Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I can see both sides of the argument

Posted By: sbMT on 2009-01-13
In Reply to: Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law - Muriel Kane

Yes, many people are getting threatened and businesses getting picketed for supporting Prop 8. You cannot deny that (what was the pink taliban or whatever that disrupted church service a month or so ago?)

But on the other hand, if they want these donations anonymous, than that means Obama and other politicians can make their donations anonymous, and I think it's the publics right to know who is financing the next leaders of the country.

I just find it interesting that the homosexuals are assaulting and threatening supporters of the Prop 8 for what they believe in when they themselves are asking for fair treatment for what they believe in.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Both sides should have a choice, on both sides, pregnant woman and doctor...nm
bm
LOL No argument s/m

I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I usually call myself independent.  I march to my own drum.  I would have liked to have seen 2 different candidates than what we had.  I would have liked to see a true Christ-like man, humble and honest in his/her campaign...i.e. the "Straight Talk Express" which McCain claimed to have and didn't.


I simply voted AGAINST the man who bragged that he had voted "with the president over 90% of the time, more than even his Republican colleagues."  We certainly need change.  I know I haven't fared so well under Bush.  All is not lost for those who think Obama is a monster if he in fact turns out to be what he's been accused of being. .  Remember Richard Nixon? 


you win the argument
If you like Bush you are a rare person indeed. His approval rating is 26%.

So now is your time to shine because your guy is still in charge and you should enjoy it.
Yes, anything to make an argument...sm
No pun intended to reality check, but yes anything can turn into an argument. Yep.
Why don't you take your little argument over to the CON board.
You can con each other on the CON board.  How's that?
So is posting the same argument.
I remind you that the monitor recently posted we could cross-post, as we have had liberals on the conservative board, as long as the posts were not bashing. 
Wow, that's a good argument....
it is not a personal choice. There are two people involved, one of whom has NO choice. Not fair.
Is that your only argument for socialism?
My word....people are committing adultery on both sides of the fence, that will never change. What in the world does that have to do with socialism and socialists candidate?
But you have made your argument here FOR
You already know where Obama stands. He has said outright he will raise taxes to pay for more social programs. He wants to tell you how to get your healthcare. I agree we definitely need to do something about healthcare but then that could be easily done if the fat cats on capitol hill, including Obama, would stop insurance lobbyists and make it illegal for lobbying....period!!! They then would have to make it more affordable or they will not have a business to run in the first place.

I too would like to see our troops come home from Iraq but not give that money to Obama because it will be wasted faster than you can blink and on what? More socialist programs...

If you look deep into what Obama hasn't detailed in his healthcare plan, you will see that you WILL be paying DEEPLY for it. He has managed to waltz around the details of his plan, which include HUGE tax hikes to pay for that wonderful healthcare he wants to give you.

With the two candidates I am left to choose from, I choose a capitalist over a socialist any day. I'm about to believe Obama would sell his soul to the devil to get in that position.
Okay, that argument aside, here's a legitimate
What will be your thoughts, and more importantly - your ACTIONS - if the candidate of your choice doesn't win?

Where do you go from there?
Do you have a plan as to what you will do, or not do, or change, or flee, if your candidates lose the election?
You don't do your argument any good

by talking down to people.  The point I gathered from the the Bloomberg article seems to state what many have said and that is that with all the spending the government has done and will continue to do, the government could have paid off almost all mortgages and settled what was touted as the root cause of all the problems, the subprime mess. 


Bailouts don't work, handouts don't work, the free market does. 


With one mistake after another, rookie Obama's decisions and policies demonstrate one thing only and that is his stimulus package is political payback instead of finding genuine solutions.  The vagueness of his campaign speechmaking was the work of a hollow wordsmith after all. 


"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winston Churchill

 


I am so sick of this argument
All that clause means is that their will be no state sponsored religion - like saying everyone has to be Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic. It had nothing to do with taking God out of the white house or supreme court or anywhere else! The only reason that happened is because Christians just sat by and didn't say anything while everyone else whined about it and now it's too late to reverse all that because the mindset now is "oh we have to have separation of church and state!"

Of course as greedy and grimy as politicians are these days they probably feel better thinking that God doesn't pay attention to politics!

Here's some quotes from the founding fathers:

William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."


Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry


Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."


That is a valid argument. Thank you

I heard that argument..(sm)

They're saying they'll have to raise taxes when the extended benefits run out.  This doesn't make sense to me.  If while they are receiving extended benefits they are creating jobs with the other aspects of the stimulus, wouldn't the total bill for unemployment go down? 


Not a good argument...(sm)

I could just as easily say that if you believe in the sanctity of life so much, why are you willing to torture and kill others.


That argument won't work because most people who are pro-choice do not believe that life begins at conception.


Ah, the persecuted Christian argument. Please.............

That was the argument in 1960. We didn't buy it then and we are...sm
not buying it now almost 50 years later. Religion should have no part of politics any more than race, gender or anything else that has no bearing on whether a person can lead.
That whole "blood for oil" argument is garbage.
nm
An argument for redistribution of wealth

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


FY 2007


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 


Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes                               35%


Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)


Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  


3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%


4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 


Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 


5.     "Other"                                          2%


 


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    


 


If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   


 


A couple of other points of interest: 


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


 


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:


 


Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 


 


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    


                                  


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  


Citizenship argument...another red herring on
Get over yourself.
The closing argument that lifts us up
what it really means to be an American.  No amount of harsh rhetoric or divisive tactics can touch the hope I hold nor the joy I take in knowing that the country I love, which has lost so much of late, is still there, is on the mend and that better and brighter days are just around the bend.     
Good argument for the 10% threshold. :) nm
nm
What kind of good solid argument is that?
All I saw was a good article assessing the state of our emergency readiness and the conservative comes back with nyah nyah, a guy got shot, hope you're happy.

Is that what anyone calls good solid argument?
I just knew some people would make this into an argument

I just thought it was pretty cool and on the lighter side. But...as usual, some people just want to argue.


Your argument does not hold a drop of water.
Number one. No they wouldn't...journalists are like lawyers...they don't rat out their sources. It is a question of professional integrity. Furthermore, the LA Times went into great detail to describe precisely what was on the video. No cigar on that media bias whining. This is what happens when campaigns declare war on the media, keep their VP pick on a short leash, avoid one-on-one interviews like the plaque and squeal out loud when the rogue goes off script. The media would not be having a field day if there weren't such an abundant pool of news stories being generated daily by this pathetically mismanaged and misguided camp.

Since when is the International REPUBLICAN Institute, chaired by McCain, the REBPULICAN presidential candidate apolitical? Explain this to me, please. The Center for PALESTINIAN Research and Study...apolitial? On what planet is the subject of Palestine apolitical? Seriously, can you point out any Palestinian living either in OCCUPIED Palestine or in the diapora who is NOT political. If it weren't political, there would have been no exchange of funds. Not at all the same as what...a little incoherent here.

The "meeting" was a farewell dinner for Khalidi held at a Palestinian community center in Chicago for this American born, Yale graduate, Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy, former professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, current professor at Columbia University. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the US INTERreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East...a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is also a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Palestine-Israel Journal, a publication founded by prominent Palestinian and ISRAELI journalists.

Radical Israel hater? Sam, this may come as a shock to you, but Palestinians take great pride in crossing cultures and religions for the sake of garnering peace in their war-torn country. You need help interpreting what Obama meant by "showing me my own personal bias." This is what occurs when people cross cultures, talk to one another, listen to points of view other than their own and start the process of coming to terms with the ethnocentric bias they carry around from their own cultures. I know exactly what he means. It is precisely the quality an effective foreign policy leader need to have to make effective diplomatic inroads. If you want to make something suspicious and subversive out of that....be my guest. In the absence of the tape, Sam, just how is it that you claim to know precisely what transpired during that farewell dinner?

Notably absence from you post is any direct comment on the fact that Chairman McCain's IRI funded the organization that Khalidi founded for 2 years in a row. If he is the Jew hater you suggest he is, then wouldn't that mean that once again, Chairman McCain had a vetting deficit?

Rabid rants will not support your argument.
with anything. Rememer the burden of proof thingy in the courts? Why do you think Berg the Boob is suing on grounds of "standing" and alleged "harm"...claims that thus far have been laughed out of court?
Another argument based on false premise.
underpinnings of our democracy? Here's a clue just for you. What is the function of the Supreme Court? Since when do the 3 branches of our govt NOT interpret the constitution? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the ignorance you seem to feel compelled to display, and dern proudly, I might add.

Before you try to tell the rest of us how we should be thinking and such, perhaps you should be addressing your own severe afflictions, starting with your blind hatred.
Wow, that was a powerful, cogent, scholarly argument!..................nm
nm
The fire safety argument is a lot of hooey.

Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single  party for 30 people? 


As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would  be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals.  Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood.  But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.


sam, weak argument based on semantics, that reporter's
implication was all too clear, and just another stupid accusation in order to mislead yet more uneducated, misinformed voters.
I'm afraid my history lesson disqualifies your argument.
be a smartass and ask what has changed since his statement. I simply stated the obvious answer. What has changed is his MIND. If he didn't feel qualified, he would not have run. Evidently, 65,431,955 citizens agreed with this chane of heart. You cannot argue away the fact that GREAT presidents have held office with much less experience than Obama...and I look for him to be adding his name to that list of the BEST our country has to offer in short order.
Nope, never said I wasn't black, but I remember the argument you're talking about...sm
Nan, Military Brat and Bush supporter took me to task over whether or not I was black when I said *and who said I was black anyway* I'm trying to find this in archives.

But, what I can't stand is people having a preformed opinion about how I am going to think or should think since I'm black, that's why I don't post my race. Once I posted that I was African American that's when they started the *I thought you said you weren't black.* Which I have never denied my race. Sorry, but not true.
Hindsight is 20/20. The same argument could be made of North Korea if they decide to attack...sm
after Bush's 2nd term has ended.

Clinton and Bush definitely were opposites on foreign policy, but I think he did try - probably didn't do as much as he could. What Bush is doing with the war in Iraq though, I think is irresponsible as well.
Exactly....and that happens on both sides...
in all seriousness...without the jibes...I have two big issues with the Dem candidates, that being the abortion issue and the endless tax and spend for social programs. I am not against social programs, I am just against the waste associated with it and the constant assault on the paycheck. The average in the US is 30-35% of your paycheck off the top in taxes. Can't we all agree that is enough? Why create more programs or throw more money at programs that aren't working? Why not look at the programs and cut the waste. Look to helping people better themselves instead of pushing assistance higher up the income ladder. Because it is we in the middle class who suffer the most. Pretty soon there will not be any middle class at all, because they will then be the working poor on the assistance that goes higher up the ladder.

There is such a thing as a conservative Democrat...who believes in fiscal responsibility.

And I will be the first one to say that the Bush Adminstration has strayed way away from that...fiscal responsibility. While I agree with him on some things...I sure don't agree with him on that.

I fear Hillary's national health plan because I know Canada's is not working the way it should...and it is horribly expensive to the taxpayer. Up there, their median is 50-55% of their taxes off the top, and the #1 place for that money to go is the universal health care. And even if you have the money to pay for an operation, you can't jump the waiting list. Hence, they come here for it.

I would just hope that whoever wins will look at the long-reaching ramifications before just jumping in. Be that Hillary or a Republican....because I do think Hillary will get the nomination. I can't see it go any other way...unless something drastic happens between now and the primary. Of course, we won't see all the ugliness (on both sides) until a little later. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
What do you have against 2 sides
su
Yes, they can be - on BOTH sides.
Someone makes a wise crack about it being nice to have someone with a triple digit IQ - when in FACT they don't know what Bush's IQ is OR the possible that Barack has a higher OR lower IQ score. The problem is the people who post don't know. They have just an outright hatred and loathing for the republicans. Well how would they feel if I went and said Obama has an IQ of 68 or something so absurd. They wouldn't. You know what, having a high IQ doesn't mean squat. I know a lot of people with degrees and high IQs and they are more of imbs than people without degrees. Just another put down for Bush they they think is cute and funny. It's not! We get it already. They don't like Bush, they hate him, and some of them like my MIL will come right out and say what they want to happen to Bush (i.e. the same thing Hillary said would happen to BO and that is why she is staying in).

I'm really getting tired of the utter hatred and disdain for Bush, and the constant Bush bashing I see on this board. Calling him stoopid, etc, etc. when there are no facts to back it up (unless they are sitting with his school transcipts on their desk). You know I like Obama. I think he's an okay guy. I don't care for Bush. Never have, but this utter hatred and lies get to be a bit too much. Then of course they find websites to try to "validate" what they are saying, yet they won't post websites that go against what they are saying. I'm just sick of the whole thing. The next 4 years should be interesting. Not going to say O is going to fail, but I'm also not putting him up on a pedistal and praising him while I dance around in circles chanting his name like most on this board are doing. Then again if he does fail I expect no comments from the libs on that one. For him it will be okay.
Uh...that isn't what I said. I said it happens all the time and both sides do it.
Are you sure you read MY post?  Just wondering because it didn't sound like it from your response.  Man, you guys are trigger happy!
Is good, but not see here. Sad for all both sides.
x
Could it be possible there are 2 sides to the story? sm
The US, UK, and Israel also have a long and colorful history of 'creating incidents' to further their own agendas. I would say control of the Middle East is something at the top of the list. Hezbollah is wrong to send rockets into Israel. In fact, they are all wrong, but what do you expect them to do just wait there and be incinerated by Israel?
I'm sure both sides are represented.
There are soldiers for the war and those against.  It's all there if you look hard enough.  Absolutely....both sides are well represented.
Both sides say things like that
Obviously, living up someone's rear-end is not something that is to be taken literally - that is why I called it a joke - maybe not the best terminology.

My problem is when people say things about certain groups of people and they mean it literally - hence the reason that I specifically mentioned Anne Coulter's discussion and did not add anyone else mentioned in the OP's message.

This kind of crass talk happens on both sides of the fence. Do you have anyone in your family that is a registered Democrat? Do you lump them in with your comments about liberals? (also in comments on the conservative board) I have close family members that are registered Republicans. That is why I do not make sweeping remarks about all Republicans or conservatives. I'm trying to be very specific in my comments because everyone is obviously different.
Racism is on both sides......not just one
xx
Both sides of this issue.....sm
The emotional part of me, that loves wildlife, absolutely and completely hates this practice. The governor before Gov. Palin did this, as well.

Intellectually, however, my husband and I talked about this last night. I have to realize that things are different in the state of Alaska, and we down here in the lower 48 can't judge them for this, as we don't understand all the facts. Sam posted them down below. It's a different mindset, when it comes to predator control versus the herd availability for the people of Alaska who are subsistence hunters, and need that caribou to make it through the winter.

I would much rather to let nature take its course, and let the predator and prey take each other out, the way nature intended it. However, throw humans in the mix, and it does change things.

All that taken into account, I still don't have to like it. But I can respect Alaska's decision to do this, even if I disagree.
Yep. there are two sides to every story....
you just have to choose the side that fits your view for your country. Godspeed in your search. :)
On ALL sides--does not necessarily mean sm
this fiasco is partisan--only that the current administration (GOP) allowed all entities to run amok. It's the financial world versus the common man, now vice versa. As one pundit said tonight, The public shouldn't have to pick up the broken chairs when they weren't invited to the party.



Hey, the hate has come from both sides.
It's so extreme now.
There are SMs from both sides of the fence
Take the above posts, for example:

Fitzgerald renews interest in Rezko-Obama deal

If you read anything on here, read this.

This should disturb every honorable citizen

Your stereotypes are inaccurate and pretty boring.
I am patriotic. I look at both sides.

It's certain people that refuse to look at the PRESENT ISSUES, not the PAST. I am all for O doing the right things, but right now, it looks like business as usual with the exception of his cabinet picks and this stimulus package.


Sticking to the issues is one thing. Calling some unpatriotic just because they don't agree with you is another.


nasty on all sides
Can't we just state our opinions without calling each other "idiots" and "children?"  Does that really enhance the argument?  Ever?
There is ignorance on both sides here.

As a Christian, I would appreciate it if people would leave this type of subject out of our children's education.  It is not unreasonable to ask since we have given up God and prayer in the schools to accommodate those who do not believe. 


There are some people who will ridicule the act as well as the person as you can clearly see when we get on the subject of homosexuality.  But you cannot group all of us into this category.  I do not agree with that lifestyle but having no reason to treat them poorly.  That is what I want to teach my children.  We may not agree but we cannot be mean to them. 


However, I cannot stand by and allow the teaching that homosexuality is okay.  It is too controversial of a topic for that to be taught in schools.....just like religion.  I can teach my children acceptance of people without teaching acceptance of a lifestyle we don't agree with and I would appreciate it if schools wouldn't undermine my authority on that subject. 


You don't see me going around forcing religion on children who I know has parents who don't believe in God and don't want their kids hearing about God.


I was merely stating there are TWO sides....
to every story. I have not taken sides, as apparently you have. That is all I am saying. The Palestinians are not without fault either, and their present governing body are on the terror watch list. That should mean something....?