Übergeek 바둑이: The government could completely remove itself from the issue. Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so. That would make lot of people unhappy too.



Why would that make anyone unhappy?

Übergeek 바둑이: Getting to your next post.... I never said anything about incest, just a brother and sister living together and wanting certain rights and responsibilities.....

again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment, and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...

But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does with having the right to pass property etc

Übergeek 바둑이: What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say. We are very different from other living organisms in this planet. Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.

So at least you agree that a man on man sex is not natural....


To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.

I never said it had no relationship to religion.... just that it is more an issue that it is abnormal. I am not religious, but it is obvious to me that it is natural for a man and woman to have sex, and it is not natural for a man and a man to have sex.

Thats why I believe this argument should be about two people being together and their rights, no matter who they are, and not about sexual anything!

Übergeek 바둑이: Also, what AD said, that it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument... its simply not natural for a guy to put his penis in another guys anus, the same way it is for him to put it into a female vagina! There is something unnatural about it, and most people do not want to "legitimize" something that is so unnatural!

I think it would make a better tact, instead of calling it "gay marriage", that something like the "civil union" be adopted.... then you are not putting the emphasis on "homosexuals", you are putting the emphasis on couples, or familys in general, and their rights under the laws. "Family" is a lot easier definition to legally mess around with than "marriage"..... If all they really want is to have the same property and visitation etc rights, then why push so hard for it to be called a marriage anyways? I believe there has to be more to the agenda than meets the eye!

Übergeek 바둑이: I think the argfument isnt so much against them having similar rights, IE to pass property and hospital rights etc., its just when you call it "marriage" where the issues arise?

But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

Übergeek 바둑이: I havent seen anyone respond to the "we 3 are in love, or we 4 are in love" scenario yet?

Why not polygamy then too? Or like Bwild said too, why cant my sister and i be given the same rights as married couples get now? Shouldnt my sister and I be able to cohabitate and adopt children and have each other inherit property etc???



...and your only complaint against sexual attraction to children is that the child cannot consent to the sex???


oh yeah, and homosexuals are already free to marry, just like heterosexuals are, we already share the same rights.... as a heterosexual, I dont have a right to marry another man....


and I agree with AD, calling someone against gay marriage as "homophobic" is a slander and not always accurate

Ferris Bueller: First of all, you dont have to be "anti gay" to be against gay marriage.

Talk about a slippery slope... what if next I said i wanted to marry two other people, the 3 of us are in love, we are a happy family, we just want the same rights and privileges that everyone else has?

I am not sure why the government is in the marriage business in the first place? Why not just "civil unions" for ecveryone, both straight and gay, give us the right to choose whomever we want to for benefits and other rights we give to married couples right now?

Another random thought.... what if everyone were gay???? Would that be a good thing?


oh yeah....the courts already have interviened on behalf of gay marriage, California is one state, and even in such a liberal state as California, the people voted to reject the courts!

One more random thought..... there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children, can anyone explain to me how that is really any different than being hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

highlights here in Maine... we voted down the new gay marriage law, and voted to allow non profits with the proper licenses to grow and distribute medical marijuana products,,,,,,

Seems the will of the people and the will of the courts and legislatures are at odds all over the country..... seems that every time the people get a vote, we vote against gay marriage (over 30 votes so far in various states)

(V): With regards to Marijuana.. as far as I am aware.. there has never been a fatality related directly to it's use.



Everyone has heard this one before..... but I have read studies that show too much caution when driving impaired by pot, and that can, and has lead to other people being involved in an accident.

Also, just because one drug is "better" than some other legal one, is not a good argument for it to be legal as well, IMHO.


What is the definition os a drug anyway??? You want to say caffeine too? Is caffeine a drug?? What substance is not a drug then???

I dont mind it as a prescribed drug, I am sure it much safer than many other prescribed drugs, and others that are legal too. but I dont want you and me growing it and selling legally to someone with a prescription either.

And as dandy pointed out, prescription drugs have a warnig that they are not to be used while driving etc..... same as legal drugs IE alcohol, no drugs should be used while doing anything that can harm someone else!

I saw today that Bam will not allow the federal government to enforce its laws against the use of pot in states where it is legal

Übergeek 바둑이: Well, I dont personally believe that pot is a "soft" drug. It is addictive and does cause problems for those who use it for recreational purposes.

It does have benefits that outweigh its downside for some sick people.... but letting people grow their own or for people to be able to sell it to people with a prescription doesnt really make sense to me either?

I have read that there are some benefits to smoking it that you cannot get from taking a pill... I had not heard about the inhaler yet, maybe that gives the same benefits as smoking it does? I am not against whatever is good for medicinal purposes.... but pot is not some drug without a harmful side effect.

<bMost man made drugs of a heavy duty nature have serious side effects, some can even kill ya in order to try and improve your health. So many different people with different illnesses find medical marijuana 'clean' compared to man made drugs, and also helps combat side effects of man made drug



Yes, so why here, like California, do we let private people grow the stuff and sell it for prescription???

Ferris Bueller: Medical Marijuana in California is a joke...... its just an attempt to make it as legal as cigarettes, and INMHO if dying patients need it, then why not like other drugs, instead of local "dealers"??

Übergeek 바둑이: Its simple really.... people dont mind helping the disadvantaged, but they dont want to be duped by them either.

One problem with the whole issue is that most liberals (USA) think it is some kind of civil rights violation to put safe guards in place to avoid corruption. You cant drug test etc blah blah blah.... well to me, if you are taking from the state, then the state has the right to test you for drug use and other "intrusions" that those of us who do not need or choose to use public assistance are afforded.

You have a job and a family, and cant afford an educational tool like a computer for your child, then sure, give them a voucher.... but no drug abuse, make sure the computer can only be used by them and not sold etc....

I think the main point here is, that you may lose some "privacy rights" that most people enjoy, if you take my money to pay for your life, is that too much to ask, really?

(V): BTW... any update for us on this side of the pond about those police blokes who murdered some poor innocent guy for no reason?????

Ferris Bueller: Speaking of SNL... I found it interesting the distinction between the news media coverage when Bush got satirized on SNL and when Obama gets the same.


I saw an NBC news coverage after Obama was satirized that felt the need to explain how inaccurate most of it was, and go into detail about what they felt was characterized...

Well, most of what SNL does is not a completely accurate portrayal, including when it was about Bush... but I NEVER saw any news do a story about how inaccurate they were about Bush, but they just couldnt help themselves trying to explain to the "stupid public" that what they heard on SNL was not all facts..... go figure????

Artful Dodger: Wow.... 336 new messages, I have been slacking lately.

Sorry if I dont read them all, and if I post something that has been already talked about.

I think that the Obama award was more the same as a special interest group paying off a politician for votes.... it was a group interested in peace trying to put Obama on the hot seat and get him to feel the need to become worthy of the award he received.

(V): correct me if I'm wrong

You are wrong.... many times the whole room was standing to applaud the things he said, its just that is the private back room meetings, we know that what he says and what the reality will be are two different things, especially isf we dont fight it line by line, every step of the way.

Its not really that you have to be against any reform or changes, but if you just simply say, go Bam go, we trust you and believe you will do what is right, in all instances, well then you are going to end up with many unintended consequences.

It just part of the push and shove of politics, you cant leave either side unchecked and un scrutinized, it how we keep ourselves going more or less down the middle of the road, with each side pulling as hard as they can on the steering wheel in opposite directions.

Ferris Bueller: As I read around a bit, it seems like "forced unionization" is one of the many republican concerns here, something that the dems need to compromise on somehow.... its not that we are against health care reform, its just that we want it to be responsible, and not just done to get it done.....

its one of those, be careful what you wish for, kind of things, reform health care, yes, have mounds of unplanned consequences because it got rushed through by socialist elites, NO!

..oh yeah too, what was that he said about our health care being as good as what they give themselves??????

I tell you Ferris, if your beloved democrats ever have the guts to put themselves into the same playing field as they are shoving down our throats, I promise to switch my allegiance to your side of the isle forever!!!!

Ferris Bueller: The Republicans have had their fun. It's time for the Democrats to govern.

Problem is, you can tell from his speech, that even Bam has some concerns about the direction from the "progresives" want to take on this issue... like he is really hoping that congress will pull this thing a bit more to the right, but that the "progressive elites" like Pelosi wont let that happen... even Bam seems to understand that a full blown soialist agenda is not what America needs.... but too many in the democrat party are simply full blown socialists

(V): Here is the problem.... to many on the right, it is just same old

He gives a great speech, says all the right things... you noticed when he said something like "we have to work together, compromise both directions" then everyone on both sides of the isle stand up an applaud. But the problem is, that does not happen..... with democrats like Pelosi in control, they have never once given any consideration to republican ideas or amendments

So to us, it is just a speech, with good sound bites, but the reality that most average people dont understand, is that there are many hidden things in the democrats plans, plans that on the serface seem like plans we can all embrace, but that when republicans try to add things to make sure certain bad elements dont happen, they get squished like tiny bugs by the democrats in charge.


I personally dont know tiny details.... but you could tell by the reaction, when Bam said that "no ilegal aliens would benefit from our health care system" thats when i think the guy said "lies", its just that I am so sure that there are so many parts of this plan that go beyond the veneer of this speech, many parts that need to be worked out better, and it seems to me like the democrats are not willing to compromise at all with many of the republicans concerns


Even Ferris can probably admit that there must be more to all this than meets the eye of the average American???

I tell you right now.... I was instrumental in getting Olympia Snow to speak at my high school graduation 29 years ago, and I have been a supporter of her for many years, but if she caves on this one, I will personally spit at her feet!

Ferris Bueller: If you say so.... I think Bam did have an initial plan to lobby the children for his agenda, and if it wasnt for the right wing talk radio crowd there to make sure that didnt happen, then it would have happened

So in the end, what was it all about anyway??? A big pep talk from the commander in chief???

Got to admit Bam is a good speaker and motivator, but that does not a leader make.... but if you want to get all teary eyed over him talking about how not having a father actually made him a stronger person.... or was he saying it was a negative thing, really



well anyway, thats typical liberal talk out of both sides of your mouth, dont offend anyone, make everyone feel happy, there is no real right or wrong its all good....

(V): Why can't you do as we.. private and public working side by side?



We already do... but that is not the end game, the end game is just a swap of power from private elites to public elites, in the end the people are still beholden....

(V): Well it seems the goal to me.... make everyone the same/ equal.... all the same care and education etc, and pay for it from taxing the wealthy, and then the wealthy are not so and the poor are not so.... you tell me where it all leads then?

(V): Maybe with your vast educational and reading experience you can answer me this question.....


(I know you dont like hypothetical) But lets assume that the whole world were united under one system similar to the UK.... the middle class gets bigger, the poor gets smaller, as do the wealthy.... over time we are all pretty much middle class, right? Then what? When Paul is gone, who do you rob to pay Peter? Once there are no more poor people and no more rich people, then what?

Vikings: ahhhhh..... well, at least it isnt all going to the education of kids I dont have....


...and V, before you say anything..... I do understand that a healthy, well educated population is a good thing for our country, even at the expense of those with no kids or who use very little medical services.

(V): Let me clarify to, that a lot of the "FREE" care that people with no health coverage gets is recieved from private health providers but is paid for from higher fees to those with health coverage, and NOT from the government. Which might seem bad at first glance, but to me it is better to have people who use the services cover instead of the government taking from me to pay for the uncovered.

Like they do for education, even though I have never had any children, my government still takes my money to pay for it

(V): I am saying that we already do have some government PAID health care, but the treatment is from the same private care that insurance people use. (except some veterans care and some others)

So, yes of course the government is perfectly capable of paying for my health care, but I do not have any confidence in them running the whole health care industry or them running their own version of it and to compete with private health care. But if they want to try that, then fine, just like the postal service sucks, so will their health programs.

But in general, I am against socialism for America, and my main focus is to keep us from bleeding to death one cut at a time from more and more bits of socialized programs being implemented.

Übergeek 바둑이: the right of the People to healthcare, shall not be infringed.


Well, fine then.... but the government does not provide us all with guns, free or otherwise..... and we have no "right" that says they have to provide us with health care either.

(V): This gun conversation is helpful for me in explaining the differences of opinions in the health care debate.

It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health care system, just because of a few bad apples.

GTCharlie: Good points as well.... I guess the government should be required to provide everyone a personal trainer and dietitian etc to every person from age 5 on too

Pedro Martínez:

Thank you... and statements like "if there is a heart and a doctor available" is a good example.

That was my whole point..... if health care is to be a "right", then the government has to have the ability to protect that for the people in all and every instance, and if it is not possible to do that, then it cannot be possible to be a right

Its a philosophical debate... it either is or isnt, there is no grey area.

Pedro Martínez: Right against....sorry

(V): I did, by using the term maximum employment


So you are telling me that the US doesnt have "maximum employment" because our health care system is not nationalized???

(V): One deals with health, one deals with post... can you see the difference??


So then, in your opinion, the government is good at running some things and not so good at others?

(V): Well if health care frauds were gone that save $1,000,000,000


Well, can we get rid of fraud and not go socialized at the same time?

(V): That health care is not a right directly affects the ability of the population to meet the demands of the economy. It is NOT your mail service, which by the looks is very much undercharging.


Okay then.... If you want to make the argument that we need nationalized health care because our economy is suffering because our population is too unhealthy to maintain a productive work force... well then, make that argument. But dont try to convince me that we need it because it is some sort of fundamental government guaranteed right (not that I see our economy suffering because of a poor health care system)

...and maybe health care is not our postal system, but you need to do more than just say it wont be, for me to be convinced Why/how are they to be different???
You say our postal under charges? Based on what? I see the prices constantly going up.... to me its just the government running something more poorly than private ways... federal express and United Parcel service both make profits, and the US postal service is going bankrupt

Ferris Bueller: You raise hypotheticals about not enough Drs. practicing to take care of everyone.


My point had nothing to do with not enough doctors, per se, it was just to make the point about the "health care is a right" crowd, that goods and services can never be a right, in the same sense that freedom of speech, or the right to unlawful search can.....


Its time at least for a public option to compete w/ the greedy & inefficient private payers.


Well that would be fine with me, as long as they are competing on the same playing field..... I have no confidence that the government health care will do any better than the US postal service when it comes to competing with private industry

(V): People caring is one thing... something I can agree with. But government is NOT people, government works for the people but they are not people, and they (government) shouldnt have the same responsibility (or more responsibility) than the people themselves, churches, people helping people, thats one thing, but when you rely and put all your hope and faith in your government to provide for you... well, to me that is a big mistake.

(V): Well we have as many horror stories about the government spending 500 bucks for a bolt.... how about our US mail.... UPS, fed express, or the US mail? You tell me which you would first bet your money on??? The government is notorious for doing things wrong and too costly etc.... You take your government over private industry, I will continue to fight over here to keep government out of my life as much as possible!


Sorry you dont like hypotheticals, but you have to deal with them in philosophical debates

(V): All I was saying is that people around here are carrying sign in protest of our health care that read "health care is a right" and it cannot be a right and there is no way a government can give that guarantee

Just because you think something is silly does not make it impossible...


and to answer your question.... why do you want a system that is abused by fraud to the cost of billions of dollars?


I just happen to believe that the government is far more fraudulent and full of abuses than most private industry's. I think we can fix what needs fixing, but we dont need to throw the baby out with the bath water

(V): "at least not my government.....

When I say this, what I mean is not the government I envision....


Ohhhhhh yes it is. And at less cost then your current system, and with less fraud then your current system.


You still havent answered my hypothetical question.... what if you have no doctors, can your government force someone to become a doctor? How can you grant someone a right, when you cannot ensure it can always be provided????

Again, it is not possible to have a "right" to goods or services, since no government can possibly guarantee to provide those goods or services

Ferris Bueller: Well, I'd rather be called an "idiot" than behave like an insensitive "moron".

Sorry, I can be insensitive, but liberals have cornered the market on sensitivty anyway, I am not sure that sensitivty is a requirement of government, at least not my government.....


but I was not calling you a moron, personally, but simply anyone who believes people can have inalienable rights to goods and services, IE health care, ones sensitive side may wish this could be the case, but it is just not possible

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry I was not around to help clean up what I started earlier....


My point was not that the US has all the good chemists, it was about the companies, and even you admitted that it was a US company that develops a majority of drugs
You claim they make billions in profits, maybe so... but explain why then, if a government like Canada can make socialized medicine a part of their way, why doesnt the same government spend the money and time to develope their own drugs?????


Also, the question about health care being a right, my point was also missed..... we can have rights like the right to free speach, or the right to unlawful search or seasure etc, but how can we have rights to a service like health care?

Lets just say for instance that we are given health care as a right, like the right to free speach.... but now assume that nobody wants to go to school to pursue the medical field anymore so now you have a right to medical care, but nobody to give you that care.... does the government force people to study to become a doctor? What about an MRI, do I also have a right to an MRI? What if the MRI isnt invented yet?

Point is, its not possible to bestow any rights to services or material objects, because there is no way for any government to guarantee those services will be available

Ferris Bueller: They also do it at less cost than the US

Yes they do... because they have us to bear the brunt of their costs for them!!!


Look at Canada.... they have cheaper pills than we do, right? But who bears the cost of making those pills.... the cost of the research and the regulatory hurdles and trials and manufacturing??? Thats right, the US does

So our pharmaceuticals dont simply have to recover the actual cost to make a pill, they have to recover the total cost to make and develope a pill... but Canada will only pay them a fair profit for the cost to manufacture the pill, so the burden to pay the cost for the development of that pill goes to you know who, the American public

Now, make the US another Canada, and who are we gonna screw over to research and develope these cheap medicines for us????? Mexico maybe????

The only way the rest of the world gets away with socialism, is because the US does the brunt of their work for them, but once we are all socialists, then who will be left to burden the load????


Sorry, gotta run, later I will explain to you how thinking that health care is a "right" makes you an idiot

How can it be so?

GTCharlie: It tells you how bad it must be over there, if they are willing to move back here and take what Bam is about to hand out

Pedro Martínez: