One might question whether you read the sources you cited, as opposed to simply linking terms you heard a convincing speaker use one day.
Fortunately that's not true. In high school history we learned about Manifest Destiny.
Manifest destiny has little to do with Christians spreading the word across the world. While the idea existed that it was ordained by the Christian God, Manifest Destiny was the idea that Americans were charged with expanding capitalism, democracy, and even the American government to all of North and Latin America.
You left out "the idea that 'uncivilized' peoples could be improved by exposure to the Christian, democratic values of the United States." Or Native Americans and Christianity:
"White Attitudes. Among whites there were two common religiously based attitudes toward Native Americans. One was expressed in the notion of Manifest Destiny, the idea that white Christians had a God-given mission to expand their civilization and its ideals of liberty and democracy across the entire North American continent. From this point of view Indians who occupied valuable lands could be removed or even exterminated with few moral qualms. A second point of view held that the Indians did not have to be seen as a hindrance to white progress. Rather, they were simply ignorant heathens who could become part of American society if they were allowed to benefit from the civilizing instruction of whites. The first step toward civilization was believed to be conversion to Christianity. Although earlier missionaries to the Indians had produced few converts and much antagonism, the revivals of the early nineteenth century brought new impetus to the missionary movement. Most Protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic Church sent men and women to Indian tribes across the country, where they preached, distributed Bibles, and established schools."
"Christian Talibans" is a lovely buzz word... but wholly inappropriate as Taliban is neither an adjective
t is instead a proper noun describing a terroristic dictatorship that was formerly the ruling body of Iraq and had strong control over Afghanistan and is currently engaging in guerrilla and terrorist assaults to prevent the peoples of those regions from asserting their own power.
And Christian Talibans such as those I already linked to would do the same thing. The difference is the religion, and the sect of the religion. Seeing as how either you can't be bothered to see that Dominionists and other Reconstructionists would do the same thing, that "civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law", I am left thinking you're trolling. All that's changed is the religion and the holy book.
And if you don't think stoning, which is what they plan, isn't terrorism then I don't want to live in your world. Even associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell said theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony positions on stoning were scary.
"In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or
that map only shows where people move to after they get advanced degrees.
Where does it say that those education levels are only from those who move there and not the education level of people who grow up there? On the other hand immigration status isn't indicated and more Latin American immigrants may drive the educational levels down.
someone that lost their job (and health care) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care.
Some maybe but not all. Though not in that exact position, I am in a situation similar to it. In an accident I survived an injury and am now disabled. Having paid into Social Security I now get Social Security Income, SSI. I also get Medicare, with my Medicare premium taken out of my SSI. That doesn't leave me enough to pay all my bills. Luckily because my sister owns the apartment building I live in, as well as handles most of my finances, I haven't been evicted. Anyway, despite "needing" welfare I hate it. To lower health care costs the federal government should allow a freer market in insurance. You know those ads that said in some states only a couple of companies sold insurance? Know why? States say who can and can not sell insurance in the state. Using the interstate commerce clause of the USA Constitution the federal government can tell states they have to allow interstate commerce. If insurance is cheaper in another state I should be able to buy the cheaper insurance. Then allow those who buy their own insurance to deduct the cost of insurance just like employers do. When those two things happen watch while millions of people look for insurance insurance companies lower the cost of insurance. Then if it doesn't work out, and only then, government can give people say $4000 to pay for insurance. What they could do is go into the market place to see what insurance policy they want, and sign up for it. The insurance issuer then enters that into a database where the government sees it and pays the issuer the money. If the policy costs more than what the government will cover then the person is responsible for the rest.
There's a good number of Democrats in Congress that are in favor of a single-payer system that would give everybody the same health care. It's just that there aren't enough of them to get it passed.
Well, that's something to be thankful for, there aren't enough Democrats in office to ramrod single-payer health care through. Excuse me if I don't want medicine rationed. Canadians and others who can afford it come to the US to get care they need because they can't get it at home. On the other hand, Canada is able to keep drug prices low because drugs are bought in bulk and prices are held down. In the US there's a law against allowing states to buy drugs in bulk. However because of its size Walmart was able to offer thousands of prescription drugs for $4 or under, now other pharmacies are doing the same. Ah, how competition lowers costs. Now only if we had competition in insurance as well.
Amazing i can quit my job in IT, get a job picking grapes 3 months outta the year and have basically the same standard of living after the CARE programs, welfare, tax refunds, gov housing
You must live in a generous state. After working for years, while trying to take classes for an engineering degree, I was disabled in an accident. I get less than $800 in disability and $50 in food aid a month and Medicare health insurance. For Medicare though almost $200 is deducted from my disability. I'll get aid from the county I live in to pay the premium. However I get no assistance for housing, I have to pay rent out of my disability. Unfortunately my rent has not been paid in almost a year. Fortunately my sister, who actually gets my disability, is my landlord. She owns the apartment I live in. Otherwise I'd be on the streets if not dead.
Why dont we just all quit our jobs and live off the government unless we're making over 60k a year?
Years before the accident that left me disabled I had one full-time job that didn't offer health insurance. I wanted some though so I shopped for some medical insurance myself. The cheapest policy I found was about 1/3 of my income, and as I was already struggling to save money for tuition I couldn't afford it. Someone suggested I check with the health department of the county I lived in for insurance. There I was told I made too much money, however I was told that if I quit my job they could give me medical coverage. The system is designed to keep people down, not to give them a helping hand so they can become financially independent.
Yes I do, and like Thomas Jefferson I am a Liberal. I believe in liberty and small government.
In the US that's "classic liberalism"
"Classical" has to used to modify "liberal" because the word "liberal" is used incorrectly in the US today. As the wiki article I linked to says "The phrase classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean early liberalism". That is why I frequently correct people and provide a link to the proper meaning of "liberal" when it is used falsely, as it was in the post I replied to.
If you're going to use a word be sure to learn the definition first. I also do that, correct people, when they use other words incorrectly. Such as "hacker", a hacker is an explorer who follows the hacker ethic. Now the definition linked to is about computer hackers whereas I use "explorer" because other things such as electronics can be hacked as well. Reporters and other writers used to be called hacks as well. And polygamy is when males and females have more than one spouse. What the Mormons practiced, and some sects still practice is not polygamy, it is polygyny, "having more than one wife at a time".
And when I use a word incorrectly I appreciate others correcting me. I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.
And like the Talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they ever get the chance they've dictate to others they must live "the Christian way". They would even bring back stoning for adulatory and other sins. Here's one that even says The bible permits slavery.
Is that a hundredth of one percent of American Christians, or a thousandth of one percent of them? I think probably the latter.
It doesn't matter how many there are, what matters is that there are some in the US who like the Taliban would dictate to everyone how they will live, even when the people are not harming anyone else.
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
First, that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion whatsoever.
Second, how do you explain "Creator" and "Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence?
Nor does it mean it was based on any religion. As for "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, the DOI was written by Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist, as were many other Founding Fathers. And while Deism can be said to be a religion itself it is based on reason and observation of the natural world alone, faith not needed. Hay, that sounds like science. What is kind of ironic is that in conspiracy theory circles the Founding Fathers were members of the Freemasons or wealthy groups like the Illuminati who wanted to take over the world.
I don't have any references right now, and I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet Jefferson only included "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the DOI because others had to approve and sign it. He had already made concessions in it, he opposed slavery and was pro equal rights and in early drafts of the DOI he wrote slaves and women had the same rights. But because some of those who were going to sign it believed in and owned slaves that was taken out. And like slaves, some thought women were property, or at least lessor than men, so that was removed as well. On the other hand TJ also thought women had their proper place and was supposed to be modest. He also owned slaves, however every slave he owned he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. He never bought a slave, but he freed some. For instance though Sally Hemming was a slave TJ left in his will that her children were to be free.
I'm intrigued by your last comment about Islamic jihadism. Have you considered that part of the reaction of Christian fundamentalists is driven by the disparity in treatment given to different religions in academic settings?
Have you thought stuff like this has happened throughout history? Heck right here in the US. If you haven't already I suggest you read about The Great Disappointment, before 1850. Or the Know Nothing movement in the 1840s and '50s. The Salem witch hunts weren't carried out by Muslims either. As someone previously pointed out to me the Pilgrims who came from the Old World to settle in the New World wanted to persecute those not like them.
The positive spin on non-Christian religions plays in beautifully with mainstream academic virtues like anti-imperialism/anti-colonialism and is a conscious counterbalance to years of "orientalism" which "poisoned" our thinking and caused most of the problems in the Middle East.
I blame almost all religions for the bad things their followers did in the religion's name. At the same tyme I applaud those leaders of a religion, such as some Mullah's, who issue statements declaring what a believer did was wrong. I would have used a Christian leader but I can't think of one right now.
As I've pointed out to some Christians when they've brought up Pacal's Wager, the problem is which "God" do you believe? Some of them are jealous and smite thee for idolization. So which do you believe, the one who's name can't be spoken? One of the Christian ones, or one of the Allas?
One would think that the spectacle of Islamic Jihadism would be enough to remind us of what religion is when given free reign, but two hundred years of domesticated and tamed Christianity have encouraged the illusion that the creature has changed its nature. It hasn't. It's just biding its time...
While true of many there are some who want to "bring it on". Much like the Taliban in Afghanistan there are Christian Talibans in the US, such as Dominionists and other Christian Reconstructionists who would have people stoned to death for adultery, homosexual actions, and other things.
Then the text books should reflect this instead of just sweeping all mention of religion under the carpet and pretending that the USA has been some sort of atheist utopia for its entire history.
Christianity isn't swept under the rug, American History students are taught the Pilgrims of the Mayflower were fleeing persecution. Of course it doesn't matter that they wanted to persecute others themselves, all that mattered was that they were persecuted.
However the nation was founded as a secular not religious nation. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists who didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. Because Thomas Jefferson cut out all of the stuff about miracles and such to create his own Jefferson Bible, Jefferson was a Christian in that he believed Jesus was a great teacher but that's it, church leaders painted him darkly when he ran for President.
I've heard many die-hard liberals using Jesus to try to claim that Jesus would support communism / socialism, so we should be communist / socialist.
They are not Liberals, liberals believe in "the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals". What these people believe in is big government.
"With affordable health care, the Honorable Gentleman Senator of Michigan could be able to remove that hairy wart from his ass."
There's one thing I noticed in the health care debate, none of the Democrats proposed voters get the same health care as congress gets. Perhaps that's because they know it will bankrupt the nation.
I was skeptical of your claim so I did some googling -- did you know there isn't a single Christian church in all of Afghanistan?
There may not be any Christian churches but Christians are allowed to practice, women aren't required to wear head scarfs, nor are other things forced on people like they were under the Taliban.
I guess you either didn't know that or have some very strange ideas of what "doing okay" means for minority religions.
I guess you didn't read all of my post, because you would have read where I said: "Not that it can't do better, but it has Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs. Now it was bad under the Taliban but they aren't in control anymore." But then because you specifically said there were no churches there I am led to believe you're trolling.
Yes it is, it has been less than 10 years since the Taliban lost power and was kicked out of Kabul and Afghanistan isn't a strict Islamic nation. Heck the Taliban has to pay and or scare some of those it gets support from.
It took me about 5 years to unbrainwash myself of that pro-"government is your daddy" bullshit that high school and college put into my head.
Despite being part of a military family I didn't have that problem. Actually in 9th grade the teacher I had for civics had us do an experiment in investing. We pretended we had $25,000 to invest. Using the newspaper's business section listings of stocks, bonds, and commodity selling prices we could invest however we wanted to. And in a math class we were taught about what compound interest can do, what future value and present value are and mean, and other things. No, the problem I had was that after a guidance counselor told me I should take algebra, he said he couldn't let me take it because I didn't know how to do square roots. For the next 3+ years I took as advanced a math class as I could without take algebra. Then after the math teacher I had ripped up my homework right in front of class I blew up and stormed to the counselor I had. I blew my stack again when she told me I would learn how to do square roots in algebra. Three prime years were wasted because of a stupid counselor.
I would think more Christians would be for removing "In God We Trust" from the money. For one thing, it's obviously a huge lie. Also, it's really ironic if you think about it.
The problem with some American Christians is that they believe in Manifest Destiny, where the USA is a Christian Nation and it's mission is to spread the word throughout the world. Others are Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists, or other flavors of Christian Talibans. And like the Talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they ever get the chance they've dictate to others they must live "the Christian way". They would even bring back stoning for adulatory and other sins. Here's one that even says The bible permits slavery.
Like England is? Last I looked, they were a pretty secular, post-xian society
re: secular: Just wait 10 years.
The problem with a post-xian society is that multicultural secularism isn't able to combat forces that are pre-post-islam.
Afghanistan seems to do okay. Not that it can't do better, but it has Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs. Now it was bad under the Taliban but they aren't in control anymore.
I just finished grad school in Texas and was dumbfounded on how many arguments I got when I had to teach human evolution. Some of the most basic things that we take for granted as fact were just thrown to the wayside. Fortunately college has a way of forcefully opening your mind, but I really feel for these kids up until that point.
Unfortunately Texas students may not be ready for college, and if they do go to college they may need to take remedial classes.
The only thing I saw I liked was the inclusion of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek in economics.
if I can't ride my horse and be there by the end of the day then it's too far
That's practically what five to ten million people is.
In some places, such as megacities, yes but most places aren't that densely populated. There are still places a couple of hundred miles from large population centers.
But I assume you were trying to be ironic.
Yes and no. When I first wrote my reply I included but deleted "or my hog." Averaging 65 mph for 16 hours is 1040 miles. And I didn't mean that long a distance. Now what I'd do is slice and dice national governments then shred them. For instance in the US I'd keep the US Supreme Court, but would reduce how long congress stay in session. The Texas Constitution limits the Texas Legislature to 1 regular session of 140 calendar days every other year. I have proposed such an amendment for the US Constitution. Serving in office should be something a citizen does part time but then goes works between sessions, the citizen legislature. I don't recall his name or what party he's in but a few days ago CNN had a story about how 1 member of congress slept in his congressional office while his family stay home to save money, he said members of congress shouldn't have to be rich. Well with my proposal they wouldn't have to be rich either. Ah, here it is, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, who sleeps on a cot in his office.
Thermodynamics for a CE? I guess it varies by school but I didn't realize many places had that as a requirement (or still did, at least). You might want to look around, you never know what another school might be willing to transfer.
I don't recall if Thermodynamics was required for a CE degree but there was one more physics class that was required. Now I did have all the math classes needed. However because to get a minor in physics I only needed to take 2 more physics classes and the same for math I decided to take those 4 more classes. So I would have ended up with a degree in CE and minors in math and physics.
Depending on how it's looked at, if I knew in high school what I know now I'd have done better or worse than a major and 2 minors. If I knew then what I know now I'd have done a double major. In high school I wanted to do both computer engineering and a marine science, marine bio or oceanography perhaps. I loved and took classes in both. As part of the marine biology class and club I was in a group of us went to Mote Marine Laboratory on a field trip. Before leaving there a couple of us were pulled aside and asked if we wanted to work there during the summer. We were told that if we did and we wanted to major in a marine science in college they'd help us get in and pay for it. By then I had basically decided I wanted to design computer systems though, so I turned it down.
Obviously people believe a lot of things. Who knows, maybe we do reincarnate? But the truth is the only thing we can be sure of, the thing we don't need to 'believe' in because we know it, is that we're here - 'I think therefore I am.' There's a time and a place for stubbornness, and I suppose when it comes to something like that.
Back when, before my accident, spirituality was important to me. Spirituality not religion. And though I still recall what beliefs I had I no longer believe them. As I've said here and other places I am agnostic, "a" without and "gnosis" knowledge. Thing is, with living I always believed and told my family I'd rather be disconnected and have all the lines and tubes pulled so that I'd die if it came to being a vegetable or dying. I don't recall it but one of my sisters' told me that after I came out of the coma I was in in the hospital I screamed at everyone to let me die.
Your history is bad. America was colonised by puritans fleeing the lack of religious values in Europe (read: puritans were no longer in power) which is why it is not really ironic that they persecuted non-Christians and burned wiccan or suspected wicca at the steak.
No, your history is bad. I. America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century
Says "Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe."
Notice the "loc.gov", that's a governmental website.
Quite simply early settlers of the New World fled religious persecution. On the other hand you were right about them wanting to persecute others in Europe. I have never denied that. I have actually accused European Christians of persecuting people. The NAZI Holocaust wasn't the first tyme Jews were persecuted, nor were they the only ones. Spain, which was not united until Queen Isabella united it, was quite efficient at persecuting people. Jews, Muslims, other Christians, and others were persecuted. Isabella told Jews and Muslims to convert, leave Iberia, or die. Of course because Jews and Muslims were educated Spain suffered a massive brain drain which set back their civilization back. At least they were given a choice, Agnostic Christians weren't. They were slaughters by the hundreds if not thousands. So called Catholics would burn down entire villages that were still inhabited and make sure no one could escape. Much like Muslims did in Saudi Arabia in 2002 when a girls' school got on fire.
Read up on the Magna Carta, it is the basis of constitutional law and English common law. It was the influence of many constitutional documents including the United States Constitution.
I have read about the Magna Carts, as well as actually read it myself. I have also read the writing of the USA's Founding Fathers. One of the writers of the Constitution of the USA was John Rutledge of South Carolina and he "proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany."
immigration (and how to block it and throw everyone not "belonging" here out),
Ron Paul isn't anti-immigration. On the issues quotes him as saying "Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007)" Then it has him going further explaining his position. He wrote The Immigration Question in 2006. So as far as immigration is concerned Ron Paul is open minded.
minority protection (or avoidance thereof)
Again from On the Issues:
"Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)"
However the NCAAP rates him at 39%, "indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action".
elimination of religion as far as possible (at least every kind that doesn't "belong" here, in short, Islam)
On religion Ron Paul has the position that government and religion should be kept separated. He said "Bush's faith-based initiative is 'a neocon project'".
On the Issues has more on where Ron Paul stands on various issues. Now you say right wing means something different in Europe than it does in the US. Well Ron Paul doesn't meet Europe's definition of right winger either.
Religion is generally not a big deal in EU politics. I haven't heard a politician invoke $deity for whatever reason, actually.
Unless it's Islam. Not everyone is okay with the religion, there are some groups who oppose Muslims.
Do you really believe that anything the EU does is going to prevent the US from rather forcibly letting the world know that the IP manuactured in the US isn't going to be passed around for free? Dream on. You are talking about a huge economy that is responsible for the well-being of nearly a half a billion people
The European population is more than 830 million whereas the US's is estimated at 309 million. The census being done will likely raise the number but it's still less than half of Europe's population. Well maybe you meant something else... According to the CIA the EU has the largest exports, China is second, and Germany alone is third. The US shows up behind Germany at number 4.
If that's not what you mean then what do you mean? Quite simply both the EU and China have bigger markets. About the only thing the US has going for it is IP and productivity.
Probably the biggest thing that people are missing is the US is poised to take on a huge new madate to pretty much supply health care to everyone.
I doubt it but I hope Obamacare is stopped. I'm feeling sorrier and sorrier I voted for him.
Slashdot Mirror
One might question whether you read the sources you cited, as opposed to simply linking terms you heard a convincing speaker use one day.
Fortunately that's not true. In high school history we learned about Manifest Destiny.
Manifest destiny has little to do with Christians spreading the word across the world. While the idea existed that it was ordained by the Christian God, Manifest Destiny was the idea that Americans were charged with expanding capitalism, democracy, and even the American government to all of North and Latin America.
You left out "the idea that 'uncivilized' peoples could be improved by exposure to the Christian, democratic values of the United States." Or Native Americans and Christianity:
"White Attitudes. Among whites there were two common religiously based attitudes toward Native Americans. One was expressed in the notion of Manifest Destiny, the idea that white Christians had a God-given mission to expand their civilization and its ideals of liberty and democracy across the entire North American continent. From this point of view Indians who occupied valuable lands could be removed or even exterminated with few moral qualms. A second point of view held that the Indians did not have to be seen as a hindrance to white progress. Rather, they were simply ignorant heathens who could become part of American society if they were allowed to benefit from the civilizing instruction of whites. The first step toward civilization was believed to be conversion to Christianity. Although earlier missionaries to the Indians had produced few converts and much antagonism, the revivals of the early nineteenth century brought new impetus to the missionary movement. Most Protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic Church sent men and women to Indian tribes across the country, where they preached, distributed Bibles, and established schools."
"Christian Talibans" is a lovely buzz word... but wholly inappropriate as Taliban is neither an adjective
adjective: "noun: the word class that qualifies nouns.
verb: add a modifier to a constituent.
"Taliban" modifies "Christian".
t is instead a proper noun describing a terroristic dictatorship that was formerly the ruling body of Iraq and had strong control over Afghanistan and is currently engaging in guerrilla and terrorist assaults to prevent the peoples of those regions from asserting their own power.
And Christian Talibans such as those I already linked to would do the same thing. The difference is the religion, and the sect of the religion. Seeing as how either you can't be bothered to see that Dominionists and other Reconstructionists would do the same thing, that "civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law", I am left thinking you're trolling. All that's changed is the religion and the holy book.
And if you don't think stoning, which is what they plan, isn't terrorism then I don't want to live in your world. Even associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell said theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony positions on stoning were scary.
"In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or
that map only shows where people move to after they get advanced degrees.
Where does it say that those education levels are only from those who move there and not the education level of people who grow up there? On the other hand immigration status isn't indicated and more Latin American immigrants may drive the educational levels down.
Falcon
someone that lost their job (and health care) and then discovered cancer may be inclined to support publicly-funded health care.
Some maybe but not all. Though not in that exact position, I am in a situation similar to it. In an accident I survived an injury and am now disabled. Having paid into Social Security I now get Social Security Income, SSI. I also get Medicare, with my Medicare premium taken out of my SSI. That doesn't leave me enough to pay all my bills. Luckily because my sister owns the apartment building I live in, as well as handles most of my finances, I haven't been evicted. Anyway, despite "needing" welfare I hate it. To lower health care costs the federal government should allow a freer market in insurance. You know those ads that said in some states only a couple of companies sold insurance? Know why? States say who can and can not sell insurance in the state. Using the interstate commerce clause of the USA Constitution the federal government can tell states they have to allow interstate commerce. If insurance is cheaper in another state I should be able to buy the cheaper insurance. Then allow those who buy their own insurance to deduct the cost of insurance just like employers do. When those two things happen watch while millions of people look for insurance insurance companies lower the cost of insurance. Then if it doesn't work out, and only then, government can give people say $4000 to pay for insurance. What they could do is go into the market place to see what insurance policy they want, and sign up for it. The insurance issuer then enters that into a database where the government sees it and pays the issuer the money. If the policy costs more than what the government will cover then the person is responsible for the rest.
Falcon
There's a good number of Democrats in Congress that are in favor of a single-payer system that would give everybody the same health care. It's just that there aren't enough of them to get it passed.
Well, that's something to be thankful for, there aren't enough Democrats in office to ramrod single-payer health care through. Excuse me if I don't want medicine rationed. Canadians and others who can afford it come to the US to get care they need because they can't get it at home. On the other hand, Canada is able to keep drug prices low because drugs are bought in bulk and prices are held down. In the US there's a law against allowing states to buy drugs in bulk. However because of its size Walmart was able to offer thousands of prescription drugs for $4 or under, now other pharmacies are doing the same. Ah, how competition lowers costs. Now only if we had competition in insurance as well.
Falcon
Amazing i can quit my job in IT, get a job picking grapes 3 months outta the year and have basically the same standard of living after the CARE programs, welfare, tax refunds, gov housing
You must live in a generous state. After working for years, while trying to take classes for an engineering degree, I was disabled in an accident. I get less than $800 in disability and $50 in food aid a month and Medicare health insurance. For Medicare though almost $200 is deducted from my disability. I'll get aid from the county I live in to pay the premium. However I get no assistance for housing, I have to pay rent out of my disability. Unfortunately my rent has not been paid in almost a year. Fortunately my sister, who actually gets my disability, is my landlord. She owns the apartment I live in. Otherwise I'd be on the streets if not dead.
Why dont we just all quit our jobs and live off the government unless we're making over 60k a year?
Years before the accident that left me disabled I had one full-time job that didn't offer health insurance. I wanted some though so I shopped for some medical insurance myself. The cheapest policy I found was about 1/3 of my income, and as I was already struggling to save money for tuition I couldn't afford it. Someone suggested I check with the health department of the county I lived in for insurance. There I was told I made too much money, however I was told that if I quit my job they could give me medical coverage. The system is designed to keep people down, not to give them a helping hand so they can become financially independent.
Falcon
Yes I do, and like Thomas Jefferson I am a Liberal. I believe in liberty and small government.
In the US that's "classic liberalism"
"Classical" has to used to modify "liberal" because the word "liberal" is used incorrectly in the US today. As the wiki article I linked to says "The phrase classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean early liberalism". That is why I frequently correct people and provide a link to the proper meaning of "liberal" when it is used falsely, as it was in the post I replied to.
If you're going to use a word be sure to learn the definition first. I also do that, correct people, when they use other words incorrectly. Such as "hacker", a hacker is an explorer who follows the hacker ethic. Now the definition linked to is about computer hackers whereas I use "explorer" because other things such as electronics can be hacked as well. Reporters and other writers used to be called hacks as well. And polygamy is when males and females have more than one spouse. What the Mormons practiced, and some sects still practice is not polygamy, it is polygyny, "having more than one wife at a time".
And when I use a word incorrectly I appreciate others correcting me. I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.
Falcon
Agnosticism.
I think that depends on the person, there are some who become religious or more religious.
Falcon
And like the Talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they ever get the chance they've dictate to others they must live "the Christian way". They would even bring back stoning for adulatory and other sins. Here's one that even says The bible permits slavery.
Is that a hundredth of one percent of American Christians, or a thousandth of one percent of them? I think probably the latter.
It doesn't matter how many there are, what matters is that there are some in the US who like the Taliban would dictate to everyone how they will live, even when the people are not harming anyone else.
Falcon
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
First, that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion whatsoever.
Second, how do you explain "Creator" and "Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence?
Nor does it mean it was based on any religion. As for "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, the DOI was written by Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist, as were many other Founding Fathers. And while Deism can be said to be a religion itself it is based on reason and observation of the natural world alone, faith not needed. Hay, that sounds like science. What is kind of ironic is that in conspiracy theory circles the Founding Fathers were members of the Freemasons or wealthy groups like the Illuminati who wanted to take over the world.
I don't have any references right now, and I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet Jefferson only included "Creator" and "Nature's God" in the DOI because others had to approve and sign it. He had already made concessions in it, he opposed slavery and was pro equal rights and in early drafts of the DOI he wrote slaves and women had the same rights. But because some of those who were going to sign it believed in and owned slaves that was taken out. And like slaves, some thought women were property, or at least lessor than men, so that was removed as well. On the other hand TJ also thought women had their proper place and was supposed to be modest. He also owned slaves, however every slave he owned he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. He never bought a slave, but he freed some. For instance though Sally Hemming was a slave TJ left in his will that her children were to be free.
Falcon
I'm intrigued by your last comment about Islamic jihadism. Have you considered that part of the reaction of Christian fundamentalists is driven by the disparity in treatment given to different religions in academic settings?
Have you thought stuff like this has happened throughout history? Heck right here in the US. If you haven't already I suggest you read about The Great Disappointment, before 1850. Or the Know Nothing movement in the 1840s and '50s. The Salem witch hunts weren't carried out by Muslims either. As someone previously pointed out to me the Pilgrims who came from the Old World to settle in the New World wanted to persecute those not like them.
The positive spin on non-Christian religions plays in beautifully with mainstream academic virtues like anti-imperialism/anti-colonialism and is a conscious counterbalance to years of "orientalism" which "poisoned" our thinking and caused most of the problems in the Middle East.
I blame almost all religions for the bad things their followers did in the religion's name. At the same tyme I applaud those leaders of a religion, such as some Mullah's, who issue statements declaring what a believer did was wrong. I would have used a Christian leader but I can't think of one right now.
Falcon
as there are believers
As I've pointed out to some Christians when they've brought up Pacal's Wager, the problem is which "God" do you believe? Some of them are jealous and smite thee for idolization. So which do you believe, the one who's name can't be spoken? One of the Christian ones, or one of the Allas?
One would think that the spectacle of Islamic Jihadism would be enough to remind us of what religion is when given free reign, but two hundred years of domesticated and tamed Christianity have encouraged the illusion that the creature has changed its nature. It hasn't. It's just biding its time...
While true of many there are some who want to "bring it on". Much like the Taliban in Afghanistan there are Christian Talibans in the US, such as Dominionists and other Christian Reconstructionists who would have people stoned to death for adultery, homosexual actions, and other things.
Falcon
Then the text books should reflect this instead of just sweeping all mention of religion under the carpet and pretending that the USA has been some sort of atheist utopia for its entire history.
Christianity isn't swept under the rug, American History students are taught the Pilgrims of the Mayflower were fleeing persecution. Of course it doesn't matter that they wanted to persecute others themselves, all that mattered was that they were persecuted.
However the nation was founded as a secular not religious nation. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists who didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. Because Thomas Jefferson cut out all of the stuff about miracles and such to create his own Jefferson Bible, Jefferson was a Christian in that he believed Jesus was a great teacher but that's it, church leaders painted him darkly when he ran for President.
Falcon
I've heard many die-hard liberals using Jesus to try to claim that Jesus would support communism / socialism, so we should be communist / socialist.
They are not Liberals, liberals believe in "the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals". What these people believe in is big government.
Falcon
"With affordable health care, the Honorable Gentleman Senator of Michigan could be able to remove that hairy wart from his ass."
There's one thing I noticed in the health care debate, none of the Democrats proposed voters get the same health care as congress gets. Perhaps that's because they know it will bankrupt the nation.
Falcon
I was skeptical of your claim so I did some googling -- did you know there isn't a single Christian church in all of Afghanistan?
There may not be any Christian churches but Christians are allowed to practice, women aren't required to wear head scarfs, nor are other things forced on people like they were under the Taliban.
I guess you either didn't know that or have some very strange ideas of what "doing okay" means for minority religions.
I guess you didn't read all of my post, because you would have read where I said: "Not that it can't do better, but it has Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs. Now it was bad under the Taliban but they aren't in control anymore." But then because you specifically said there were no churches there I am led to believe you're trolling.
Falcon
Yes it is, it has been less than 10 years since the Taliban lost power and was kicked out of Kabul and Afghanistan isn't a strict Islamic nation. Heck the Taliban has to pay and or scare some of those it gets support from.
Falcon
It took me about 5 years to unbrainwash myself of that pro-"government is your daddy" bullshit that high school and college put into my head.
Despite being part of a military family I didn't have that problem. Actually in 9th grade the teacher I had for civics had us do an experiment in investing. We pretended we had $25,000 to invest. Using the newspaper's business section listings of stocks, bonds, and commodity selling prices we could invest however we wanted to. And in a math class we were taught about what compound interest can do, what future value and present value are and mean, and other things. No, the problem I had was that after a guidance counselor told me I should take algebra, he said he couldn't let me take it because I didn't know how to do square roots. For the next 3+ years I took as advanced a math class as I could without take algebra. Then after the math teacher I had ripped up my homework right in front of class I blew up and stormed to the counselor I had. I blew my stack again when she told me I would learn how to do square roots in algebra. Three prime years were wasted because of a stupid counselor.
Falcon
I would think more Christians would be for removing "In God We Trust" from the money. For one thing, it's obviously a huge lie. Also, it's really ironic if you think about it.
The problem with some American Christians is that they believe in Manifest Destiny, where the USA is a Christian Nation and it's mission is to spread the word throughout the world. Others are Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists, or other flavors of Christian Talibans. And like the Talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they ever get the chance they've dictate to others they must live "the Christian way". They would even bring back stoning for adulatory and other sins. Here's one that even says The bible permits slavery.
Falcon
Like England is? Last I looked, they were a pretty secular, post-xian society
re: secular: Just wait 10 years.
The problem with a post-xian society is that multicultural secularism isn't able to combat forces that are pre-post-islam.
Afghanistan seems to do okay. Not that it can't do better, but it has Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs. Now it was bad under the Taliban but they aren't in control anymore.
Falcon
I just finished grad school in Texas and was dumbfounded on how many arguments I got when I had to teach human evolution. Some of the most basic things that we take for granted as fact were just thrown to the wayside. Fortunately college has a way of forcefully opening your mind, but I really feel for these kids up until that point.
Unfortunately Texas students may not be ready for college, and if they do go to college they may need to take remedial classes.
The only thing I saw I liked was the inclusion of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek in economics.
Falcon
if I can't ride my horse and be there by the end of the day then it's too far
That's practically what five to ten million people is.
In some places, such as megacities, yes but most places aren't that densely populated. There are still places a couple of hundred miles from large population centers.
But I assume you were trying to be ironic.
Yes and no. When I first wrote my reply I included but deleted "or my hog." Averaging 65 mph for 16 hours is 1040 miles. And I didn't mean that long a distance. Now what I'd do is slice and dice national governments then shred them. For instance in the US I'd keep the US Supreme Court, but would reduce how long congress stay in session. The Texas Constitution limits the Texas Legislature to 1 regular session of 140 calendar days every other year. I have proposed such an amendment for the US Constitution. Serving in office should be something a citizen does part time but then goes works between sessions, the citizen legislature. I don't recall his name or what party he's in but a few days ago CNN had a story about how 1 member of congress slept in his congressional office while his family stay home to save money, he said members of congress shouldn't have to be rich. Well with my proposal they wouldn't have to be rich either. Ah, here it is, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, who sleeps on a cot in his office.
Falcon
Thermodynamics for a CE? I guess it varies by school but I didn't realize many places had that as a requirement (or still did, at least). You might want to look around, you never know what another school might be willing to transfer.
I don't recall if Thermodynamics was required for a CE degree but there was one more physics class that was required. Now I did have all the math classes needed. However because to get a minor in physics I only needed to take 2 more physics classes and the same for math I decided to take those 4 more classes. So I would have ended up with a degree in CE and minors in math and physics.
Depending on how it's looked at, if I knew in high school what I know now I'd have done better or worse than a major and 2 minors. If I knew then what I know now I'd have done a double major. In high school I wanted to do both computer engineering and a marine science, marine bio or oceanography perhaps. I loved and took classes in both. As part of the marine biology class and club I was in a group of us went to Mote Marine Laboratory on a field trip. Before leaving there a couple of us were pulled aside and asked if we wanted to work there during the summer. We were told that if we did and we wanted to major in a marine science in college they'd help us get in and pay for it. By then I had basically decided I wanted to design computer systems though, so I turned it down.
Obviously people believe a lot of things. Who knows, maybe we do reincarnate? But the truth is the only thing we can be sure of, the thing we don't need to 'believe' in because we know it, is that we're here - 'I think therefore I am.' There's a time and a place for stubbornness, and I suppose when it comes to something like that.
Back when, before my accident, spirituality was important to me. Spirituality not religion. And though I still recall what beliefs I had I no longer believe them. As I've said here and other places I am agnostic, "a" without and "gnosis" knowledge. Thing is, with living I always believed and told my family I'd rather be disconnected and have all the lines and tubes pulled so that I'd die if it came to being a vegetable or dying. I don't recall it but one of my sisters' told me that after I came out of the coma I was in in the hospital I screamed at everyone to let me die.
Falcon
Your history is bad. America was colonised by puritans fleeing the lack of religious values in Europe (read: puritans were no longer in power) which is why it is not really ironic that they persecuted non-Christians and burned wiccan or suspected wicca at the steak.
No, your history is bad. I. America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century Says "Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe."
Notice the "loc.gov", that's a governmental website.
For more...
Calverts of Roman Catholic faith, who had fled religious persecution in England, founded Maryland in 1632." Or Religious Persecution in Ireland.
Quite simply early settlers of the New World fled religious persecution. On the other hand you were right about them wanting to persecute others in Europe. I have never denied that. I have actually accused European Christians of persecuting people. The NAZI Holocaust wasn't the first tyme Jews were persecuted, nor were they the only ones. Spain, which was not united until Queen Isabella united it, was quite efficient at persecuting people. Jews, Muslims, other Christians, and others were persecuted. Isabella told Jews and Muslims to convert, leave Iberia, or die. Of course because Jews and Muslims were educated Spain suffered a massive brain drain which set back their civilization back. At least they were given a choice, Agnostic Christians weren't. They were slaughters by the hundreds if not thousands. So called Catholics would burn down entire villages that were still inhabited and make sure no one could escape. Much like Muslims did in Saudi Arabia in 2002 when a girls' school got on fire.
Read up on the Magna Carta, it is the basis of constitutional law and English common law. It was the influence of many constitutional documents including the United States Constitution.
I have read about the Magna Carts, as well as actually read it myself. I have also read the writing of the USA's Founding Fathers. One of the writers of the Constitution of the USA was John Rutledge of South Carolina and he "proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany."
Falcon
immigration (and how to block it and throw everyone not "belonging" here out),
Ron Paul isn't anti-immigration. On the issues quotes him as saying "Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007)" Then it has him going further explaining his position. He wrote The Immigration Question in 2006. So as far as immigration is concerned Ron Paul is open minded.
minority protection (or avoidance thereof)
Again from On the Issues:
"Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)"
However the NCAAP rates him at 39%, "indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action".
elimination of religion as far as possible (at least every kind that doesn't "belong" here, in short, Islam)
On religion Ron Paul has the position that government and religion should be kept separated. He said "Bush's faith-based initiative is 'a neocon project'".
On the Issues has more on where Ron Paul stands on various issues. Now you say right wing means something different in Europe than it does in the US. Well Ron Paul doesn't meet Europe's definition of right winger either.
Religion is generally not a big deal in EU politics. I haven't heard a politician invoke $deity for whatever reason, actually.
Unless it's Islam. Not everyone is okay with the religion, there are some groups who oppose Muslims.
Falcon
Do you really believe that anything the EU does is going to prevent the US from rather forcibly letting the world know that the IP manuactured in the US isn't going to be passed around for free? Dream on. You are talking about a huge economy that is responsible for the well-being of nearly a half a billion people
The European population is more than 830 million whereas the US's is estimated at 309 million. The census being done will likely raise the number but it's still less than half of Europe's population. Well maybe you meant something else... According to the CIA the EU has the largest exports, China is second, and Germany alone is third. The US shows up behind Germany at number 4.
If that's not what you mean then what do you mean? Quite simply both the EU and China have bigger markets. About the only thing the US has going for it is IP and productivity.
Probably the biggest thing that people are missing is the US is poised to take on a huge new madate to pretty much supply health care to everyone.
I doubt it but I hope Obamacare is stopped. I'm feeling sorrier and sorrier I voted for him.
Falcon