Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Good morning!
On this day in 1945: The United Nations was formally established.
Welcome to our daily (except Sundays) open thread, where you, the commenters, choose the topics of conversation.
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top295 Comments to “Whirled Views 10.24”
And peculiarly enough, while there has been much violence since its founding, there have been no large conventional wars such as we saw in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.
It is a very imperfect organization to be sure, but it does bring people together to talk.
WHO also has contrbuted much to the wellfare of the world.
Report comment to moderator
As with the League Of Nations, this to will fail. The greed and desire for power is to deeply ingrained in sinful mankind.
Blessed are the peacemakers, not the peace keepers. Peace keepers do so at the point of a gun. Peacemakers do it in like manner as the recognized organizations such as we have seen with the “Hope Awards”.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno,
from which ever perspective one approaches one’s consideration of humans, humans are very much less than perfect.
The question perhaps is, how much can we achieve in spite of these imperfections.
WHO has wiped out smallpox. Anbd in this I suggest, we have an instantiation of what even an imperfect being can accomplish.
Report comment to moderator
And would have wiped out malaria if Rachel Carlson hadn’t written her book.
Report comment to moderator
Chas post 4,
actually probably not.
we can argue the merits/demeritas of DDT all you want, and there are good arguments oneither side (although as with anything DDT must be used in moderation if it is to be valuable).
However, there are too many additional hosts for marlia for us to use the same approach as with small pox, which basically onlky has a human host.
The next one up for eradication seems to be polio, which we apparenlty came within a hair breadth of eradicating, only to slip back:
Polio Eradication effort
and
http://www.polioeradication.org/casecount.asp
Peculiarly enough, it appears that religiously driven opposition to polio vaccinations seems to be one critical stumbling block for effective polio efforts:
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/15/6/pdfs/09-0087.pdf
Report comment to moderator
And of course before one becomes too cokcy and argue that it is the under developed world where there is religious opposition to vaccinations, one must consider the response even in WMB to HPV vaccinations.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Does it make much sense to try to talk sensibly to the audience at worldmagblog?
Report comment to moderator
We are coming up on the election in Washington state. Initiative 71 has been referred to as the “Everything but marriage” measure.
I could go into a long disquisition on it, but as Karl Rove, the man who makes me wonder if he really is a Christian, is my hero and mentor, I will limit myself to saying,
Vote Yes on No!
Report comment to moderator
Summertime Blues – Eddie Cochrane (1958)
I’m gonna take two weeks, gonna have a fine vacation
I’m gonna take my problem to the United Nations
Well I called my congresman and he said quote:
“I’d like to help you son, but you’re too young to vote”
Sometimes i wonder, what i’m a-gonna do
But there ain’t no cure for the Summertime Blues
Report comment to moderator
The World Health Organization is ONE thing, the UN is another. The UN could accomplish a great deal if the people who are running it were honest, decent people. It can’t accomplish anythig when it’s in bed with corrupt dictators and protects them and gives them legitimacy.
What troubles me the most about the left is how they never question anything their government does. They’ll take any pill, any vaccine, pay any tax. Of course, it’s easier when your brain gets no exercise to let others make decisions for you.
Report comment to moderator
Is Karl Rove really an atheist?
For that matter, is George Bush really an atheist?
http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/04/karl-rove-is-atheist-more-evidence-and.html
Report comment to moderator
Random name post 7,
observationally it seems that the quality of discussion in WMB has risen in the last few years.
I suggest that all those who have attempted to argue logically and rationally in WMB have contributed to this improvement.
And of course Lynn’s sceptre didn’t hurt either (or maybe it did and that was in part cause for the improvement!
).
Report comment to moderator
JNJHLawyer post 10,
but WHO at root is a creature of the UN. As with much in life, there is both good and bad in nearly everything.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 10,
and of course when you say:
“What troubles me the most about the left is how they never question anything their government does. They’ll take any pill, any vaccine, pay any tax. Of course, it’s easier when your brain gets no exercise to let others make decisions for you. ”
I respond:
What troubles me the most about the right is how they always seem to question anything their government does. They’ll wont trust any pill, any vaccine, pay any tax, no matter how well documented the actual value is. Of course, it’s easier when your brain gets no exercise to let others, such as th enominal conservatvieleadership, make decisions for you.
And indeed in WMB we can often see the knee jerk consrvative reaction with no thought, no facts, and no logic.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name post 11,
I suggest that karl Rove is one of the finest political tacticians of our time. This doesnot require any religious belief, either doctrinal or atheistic.
Strategist, not so much.
Report comment to moderator
Why would anyone NOT question what they put in their body? That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Not intimidated, Musing.
Report comment to moderator
Oh no, a Whirled Views “dominated” by Musing when the day is hardly started. I may be done for the day here. (Musing, that isn’t to be rude, but you post far too many posts on any thread you visit, and I skip most of them because they don’t say much that’s worth saying, and then I find when I am reading the people I don’t skip that they’re simply responding to you. So the thread is in effect dead.)
Have a good day y’all. I have plenty to do today anyway.
Report comment to moderator
“[T]his treaty of Copenhagen, which is going to be negotiated by the states’ parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December, is going to…establish for the first time in human history a global government,” he warns.
Monckton contends that the word “government” appears twice in paragraph 38 of the draft, and that paragraphs 36 through 38 explain that the purpose of the treaty is to establish a world government. “Whose job,” he explains, “will be to transfer wealth from the wealthy countries, such as the United States most of all, to Third World countries — and the excuse for this transfer of wealth is so-called ‘reparation.’”
Reparation for so-called “climate debt,” he adds. Monckton notes that the U.N. believes the U.S. owes the world this debt because of its use of fossil fuels, which he says are mistakenly blamed for causing “manmade global warming.” He adds that this world government will have the ability to make the U.S. pay. Monckton is hopeful that the U.S. will lack the willingness to ratify such a dangerous treaty.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=734422
FYI, the link says it all.
Report comment to moderator
So, Cheryl. What can we do today to make this a fun thread? Should we discuss the advantages of dogs versus cats? Indoor vs outdoor pets? Mac vs PC? McD’s vs Burger King? Ford vs Chevy? Football vs baseball? BCS vs playoff? Mousetraps vs toaster ovens? Coffee vs tea? Coke vs Pepsi? Wal*Mart vs mom and pop stores? You name it. We’ll discuss it.
Or how about harmless jokes?
Random (7) asks about the utility of trying to talk sense here. I suggest he should talk sense for once and see how it goes.
Report comment to moderator
Or blonde jokes (no offense, BTW)
I was sort of dimly aware of an AIM event which went on forever on C-SPAN yesterday.
Toward the end of it the head guy, whose name I can’t recall, made some comments.
The gist of his first few sentences was that the problems with liberals was that they want to create “heaven on earth”. And that trying to do that has been the first step toward totalitarianism wherever it has been tried.
It occurred to me that yes, I am “guilty” of wishing to do that–to make everybody’s life a little better. And yet apparently, this fellow seems to think it inevitably leads to something terrible…
Report comment to moderator
And just to be fair, there are male blond jokes as well:
What do they call a guy with no arms and legs, hanging on the wall?
Report comment to moderator
What do they call a guy with no arms or legs, floating in the water?
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee – #24 – Art.
Report comment to moderator
What do they call a woman with only one leg? (correct, Karen O)
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Bob. Eileen.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 16,
but of course:
“Why would anyone NOT question what they put in their body? That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Not intimidated, Musing. ”
but the approach of objecting despite the evidence is equally ludicrous.
So, for example, I tend to be very leery of rabies vaccines, since at least the earlier versions had as I read the ltierature some tendency to have reactions AND in general the benfit in advance is small. I also tend to be careful with live polio vaccines, although in the correct conditions they can be very useful. Flu vaccines: not so much concern etc..
Again the issue is the facts and cost/benefit analysis which supports ones judgement which is crtiical. Unsupported knee jerk reactions tend by contrast to be far less useful. Both the right and the left can demonstrate knee jerk reactions regularly (consider the knee jerk reactions from the right on the Belmont Abbey health insurance discussion for example).
Report comment to moderator
Chas post 18,
so for clarity are you referring to:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
or some other document?
Report comment to moderator
Chas post 18,
so to make this perhaps simpler:
1) reference to document you are referring to
2) reference to specific paragraphs with excerts supportintg your position
I always hate hearsay discussions, and the issues you brought up are potentially complex and need to be carefuly establioshed to avoid misdiscussing the wrong topic.
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
#20
Pay me enough cents and I will talk sense.
Also, I suspect you define “talk sense” as “agree with me.”
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I provided the link from which the quote appeared.
Yesterday’s WV, Victoria requested the links. So, I decided to include them.
Report comment to moderator
Musing…..I have asked a couple of times and you can’t seem to come up with an answer so I will ask the same question a different way.
Scenario: President Obama waves his magic wand and makes the deficit he inherited (because we all know nothing he has done has added to the deficit) go away and he starts with a clean slate.
Challenge: With the passage of a public option in health care creating another government agency, the passage of cap and trade creating the need for more workers in EPA and the passage of a new federal regulatory body, all these programs will add more to the federal budget. While adding more to the expenses column, the decisions to limit pay in companies that received bailout money and perhaps in other financial institutions creating less federal tax revenue, please explain to me how the federal government is going to pay for all the additions.
Key formula is: Revenue – Expenses = debt/profit. The government is supposed to run at an = 0. So how do you do this while not adding any jobs in the private sector (which is how you increase revenue) and adding more taxes and penalties to small/medium/large businesses which will cause more businesses to lay more people off (which adds to federal expenses in unemployment funds – which can’t be deficit neutral because if companies aren’t creating jobs while at the same time cutting jobs your unemployment funds runs at a negative.
So I know Musing that you are the most intelligent person out there and support everything President Obama has done and is doing so I would just like to see how you liberals are going to pay for all of this.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
you provided the link to Mockton. You did not provide the link to the base document. Nor did either you or Mockton provide specficis on where your concerns in the base document are coming from.
Right now this is hearsay from MOckton, and, as presented, is unsupported hearsay.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 35,
so lets start simple. You state:
“Key formula is: Revenue – Expenses = debt/profit. The government is supposed to run at an = 0.”
And on what do you base this argument?
Business does not work on this model, for example, so why should government?
And with your assumptions arguably false, the rest of your argument seems a bit frayed.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom [post 35,
now when you say:
“So I know Musing that you are the most intelligent person out there and support everything President Obama has done”
you would seem nmot to be actually reading my posts. I have a number of issues with Oabam, many of which I posted before. Examples are:
1) Guantanemo policy
2) Dont Ask Dont Tell
3) Defense of Marriage Act
etc.
Again, it usually helps to have yo0ur fascts in order if you are going to make facutal assertions. Observationally you have not done so.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAbout Freedom post 35,
now my memory from my financial analysis experience is that businesses are typically analyzed using three document:
1) Income statement
2) Balance sheet
3) Cash flow analysis
And again, as I remember, it if you have two of these, you can derive the third.
Now when you say:
Revbenue – expenses
it seems to me for example that you also have to consider capitalization as well do you not?
And furthermore if debt is incurred slower than revenue growth AND is associated with capital investments which contribute to competitiveness, then these are typically considered approipriate from a business perspective.
So as a minimum your simplistic model does not consider capitalization issues.
Report comment to moderator
No, Musing, investigating and being informed about what you put into your body is not ludicrous. It’s wise and smart.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 40,
and when you say:
“No, Musing, investigating and being informed about what you put into your body is not ludicrous. It’s wise and smart. ”
it would seem you did not read my comment:
“but the approach of objecting despite the evidence is equally ludicrous.”
You apparenlty are frantically creating an argument on points where you and I agree without effecitevly addressing my observation of those, including at times apparenlty yourself (c.f. Belmont Abbey), who base their opposition without looking at the evidence.
It is reasoned and thoughtful evaluation based on solid evidence which is the sweet spot here.
Report comment to moderator
I see that Random, in 33, said:
Good to see he admits it.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga post 42,
butr of course the unedited full quote is (in response to stubobs post):
“Also, I suspect you define “talk sense” as “agree with me.” ”
So either you are agreeing with Radndom name’s criticism of stubob OR you would seem tobe deliberately misquoting Random name.
And if the letter, it does make an interesting comment on you approach to honest debate.
Report comment to moderator
Just as I suspected Musing…you have to make everything complicated because you have no answers.
Answer it however you would like. Keep in mind that business requires capitalization. Government simply prints money and appoints themselves a budget.
Keep it simple.
Government revenue = taxes & fees.
Government expenses = salaries, leases, utilities, etc.
Balance your budget. Leave out all the other stuff. I don’t want you to have to think too much. The point of this exercise is that you have this insane belief that big government is the answer to everything.
All I am asking is for you to keep it simple and answer the question.
Revenue – Expenses = profit/loss. Leave everything else out of it. You can do it on a given month, year, 3 year, whatever you desire.
If (and that is a big if) you can do this simply then we can go into more complicated matters. However, if (and that isn’t such a big if) you can’t do this, then I will explain what happens next.
Report comment to moderator
NJLWhat troubles me the most about the left is how they never question anything their government does.
Nope. Like going into needless wars, manipulating intelligence, imprisoning thousands of people with no rights whatsoever, spying with no probable cause on millions of Americans, ignoring a drowning city, nominating an out-and out-crook to be Director of Homeland Security, etc, etc etc.
We have dutifully (yes sir, whatever you say, sir) ignored all of those government actions while you and your conservative buddies have cheered the government on.
The truth here is that you absolutely love it when the government does something to somebody you don’t like, and criticize whenever the government does something for somebody you don’t like.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 44,
when you say:
“Just as I suspected Musing…you have to make everything complicated because you have no answers.”
I merely suggest that perhaps your models are so simple because you do not understand.
And as I noted, and your comment on capitalization suggests you should know. Your comment:
“Revenue – Expenses = profit/loss. Leave everything else out of it. You can do it on a given month, year, 3 year, whatever you desire.”
is too simplistic, and hence suggest you do not understand.
There is no requiremewnt for government to be deficit free. There are certain cases where not running a deficit is in fact a failure to meet governmental responsiblites.
That you cannot accept this despite your business knowledge which will require this as part of sound financial management, further illuminates your apparent lack of understading of economics and finances.
So simplistically: was the large defict incurred during WW II governmental irresponsibility?
Report comment to moderator
And as for #38, I have not seen anywhere you disagreed with any of those 3. Obama wants to close Gitmo, you want to close Gitmo. Obama wants to end DADT, you want to end DADT. Obama wants to rewrite or rescind DoM, you want to do the same. How is that disagreeing with the great one?
And as usual all you can deliver is arguments against what I have written. All I am asking is for you to defend your big government lovefest with a little bit of financial simplicity.
Income/Revenue – Expenses = profit/loss. If you can’t do this then you don’t deserve to run a business.
Also, government does not run like a business. They don’t have to earn a profit (isn’t that what you keep saying is the main reason government can run health care so much better?) and don’t have to pay stock holders or anything else. So in the most simplistic form they are supposed to run at 0. Government was designed to earn revenue and with that revenue pay expenses and at the end of the fiscal year have it equal a big fat 0. When they end up with more revenue at the end of the year we call it surplus. When they end up with less revenue than expenses at the end of the year we call it debt. When you run a bunch of years at debt we call that a deficit. Real simple economics. Even a math brain like you should be able to figure that out.
So answer the question. How is your big government going to pay for all the programs and agencies they are creating?
Report comment to moderator
Stop Musing….you keep deflecting the point away from what I am asking you to do.
Answer the question. President Obama waved his magic wand and made the deficit go away. You are now on ground zero, no deficit, no surplus.
I can answer the complicated questions, have been doing it for almost 20 years without the government having to bail me out or ever running a deficit. The reason is because I can answer the simple questions.
Stick to the simple question and come up with an answer.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 47,
but I want a clear shutdonw of GGuantanemo quickly, iommediate cessation of DADT, and a clear and obvious movement to repeal DOMA.
Obama makes no such pretenses.
And yes Obama and I do disagree.
I also have grave concerns over his Afghanistan approach: either put in the troops needed to effectively fight the insurgent war (perhaps 400,000) or get out.
Report comment to moderator
Make it simple. I capitalized everything for the start-up for the government so you don’t even have to pay off a loan.
You are totally on level ground.
Revenue – Expenses = profit/loss.
Report comment to moderator
You want the same things he does, the problem you have is not disagreement, it is disagreement on timing. You, like all far left liberals, want it now like a spoiled child. Obama knows that for national defense purposes he cannot do 2 of those 3 without putting troops in harms way. Same as Afghanistan.
Report comment to moderator
And the purpose behind this exercise is very, very simple. If the liberal minority (which calls itself the majority) want all this great programs and agencies, then you must have a way to pay for them.
All I am asking is to please show me how you are going to pay for all these programs while maintaining a straight zero, no surplus, no debt.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 47,
now your comment here:
“Also, government does not run like a business. They don’t have to earn a profit (isn’t that what you keep saying is the main reason government can run health care so much better?) and don’t have to pay stock holders or anything else.”
is in fact correct, and suggests correctly that the finances of government are more complex than for business (consider the role of currency). However, your comment:
“So in the most simplistic form they are supposed to run at 0.”
is totally unsupported and without foundation. It certainly does not follow from the premises you provide.
I have been patiently pointing out htis logical error on your part, as well as clearly demonstrating your simplistic model of finances, for some time.
It would seem that you still are not familiar with the concept of providing supporting evidence to support your assertions.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 50,
so lets keep it simple: answer my questio on the deficts during WW II.
Your move (look closely, you would seem to be in check mate).
Report comment to moderator
My daughter will not be getting the HPV vaccination. Nor will we be getting the H1N1 flu vaccination (and we don’t normally get any flu vaccinations, because I don’t believe that they work.)
I base these decisions on the evidence. (And, no Musing, I will NOT go into the laboratory and document the evidence personally after earning my PhD in Chemistry, which is the kind of standard you hold OTHER people to in providing evidence — not yourself.)
We also don’t do the chicken pox vaccine or the hepatitis B vaccine.
We do all the others, but later than doctors normally ask for. (The idea of doing Hep B in the hospital for a newborn is LUDICROUS IMO.)
You do as you wish, Musing.
Report comment to moderator
#54
Not likely. You often think you are winning (or have won) arguments when no one else would agree.
Report comment to moderator
Okay. More humor. I just love this Frank and Ernest strip.
Report comment to moderator
#57
LOL
Report comment to moderator
If you are unable to do this, or you don’t understand how to do this, just say that. Don’t try to make this about my intelligence. Just say I don’t understand how the government is going to pay for all this spending. Then you and I can be in agreement because no matter how much I run numbers for all these government programs I can’t for the life of me figure out how the government is not going to run a permanent debt, which will spiral out of control into a deficit that can’t be undone.
If you can figure it out, then fantastic. The only model I can even figure out when running a 3 year cash flow is that ALL taxes are going to have to be raised into the 40-60% range. People/corporations making more than $500,000 a year are going to have to be taxed in the 60-75% range to even come close to running at zero. I have a very simple cash flow sheet that I use for my budget. I run my 3 year cash flows every month and I have to spend a lot of time doing this. I run the same thing using simplistic numbers for the government and adding expenses just on salaries to be able to provide the same (if not better) service than we have right now and the increase in spending is so enormous that you have to raise taxes to bring in the revenue.
So, if you have a way to pay for all these programs then please share it with me. You can put your smiley faces all over your posts but if you can’t do this, then just admit that you, like me, cannot figure out how the government is going to pay for it.
Then you can say that you do not care how the government is going to pay for it as long as they pay for it and you don’t have to and stop being a hypocrite.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 52,
but of course in your comment:
“All I am asking is to please show me how you are going to pay for all these programs while maintaining a straight zero, no surplus, no debt. ”
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the situation.
So long as the economy is growing, if the debt grows more slowly than the economy then in fact is no issue.
As with any effectively capital expenditures: your expenditures must result in more growth than their costs. This is, by the way, also true for business: you do not capitalize only at the beginning but you also have to think about continued ongoing recapitalization of your business to ensure that it remains viable.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 55,
since as you seem to note you are not even attempting to bases these decisions on the scientific data, I believe I can rest my case.
Report comment to moderator
My dog (a full blue merle Collie) is at the “beauty parlor” today, and my son is having a computer gaming party (LAN) for his 13th birthday.
I will be making tacos with carne asada (which makes these pretty fancy) for lunch and then ordering pizza for dinner later.
We do a special ceremony for our boys when they turn 13, and my son will be receiving a real sword later today from his father, as well as a “book of wisdom” from the important men in his life.
So, all is well.
But, I do need to get moving on putting the book together (I have lots of letters that need to be put into a memory book) and defrosting the carne asada.
Report comment to moderator
#54 Musing……check mate on you mate. I asked first. You answer my question and I will answer a question that deals with the past.
The problem Musing is that you keep want to refer to someone else’s problem. I don’t care. What’s done is done. The future.
I have capitalized all your new programs, President Obama waved his magic wand. Now pay for it!
If you can’t do this Musing it is really okay to say that you have no idea nor do you care how the government is going to pay for it just as long as you get what you want and you get it immediately and everybody shuts up and just gives you what you want.
Otherwise…….Revenue – expenses = profit/loss.
If you want it a better way: revenue – expenses = surplus/debt.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 56,
but of course ItsAboutFreedom if he is actually intending to argue, is now faced with either arguing:
1) the deficts during WW II were not appropriate: ringing into question then US involvement in WW II (and boy will that be fun!
)
OR
2) under some conditions deficits are ok
I do not need your approval to comprehend who is winning here: you demonstrate your approach in your arguments or lack thereof on vacinations.
Report comment to moderator
“Business does not work on this model, for example, so why should government?”
Because businesses exist to earn profits for their owners. They also create and build wealth. Governments do not create wealth; they confiscate the wealth of others through taxation to fund their necessary activities. Unnecessary activity and confiscation above their needs are immoral and injurious to the wealth of its citizens. The government has no need to increase its capitalization by incurring debt and investing. They do not exist to earn a profit; they exist to provide necessary services only.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 59,
as I have commented many times, your perception here:
“If you are unable to do this, or you don’t understand how to do this, just say that. Don’t try to make this about my intelligence.”
Is simply incorrect. I am making no assertions regaridng your intelligence, indeed as presetned your intelligence in languages is better than mine.
However, I am saying that you are making very poorly supported and structured arguments.
Report comment to moderator
It’s okay Musing….I can tell by your refusal to even go into detail about an answer what your answer is. It’s okay…..you join a wide range of people who don’t have any idea how the government is going to pay for all the spending.
You can keep complicating the matter, but the fact is that you probably do not care how the government pays for it as long as you get it. It really is okay to just say that instead of try to beat somebody up by inferring that they are too stupid to understand economics.
Report comment to moderator
Ken post 65,
and when you say:
“Governments do not create wealth; they confiscate the wealth of others through taxation to fund their necessary activities.”
then please comment on the impact of:
1) US expenditures during WW II
2) US expenditures on the interstate highway system
Report comment to moderator
#66 – I would say that almost 20 years of running businesses without having to file bankruptcy, never running at a debt and providing great benefits for my employees probably says that I understand profit and loss a little better than you also.
All I am asking you to do is admit that you either do not know how the government is going to pay for all their spending or say you do not care how the government is going to pay for all their spending.
Report comment to moderator
#61
No, I most certainly am making these decisions based on scientific data, as well as other evidence. I’m simply not going to go back to school for a PhD before making the decisions. (Documenting each experiment and writing a peer reviewed essay that has been published in multiple formats over a 10 year period and with personal backing by every Nobel Laureate that is still living — and hopefully a few dead ones — before expressing my opinion on the matter.)
Mind you, you never hold yourself to the unreasonable citation demands that you demand of others. And, you seem to have no concept of common sense or blog posting, but seem to think that PhD papers must be posted (from OTHER people, of course) for every comment anyone else makes.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 67,
now when you say:
“It’s okay…..you join a wide range of people who don’t have any idea how the government is going to pay for all the spending.”
as I have noted repeatedly (and yoiu apparently are not reading), the key is do government expenditures support growth in the US which exceeds their costs.
Any government in which the costs exceed the returned growth will, as you note, eventually fail.
But the US is growing and parts of that are do to government.
And so long as growth exceed the increase in debt, there is no suibstantive issue.
Report comment to moderator
Musing……Musing…..Musing…….just stop trying to cloud the question and answer the question.
Revenue – expenses = surplus/debt.
Report comment to moderator
#71 – substantiate the statement “the U.S. is growing and parts of that are due to government” (the fixes in your lack of grammar are mine).
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 72,
but I have answered your question sazeveral time: your model as posed is wrong – it neglects looking at the balance sheet. It is seriously incomplete and if you are actually running a bussiness you should know this.
Therefore I am of the conclusion at this point that you are simply arguing dishonestly. Either that or you are seriously misinformed about finances.
Report comment to moderator
Not likely. You often think you are winning (or have won) arguments when no one else would agree.
As opposed to the typical wmb argument:
Lots of people agree with me.
Lots of people have agreed with me for thousands of years.
Therefore I am clearly winning the argument.
Truth is now decided by opinion polls and ballot results.
Except when you lose one.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 73,
certainly.
Consider the financial crisis of 2008 and the severe economic recession. All of the improvement in the financial industry, and therefore arguably of the economy as a whole, is due to the government. This is perhaps a few per cent to as much as 30% depending on which metric you choose to use.
Now you can try to come to grips with government expenses such as:
1) WW II
2) the interstae highway system
Your failure to comment on WW II is indeed telling.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name post 75,
and you chide me for trying to atgue logicaly with this crew???
Report comment to moderator
No Musing…..I am asking you a simple question. Yes the balance sheet and the income statement all play a part in this equation. However, when a business is looking to either expand or contract the business model that is looked at is a a 3 year cash flow that takes into play all of the things happening around it. My balance sheet and income statement merely reflect what I have.
However when it comes to planning it is a very simple formula based on projecting future happenings in 2 areas: (1) revenue or income; (2) expenses.
I say to you sir that if you cannot do this and come up with a either a surplus or a debt then you cannot plan for an increase in expenses. If you plan on increasing your expenses by increasing salaries, lease, utilities or any other matter in expenses you have to have a correlating plan to increase your expenses.
So feel like you are winning if it makes you feel better. This isn’t about winning or losing for me. Very little in life is about winning and losing. Life to me is about maintaining balances in every area of my life including my finances. There is no win or lose in there. It is about being sure that the decisions I am going to make are going to net results that are going to make sure my life is balanced.
If I am misinformed about finances then I am happily misinformed. I own two buildings in which my current office in VA is located and my new office in NC is located. No loans, no leases, I own them lock, stock and barrel. I own my own home here in VA, no mortgage, no rent, all mine owned and paid for. I own 2 cars, both paid for. I have 2 years of my personal expenses in a savings account, 6 months of my personal expenses in my checking account and 5 years of my personal expenses in a money market account. I now own the family farm in CO, paid for lock, stock and barrel. For the farm I have the next 3 years of seed money in a checking account. I have the money to pay for the fuel and maintenance for the next 2 years in another checking account. I have the money to pay for the workers salaries and benefits for next year in another account. For my 2 offices in VA and NC I have salaries and expenses already in an account for the next 9 months and am working to get that up to 1 year for both offices.
So, if I do not understand finances I happily do not understand finances because I don’t have to worry about debt.
To offset the off chance that all my banks and credit unions either fail or the government seizes them and I can’t get my money out I have a full year’s worth of all expenses saved up in gold.
So, if I do not understand finances I happily do not understand finances.
I would say that perhaps you fail to understand finances simply because you do not want to understand finances. You want the government to take care of you and all your expenses so that you can run out and buy more stuff so you can look and feel like a hot shot.
Report comment to moderator
Musing I don’t even get your question about WWII and what in the world does it have to do with the current amount of spending in this government. That was a World War and it brought with it extreme deficits and if I remember correctly it was under the last Progressive president we had so why don’t you preach to me about it.
I asked you a simple question. You either can’t or won’t answer it because you either just simply can’t or you just don’t care.
You are doing the same thing you always do. Try to turn the tables and make the other person feel stupid because they don’t answer some question you come up with that doesn’t have anything to do with what you were asked.
You are a typical progressive liberal who doesn’t care how the government increases in size and gives you everything you need or want just as long as they give it to you and make it snappy because you want it now.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: Try it this way. Presumably you do have some scientific sources which you trust. Perhaps if you can lay out who they are, what they say, and why you believe them over what seems to be overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of vaccinations, Musing or others whom you think may have more open minds can evaluate your opinion. Otherwise you have considerable difficulty distinguishing the validity of your opinion from the opinion of others who claim that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that…well you know the rest of it.
We all, at some point, have to trust somebody on decisions like this. And when minority opinions appear, advocating them requires at least some evidence of reliability and trustworthiness of the sources.
Speaking personally, I truly hope that your kids do get chickenpox (or the H1N1 virus), and do not thereby expose others unnecessarily. But I also harbor enough distrust of government and particularly public health officials to be willing to evaluate your reasons for acting contrary to their recommendations.
Report comment to moderator
Here is my answer to your questions:
1) http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture21.html
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=878128
2) http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm
http://www.mi-ita.com/pdf/trip_report.pdf
http://www.interstate50th.org/docs/techmemo2.pdf
I can Google just as well as you can and that is all you are doing when you throw your junk questions out there anyway.
So, now answer my simple question or just admit you do not know or you do not care.
Report comment to moderator
ITSABOUTWHOSEFREEDOM:
You are a typical progressive liberal who doesn’t care how the government increases in size and gives you everything you need or want just as long as they give it to you and make it snappy because you want it now.
Same comment I made to NJL above @45.
You don’t care how many trillions (or lives) the gov’t spends on the military or military contractors. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are somehow “worth it”. Those deficits are okay. But spending money on health care must be watched like a hawk. Even if a credible argument can be made that both peoples’ health and GDP are both helped by a better system. And nobody gets killed by these dollars.
Report comment to moderator
I’m curious . . . do all of you people enjoy pointless interaction with Musing? Do you think that you’ll finally be the person who he admits makes sense when you refute his arguments? Because as far as I’m concerned, any thread with Musing on it is Musing plus x number of frustrated people, and it looks to me like that is neither fun nor profitable for the x’s, though I suppose Musing thoroughly enjoys it.
Have a good rest of the day. I did enjoy the jokes posted here and there.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – good point. I don’t know why I argue with him/her/it. It can be very annoying and it will never lead to Musing ever admitting the off chance that he could be wrong.
Then you have our other liberal progressive walking in with such a great comment. Yeah Arcadia you could intrepret my comments are about health care. Or you could interpret them for what they are: my comment is questioning the liberal progressive agenda of spend, spend, spend, grow, grow, grow government because all of a sudden government is the answer for everything. You could interpret it that way or you and Musing could just keep confusing the issues with comments that have nothing to do with anything. Either way I am out of here to go back to what I do well. Make a profitable business more profitable until your lovely little progressive government steps in and takes it away to redistribute to somebody like Musing or Arcadia who can’t run their own business properly so they must have the government give them a business so they can fail at that also.
Bye bye!
Report comment to moderator
Says Musing at #43 in response to my #42:
You’d figure for all Musing’s smileys
he’d have a sense of humor, and for all the times he’s misrepresented another’s posts, he’d be appreciative of my misquote.
Report comment to moderator
ITSABOUTWHOSEFREEDOM:
Just in case you haven’t been around long enough to see it, here’s a great little chart concerning the national debt.
http://www.presidentialdebt.org
Do you at least understand my (and Musing’s) point? I know you don’t agree with it, but do you understand the argument?
Report comment to moderator
IAWF: (quitting, calling folks names and taking his marbles back to build his own fantasy empire).
Oh well.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom, Cheryl
EXCELLENT – you’re right it is a total waste of time! I rarely post to or answer these and several others, I don’t have time, nor does it solve anything.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D @ 17: Effectively killing the thread is the intent and purpose of MUSING, et al.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 78,
so when you say:
“No Musing…..I am asking you a simple question. Yes the balance sheet and the income statement all play a part in this equation.”
we are fialy gettinhg some where. By inbclufding the balance sheet you admit that there are assets.
When you say:
” However, when a business is looking to either expand or contract the business model that is looked at is a a 3 year cash flow that takes into play all of the things happening around it. ”
you thow in an arbitray 3 years without supporting evidence. The same fallacy you make earlier. by the way some businesses look at both cah flow and balance sheets objectvie with a much longer time horizon than 3 years (in my company we actually look out about 12 years).
Capitalization period is based on useful life, not 3 years. The cash flow analysis depends on the amount of cash one has: peculiarly for the government to first order it has all the cash it ever needs. The critical issue is I argue the balance sheet.
And for example, winning WW II or creating the interstae highway system were at root multi-decade investments which have paid off well for the US: hence debunking your argument that governments shold not run at a defict.
Agian I have answered your question.
based on history you wilnopt realize it, and will demand that I answer your “simple” question.
and if the past is to be used as a predictor, again you will not realize that you are arguably demonstrating some serious misunderstandings regarding finance.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 79,
whjen you say:
“Musing I don’t even get your question about WWII and what in the world does it have to do with the current amount of spending in this government.”
I merely note that during WW II the US ran deficits which exceeded our total gross national product:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html#
showing:
1) governments do not have to run at zero deficit: they dont
2) running at a deficit is not always a “bad” thing
In short, this graph would seem to shred your argument.
Report comment to moderator
Roger,
I used to wonder, but I believe you’re right about “killing the thread” – endless posts by the same people, saying anything to distract from the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Macrtutabaga post 84,
so you admit that you explicitly misquoted Random name?
And where have I deliberately misquoted any poster in WMB?
In fact, to avoid this, I often, as I try particularly carefuly to do wiht ItsAboutFreedom and NJLawyer, include the key material which I am commenting on in tact as written so that it minimizes the potential for misunderstanding.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia post 86,
as should be clear by now, ItsAboutFreedom either does not undertsand the fundamentals of this argument OR is being deliberately intellectually dishonest.
Either way, given the first order errors in the argument, it provides a nice framework to slowly and methodically debunk some of the sillier conservative claims.
So I find ItsAboutFreedom’s comments useful in an odd sort of way.
Report comment to moderator
#78 ITSABOUTWHOSEFREEDOM
Can I just say Sir, WOW! I am so impressed with your choices financially. You have done what I always dreamed I could do. Being in the ministry and living on that one income with lots of kiddos we always try to be careful. God has always provided and I always look for ways to be a better steward.
I am so glad you have been able to work and be so independent.
God Bless
Report comment to moderator
Now one could have, if one so chose, a truly insightful discussion about the present economy and government involvement. Economically we are at an extremely perilous time. And while most models of economic behavior indicate that the scale of the government intervention was necessary (or perhaps even too small), there are some substantive risks which this has entailed.
But this would require doing some deep looking at how economies work and the content of the economy which we desire, neither of whic is being raised effectively in the discussion.
But if the conservatives want to continue to dmeonstrate the shallowness of the “governments must not run deficits” arguments suc as ItsAboutFreedom has been raising, then this is not hard, and it can be useful to show the failure of their arguments.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, 93,
And where have I deliberately misquoted any poster in WMB?
Well, Musing,
, over the past couple weeks or so, you’ve misrepresented me, Frank in Spokane, and reader, claiming we’d argued the opposite of what we actually posted. Notably, in none of those instances did you provide “key material” in the form of quotes from the posts. I’d go dig up the threads, but it’s doubtful anyone here would be skeptical of my claim.
Report comment to moderator
The word of the day for this thread is Logorrhoea.
Report comment to moderator
So when will Zondervan publish a Logorrhoea Bible? George Orwell provides an example of what Ecclesiastes 9:11 might look like.
Here’s the original KJV version.
“I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”
He rewrote it like this:
“Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”
Report comment to moderator
Here is another excerpt from Gregg Frazer’s brilliant reply to an evangelical critic explaining why Christians should be wary of wrapping their faith in the American flag. The kernel of truth that the Christian Nationalists (David Barton) types have is that ministers (the most notable of whom, Barton will not tell you, were theological unitarians and other sorts of heretics) have been doing this from the start of the American Founding and indeed the abuse of the historic Christian faith on behalf of the cause of Americanism was instrumental to get the masses to rally to the cause.
As Dr. Frazer wrote:
I am very familiar with Abraham Keteltas’s God Arising and Pleading His People’s Cause – it’s hardly a reliable source. You talk about “extreme” positions? Keteltas argues in that sermon that Jesus came to earth and died on the Cross for the American cause!!! I keep a marker on that page of the sermon – for whenever I need a chuckle. As for his comments about who’s “anointed” in I Chron. 16 and Psalm 105 – both verses refer to prophets, not to the common people. [For those who want the technical, they are examples of parallelism in Hebrew, in which the same thing is said twice for emphasis – a common Hebrew technique.]
Report comment to moderator
I’ve never had a flu vaccine, and am not an expert on the subject. But a Google search of “Do flu vaccines work?” can yield some information quickly. For example, see the following link:
Do Flu Shots Really Work?
As to the benefits, we have to first ask: Is the treatment effective? The answer is, not very. The three flu strains that go into the vaccine are chosen almost a year before flu season hits. Because the viruses mutate rapidly, the strains in the vaccines often don’t match the actual viruses that come to your town each season.
For instance, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admitted that last year’s flu shot was a good match for only about 40% of that year’s flu viruses.3 That’s why last year’s flu outbreak was one of the worst in a long time — despite the widespread use of flu vaccines.
In 2006, the esteemed British Medical Journal looked at all the research behind flu shots and came up with some interesting conclusions:
Those considered to be at highest risk from flu are the elderly and young children. In those over age 70, flu vaccines did not reduce the number of deaths, but it is thought that it did reduce hospitalizations. A 2008 study of children aged 6 months to 5 years old found that the flu vaccine was not effective in any kids, regardless of age, where they live, or when they got vaccinated — and the most likely reason was because the vaccines didn’t match the strains that actually hit.
Report comment to moderator
I engaged Musing on a thread about 6 months ago or so naively believing that (s)he wanted a logical and civil discussion.
I came away with the conclusion that (s)he just likes to argue and frustrate others.
Haven’t engaged him/her since. Waste of time.
Arcadia at least occasionally gives you credit for your point of view even if (s)he doesn’t agree with you.
Report comment to moderator
The link above is concerned with the regular flu vaccine, not the swine flu vaccine – FYI.
Whether or not you get the vaccine, refusing it because “the government is out to get you” seems silly to me. The government of the United States is not out to get you. (BTW, using the same argument against wiretapping is also silly. The government is out to get terrorists, not you). I enjoyed Jon Stewart’s episode on this.
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
One of the most prominent men in our community received a flu shot two years ago – 6 weeks later he collapsed in his office, unable to move from the waste down, he was rushed to emergency – he still is unable to walk without a cane – and then not well. He recieves physical therapy several times a week. The reason? – a flu shot –
I received a tetanus injection in 1984 after being stuck with an object made in China – the injection was mixed with another preventative (I cannot recall what it was) and the next day could not think clearly….. this went on for almost a year. The doctor said the cause was the injection. It took several years to get back to normal, after which I became allergic to many things. Thankfully all is well now.
Report comment to moderator
The government of the United States is not out to get you…
… unless you are wealthy or Fox News, or the Chamber of Commerce or a medical doctor who disagrees with Obamacare or an insurance company or a banking executive or you are past the age of usefulness to society or are a Democrat but not an Obama Democrat or …
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabag post 97,
so lets do this in pieces.
Have I explicitly taken what you have said and rewritten it and posted it?
Now, next, have y ou perhaps made statements which can be interpreted multiple ways?
You may argue perhaps that I misinterpreted you, but when you clarified what you meant, have I challenged your correction?
I do suspect you have a long way to go to couple what you percevie my behaviros have been to your deliberabely and explicitly misquoting Random Name.
That you would apparently try to defend this behavior, I suggest, speaks for itself.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y post 101,
an excellent look into the data.
But there are two apsects to the question.
The first is the one you aksed: if I get a flu shot, how likely will it be that I wont get the flu. You provided 40%. My understanding has been closer to 80% but the difference here is moot: for the individual they are at best partially successful.
However, you did not appear to have included what is the risk? And I suggest that the risk of the regular flu shot is in general very low.
Leaving two open question which I believe you did not address:
1) what is the cost benefit analysis for the individual: if the cost is low, then even modest benefit is worth while
2) and perhaps more critically: what is the epidemiological benefit of the shot: if it significantly dampens wide spread epidemics of flu, then even if it is not highly successful for the individual, it may still be useful to society in preventing epidemic spread of flu
And similar calculus needs to go into any vaccine.
So rabies in genral is not a disease with high chance of epidemics: vaccines may be argued to be useful only when there ar specific known risk factors.
Flu by contrast is hihgly contagious and even a partially effectvie vaccine, if relatively low risk, may still be argued to be of value.
H1N1 is indeed very interesting here. It looks like H1N1 is now in major epidemic status. Now normally H1N1 appearently is a very mild illness. However, when there are complications requiring admiasion to the ICU, my understanding is that the fatalities are close to 40%.
And H1N1 vaccine is in very short supply, so providing enough vaccines to provide herd immunity seems to be at some distance in the future.
So please, please all of you who do not trus vaccines, dont get the H1N1 vaccination. I would like me and my family to have the best chance of getting this vaccine possible. And the more of you who refuse H1N1, the more there is for those of use who note that the risk of the H1N1 (at least the inactviated vaccine) is small, and the potential personal benefit high.
If you want to discuss the live H1N1 vaccine, I suggest that this makes for a much more interesting discussion. Interestingly enough, based on its behavior, the live H1N1 vaccine is contrindicated for most of my family.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia
you have heard the NEW Homeland Security guy talking about no more running in to save drowning places–that we need to learn to take care of ourselves. Did he call it a Nanny state?
you DO know that Obama calls the very deadly war in Afghanistan HIS war–and he isn’t sure what to do next. HE WAITS while our men are slaughtered.
ABORTION is NOT PRO-CHOICE it is AGAINST BABIES.
Obama is NOT FOR poor people. HE is AGAINST ANYONE who is NOT FOR HIM.
Guys who end up in power always first claim that they are against “the system”, until they ARE the system. Then they are against those people who are against them.
You won’t know when he begins taking people out UNTIL he comes for you.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 104,
now your statement:
“One of the most prominent men in our community received a flu shot two years ago – 6 weeks later he collapsed in his office, unable to move from the waste down, he was rushed to emergency – he still is unable to walk without a cane – and then not well. He recieves physical therapy several times a week. The reason? – a flu shot – ”
does occur.
but the objective calculus of risk is what is the risk of taking the action vs. benefits of taking the action.
As noted in:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
there are about 36,000 death from flu each year.
The following discusses the adverse events from flu shots:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/adverseTIV.htm
The severe adverse events appear to be 1% or less, and your example would appear to be much much less than 1%.
So your calculus for this type of response is what is the chance of getting the flu. It appears to be 5% to 20% of the population:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm
So a conservatvie estimate is that one has perhaps a 1/4% chance of dieing without the flu shot, and realistically much much lower than that for side effects such as you describe.
From a personal perspective, a close call, but still probably valuable.
The calculus changes dramatically if you are in a high risk group for the shot (immunosuppressed for example), in which case absolutley dont take it. Likewise if you are at high risk for complications form flu, absolutely get that flu shot.
And from a risk benefit perspective the real issues are a 50% or so chance of a sore arm and slight fever, vs. a 1/4% chance of dieing.
The extreme reactoions you are describing do occur, but in this case, on what basis after 6 months did they conclude it was the flu shot? Was the person in a high risk group? And the specfic negative reaction here?
As usual, one can have very emotionally compelling annecdotes, but what is the data?
Report comment to moderator
Now the following is perhaps germane to this discussion:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html
We are, as can be shown in the following map:
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/us/
all areas except Connecticut, South Carolina, DC, Guam, Hawaii, Puertoi Rico, and New jersey are now in epidemic status.
This compares to the beginning of October when the epidemic does not apear to have yet fully taken hold:
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/100209.htm
But please do go on and denigrate flu vaccinations, and in particular H1N1. I really do want my family to have a better chance of getting the vaccine soon.
Report comment to moderator
Shouldn’t you be comparing Obama to McCain?
What is McCain doing?
Oh, that’s right, McCain and Obama are friends now.
Palin’s only fault was thinking Obama should NOT be Pres.
Now she can’t even stub her toe without someone wanting to put a spin on it.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno post 89/Cheryl D post 17,
and for amusement, if I am killing the threads, it seems paradoxical that these become some of the longer threads.
They seem very lively when I review them.
Report comment to moderator
My husband was waiting in the car for me today and listening to a liberal talk show rant about Rush.
It didn’t take 5 minutes before someone called in and started ranting how Palin was stupid and how she thought she could be president. That was it. He turned it off. Enuf already!
Hello….you DO know that Palin DID NOT run for PRES.?
Report comment to moderator
news2me post 113,
I do find that the extremes on both the right and the left can at times be very tiresome. And I try to carefully listen to the extremes on both sides so I can get some sense of the nature of this sometimes surrewal conversation.
HOwever, if Pallin was to be the VP for a one of the older men ever to consider being president, then Palin becoming president is indeed a very real possiblity. And if she is not up to the job, that is a valid consideration in performing the calculus of which team to vote for.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, 106:
Now when you say
What behavior do you think it is that I’m defending? I suggest your answer to this question will go a long way to our determining where it is you’ve gone wrong
.
Report comment to moderator
HEALTH CARE VOTE
If you think that Washington should have the same HEALTHCARE they have chosen for us go to this congressman’s site and vote.
http://fleming.house.gov/index.html
Report comment to moderator
macrutabag post 116,
why quite simply when pushed you admitted to deliberately misquoting Random Name. In fact your inclusion of the elipses makes thsi clear when compared to the original.
Now you could have apologized then and agreed that it was in error, and we could have gone on.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I believe you then tried to deflect the conversation by arguing that I do this same stunt of deliberatly misquoting an indivual. You do not, however, seem to have backed this up with evidence.
Did I perhaps miss your apology to Random Name? If so, then I apologize.
If I did not miss your apology, then my argument reagrding your post is, I suggest, fully supported.
Report comment to moderator
Yesterday, the World Health Organization said that there were 5,000 deaths worldwide for H1N1. There are about 1,000 deaths in the U.A. from H1N1.
But the annual deaths from the regular fly is about 20,000. Why is this a hysterical worldwide emergency? US News predicts up to 90,000 deaths from H1N1. Huh?
Here are some numbers for the “regular flu”:
“Deaths from Flu: 63,730 annual deaths for influenza and pneumonia (NVSR Sep 2001); estimated 20,000 deaths from flu (NIAID)”
“The 7th leading cause of death in 1999 and 2000 is “pneumonia/influenza” (CDC)”
Report comment to moderator
U.S. not U.A.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, Victoria, et al – having innocently and quickly fallen prey, early on, to the more disingenuous, “Logorrohoeaic” and tunnel-visioned circular arguments opposing sincere contrary opinions with half-truths, twisted truths and anti-gravity talking points…..I must reject the impulse and energy to join the fray, leaving it up to others until I can stand it no longer. Sometimes, decent to-and-fro exchanges yield worthwhile food for thought and that’s what I now wait for before I chime in – if I can stand it that long, while applauding others doing the hard, picky work of refuting off-the-wall arguments.
There: My unapologetic run-on sentences of my dilemma.
TIME TO GET READY FOR CHURCH (coffee wars not withstanding)
Report comment to moderator
Thank you News2Me, that was a fun vote.
Report comment to moderator
Nana,
Have a great time at Church praising GOD, and enjoy the fellowship – and of course the COFFEE –
Report comment to moderator
Musing 40 of 118 posts.
He must be tired today. He usually has a higher ratio…
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately I got involved with Mr. Know It All again today. My point in this whole argument with Mr. Know It All was that the government does not have a mechanism in place to pay for all the debt that is being accumulated and that is dangerous. But rather than argue with idiots I will make my point to those of you who are concerned with the direction this country is going.
1. Do everything possible to reduce your debt. If this means cutting back, then by all means cut back. Do not gamble that the economy is going to get better. Always be a pessimist when it comes to the economy and gamble that the quicker you get out of debt the better. In fact, pay down your credit cards first and then work on your house.
2. Start saving money now in a credit union or bank that seems dependable to you. Start with $50 a month and work your way up. Your goal should be to as quickly as possible save 1 month of your personal expenses. Do the same if you own a business.
3. Assess what you are paying in taxes right now. Meet with an accountant if you do not understand. Reduce your tax responsibility as much as you legally can.
4. Do not spend more than you take in on a monthly basis after taxes. Do a personal budget and make sure that unlike the government you do not spend on things you do not absolutely need. The quicker you can do this the better.
5. Last tip…….once you get 1 month’s worth of personal expenses in savings, begin to save up for things that will need repairs. Do preventative maintenance on high priced things like your cars, heating & A/C and anything that has a net value over $200.
These are very practical things that you can do to make sure that when the government figures out they can’t pay for all the wonderful little things they are spending money on that you are not the one that gets caught in the cross hairs. If you are debt free and have money set aside when your paycheck goes down because the government starts taxing you more to pay for all their goodies, then you will already be prepared for your government pay cut. Don’t gamble on tax increases not happening for all tax paying citizens. The only people that will get tax cuts under this present administration are union workers, government workers and the welfare recipients they need to keep voting them into office.
If the government would do the same thing then quite possibly we wouldn’t be saddling our grand children with debt. Unfortunately the government thinks much like Mr. Know It All and they just want to bring up the past and who to blame the debt on and then keep spending, spending, spending.
Report comment to moderator
Jiller #95. I didn’t accomplish anything, it is the Christ in me that has given me the wisdom to get out of debt and learn how to put off purchases until I can pay for it with either a very short term (by this I mean 3 years or less, including mortgage) or cash. I did this because in 1987 we started a business while I was enlisted in the Navy. By 1989 we had accumulated $50,000 in debt with no means to pay it off. We decided to get very, very committed to getting out of debt and staying out of debt. I met weekly with an elder at church with my checkbook and my bills and by 1992 we had paid off all our debt. We lived in the same house we purchased with a loan from my dad in 1986 until we left for the mission field in 2001. We could have purchased a larger home many times but instead we would plow everything into savings and into purchasing real estate for cash. I have owned the office building my company is in since 1994 and rent out the other 15 offices. My company is in the smallest office which reduces our expenses and allows me to pay good salaries and provide good benefits.
Jiller, in 7 years of serving in the former Soviet Union we were able to fund over 100 business owners and help jump start a bible translation project and paid for it all with the business we started there the first year. We taught many people in ministry to get out of debt and stay out of debt and we continue to do this today.
But none of it is me or my wife. You do these things when every single day you pray for wisdom. No person walking the face of this earth is smart enough to be a simple person and accomplish great things without the help of a savior.
Keep the faith Jiller and do everything you can to reduce your debt and get money into savings no matter how hard it is.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, 117: You’re entirely without humor. Random’s post was there for all to see. I included the ellipses for all to see. I doubt anyone besides you would have thought I was trying to get away with something, or that I was serious. It was just a wee poke at Random.
Report comment to moderator
It’s all entirely Random’s fault.
Report comment to moderator
To answer ITSABOUTFREEDOM
Obama and his friends/fellow travelers are going to pay for all his things by doing several things. Following is a list of some things I see, Feel free to add anything I forget.
1. The Bush tax cuts are sunsetted next year. Yes, it is all Bush’s fault!
2. Print money. Barack nneds it to spend.
3. The dollar will fall in value so we can pay off our national debt with cheaper dollars. Besides we need to stop thinking we are the most important country in the world. Stop Bullying!
4. We will stop spending so much for oil when cap and and trade takes effect.
5. Cap and trade will bring in lots of taxes.
6. Government Motors will rebound and Barack will have even more money to spend!
7. Congress will raise taxes on the rich.
8. Obamacre will bring in lots of money and Doctors will only be paid fair wages. They will get paid for everybody just like they are paid for MediCare patients.
9. Obamacare will save everybody so much money that companies will have more money to pay their newly raised taxes on the wealthy.
10. The House and Senate are going to find $500 Billion in waste and fraud in MediCare and raise the level of care to boot!
11. With the coming inflation, many people will move up in the income tax brackets. This will bring lots more money. A minor change in the tax codes will get rid of indexing taxes for inflation.
There have to be more things that will be done but I am tired after reading all of Musing’s posts.
Report comment to moderator
#80
Well, it’s way too late to get into the research I’ve done. But, in short:
1) The chicken pox vaccination is good for about 10 years, and starts to wear off just around the time that chicken pox becomes very damaging to post-pubescent people. Complications from the chicken pox are rare, and less than the complication statistics from the shot itself. So, no vaccine.
2) The Hepatitis B vaccine is for something that my children are unlikely to get. They do not exchange fluids with other people, and are not into gay sex (especially as babies!) So, should they have a drastic change in life style, become health workers, or be in an environment where they might get such a disease, then they can make the decision themselves to get the vaccine.
3) The H1N1 flu has killed far, far less people than the regular flu. In my experience, people who get the flu vaccine tend to get the flu. My family doesn’t get the vaccine, and rarely gets the flu. The H1N1 vaccine in particular is new and untested over the long haul. I’d rather take the chance with letting my immune system do what God designed it to do.
4) The HPV vaccine is for promiscuous girls. To expect that my 9 year old will be promiscuous is ridiculous. I wasn’t. My sister wasn’t. My mother wasn’t. She isn’t being reared that way. If she heads off to college and wishes to make another choice, then she certainly may. But, the possible complications of this vaccine are not worth the protection it offers to my daughter. In other words, the chance that she will decide to be promiscuous is less than the chance the vaccine could damage her in some way.
5) Never before in history have we had so many required vaccinations. While each individual vaccine may be fine, I can see a future where some terrible thing starts showing up in adults because of the MULTIPLE vaccines and their interaction. Something like the Thalidomide problem in the sixties. All the experts thought it was safe too.
Basically, with all the many, many vaccines we are now subjecting our children too (never before in history), we are using them as guinea pigs. So, I try to make judicious choices about the vaccines that are really necessary.
And, I have my children take those later than most so that they are more developed (and their immune systems) to handle possible complications.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 188,
perhaps because the population has no natural immunity and the flu has gone into epidemic proportions already.
And the impact on society as a minimum is significant even if the disease is realtivley mild.
And we are fortunate so far, it is relativley mild, unless you do come down with complications in whaich case as I noted it appears there is under some conditions a 40% fatality rate. Young people and pregnant women seem to be at particular risk.
And we have he second issue which is the 1918 version of htis flu was ijitially mild, and then quite virulent. Are you arguing we should ignore this history?
But please xion, since you do not think it severe, dont take the vaccine. I would like to increase the opporutnity for my family to get it.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 126,
when you say:
“My point in this whole argument with Mr. Know It All was that the government does not have a mechanism in place to pay for all the debt that is being accumulated and that is dangerous.”
and I merely provided information showing:
1) our debt load now is less than during WW II
2) if our debt continues to climb at less than the rate of economic growth then we can pay our debts
and you appear to have ignored these simple observations.
Report comment to moderator
macrutabaga post 126,
yes I have very little humor whne one deliberatly misttates the data during a discusison, and does not apologize.
We can only have reasonable discussions if one operates form a position of intellectual honesty.
Obviously it would appear that you do not hold intellectual honesty in high regard.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 129,
now your chicken pox argument is indeed possible supportable. Hepatitis B less so, but suportable.
Your comment on HPV:
“4) The HPV vaccine is for promiscuous girls. ”
however is flat wrong. Independent of the girls sexual behavior, the sexual behavior of her partner can still put here at risk.
And it is indeed this confounding of what appears to be a moral argument with a health argument with regards to HPV which demonstrates a classicnon-fact based approach to these discussion which often appears in WMB.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 129,
nw when you say:
“5) Never before in history have we had so many required vaccinations. While each individual vaccine may be fine, I can see a future where some terrible thing starts showing up in adults because of the MULTIPLE vaccines and their interaction. Something like the Thalidomide problem in the sixties. All the experts thought it was safe too. ”
And I reply that never before has so much testing gone into ensuring safety of our medications occurred. And indeed increasngly this is considering interactions as we move forward.
So we have an hypothetical emotional unsupported argument against knonw protection for vaccinations.
Adding the thalidomide was amusing because first, it was not a vaccinaton and second the FDA in the US actually kept it from being distributed in the US. It is actually one of the great success stories of the FDA and arguably weakens not strewngthens your point.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an article on little Shiloh, for those interested:
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=291721&ac=PHnws
Report comment to moderator
MMacMurray post 135,
a lovely testament to what modern medicine and modern technology can do to improve lives.
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Providing a testament to what modern medicine can do wasn’t really my intention. I hadn’t been following the discussion on the thread at all. But certainly Shiloh was able to live and enjoy life as long as she did because God, in his providence, caused her to be born at a time when the medical help she needed was available.
I had asked for prayer for Shiloh and her family when she went into the hospital last week, and this story was a followup to the brief article about her death on Friday.
Report comment to moderator
#127 Random is George Bush?! I don’t believe it.
#124 IAF — great post. You should repost this about once a week.
Report comment to moderator
MMacxMurray post 137,
but she would not have lived until 7 without modern medcine.
And arguably it was the technology which allowed her to enjoy the wate.
Perhaps what you are suggesitng is that modern medicine and modenr technology wihtout human will or spirit is perhaps barren.
But human will alone in this case would have been insufficient. Back perhaps enven as little as 100 years ago she would have died much earlier than this and probably at birth.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, 126:
You said,
and
Yes, I agree and I’m glad that it would appear you are now seeing it my way
Report comment to moderator
#130 Musing “But please xion, since you do not think it severe, dont take the vaccine. I would like to increase the opporutnity for my family to get it.”
Thanks for the schadenfreude. I am not opposed to the vaccine. People should do what they feel is right. I think the hysteria is overblown. I am not going to participate in the annual panic.
I think the hype is mostly political and plays into the health care agenda. As Rahm Emanuel says, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”. Take every advantage to increase the reach of big government.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, theologically-speaking, I think MMacmurray’s point is that it is God’s Providence and His will — ultimately and over all other factors — that determine the number of our days.
Does God “use” secondary means such as doctors, medicine and modern medical technology? Absolutely. But it nevertheless is God’s sovereignty that is over all.
That is why we can rightly praise and thank God for the advances made in medicine and other fields — they point to his glory and are for our benefit.
Report comment to moderator
Yesterday 10/24, Obama declared a National Emergency for the flu. This authorizes martial law and the creation of emergency health centers and even mandatory vaccinations.
There is only one problem. These clinics won’t have anything to do because of the vaccine shortfall. Now that we have mass panic and hysteria, will the government come and save us? Are we all going to die?
There isn’t a health care bill up for a vote or anything is there?
Report comment to moderator
As for vaccines, I got my seasonal flu shot a couple weeks ago, not sure if i’ll get the H1N1 shot or not, it will depend on its availability I suppose. I’m not in one of the high risk groups for that.
I think there’s legitimate concern about these illnesses as the virus can mutate and become more virulent.
But I also sense a bit of panic setting it with all the media coverage here in the past few weeks — we had some free “drive-through” swine shot clinics in our newspaper coverage area yesterday and from the story my colleague wrote, cars were backed up for miles and miles in line, only to have the facilities run out of the vaccine before most of the people got the shot.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga post 140,
so you deliberately choose to be intellectually dishonest.
Not a problem, that is your cjhoice, but please be aware that from an argumentaiton perspective this has consequences.
enjoy!
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 142,
and my point is:
1) as presented, without modern medicine Shiloh wouldmost likely died at birth
2) without modern technolyt she would not have been as at home in the water
Report comment to moderator
xion post 143,
but what this does is allow the government to take strong control over the distrubition of the vaccine so that strong priorities for its use can be established. It also allows for greater public health controls to be executed if warrented. I also suspect you will find that it has some funding implications, although I need to follow up on that.
Report comment to moderator
donna j post 144,
one of the real criticsm which can be raised is that the management of vaccine production has been problematic. In this case an interesting confluence of factors may result in there being inadequate vacccine for both seasonal flu and H1N1 to develop adeqaute herd immunity.
It also emphasizes a known hole in our public health preparedness in that our vaccine production is not structured to meet epidemiological crises.
In short, when this is over, I sugfgest some strong lessons learned wil be required.
Report comment to moderator
Donna,
Canada recently suspended their normal flu shots, because taking them (apparently) makes you TWICE as likely to get the swine flu.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2009/09/29/flu.html
Report comment to moderator
#133
If she’s having sex before 18 and before marriage, she is promiscuous, whether or not she has one partner or 20.
My son is almost 18 and is a virgin. I expect the same of my daughter.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe from a series of “Sex and the Desert”.
As Paul Harvey used to say, “It ain’t one world”.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Associated Press
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A Saudi court on Saturday convicted a female journalist for her involvement in a TV show, in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex, and sentenced her to 60 lashes.
Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman journalist to be given such a punishment. The charges against her included involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the Internet.
Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, the spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, told The Associated Press he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it.
In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes.
The man’s lawyer, Sulaiman al-Jumeii, maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded.
On Saturday, he told the AP that not trying his client or al-Yami before a court specialized in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law.
“It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job,” he said.
The case has scandalized this ultraconservative country where such public talk about sex is taboo and the sexes are strictly segregated.
The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC’s two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline.
Three other men who appeared on the show, “Bold Red Line,” were also convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years imprisonment and 300 lashes each.
Report comment to moderator
They are also reducing the regulations on Thimerosol, which is composed of 1/2 mercury, in order to get more of these H1N1 vaccinations out. Mercury is particularly damaging to pregnant women and to young children…the very people who can’t take the nasal version and will have to take the shot version.
Very dangerous. Very stupid.
http://www.physorg.com/news172252051.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=12&ved=0CDEQFjAL&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doh.wa.gov%2Fcfh%2FImmunize%2Fdocuments%2Fsuspensionfaq.pdf&ei=CBDkSubUC5HSsQPN5MSuAw&usg=AFQjCNGlttRqf-U6r1Kn76sdBL12Zb-b8w&sig2=t52HDn4mbNqRy2bduEq8-Q (This one is a PDF about the suspended requirements.)
Report comment to moderator
It is actually one of the great success stories of the FDA and arguably weakens not strewngthens your point.
******I disagree, unless you don’t understand the point.
And, for the children born of these mothers (who thought they were taking something really safe), it doesn’t matter how soon they caught it. (And, aren’t we still in that window of “soon” with the H1N1 vaccine?)
Report comment to moderator
Thimerosol was removed from many products, especially ‘eye drops’ which caused severe allergic reactions in many people. If you use eye drops or you wear contacts, Thimerosol was one of the ingredients in the cleansing solutions – after it was discovered how it adversely it affected users, it was REMOVED from ‘eye medications’ and that included saline.
I am allergic to Thimerosol and will not use anything which contains it, the infections and eye disconfort lasted a long time after discontinued use. The whole Thimerosol problem became an issue about 20 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
#154
Absolutely don’t take the H1N1 vaccine, then, unless you do the nasal form, or specifically request one of the individual lots that was produced without Thimerosal. I suppose with a reaction like you had before, taking it internally could be really damaging, if not deadly.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Donna J (#142).
Musing, (#137) when I mentioned God’s providence in relation to Shiloh and the time she lived, I meant that God caused her to be born in 1999 instead of 1959, or 1899, or some other time, because in 1999 medicine and technology had advanced to the point that Shiloh could get the treatment she needed to live to age 10. She was a remarkable child from a remarkable family, and her life and example have touched many, many lives.
Sure, that is a testament to modern medicine and technology. But my reason for posting the link to the story about Shiloh was unrelated to the health care discussion on this thread! I was updating people like Mumsee and NJLawyer and others who had been praying for Shiloh and her family.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, 145
,
Remember how a couple weeks ago you said I was obsessing about free will even though I had specifically said the topic was not really germane to the thread? How you had basically attributed to me the opposite of what I had asserted?
Fun times! Enjoyable times!
.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 152,
now the Thimerosol is a more interesitng question. As I understand the data, there is no demonstrated health issue wiht Thimerosol.
HOwever, if one is trying to be fastidious about this, it is worth noting that siongle use flu dosages do not contain Thimerosol.
Ask for a single use flu dosage.
Report comment to moderator
macrutabag post 156,
indeed you had raised the issue of free will in a number of posts, some of which did not appear to address issues of free will. I did find it a bit odd of you and attempted to humor your apparent concern here.
Report comment to moderator
macrutabag post 156,
and indeed arguably that was an act of providence from God.
It was, as I noted and your comment confirms, an act of modern medicine and technology as well.
Report comment to moderator
Heh…I see, Musing, that you have no idea what you’re talking about
.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – my post was #124….and no despite your constant harping about WWII and how much debt to income we had back then, this is an entirely different economic time. Read Friedman’s “The World is Flat”. In a global economy when the U.S. is spending themselves into oblivion it is weakening the dollar and the only mechanism the government has to dig out of this hole and get anywhere near balanced is to increase taxes on all citizens. To not believe this is to not understand economics. A non-profit government cannot raise more revenue unless they get spending (their expenses) under control first and then free the market to produce revenue which in turn increases the government’s revenue.
Since this administration is doing the exact opposite and doing everything they can to put more restrictions on the economy with government controls that in effect reduce the effectiveness of business and economy, the government will have to resort to the only tactic they have left to increase their revenue and pay for all their goodies – that is raise taxes. And if you think that it will just be the wealthy just keep thinking that until one day you find your paycheck has less take home and then you will understand that the government just raised your taxes also.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 150,
and when you say:
“#133
If she’s having sex before 18 and before marriage, she is promiscuous, whether or not she has one partner or 20.
My son is almost 18 and is a virgin. I expect the same of my daughter. ”
I am sensing:
a) medical decisions based on moral principles not good science
b) neglecting the issues surrounding her partner whomever this may be
I do believe yo are nicely demonstrating my point.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
I don’t take flu shots nor do lots of other people who understand the risks – after being in medicine, I am very aware of the risks, towards these injections.
Report comment to moderator
TRS poast 153,
I believe it was you who raised thalidomide as a deonstration of the concern one should have regarding medicines.
As I noted, the FDA prevented thalidomide from being used in the US.
Therefore we have an instatiation of the FDA actually protecting us in advance from what became a clear and known medical issue.
Hence providing a demonstration that the FDA is indeed aerguably a potent force protecitng us from improper medications.
I think that does indeed reduce the quality of your argument that the FDA is not protecting us from medical risks.
And it was you who introduced thalidomide, not me.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
I’m not trying to get you to change your mind; you seem pretty set in your opinions about this. However, the consensus of science is against you — that is, the consensus is that vaccines work and you should vaccinate your children.
I understand that if it’s highly unlikely to get a particular disease, it’s not worth it; however something rubs me wrong about the way you (it’s not just you) approach HPV. This is a very common STD and if promiscuity defines as all sex outside of marriage, then there are plenty of Christians on this site who could confess to past sin of promiscuity. In fact, premarital sex among heterosexuals is probably one of the most common “sins” the average American commits. As I understand the faith, that sin can be forgiven, but that won’t magically cure the HPV or its potential future development into cancer.
I could be wrong but I sensed in your post a sentiment like if my daughters become promiscuous later and get HPV that’s their problem or they deserve it or something along those line. We don’t treat ANY other diseases in this fashion (lung cancer from smoking, heart disease, diabetes from the wrong kind of diet or a sedintary lifestyle). If there were an effective vaccine to prevent diabetes in someone who might get it even though their condition resulted from struggles with gluttony, I don’t think many folks would have the same judgmental attitude that they do with sexual sins even though both are, according to the Bible, sins.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 164,
and the qunatitative risk from taking a flu shot vs. not taking a flu shot?
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 162,
hmm I dont seem to see any effort to address the question of the debt rate of increase compared to the economy.
Ad tyo now being different than WWII. YOu are correct: in WW II the debt was about 120% of GDP, today it is more like 20%.
And so, a reasoned argumewnt that the debt can not be repaid if the ecoonomy in the aggregate grows faster than the debt?
Report comment to moderator
Let me say one other thing about kids, especially late teens. I don’t want to freak parents of such out any more than you already are, but lying to parents about things that they don’t want parents to know is probably one of the commonest sins that teenage Americans commit.
Children especially in their late teens naturally go through periods of experimentation with things that parents don’t approve of. Whether it’s sexual promiscuity, underaged drinking, experimenting with drugs, shoplifting, vandalism, most of your children, once they get into their late teens, will probably get involved with one or more of these things. Hopefully not all of them.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Talk to me when you have kids.
My son is a virgin. Plain and simply, he doesn’t drive (still has his permit), and is home schooled. He doesn’t have anywhere to go and be where I don’t know what he is doing, and don’t know the other people he is with.
And, we have an excellent relationship. He talks to me about almost everything, and he is a Christian.
Think what you like.
I know what I did as a teen and what my friends did. People who insist that teens MUST lie and do things that their parents don’t approve of don’t know what they are talking about, and give the “borderline” kids an excuse to start doing such things. (i.e. Well, everyone is doing it. Even the adults say so.) And, that’s just a bunch of hog wash.
Everyone is NOT doing it.
Report comment to moderator
#165
And, all the children born with defects? I suppose it makes them feel much better that we aren’t still using the bad product.
Report comment to moderator
JOn Rowe post 166,
it is good to see you back.
How have you been doing?
Report comment to moderator
#163
You know, Musing, you come across as a pompous know-it-all.
I’m demonstrating nothing and have proved nothing for your side. Grow up and debate in a mature manner.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
I commend you on your relationship with your son. It’s nice to hear of it.
On the other hand, never forget that even your children are sons and daughters of Adam, and are, as any of us, sinners, with a penchant to, “ahem”, sin.
So, although I take your point, I’d have to re-write your last sentence;
Not everyone is doing it.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 173,
I seldom am concerned about people’s thoughts on style for myself or others.
I am interested in understanding if I have made factual or logical errors.
I am assuming you have an example, given your post.
Report comment to moderator
#175
See this thread.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 171,
now I am still looking for where there is a bad product, other than thalidomide, which we have been disucssing which causes birth defects.
The product? The data that it causes birth defects?
Now you entered thalidomide, and I pointed out that the FDA protected the US against thalidomide. Given the FDA success here, it would seem to argue for the safety of our drug environment, not for its risk.
Or perhaps you can explain how the FDA protecting us from thalidomide demonstrates that the US is at greater risk because of the FDA.
I am waiting for the respone here: it should be a good one.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria writes:
“The whole Thimerosol problem became an issue about 20 years ago.”
That’s interesting to me. I got my first contacts while in college, subsequently developed an allergy to the solution which caused my eyes to be very irritated for several days, and I finally gave up on contacts. Never have worn them since, seeing as how the glasses have saved me time, and time again, from eye injury… I wonder if the aforementioned ingredient was the culprit?
Report comment to moderator
Read Friedman’s “The World is Flat”. In a global economy when the U.S. is spending themselves into oblivion it is weakening the dollar and the only mechanism the government has to dig out of this hole and get anywhere near balanced is to increase taxes on all citizens. To not believe this is to not understand economics.
Like you, I’m pretty frightened about the portents these massive deficits have for the future. Though I’m not so pessimistic. China has massively invested in the US dollar. The US dollar declines in value; China has to do something with the glut of US dollars it has. It’s not just going to “dump” them into nowhere. It’s going to USE them. Within the next 20 years it’s possible that US will have a trade surplus with China due to all the goods they buy from us. And without question, I expect China to buy up and otherwise invest in the US economy much the same way Japan has over the past 50 years, but probably on a greater scale.
Think of how many Americans you know who have worked for companies like Sony, Toyota (and its affiliates like Lexus), Mitsubishi, and so on. Expect far more Chinese versions of like companies within the next 50 years.
My policy is have your children learn Mandarin and adopt an open door immigration policy vis a vis well educated Chinese citizens.
Report comment to moderator
Is everyone here using Firefox?
Once the post number goes into triple digits I can’t tell what the last digit is…
Report comment to moderator
You know everybody (mainly Mr. Know It All Pompous *&*(&*( Musing and now Jon Rowe) need to back off of TRS and her choice of whether she would like her child to be vaccinated for HPV.
http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
“Genital HPV is passed on through genital contact, most often during vaginal and anal sex. A person can have HPV even if years have passed since he or she had sex. Most infected persons do not realize they are infected or that they are passing the virus to a sex partner.
Very rarely, a pregnant woman with genital HPV can pass HPV to her baby during vaginal delivery. In these cases, the child may develop warts in the throat or voice box – a condition called recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP).”
That is from the STD website and I think clearly that TRS’ choice is that her child remain free from genital contact. Therefore, since she is raising HER child back off and let her have her choice.
Or is it only “choice” if we “choose” to abort a life and kill someone? That seems to be the only “choice” you fellows would like.
Until that time you need to back off TRS and support her choice and maybe even tell her thanks for raising a child that is choosing to save themselves for marriage instead of telling her she is incorrect for not getting a vaccination that is a vaccination for sexually active people.
Report comment to moderator
#174
I don’t see the difference in the sentence. I was saying, “Everyone is not doing it” because the standard phrase is “Everyone is doing it.” So, I’m playing off the standard phrase.
Yes, I know that people are sinners and that they disappoint. My son is attending a dance tonight and I suppose he could sneak off to a corner and do something terrible before the chaperons caught him
Firstly, though, I trust him as much as I trust anyone (my husband, for example.) I think he does have self-control in this area.
Secondly, the side effects and chance of disability due to the HPV vaccine out-weighs my concerns about falling into sin in this area with my daughter.
Now, should she get older and be unlike my son, and be showing tendencies toward rebellion and poor choice behavior, I may rethink the balance. At that point, I may decide that her behavior is more risky than the vaccine.
However, I point out that LOTS of people have unprotected sex and do not get HPV. So, the chances, even if she should fall once or twice, are not huge. And, so, statistically, it still might not behoove her to have the vaccine unless she was regularly falling into sin.
And, I make decisions like this for MY family based on who THEY are. I’m not asking anyone else to make the same decision. So, basically, it isn’t anyone else’s business.
Report comment to moderator
#179 Jon Rowe – I agree with you wholeheartedly and after I can speak Farsi well I plan on diving into my Madarin Chinese again. I dropped it in favor of Turkish a couple of years ago and then because of a trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan where I couldn’t communicate worth a lick decided I would do Farsi.
Report comment to moderator
MIM @180 – I’m using Firefox and can read all the digits…
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom,
of course the simplest approach for you to argue is to demonstrate that the debt is growing faster than ther economy and hence the debt growth argument is not valid.
And indeed during the last year when the economy was collapsing, and we were pumping in first the bailout and then the stimulus, we were growing the debt faster than the economy (which was then shrinking).
Which is,however, the point: the recent bailout stimulus has to ensure that the economy rebounds OR it will indeed be a very big issue.
Of course, basedon all mopdels to date, if we have not had the bailout/stimulus, it would still be a very biug issue: we were in the worst recession since the great depression.
So the real issue looking forward is whether and how fast the economy wiull grow: and these right now are hypotehticals.
All we can say with some certainty is that since Oct 2008, the economyt, depending on your measure ap[pears t be growing at a few percent to as high as 30%$ depending on your measure.
Of course any argument here also implicitlyt admits that debt per se is not necessarilky bad AND that governemtns do not necessarily have to run at break even.
And as an aside: when I look back at my 401K performance since Oct 2008, I am a true investment genius. Leading up to Oct 2008, not so much.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, ITABOUTFREEDOM. That is my point.
Everyone makes health decisions based on THEIR family and THEIR needs. I’m not asking anyone else to make the same decision, and, in this case in particular, it can’t even be suggested that my decision puts anyone else at risk outside my family.
So, again, it’s none of anyone else’s business.
(Until some stupid national health care gets passed and I’m forced to get my daughter an HPV vaccination, and yet she gets full care for aborting any child conceived in such sin without my permission or even knowledge. Sigh.)
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 181,
now when you say:
“her choice of whether she would like her child to be vaccinated for HPV.”
I am perfectly happy to give TRS their choice.
HOwever, when TRS defends the choice on moral grounds rather than medical grounds, it is perfectly reasonable to note that in the post, and note that such a chjoice is not being based on the scientific data.
Report comment to moderator
I’m using Firefox and can read all the digits too. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 185,
the very knowledge of your decisions, and the basis for it, became known only when you divulged it.
No one made you divulge it.
No one made you say why.
These were postings of your own volition in an open posting environment where the rules are debate is a contact sport.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I’m defending my choice on moral AND on scientific grounds. In this particular case the moral argument is paramount to me, but also there are serious side effects for some young girls who take this vaccine.
So, the dangers of such side-effects are (at this time) MORE likely than the dangers of my daughter living a promiscuous lifestyle.
If that changes in the future, I will re-evaluate.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 190,
did I perhaps miss it? I saw no discussion of the scientific basis for not vaccinating your daughter against HPV.
If I missed yor scientific argument, my apologies. What I read was your assertions regardijng your childrens virginity.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I’ve been busy as Hell.
TRS the fact that I DON’T have kids arguably makes me a more objective observer. Parents tend NOT to be OBJECTIVE, if anything, when it comes to their children. Ever hear the phrase he has a face only a mother can love?
So talk to me when you DON’T have kids.
I never said kids MUST lie to their parents. Rather I said it’s extremely common. I’ve met Christian parents who shelter their kids from the sinful pagan world like you are doing. And indeed, you are right to be concerned because there is a whole lot to shelter our kids from.
However, one day they are going to break loose and over-sheltering arguably leads to more rebellion and resentment later.
There is no easy answer, especially from the orthodox perspective that views human nature as “totally depraved” as Calvin put it.
You just have to do the best you can and hope for the best. There is a golden mean somewhere between parents who are too unconcerned (that is too caught up in themselves like the super rich and famous who send their kids to elite boarding schools) and parents who are too sheltering. Both of these extremes can have negative consequences.
Most Christians understand you can’t will any of your loved ones into salvation and you can’t will out of particular sin if they are destined to experiment with or otherwise get caught up in.
Report comment to moderator
And Musing you could have said that about 20 posts ago and not gone into beating TRS up, but since that isn’t your style and you enjoy beating people up and showing just how intelligent and well versed you are then you just take it too far. That is where your problem is Musing. You just take things way too far. Most of us know when to leave a point as a point. You just keep beating and beating and beating.
So enough with beating up on TRS. I believe TRS should be commended for caring about her children and taking care of her children and being involved in their lives. Perhaps you could end this discussion with some encouragement for the way she is bringing up her children or would that be too much for you?
Report comment to moderator
The TEMPLE MOUNT
Report comment to moderator
Musing (#160) – I concur with the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s answer to Q. 11: “God’s works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions”, and therefore believe that medicine, science, technology, literature, art, etc. are all part of God’s providence. The modern medicine and technology that gave Shiloh 10 years and enabled her story to reach and influence so many were one way God’s providence was at work in her life.
I guess I don’t understand your argument…
Report comment to moderator
#180 MIM
I’m using Explorer and you can see all the numbers. On my laptop I use Explorer and it must be an older version because I have the same problem not being able to see the numbers when it goes to 3 digits. Frustrating! You might try upgrading versions if you don’t want to change browsers.
I like Firefox too, but I had some trouble with it not opening some sites properly, so I changed last year to Explorer.
Report comment to moderator
I know that you won’t take any of the concerns in these as in any way justified, but they are only a few of the many sites that have at least some concerns about the HPV vaccine. Again, the numbers are small, but I make the decision based on the statistical likelihood of reaction vs. HPV in MY home with MY daughter.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=43884
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090101711.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/63586.php
http://www.betterhealthnews.com/2008/01/29/hpv-vaccines-dark-side/
Report comment to moderator
MIM
Thimerosol was probably the cause – it took about four to five years for the allergic reaction to occur. What a mess, my eyes hurt, they were allergic and dealing with an infection as well. When we realized that Thimerosol was most likely the problem I switched disinfecting solutions, and saline – the whole problem disappeared. Shortly after Thimreosol was named on every single bottle or dropper, etc., as not being an ingredient.
It also was removed from eye make-up, including mascara, etc., of course MIM, you don’t have to concern yourself with that stuff
Report comment to moderator
ItsAbourtFreeedom post 193,
we can of course wait an dsee if TRS did provide any scientific basis for relucatnce of HPV vaccinatiuons which I may have missed.
And of course if TRS did not provide any scientifc basis, my comments in toto stand.
(Did you find TRS’s scientific basis?
).
Now a puzzlement on my part: I would never have thought to violate my children’s privacy by discussing their virginity in an open forum. I found this very odd, but then again perhaps I misunderstood something.
Report comment to moderator
MMacMurray post 195,
we may believe that this was God’s proividence, but we have no objective proof.
We do have objective proof that Shiloh’s living was due to modern medical techology and arguably that her happiness in the pool was due to modern technology.
I try to make strong distinctions between what we objectively know and what we believe.
Report comment to moderator
181,
I think you are right — in part for the same reason that noted in 192, don’t mess with people’s kids because that’s one thing that they aren’t by nature (it’s not TRS, it’s EVERYBODY) objective about.
I think the reverse is true as well, kids, especially adult kids aren’t objective about their parents either.
I’m 36 and my parents sometimes treat me like I am a 17 year old just trusted with the car keys. I’m twice the age of 18. It’s scary for a parent to comprehend that someone at such a young and unwise age as 18 is a legal adult who has every right to do what they want to as they, the parents, do.
I could say a lot more. I’ve got some stories of children of conservative Christians that could horrify most of the parents here (ironically many if not most of them turned out well, like my friend whose parents were hard core “Left-behinders,” who had a pretty bad heroin addiction around the ages of 18-19; he’s now a married accountant, a great person, a loving husband; though I think his parents disagree with the Emergent Church Christianity which he now embraces).
Report comment to moderator
But I’ll bite my tongue.
Report comment to moderator
FOX NEWS White House View
October 8, 2009
First Daughters Not Vaccinated Against H1N1
President Obama’s school age daughters have not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk.
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/08/first-daughters-not-vaccinated-against-h1n1/
Report comment to moderator
To remind myself what it means to me (notice this is just me, my personal opinion Musing so back off) I just finished watching “We Were Soldiers” for probably the millionth (okay slight exaggeration) time and I have to say that this movie is one of the ones that moves me and reminds me of the reason I fight so hard to want America to be free. There are men and women who have given their lives so we could stay free, just as more than two thousand years ago one man gave his life so we could be free, free to choose the way we live our lives and the way we give to others. Do I believe in war? I believe there have always been wars and there will continue to be wars and that the men and women who give their lives in these wars deserve (there has to be a stronger word than that) our honor and our thanks.
I read the posts on this blog and sometimes I wonder if our problem as Americans today is that we find it easy to criticize and forget what it means to be a soldier. Whether that be a soldier for Christ – one that fights for the honor and the sanctity of God to be remembered and for the men and women who gave their lives in defense of the one true God to be remembered.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that there is a reason God has born in America and allowed us to live in this country. Please do not forget what it means to be an American and what it means to be free. And the next time you see one of our soldiers in uniform do something nice for them, thank them, let them walk through a cross walk, anything that shows you appreciate the fact you are one of the few free nations in the world.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 202,
actually the direct quote form the article is:
“At this time only children with chronic medical conditions are receiving the vaccination because their immune system is not strong enough to fight off the strain. ”
so it would appear that the justificatiojn is that the first daughtewrs do not have chronic conidtions.
Right now there is barely enough H1N1 foir medical responders, so this actually makes sens.e
Report comment to moderator
My scientific links are in “moderation.” So, you’ll just have to wait.
Report comment to moderator
#201 Jon Rowe – I appreciate your willingness to bite your tongue. All of us can tell horror stories both about children raised in strict religious families and those raised in families that were on the whole other spectrum. My wife and I have never been able to have children, despite tons of tests and money thrown down a dark hole, and for that reason I do not attack other parents for the way they choose to raise their children. I have not walked in their shoes so I do not have the right to criticize them.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedo pst 203,
this is the class of post which you are excelelnt at.
You are making a clear statement about what you feel and why you feel it.
And note: you effectviely make no factual assertions.
While I probably use less florid languange than you, my model is that we are very lucky to live in what is arguably the best country in the history of the world.
And yes many people died to make this so.
Report comment to moderator
Well that may be a first Musing…..you actually said something nice to somebody.
And if people did die to make this so, wouldn’t that be a factual assertion and one you agree with?
And since you are trying to place nice, how about an apology to TRS?
Report comment to moderator
As for Jon….
I do not “shelter” my children, or at least not in the way you seem to think.
They are out in the world in many ways and do many things. They have minds of their own and do not agree with me on everything, and that is okay by me.
My older son takes full-fledged college classes. So, he is around other “normal” kids. Collectively, they are involved in Scouts, dance, tennis, basketball, baseball, home school science classes at the local university, gym days and assorted other activities.
But, I also KNOW my kids. We do things together. We talk with one another. We debate together. I know where they are and with whom. And, I’m pretty good at knowing if and when I should trust them, and if and when they are lying to me.
My son (the almost 18 year old) laughed at your post.
Report comment to moderator
Check the LINK I GAVE AGAIN …. I copy pasted the exact words I posted in #202 –
Report comment to moderator
I would never have thought to violate my children’s privacy by discussing their virginity in an open forum.
*****My children are proud of it, not embarrassed.
As for this open forum, what is my name? Where do I live? What are my children’s names? Who are their friends?
I go by TRS for a reason. I’ve mentioned my first name once before. I live in the Pacific Northwest. I’m involved in Scouts and I home school. I’ve been married for almost 25 years to the same man.
I’m sure that you can tell me my life story from that.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 207,
I often say nice things to many people on this blog.
If they are expressing how they feel about something, that is usually a pont of emapthy. If they bring solid data and good logic to the discussion, I will almost invariably completement them even if I disagree.
What I have little patience with is incorrect and unsupported data ,and bad logic.
And anyone who uses incorrect and unsupported data, and bad logic has the possiblity form seeing a responding post from me.
And anyone who persists in using bad and unsupported data and bad logic, particularly if they suggest that they are trying to be factual, will probably find the discussion very spirited.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
I have actually had a number of under 18 year old homeschooled kids as college students (they tend to do well). If you son ever had the chance to take a class with me, he would get my advice on all of the rated R comedy classics which he probably shouldn’t see until after turning 18.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Keep in mind I DID NOT COPY PASTE the entire article – I never do post entire pieces – I leave that up to the reader to go to the LINK and read for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 207,
so TRS is apparently finaly trying to provide scientific substantiation for TRS’s position on HPV.
And this is a good an useful portion of the exercise, and yes I am well aware and have been burned by the cranky positng filter, so I can sympathsize.
However, do you not find it odd that TRS did not enter this data early in the discussion?
Report comment to moderator
vicxtoria post 215,
but the headline misrepresents the actual situation, as my quorte notes.
I do think we are responsible for trying to capture the actual gist of the article rather than just jumping at the headline.
We may not actually always achieve this, but it seems reasonable to try. And in this case the artile was only a few lines long, so checking the actual information in the article was easy.
I am reminded of some comments by posters on polls leading up to the 2008 presidential election.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 212,
then by all means continue to post on their virginity if it make you happy.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 216
I posted the HEADLINE as stated in the piece, with the first paragraph –
Get over it Musing, I don’t make up the HEADLINES on articles, I copy paste what is written.
Report comment to moderator
#216
No, Musing, because apparently you can’t read.
I’ve said all along that I was mentioning MY reasons for which vaccinations I allow MY kids to have and when. I was asked for those reasons (nicely, I might add), by Arcadia.
YOU butted into the conversation expressing YOUR OPINION about my decisions.
I do not have to have ANY scientific reasons for my decisions. They are MY choices and MY decisions, and honestly don’t even concern you.
With the HPV, science is (already admitted) a SECONDARY concern to my primary desire not to give my children extra vaccinations that they do not need. My primary reason for not giving that vaccine is that my children DO NOT NEED IT (yet), and can choose it for themselves later if they decide to throw their upbringing out the window. However, since people do get bad reactions, and some have even died, then the risk FOR MY CHILDREN is greater in getting the vaccine than in not getting it.
I must leave for now, because you are so terribly rude and insufferable that I’m starting to get grumpy.
Report comment to moderator
So for reference, here is the CDC statement on the HPV vaccine and its risks:
CDC statement on HPV vaccines
The following records 20 deaths which may possibly be related to the HPV vaccine (data not confirmed) oput of about 16 million dosages:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-08-20-hpv-QnA_N.htm
The following quote from the USA Today article is perhaps germane:
“Q. What are the vaccine’s limitations?
A. The vaccine has been shown to prevent precancerous lesions — a very promising sign. But because cancers typically take decades to develop, it may be many years before doctors know for sure if it prevents cancers, says Charlotte Haug of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, who wrote an editorial in today’s New England Journal of Medicine. And because the vaccine protects against only 70% of cervical cancers, women will still need to undergo regular cervical cancer screenings.”
and based on this data, the scientific argument would seem ot be there is apprxoimately a 1 in one million chance of dieing from the vaccine against only 70% protection against cervical cancer.
Now the death rate form cervical cancer in the US is:
Statistics on cervical cancer
about 4,070 death per year.
And at 70% effectvieness, if all young women were effectively vaccinated we might stop perhaps not quite 3000 deaths per year.
And the problem is of course that HPV vaccinations as I understand it to be truly effective should be given before a young woman becomes sexually active.
Sounds like the data suggests that this is a reasonable risk AND that giving it while one has a high certainty of no sexual activity is indicated.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 218,
then you of course can show me where your scientific data was.
How does it match my data from post 219?
Report comment to moderator
Anyone can post data regarding vaccines, but unless you have had an adverse effect, you cannot imagine what it’s like.
Everyone has the right to choose for their children whether or not they should be vaccinated, it’s a CHOICE. The CDC doesn’t rule what we as parents deem as right for our children.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, TRS: I have a good friend who developed a bad reaction to a polio vaccination many years ago (and she’s had a lifelong limp as a result). She won’t get the flu vaccinations because she believes (and I think she is probably correct based on other issues in her history) that her immune system isn’t such that she can handle vaccinations well.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Donna, check this one out. I’m sorry about your friend, what a shame.
The above information is very informative by the FDA
Report comment to moderator
Musing doesn’t care Victoria and TRS about anybody’s personal experience. He/she/it bases their whole life on being right, proving other people inferior to he/she/it and so we who actually live in the real world have to put up with Musings attacks on our personal beliefs.
Remember he/she/it is the fact belief and he/she/it can argue anything based on his/her/its ability to google articles and then present them as his/her/its personal thoughts. Then if we ever post anything unsubstantiated by cute smiley faces or googled articles, then he/she/it will post until you just get worn down by his/her/its posts.
Does that cover it pretty well Musing? You are the fact police correct? And only you know all the facts, correct?
Report comment to moderator
Musing (146): Donna J post 142,
“and my point is:
1) as presented, without modern medicine Shiloh would most likely died at birth
2) without modern technology she would not have been as at home in the water”
So you go no deeper on these issues?
Report comment to moderator
“It also was removed from eye make-up, including mascara, etc., of course MIM, you don’t have to concern yourself with that stuff”
May I remind you that you are making assumptions?
Some men are cross-dressers.
I have to say though, that you are correct in your assumption. I do not need to worry about mascara, or a run in some borrowed pantyhose, for I have no desire whatsoever to wear high heels or look the slightest bit feminine. (Cue for Drill to step in with some hilarious anecdote!)
Report comment to moderator
MIM – you are one of the last guys on this blog I would expect to indulge in any of the antics you describe in your post. As I remember you threw the pink flip flops out last year – I won’t try that one again
Drill would love this one, maybe he will show up tonight.
Report comment to moderator
After reading through these posts quickly, I can only say that I still wouldn’t put anything into my body without first doing a little research on it. That doesn’t mean that I think the government is “out to get me.” That’s just asinine. But government gets things wrong all the time. So do scientists (did you read the Ida post?) It’s called informed consent.
Report comment to moderator
Erm… Musing? Violating privacy by discussing virginity? How many people who post here do you actually know? And… why is virginity something shameful? I’m a virgin, never having been married, and so never having had sex. You know, the shameful thing used to be when someone wasn’t a virgin. If anything, TRS was bragging about her son.
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
This is a very interesting clip on why the Roman Catholic Church is the original historic Christian Church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bHkW4xHp6c&feature=related
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
My son has already seen some R-rated movies. As a family, our view tends to be to watch things critically, rather than avoid them (depending on age and content).
Naturally, we don’t usually choose to watch things with no redeeming value at all, but — if there is good content — then we simply discuss the bad when it comes up, rather than censoring it.
And, like most men, my son does like some Monte Python. I don’t really get that.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 222,
all of life is a risk. Any decision is a risk bvenefit analysis. Humans tend to do a poor job of risk/benefvit analysis, and the best tool for managing this is data.
Now data works on an aggregate of people. Every person is different. If yo find that you are in the minority who react badly, whyy by all means if it hurts, dont do it.
But that does not change the basic risk beneift analysis for the group in general, and to argue thatyour personal annecdotal experience is the data is a misuse of yoru experience.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J posar 223,
you will note that I made specfic comments about the live polio vaccine. It can be a powerful tool if used carefully but is a sensitive beast in general. Indeed my last polio vaccination was an inactivated polio vaccine.
As with everything, it is useful to actually check the data for oneself.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 226,
actualy I do care about personal; experience:L it sdays much for the individual.
HOwever it says nothing about the overall statistics and the genberal behavior of anything.
If you react badly (I always get a sore arm and a fever about 2 days after the normal flu shot), then by allmeans consider your own personal exp[erience.
But do not pretend that your personal experience is statistically valid data.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 227,
as I noted, this is the objectively observable data.
All else is a subjective interpretation. So what can you prove objectively beyond this?
NOw I did note that modern medicine in this case required a will or spirit on the part of Shiuloph to be successful. Is that what you meant by deeper?
If not what do you mean by deeper?
Why do you argue that it is deeper?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 230,
when you say:
“After reading through these posts quickly, I can only say that I still wouldn’t put anything into my body without first doing a little research on it. ”
we have been in violent agreemnt on this formm the beginning.
the question of course is what is reasearch? Is it a rumoir that someone somewhere may have had a problem which may have been related to the vaccinatiuon?
Is it because you are congenitally predisposed to object to vaccinations?
Or are you actually looking at the data on the vaccination and making a reasoned decision?
Report comment to moderator
TJS Catl;over post 231,
virginity is neithger shameful nor not shameful: it is a state.
However, in my experience I do not talk in public about someone elses sexuyality and sexual experience.
They may talk about it if they choose to do so, but it is not my province to gossip.
In this case TRS is the parent and has full rigfhts to make such decisions for their children.
But talking about one’s children’s sexuality in a public blog? In my experience, this is a bit odd.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
You must not have much to do today, all these posts with misspelled words in abundance – surely you could take the time to check your spelling with ’spell-check’-
Is a total waste of time. I’ve already explained that people in very large numbers were/are allergic to “Thimerosal” that is why it is most often not found in cosmetics, …. the LABELS even make it clear on the front of the box….. and almost never in anything which is put in the eye. If one has already had a very bad experience with Thimerosal, then it would be foolish to use anything that contained Thimerosal.
Everyone bases their reactions, allergies upon their own personal experience. This is called “analyzing ” the situation and acting accordingly.
Anything which has proven in the past to cause allergic problems should be given special attention as the “RISKS” might cause great harm or death.
Report comment to moderator
I love Monty Python as well. However I don’t think it’s “most men,” just most sophisticated men who get into it.
I’d love to see your/his thoughts on the Holy Grail and Life of Brian.
My 10 favorite rated R comedies in no particular order (thought I would categorize EACH of the ten as “one of the best movies ever”) are:
Annie Hall (if not rated R I can find another WA movie that is)
History of the World Part I (Mel Brooks)
Trading Places
Life of Brian
Animal House
Caddyshack
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Clerks
American Pie
Up in Smoke
Remember the criteria is rated R comedies. Is there anyone here who HASN’T seen all 10 of these classics?
Report comment to moderator
Musing can’t check his spelling, that would mean we could actually read his posts. I would put one of your smiley faces there Musing so you can see it is humor but live with it.
Personally I don’t get the vaccinations because I choose not to. Since it is my choice (at least until the communists decide to make me or I go to jail) I reserve the right to choose not to and that will always be my choice.
Choice is individual and to me (once again personally) as long as I can choose I will choose based on what I believe. Reading through these choices that is what people are saying mostly, with the exception of Musing of course, who will do whatever the government tells him to do.
Musing would like us all to believe that every choice should be made with data and with government statistics and based on whatever the government tells him to do.
What I find odd Musing is that you are pro-choice, yet when other people voice their choice you spend 50-60 posts pointing out why their choice is not based on data. What data do women have for aborting a baby (pro-choice)? Does a woman go through all the data and statistics, google the choices available to them before they have an abortion and finally research the government’s position on abortion before having that abortion? I think not. I think a woman who chooses to have an abortion has an abortion based on CHOICE.
So when it comes to vaccinations it should also be a person’s choice what they choose to do. Your vast amounts of posts is basically telling people that the reason for not choosing to have a vaccination is based on choice.
Your position is confusing.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you left out Tommy Boy. I make all new salespeople take home Tommy Boy and watch it before they go out in the field.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
So truth is only what is observable, reduced to facts alone with no moral right or wrong or spiritual meaning beyond that? What is your theology? (for we all have a theology.) Have you studied theology much?
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom,
You are right that Tommy Boy and many others (others that I still haven’t seen, that are on my list to watch) probably deserved to make the top 10 list. Though it’s hard to squeeze more than 10 movies into a top 10 list.
Report comment to moderator
See I just remembered another one: The first Vacation movie with Chevy Chase — so many classic moments in that one.
Report comment to moderator
The good thing about this post is we are all figuring out Musing a little bit more. Some conclusions I must make about Musing is that he/she/it makes his/her/its choices only on data, facts and what the government tells him. That means that he/she/it does not have a moral compass or any theology at all. This doesn’t make Musing a bad person but it says a lot about why he/she/it spends so much time here bashing anybody who doesn’t believe the way he/she/it does and bashing anybody who doesn’t have the same data, facts and government love like he/she/it does.
So thank you Musing for revealing more about yourself.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 240,
it is always a delight to trade posts with you. I would not miss it for anything.
Now you made your point about Thimerosal and while the data is at beast equivocal, I noted that single dose flu shots do not contain Thimerosal.
So, as I suggested, as for a vaccination from a single dose flu shot.
I have not looked at other vacicnes, but the data is available if you look.
As noted in the following:
Vaccine contents
each does of flu vaccine contains 24.5 mcg of mercury.
Thimerisol in vaccines is discussed in :
Mercury limits
which notes that there is only one vaccine recommended for those under 6 years which includes thimerisol.
The following discusses thimerisol:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/CFh/Immunize/documents/thimerosal-faqs.pdf
and notes that:
“A more recent study conducted by the University of Rochester and the National Naval Medical Center looked at levels of mercury in blood and other samples from infants who received routine immunizations with vaccines containing thimerosal [Pichichero ME, et al. Lancet 360: 1737-1741 (2002)]. This study found that the blood levels of mercury did not exceed the methyl mercury safety guidelines for all infants included in the study.”
It would seem based on the data that the concern over thimerisol in general is over stated.
However, as with anything, if you are overly sensitve to thimerisol, avoid it. And as noted, single use vacines do not contain thimerisol.
So if your concern is thimerisol, one can get vaccinated without exposure to thimerisol, and using thimerisol as the argument against vaccinations would therefore appear to be position not supported by the data.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 242,
now when you say:
“Personally I don’t get the vaccinations because I choose not to. Since it is my choice (at least until the communists decide to make me or I go to jail) I reserve the right to choose not to and that will always be my choice.”
it is indeed your choice.
My point is not that it is not your choice, indeed I have never stated otherwise, but rather as you, TRS and victoria have argued it, it is not based on a rational model or on data.
But it is your choice.
However, when you explain how you reached your choice it does allow one to explore how you approach problems and the quality of your ability to manipulate data.
Report comment to moderator
Doinna J poasr 244,
when you say:
“Musing:
So truth is only what is observable, reduced to facts alone with no moral right or wrong or spiritual meaning beyond that?”
it would seem you are not reading my posts.
I carefully use the words objective truth to describe those things which for simpliciity we will call provable.
There are other truths, but they are not objectively provable. This does not mean they are not true, but it does mean their truth has some interesting characteristics (as in it may be true for you but not true for me).
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 248,
when you say:
“The good thing about this post is we are all figuring out Musing a little bit more. Some conclusions I must make about Musing is that he/she/it makes his/her/its choices only on data, facts and what the government tells him.”
again you do not seem ot be reading my posts.
As I noted, for objective truth to be of value it must be judged subjectively.
What I do note is that objective truth is provable by data (ah and there is a deep discussion here, but if we are arguing at this level we are nop where near ready for this discusison).
And I dont trust any data, but rather check it and cross check it all data.
YOu it would appear, by contrast do not as a matter apparently of principle trust any data, and therefore appear to make up your data out of whiole cloth.
Which is why so often it can be easily shown to be incorrect.
It is an important skill to be able to separate objective truth form belief.
Report comment to moderator
Ah. Something can be “true for you, but not true for me.” That’s a very popular phrase, I realize.
But then is there no way to know truth beyond objective “data”?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve picked up (I think, somewhere) that you do attend a church. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from theologically (and even those who are not believers have a “theology”).
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom – What is it about Tommy Boy that you liked? It is occasionally shown on TV, but the commercials for it make it look like a stupid kind of movie.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – I do not intend this as a rude question, but am wondering…Do you by any chance have Asperger’s Syndrome?
(No offense meant to you or those who do have it.)
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 252,
sao lets get specific.
that somehting is beautiful for you may be true.
Does this mean it is true for me?
Do all people have the same sense of beauty?
Report comment to moderator
I believe Musing has explained the typos in the past, it is some kind of syndrome.
Report comment to moderator
Do all people have the same sense of beauty?
No.
But I guess I’m sensing you discount any kind of what we might call supernatural revelation. If so, that’s a presupposition on your part, completely fair, but I just think it needs to be pointed out that you’re coming at issues from that presupposition (just as you say we have a presupposition).
Report comment to moderator
Donna,
Maybe!
There is always ’spell check’ – posting slower, reading before posting – these make a big difference. If what a person has to say is important, there is no reason to race through the post, not caring how it appears.
Report comment to moderator
What did pagan Rome ever do for “Judeo-Christianity”?
Monty Python answers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso&feature=related
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: That’s true, although from one who has made her share of glaring grammatical errors (for a journalist, mind you!) I can somewhat sympathize.
I guess I need to sometimes slow down.
(And, yeah, I’ve gotten that WMB warning “SLOW DOWN you are posting too fast” now and again.)
Report comment to moderator
Musing 86 of 261 posts.
Report comment to moderator
Donna,
You rarely misspell words – In fact I haven’t noticed any – other errors are made by most peoplle who write everyday or who blog.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, but grammatical errors … I like to think that my mind runs faster than my fingers. but I really do need to slow down. As to spelling errors, thankfully we get those little red dotted lines. Sometimes, I try a couple times to respell something that comes up as misspelled, only to wind up finding some other word!
Report comment to moderator
Re #262: Maybe we could have a thread on Bob’s obsession with counting Musing’s posts.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Just one thought:
I am another of those homeschool students who isn’t quite 18, but while I’ve liked some funny movies, I generally like action/adventure/thriller movies. While I might get a chance to watch some “R” rated movies sometime soon, I don’t plan to watch movies that have objectionable content, unless it’s something like the opening scenes in Iron Man, which can be fast-forwarded. (I watch movies on DVD) Anyway, I might watch an R rated movie if if it’s given that rating for something such as violence, provided it’s not gratuitous or too graphic; not sexual content.
I’m not sure why I said the above paragraph…just my thoughts.
Anyone,
I might have asked this question before, but do you know why some people like slasher horror movies? If you do or know someone who does and know why they do, maybe you can tell. This is just something I was wondering about.
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
My question would be…if it’s a good movie, then what are you trying to protect yourself from? You can make a judgment, that is, “I think the movie would have been better if it didn’t include X,” but why can’t or why do you want to shield yourself from viewing X?
I think of a great show like the Sopranos. Most of what the main characters do I find morally objectionable; but that doesn’t mean I want to shield myself from the content.
Report comment to moderator
“Obesession” ? – I think you meant “Obsession” – It isn’t an obsession, the amount is glaring and not amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about the mistake on ‘obsession’ Steveg – I don’t know how that happened, but I am sorry.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
“After reading through these posts quickly, I can only say that I still wouldn’t put anything into my body without first doing a little research on it.”
After this weekend of lethargy and non functionality from taking Reglan (for indigestion), I’d quite agree with you…
I quit taking it at noon today, because I just couldn’t stay awake, even for the movies last night – which is just incomprehensible for me. I never fall asleep during a story.
Report comment to moderator
I should share a story stemming from Kim’s question the other day.
“If you saw me in the back of a police car, what would you assume I’d been arrested for?”
I got some amusing answers to that question, but the most hilarious ones came from my youngest son…
Perhaps if you’re around tomorrow I’ll toss a few out on Whirled Views.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, I haven’t seen any of those movies on your list. That’s right, none. But then, I watch very few R-rated (or PG-13) movies. My rule on those is that I have to know the movie is worth watching, and know why it’s rated that way, from someone I respect. I own only one R-rated movie (Secrets and Lies), and I don’t know whether I own any PG-13.
Report comment to moderator
MIM
I would think you were sitting in the back seat because you had taken the largest tree on the street and carved it into something wonderful (not something that Lynn or Mickey could bop us with) that would last for hundreds of years – OR – maybe you were caught cutting down another tree after being warned about the first offense.
Report comment to moderator
Annie Hall (if not rated R I can find another WA movie that is)
Animal House
Caddyshack
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
******I’ve only seen the ones above, and I only remember “Animal House.” The rest didn’t really make an impression.
I’m not much of a movie person, though.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 253,
indeed I am very active in my church.
And I believe in God.
And I believe in Christ as my savior.
But note, none of these are objective contstructs, but rather subjective constructs.
And while these are true for me, I make no pretense that they must necessarily be true for you.
By contrast, if there are four pennies on the table and you and I each count four, then I suggest that the construct that there are four pennies on the table is objectivey true, and it will be true for both of us.
And in there should be at least a glimpse of what I have been saying in WMB for many years now.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 258,
if you make the asumption:”
“But I guess I’m sensing you discount any kind of what we might call supernatural revelation. If so,”
and you would be wrong. In fact this was the topic of Sunday’s sermon.
But if you believe that your revelation which may be true for you has objectvie truth for all, then you have, as I noted many times before, confouinded belief with objective truth, and this is usually a perilous path.
Report comment to moderator
How do you know what you know about Christ? If His saving power and deity is not necessarily “true,” I’m wondering if you wouldn’t then see your faith as a purely subjective part of your life, that you feel you perhaps “need” or just like to think might be true.
God’s truth is then subject to our own belief or lack of belief? It is not transcendent in any way? In fact, God may not even be true or exist at all.
That’s where my questions to you were going, I’m wondering what studies in theology you’ve done and what would prompt you to attend church if you acknowledge what you believe may not, in fact, be true at all.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
What is it that you are afraid of seeing? How do you think a rated R movie whose content you find morally objectionable will negatively affect you?
Personally, I think you are missing out big time.
And I take it that you don’t watch the Sopranos?
Report comment to moderator
It brings to mind Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:19: If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
Could we merely be deceiving ourselves? How cruel a deception.
Why would you necessarily believe what the Bible says about Christ? I think it is because you know in your inner most being (as we all do) that there is a God. And the Holy Spirit has also revealed to you that Christ is your only hope to be saved.
But this may only be “true” for you and not others? Some sort of personal faith that does not extent to the whole world? (In other words, it’s not necessarily true in any ultimate or real sense at all?) That seems to be pretty shaky ground.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I don’t think we’re “afraid” of seeing anything. But as Christians we are to guard what we see and hear and do. We have the freedom to see whatever we want to see. But that’s not the issue. Honoring and glorifying God is to be our primary goal in life. So decisions need to be subject to that.
Each one, in their own conscience before God and knowing their own limits and/or vulnerabilities, must decide that for themselves. Some things are clearly sinful.
Others may be in a “gray” area, some of us may not have a problem seeing a certain movie, others might. For some one thing could be — or lead to — sin, for another, not (drinking a glass of wine or having a beer, for example.) And we respect that for each other.
Sin begins so often with the eye, what we allow “in.” It seems innocent enough, but that is how all covetousness begins, for example. (And that is why I immediately toss catalogues that come in the mail without opening them up to flip through the pages … )
So knowing ourselves, we decide what to see or do — and what not see and do, based on the wisdom God has given us — about Him and about ourselves and our own unique circumstances.
There was a time when I believed that movies were really very important. As a college student I’d typically see every film nominated for the larger Academy Awards each year — and I felt so sorry for my mom who’d seen nearly none of them. How she was “missing out” culturally.
Or so I thought.
It rather makes me laugh out loud now (now that I’m the one “missing out” on so much of our culture through the wonders of film; poor, deprived me. Not). 
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Donna has answered well. I’m not “afraid” of seeing anything, and in fact have seen a few R-rated movies through the years, but I’m careful what I watch. I can’t stand blood and gore even if I know they’re fake, so I don’t watch war movies, not “on principle,” but because I can’t deal with them. Occasionally a movie is rated R only for language, and I don’t hesitate to see those (I don’t struggle with using bad language). If it’s rated R for female nudity, I can deal with that (though not in the theater with a man); if it’s for sex scenes, I don’t want to see it (though I have seen a few by accident, not knowing a movie was R, or because they’re discreet); those aren’t “appropriate” and I don’t need to put them in my mind. I’d say I don’t need to put them in my mind as a single woman, but I wouldn’t even if I were married.
Report comment to moderator
Also, Jon, I see a movie in a theater about once per year; movies simply aren’t an important part of my life.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – How do you think a rated R movie whose content you find morally objectionable will negatively affect you?
–
yes, I knew a young man in TN, he came to me asked for my help. He told he that he is having a hard time with bed language. An that he is getting into to trouble at school, home and work. So I told he ok, we get off at the same time. He can drive me home and we can talk. we got in his car, he turned on his music lest them 30 seconds I turned off his radio and ask him is this is what you are listen to. He said yes. I told him that his music was his problem.
Garbage in and garbage out.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, Cheryl, so you’re culturally deprived too? Poor us.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the answers.
Though I obviously have a slightly different worldview. I don’t view the use of George Carlin’s 7 dirty words as immoral. Though I think there is a time, place and manner for using them.
Likewise I don’t have a moral problem with seeing simulated sex on film (or with actual pornography; but that’s a topic for a different discussion). But again, there is a time place and manner.
I’m pretty hard core First Amendment; however I know of some absolutists who would go even further than I would. My First Amendment professor at Temple Law (Burton Caine, still teaching in his 80s) didn’t believe time, place and manner regulations were constitutional. That means if ABC wants to show a triple rated X movie at 12:00 noon, that would be their prerogative.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – you will most likely get your wish about That means if ABC wants to show a triple rated X movie at 12:00 noon, that would be their prerogative
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 278,
about the only ting for which there is objectvie data about Christ is that, basedon Tacitus, he was crucified by Pontius Pilot.
Everything else I know abuot Christ is my belief.
And if I were to ask you do you not believe in Christ?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 280,
so when you say:
“It brings to mind Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:19: If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. ”
and I find the word hope interesting here.
Report comment to moderator
“hope” as in shifting sands?
Report comment to moderator
I’m just trying to draw you out a bit more theologically.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl and Donna have good points. A person may/may not be affected by something seen on a movie screen, but, As Paul says, I Cor 6:12, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient: All things are lawful to me, but I will not be broutht under the power of any.”
Part of the way of dealing with temptation is to understand what your trigger is, and avoid it.
If it isn’t unlightening, it’s just as well to avoid it.
And no, it doesn’t preclude watching a football game. I am not tempted to bust heads with a linebacker.
Report comment to moderator
“However, when you explain how you reached your choice it does allow one to explore how you approach problems and the quality of your ability to manipulate data.” Musing that is the main problem I have with your posts, you prop yourself up as the only person who can manipulate data. To me data is not to be manipulated as much as it is to be used to reach a decision. Decision making holds way more importance to me than endless analysis which it seems you are very good at. If I had need for somebody to endlessly analyze data I would probably hire somebody like you. However I run a small business and do not have the money to hire someone to sit around all day analyzing data so I read data, make the best choice available to me based on experience and accumulated knowledge, add in faith in Jesus Christ to steer me in the right direction and so far it is working quite well for me so you can criticize me as much as you want but it has little effect.
I would say if we were to measure success (which is a meaningless measurement by the way) that in my 45 years on this earth I have probably been quite more successful than your however many years (and I am guessing you are late 20’s, early 30’s by your infatuation with posting about how intelligent you are) you have walked the face of the earth.
The reason for my success as I have said before is not because I am the most intelligent man on the earth, certainly not the best looking, certainly not that I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth (more like a straw of hay) but simply that long ago I made the choice to follow and obey Jesus Christ. When I made that decision I surrendered my right to always be right and I surrendered my right to always have it my way. You as a follower of Jesus Christ should know that obedience is the way of the cross and the road of obedience is a very narrow road. If you are striving to be obedient then you will not have to waste so much time being the data and fact police on this blog spot.
Good day to you Musing.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O – you asked why Tommy Boy for new salespeople. From the outset this is a very juvenile film but in it the main character, Tommy overcomes the death of his father and finds his style as a sales person. When he tried to imitate the other character and do sales analytically the way he did (what was the other guy’s name?) he failed often and in very gross ways. When he tried to imitate his father he stuck his foot in his mouth and failed also. However, when he discovered what his style was and applied his style he found success.
The point for new salespeople is to learn from the person teaching you but not to imitate, to search for the selling style that you were gifted with. The importance in doing this is that you will find out also if you were meant to be in sales or in a support position and you can evaluate yourself based on whether the gifts and talents come out naturally or whether you keep having to force them.
Making Tommy Boy a great movie for new sales people.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – I did a little data study this evening and I conclude that you may need some healing.
10/24: 7:13-9:52 (with hour break) of praise for UN – 2 hours, 9 posts.
10/24: 12:19-4:04 of your incredible analysis of deficit spending and why it is a good thing – 4 hours, 27 posts.
10/24: 6:30-8:00 – Dr. Data tells us why vaccinations good, people who don’t get them and give their children them bad – 1.5 hours, 7 posts.
10/25: 7:48-9:05 – criticizing everyone who posted after you went out for the evening to campaign for global cooling or something – 1.5 hours, 6 posts.
10/25: 12:00-5:41 – more of Dr. Data telling everyone why they are stupid and looking for facts on people’s personal choices – 5.5 hours, 24 posts.
10/25: 8:20-9:21 – criticizing everybody as usual for not giving your supportable facts – 1 hour, 11 posts.
10/26: 5:38-6:01 – more of your wonderfulness telling us how intelligent you are – 3 minutes, 2 posts.
10/26: 12:17-12:18 – finishing off your “I’m the most intelligent” posts – 1 minute, 2 posts.
All told, you spent 45 hours this weekend and 93 posts showing us that you are the fact police.
Dude, check into one of your Obamacare hospitals and get some psychological Obamacare psychiatry. You have no life man.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!