> even though that religion holds them to be wrong on this issue,
>> shouldn't they be free to worship as they please? Where is your
>> tolerance?
>
> From my point of view they are free to choose either direction.
> I have never encouraged anyone of faith to leave that faith. I have been
> respectful of members of all faiths. If they inquire as to my faith, I
> feel no shame in telling them I am an atheist. Some are dumbfounded at
> such an admission and try to tell me the error of my ways, others are
> understanding and respectful.
> My point is, if there is an aspect of their religion which for whatever
> reason is intolerant of an aspect of their life, they themselves cannot
> deny, then they should consider a change. If they choose not to leave
> their religion that is their choice. However that means they place a
> higher value on that religion than their relationship, which makes me
> question their level of commitment to that relationship.

well said, my sentiments exactly.


--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi