Should Bush Pull His Head Out Of His Backside? - Take 2

[JeffreyWKramer]

What do you think?

[Jack Zodiac]

Ah, Samurai... you're a fuckin' pistol.

Nice poll, Kramer.

[Solaris]

On top of what they've already been through, why would you want to scare the poor gerbils to death by being confronted with Bush's colon and his face at the same time?

Wait---what about US? We get that, too!

Does that mean we're gerbils?

[Lester C.]

I think the president is moral to a fault. Based on his religious beliefs and moral convictions he's making the wrong decisions for the right reasons. He's the antithesis of Bill Clinton who made the right decisions for the wrong reasons. In other words I think Bush is Land Mallori.

Regarding the poll I believe that all of us have the capacity to change for better or worse, in an instant, so I voted for the first option.

[Linkara]

*Shrugs* I seem to be in a growing minority here, but I think he tends to make both good decisions and bad decisions, both for right and wrong reasons, so I just wonder why you hate freedom. ^_~

[Suzanne]

I think Bush gets off on having his head shoved in his ass. That's the only way to make sense of his presidency.

[Cam63]

He's a bad president. End of story.

[Francis]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/us.iraq/index.html) seems to be saying that he's starting to pull it out.

Sources inside and outside the White House told CNN that discussions are taking place about what the alternative U.S. policy in Iraq would be if the troop increase does not work as planned.

Quite how it got far enough up his backside that they are only now starting to talk about alternatives if the surge doesn't work is beyond me. But it's a start. (As is saying that the military should be in charge - more than 650,000 Iraqi deaths too late...)

[Alan Lynch]

Removing one's head from one's ass would be quite difficult I imagine. The way ears are, there's going to be more resistance on the reverse trip I reckon.

Sorry, what was the question? I just had the worst dream.

[Solaris]

If he did, wouldn't it create a monumental Black Hole that would suck the life right out of the Universe?

:D

[Samurai]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/us.iraq/index.html) seems to be saying that he's starting to pull it out.



Quite how it got far enough up his backside that they are only now starting to talk about alternatives if the surge doesn't work is beyond me. But it's a start. (As is saying that the military should be in charge - more than 650,000 Iraqi deaths too late...)

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Francis]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Check your methodologies. Iraq body count only checks those deaths that are reported and confirmed - meaning that by the very nature of the site, it is going to be a serious underestimate (and more of one when things are disintegrating).

Believe it or not, not all deaths make it into the news.

And speaking as a professional statistician, I'd be interested in seeing your objections to the Lancet study.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And speaking as a professional statistician, I'd be interested in seeing your objections to the Lancet study.

His objections pretty much amount to "Bush's people don't agree" and "I choose to believe this other guy instead, because he has the same partisan disregard for facts as me."

[Paul McEnery]

He'd have to pull it out of Karl Rove's first.

Har!

[Paul McEnery]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Stop talking shit, Samurai.

You know this is a fucking lie. You've been told this is a fucking lie. It's been demonstrated that this is a fucking lie. And yet you keep repeating the fucking lie.

EDIT:

Oh for Christ's sake. Okay, once more into the breach.

The Lancet figures are not for casualties directly attributable to the war, but rather for all deaths owing to the war, whether direct casualties or not. As such, they are actually an underestimate, and have in any case been long surpassed.

[the4thpip]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Isn't laughing out loud at a death toll, no matter if you agree with its accuracie or not, something that only the evilest of evil motherfuckers do?

[Magneto_X]

*Shrugs* I seem to be in a growing minority here, but I think he tends to make both good decisions and bad decisions, both for right and wrong reasons, so I just wonder why you hate freedom. ^_~

What good decisions has he made?

[TCJohnson]

What good decisions has he made?

Much as I hate Bush, he has given a lot of aid to fighting disease in Africa. Not as much as promised, but still more than other presidents.

Gotta give credit where it is do.

[the4thpip]

Much as I hate Bush, he has given a lot of aid to fighting disease in Africa. Not as much as promised, but still more than other presidents.

Gotta give credit where it is do.

That money has often been tied to his ideological agenda and may have done more bad than good in many instances. In Uganda, for example, successful HIV prevention programs that dealt with real life issues like prostitution and teenage sexuality have bit by bit been replaced by lethal, counter-productive abstinence only programs because that is what they can get Bush's money for.

Don't believe the hype. Just this week, Bush's own former surgeorn general spoke about the madness of those abstinence only schemes.

[Samurai]

Check your methodologies. Iraq body count only checks those deaths that are reported and confirmed - meaning that by the very nature of the site, it is going to be a serious underestimate (and more of one when things are disintegrating).

Believe it or not, not all deaths make it into the news.

And speaking as a professional statistician, I'd be interested in seeing your objections to the Lancet study.

Do a search for the threads that sprang up when it first came out. The Lancet studies, both of them, were thoroughly debunked, and proven to be pretty much worthless. There was far too much said to repeat all of it now (And don't listen to McEnery & Kramer, they're BSing as usual. The poor methodology of the study was easily refuted, but that goes against their world view, so they ignore it and cling to only those things that confirm their existing biases. Just like they claim Bush does.)

Read further:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6565
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=54
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/201087.php
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-liberal-death-count-claims-770.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2004/11/lancet-survey-on-post-war-fatalities.html
http://www.ydr.com/op-ed/ci_5939770

[Solaris]

Much as I hate Bush, he has given a lot of aid to fighting disease in Africa. Not as much as promised, but still more than other presidents.

Gotta give credit where it is do.


Hahahahaha!

I am sorry, I'm not poking fun at you... I'm just bitterly incensed over the "aid" Bush has sent the African way...

Basically, the big push in his "anti-AIDS" campaign was to do their best to discredit the use of condoms, promote ignorance and fear about the disease, and preach an "abstinence only" line to the Africans. There's been studies (don't look to me for them; I've read their synopsis, but I'm not the person who posted them) that show the Bush "campaign against AIDS" in Africa has actually *increased* many people's chances of contracting the disease, because of the ignorance and hopelessness his campaign created in the natives.

[Cam63]

I'm exaggerating, but if Dubbya was a bartender, he'd fuck up selling beer to an Australian.

[Solaris]

I'm exaggerating, but if Dubbya was a bartender, he'd fuck up selling beer to an Australian.

That's because he's never happy serving something up until he's pissed in it.

ba-dum-bum! ching!

Damn... this is fun.

[TheLazy]

If he has his head up his ass then why hasn't he gone blind already?:D

[Linkara]

What good decisions has he made?

Honestly? I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this, but I agree with the decision for military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admittedly, it turns out our intelligence was wrong on Iraq and they didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the USA's invasion, but we sure as hell knew he had a history of doing it and I sure as hell believe he was planning on doing it again. He'd been developing and using chemical weapons for years despite United Nations sanctions telling him to knock it off and he'd been oppressing his people and was guilty of a hell of a lot more crimes when he attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait. In the case of the Iran War, we made mistakes by backing him, but that just to me seemed like one more justification for ending him - cleaning up our mistakes.

Now, the mistake with this was that he tried to sell the WoMD argument as the basis for the invasion when it should've been clear from the beginning this was a humanitarian effort to stop a brutal dictator and give the people back the rights that had been taken from them. Another mistake was underestimating the number of forces necessary for this sort of effort. You need a 20-to-1 ratio to utterly defeat a defending army like the one we were facing, and it was shown in the attack on Baghdad why that worked, but we needed a hell of a lot more troops than what we started with. And I think we've had victories along the way - free elections in Iraq, the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein (done by the Iraqis, although his execution was handled poorly), and I think for the most part things are better now and they will continue to get better unless we do something remarkably, universally stupid, which can happen in a military situation like this. We've had plenty of stupid people along the way, but I remain optimistic about things and I don't think our President is half as bad as people always like to bitch about him being.

[Citizen V]

I think Bush gets off on having his head shoved in his ass. That's the only way to make sense of his presidency.

That`s a signature quote right there.:cool:
Bush is going to go down in history as the dumbest President ever.People are already talking about this,he`s too damn stubborn to admit this is all a waste.

[Solaris]

Why is it, when people talk about Bush being dumb, all the ever mention is Iraq?

What about Katrina? Federal funding for religious charities? The "Abstinence War on AIDS" in Africa? Appointments of Bush mouthpieces to positions like Attorney General and Surgeon General? Lies to the Media (and the public)? His push for erosion of citizens' rights, after 9/11, via the Patriot Act and Homeland Security? How early in his first presidency, Bush's proactive campaign planning session with Catholic Bishops, inadvertantly broadcast to a pressroom full of reporters BY BUSH when he hit the wrong toggle on his desk... where they all heard him saying to the Bishops he would put federal weight and moneys behind their platform of pro-life, federal funding for churches, etc.? Bush's statements in his *first* election campaign about how "Wicca" is not a religion, and that he would do his best to get it ousted from military recognition? Declaring "Jesus Day" as a state holiday, when he was Gov. of Texas?

THIS is what irks me about people's reaction to Bush: HE'S HAD A TRACK RECORD FOR STUPIDITY, CLOSED-MINDENESS, BIGOTRY, LYING, AND A DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED EROSION OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, IN FAVOR OF HIS OWN BELIEFS, FROM BEFORE HE EVER BECAME PRESIDENT, AND ALL THROUGH BOTH TERMS. Yet it seems like Iraq is the only thing people ever point to as an example of his gross negligence, ignorance, and deliberate changing of our laws and practices.

People even seem to forget that it wasn't Iraq that first started waking people up to the Bush debacle... it was the complete unprepardness of FEMA, and the snail pace of federal response, that first woke people up... because of his stupid policies and his stupid selection of an Arabian horsebreeder with no prior emergency disaster work to chair FEMA that led to the disaster.

It was only after a large chunk of the American public got bitten directly on the ass by his stupidty (with Katrina) that finally, FINALLY, people dropped the "if you're FOR Bush you're a Patriot; if you're AGAINST Bush, you're a Traitor" line of idiocy, and started taking an actual look at the efficacy and policies of his administration... and only THEN started paying credence to the "Traitors" who were questioning the Iraq campaign.

Humph.

And what REALLY irks me is that *some* people saw the way the wind was blowing in Bush's mind and actions, way back in his first presidential campaign.. and not only did the majority not listen, but they've even forgotten that they were ever warned ahead of time about the kind of president, and presidency, they were voting into being.

Grrrrrrr.

And yes, that is my freakin' "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" for the century, folks, to the American nation at large.

[Sabrinaset]

THIS is what irks me about people's reaction to Bush: HE'S HAD A TRACK RECORD FOR ... BIGOTRY...

I'm a little unclear what his track record for bigotry is.

[Samurai]

I'm a little unclear what his track record for bigotry is.

He appointed conservative people of all races and both sexes, with far more diversity than Clinton or other previous Presidents. He is therefore, clearly a bigot. :rolleyes:

[Solaris]

He appointed conservative people of all races and both sexes, with far more diversity than Clinton or other previous Presidents. He is therefore, clearly a bigot. :rolleyes:

Were they also of non-traditional religions (especially the ones he's targeted as "not real religions"), and of diverse gender/sexual orientation?

Geez, it's pretty damn easy to find a conservative woman, or a conservative black/hispanic/etc. nowadays... Bigotry isn't limited only to racial issues, or male vs. female, you know.

Given his repeated vocal statements that this is "A Christian Country," his support for stances against GBLT people, his biased dispersement of federal funds to Christian charities for their "social programs"---which I might add, has never before happened in the history of this country, and yes, it was biased---I know of several well-established Pagan charities with social programs who couldn't get a toe in the door for that program... you don't think he's a bigot?

Sorry---hiring minorities and women doesn't wash, in asserting that he's *not* bigoted. Further, there are more minorities and women active in fields that are appropriate for said appointments now than ever before. I mean, it was much harder for Nixon to find minority and female prospects in the appropriate fields for appointments than it was for Bush. Citing the "he hired more than ever before" is like saying "In the past fifty years, the Petroleum Industry has hired more Arabs than any other American industry in history"... without mentioning, of course, that Oil happened to have been discovered in the Arabic countries around, oh, fifty or so years ago.

:rolleyes: back atcha.

[Samurai]

Why is it, when people talk about Bush being dumb, all the ever mention is Iraq?

What about Katrina? Federal funding for religious charities? The "Abstinence War on AIDS" in Africa? Appointments of Bush mouthpieces to positions like Attorney General and Surgeon General? Lies to the Media (and the public)? His push for erosion of citizens' rights, after 9/11, via the Patriot Act and Homeland Security? How early in his first presidency, Bush's proactive campaign planning session with Catholic Bishops, inadvertantly broadcast to a pressroom full of reporters BY BUSH when he hit the wrong toggle on his desk... where they all heard him saying to the Bishops he would put federal weight and moneys behind their platform of pro-life, federal funding for churches, etc.? Bush's statements in his *first* election campaign about how "Wicca" is not a religion, and that he would do his best to get it ousted from military recognition? Declaring "Jesus Day" as a state holiday, when he was Gov. of Texas?


FEMA is not the first responders to a crisis, the state and local authorities are. The idiots running LA and New Orleans screwed that one up at least as much as FEMA. But the Bush appointee (Brown) was lousy, and was deservedly replaced.

I agree that religious charities should receive the same rights and funding as any other, so long as the funds are not used to proselytize. It would be wrong to discriminate against them for their religion.

Promoting abstinence is a good thing, and should be done in combination with other efforts, not instead of them.

Every President appoints people who agree with him to top positions. What President would appoint someone he is diametrically opposed to and disagrees with?

What lies to the media and public? There have been mistakes, not lies. Please keep that straight.

The Patriot Act had bi-partisan support and included many necessary and common sense reforms, such as sharing information between agencies. It is not an "attack on civil rights".

Gee, a President telling supporters he agrees with them and will try to promote the common beliefs? Never would I believe such a thing could happen!

Wicca has now been recognized and the symbols included on soldiers tombstones approved, under Bush's tenure. http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uswi&c=military&id=11743

I've heard of far stupider and more worthless state holidays than "Jesus Day"...

[Sabrinaset]

Given his repeated vocal statements that this is "A Christian Country," his support for stances against GBLT people, his biased dispersement of federal funds to Christian charities for their "social programs"---which I might add, has never before happened in the history of this country, and yes, it was biased---I know of several well-established Pagan charities with social programs who couldn't get a toe in the door for that program... you don't think he's a bigot?

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.

[Nick Soapdish]

Honestly? I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this, but I agree with the decision for military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admittedly, it turns out our intelligence was wrong on Iraq and they didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the USA's invasion, but we sure as hell knew he had a history of doing it and I sure as hell believe he was planning on doing it again. He'd been developing and using chemical weapons for years despite United Nations sanctions telling him to knock it off and he'd been oppressing his people and was guilty of a hell of a lot more crimes when he attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait. In the case of the Iran War, we made mistakes by backing him, but that just to me seemed like one more justification for ending him - cleaning up our mistakes.

Now, the mistake with this was that he tried to sell the WoMD argument as the basis for the invasion when it should've been clear from the beginning this was a humanitarian effort to stop a brutal dictator and give the people back the rights that had been taken from them. Another mistake was underestimating the number of forces necessary for this sort of effort. You need a 20-to-1 ratio to utterly defeat a defending army like the one we were facing, and it was shown in the attack on Baghdad why that worked, but we needed a hell of a lot more troops than what we started with. And I think we've had victories along the way - free elections in Iraq, the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein (done by the Iraqis, although his execution was handled poorly), and I think for the most part things are better now and they will continue to get better unless we do something remarkably, universally stupid, which can happen in a military situation like this. We've had plenty of stupid people along the way, but I remain optimistic about things and I don't think our President is half as bad as people always like to bitch about him being.

So you're saying that we should've invaded Iraq, but we just needed to come up with lots more soldiers than we did?

Should we have drafted them?

Personally, part of why I think Iraq was such a screw-up is that it screwed up the one good decision that he did make - invading Afghanistan. We hadn't finished the job there and now the Taliban has regained control over a large portion of the country.

Unfortunately, Iraqis don't seem to share your optimism since large numbers seem to think that they were better off under Saddam. (I've seen varying polls and I'm too lazy at the moment to look them up.)

We had several things going against us in Iraq and we've done almost everything humanly possible to ensure that they go worse.

In my opinion, democracy depends upon a stable middle class. Most of the people in the country have to be generally happy with their situation or have confidence that they can get there under the current regime. But in Iraq, unemployment is around 60%. That's a lot of people that are desperate for change now.

It's also a nation that doesn't have much of a tradition of democracy so there's nothing to fall back on.

Then when we invaded, we disbanded the army (leaving lots of armed and unhappy citizens) and forbade anybody that had been in the Ba'ath party from serving in the government (which is pretty much the entire government). So what's left isn't especially experienced at the job.

Furthermore, the rebuilding contracts have been generally doled out in big chunks to multinational corporations that Iraqi firms can't compete with. So they are less involved in rebuilding their country.

BTW, Iran invaded Iraq.

I don't have a problem with the idea of stopping brutal dictators, but the US turns a blind eye to dozens of others so I don't really buy it as our reason for going in.

Back in '92, it might not have been as bad of an idea. Bush encouraged the Iraqis to rise up and they did. But we didn't go in so Saddam killed the home-grown resistance movement which I believe should be heart of any revolution.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.




Bush isn't a racist - that's one flaw nobody can honestly accuse the Bushes of having - but he is definitely a bigot. Really, how is bigotry based in religious ideology any different than bigotry based on nationalism or racial ideology? Answer: It's not.

Sorry, but no. Bigotry based in religious doctrine is just a different stripe of bigotry.

[Nick Soapdish]

FEMA is not the first responders to a crisis, the state and local authorities are. The idiots running LA and New Orleans screwed that one up at least as much as FEMA. But the Bush appointee (Brown) was lousy, and was deservedly replaced.


"You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie."

It took FEMA a long time to get off its duff and do anything once the state and city had called for health.


I agree that religious charities should receive the same rights and funding as any other, so long as the funds are not used to proselytize. It would be wrong to discriminate against them for their religion.


So is it ok to funding from the federal government to discriminate in hiring practices if that's part of their religion?

And they do proselytize. At least the ones that I've volunteered at (which haven't been many).

As far as I was concerned, I was fine with it. They can preach to people as long as they want because it was their money.

Was.

I know that the last place I volunteered at was getting some public funding because of Katrina.


Promoting abstinence is a good thing, and should be done in combination with other efforts, not instead of them.


And that is exactly the complaint about the abstinence-only promotions.


Every President appoints people who agree with him to top positions. What President would appoint someone he is diametrically opposed to and disagrees with?


It's a good argument for not having a religious nut in the office.

It's one thing for it to be your personal beliefs. But to instruct a surgeon general to go against the scientific knowledge is completely different.


What lies to the media and public? There have been mistakes, not lies. Please keep that straight.


Colin Powell had already admitted that he knew that the information in his report to the UN was flawed.

I'm not sure if refusing to believe evidence that contradicts what you believe and only reporting the other evidence counts as actually lying though.


The Patriot Act had bi-partisan support and included many necessary and common sense reforms, such as sharing information between agencies. It is not an "attack on civil rights".


Bi-partisan support doesn't absolve Bush. It just means that the Democrats were also at fault.

It did include many needed and necessary reforms. It also includes attacks on what has traditionally been considered our right to privacy.


Wicca has now been recognized and the symbols included on soldiers tombstones approved, under Bush's tenure. http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uswi&c=military&id=11743


Skipped over the part about the three lawsuits, eh?

[Reverend Smooth]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them. Still counts as bigotry. Just because a book says it's ok to be a bigot doesn't mean it's cool. :3

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.Hasn't stopped him from doing things that are political dynamite.

[Tages]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

And there's no reason to believe that any flaws in the Lancet study's methodology necessarily means that its estimates are too high. You could just as easily say that it means they're too low.

But you've never addressed that, have you?

I'm sure glad that roughly two hundred times the number of people who died from the 9-11 attacks have been killed to protect us from those Weapons of Mass Destruction (that didn't exist) and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda (which also didn't exist).

[Samurai]

And there's no reason to believe that any flaws in the Lancet study's methodology necessarily means that its estimates are too high. You could just as easily say that it means they're too low.

But you've never addressed that, have you?

I'm sure glad that roughly two hundred times the number of people who died from the 9-11 attacks have been killed to protect us from those Weapons of Mass Destruction (that didn't exist) and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda (which also didn't exist).

The entire study is garbage. The margin of error was ridiculously high. They were only 95% certain that they were somewhere within 500,000 of the correct number! Maybe you don't know statistics, but that's crazy. Think of it this way... you are asked to count some pennies in a jar. Each time you get a different number. You do it 100 times, and you find that 95 of those times your total came to somewhere between 155 and 1,155 (scattered within that range). 5 times your count went either higher or lower than even those extremely wide boundaries. That is a range where the bottom number is just 1/9 the top number. You know how most studies talk about a margin of error of 3 or 4 points? That's a margin of error of 500 points! Simply picking the number in the middle of such a horribly inaccurate study is still worthless. Add to that the political bias of some of the researchers, the fact they almost never got any confirmation of stated deaths such as death certificates, they used an extremely small number of samples, they took no census data on the interviewees (commonly done in studies like this), they either lied or were way off on their base figures for life expectancy and mortality under Saddam's rule (by at least 50% if you use UN statistics), and it all adds up to a completely worthless piece of junk that has absolutely no scientific value at all. Anyone who is still quoting it is either ignorant of real scientific methods or blindly partisan. These studies have been thoroughly debunked.

[Francis]

Do a search for the threads that sprang up when it first came out. The Lancet studies, both of them, were thoroughly debunked, and proven to be pretty much worthless. There was far too much said to repeat all of it now (And don't listen to McEnery & Kramer, they're BSing as usual. The poor methodology of the study was easily refuted, but that goes against their world view, so they ignore it and cling to only those things that confirm their existing biases. Just like they claim Bush does.)

Read further:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6565
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=54
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/201087.php
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-liberal-death-count-claims-770.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2004/11/lancet-survey-on-post-war-fatalities.html
http://www.ydr.com/op-ed/ci_5939770

Do you even read what you post - or do you simply look for titles that agree with your biasses? If you had actually read your links or cared enough to know about what you were posting, you would have realised that over half of your links were talking about the 100,000 estimated by the first survey - and therefore weren't even dealing with the correct survey. (And how did I guess that your first post would be Kaplan demonstrating his statistical illiteracy?)

Of those of your links that were actually talking about the right survey (i.e. not very many of them), there were three criticisms that are even worth taking the time to answer.

The first is that the sample size is small - valid but overhyped and the small sample size is the reason that the margins of error are so large (which has been dealt with). You hae the claim that a primary school survey wouldn't use so few clusters - which is irrelevant for two reasons, the first being that a primary school is much easier to survey than Iraq and the second being that this is dealt with by the confidence interval (and never mind that cluster surveys of rare events lead to underestimates...)

The second is that it doesn't match up with the Iraq Body Count figures. Duh! Check the methodology of the Iraq body count. Only if a death makes it into the press is it counted there. Therefore the Iraq Body Count produces a serious underestimate (although how serious is unknown). In short, that objection is plain stupid.

The third is that the pre-war death figures for Iraq were very low. Iraq has an extremely young population (the previous generation were wiped out by a mixture of Saddam attacking Iran and sanctions destroying the elderly). But if we assume the criticism to be entirely valid and accept the figures from the critics (based on very outdated information - although the Lancet's is based on their own), that only cuts the excess mortality figure down to around 400,000. This is, however, the only objection that isn't simply risible.

Oh, and there's the argument that the Iraquis were lying to the survey teams - despite the double checking demonstrating that the majority of deaths had death certificiates. And the argument that because the total deaths in a day was estimated at 700, the headlines of deaths at individual events of a couple of dozen must be off (if you believe there's only ever one bomb at a time, I've got a bridge in brooklyn for you to buy). And a few other pieces of crap.

[Samurai]

Do you even read what you post - or do you simply look for titles that agree with your biasses? If you had actually read your links or cared enough to know about what you were posting, you would have realised that over half of your links were talking about the 100,000 estimated by the first survey - and therefore weren't even dealing with the correct survey. (And how did I guess that your first post would be Kaplan demonstrating his statistical illiteracy?)

Of those of your links that were actually talking about the right survey (i.e. not very many of them), there were three criticisms that are even worth taking the time to answer.

The first is that the sample size is small - valid but overhyped and the small sample size is the reason that the margins of error are so large (which has been dealt with). You hae the claim that a primary school survey wouldn't use so few clusters - which is irrelevant for two reasons, the first being that a primary school is much easier to survey than Iraq and the second being that this is dealt with by the confidence interval (and never mind that cluster surveys of rare events lead to underestimates...)

The second is that it doesn't match up with the Iraq Body Count figures. Duh! Check the methodology of the Iraq body count. Only if a death makes it into the press is it counted there. Therefore the Iraq Body Count produces a serious underestimate (although how serious is unknown). In short, that objection is plain stupid.

The third is that the pre-war death figures for Iraq were very low. Iraq has an extremely young population (the previous generation were wiped out by a mixture of Saddam attacking Iran and sanctions destroying the elderly). But if we assume the criticism to be entirely valid and accept the figures from the critics (based on very outdated information - although the Lancet's is based on their own), that only cuts the excess mortality figure down to around 400,000. This is, however, the only objection that isn't simply risible.

Oh, and there's the argument that the Iraquis were lying to the survey teams - despite the double checking demonstrating that the majority of deaths had death certificiates. And the argument that because the total deaths in a day was estimated at 700, the headlines of deaths at individual events of a couple of dozen must be off (if you believe there's only ever one bomb at a time, I've got a bridge in brooklyn for you to buy). And a few other pieces of crap.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

They specifically said they did not ask for death certificates because it would give the impression that they didn't believe the interviewee. Where do they say they saw the certificates "in the majority of cases"? (Especially since the researchers were not even the ones collecting the data...) But if we say that they saw them in "the majority" of cases, let's say 60%, and the other 40% had no evidence to support their claim, they should not have been counted. So knock another 300,000 off the number. Combined with the faulty base, you now have a figure of 100,000 in the 2nd survey. Given that they included all deaths from any reason, not just violent means, I could possibly see that as the proper median. That's at least closer to the realm of reality.

Of course, it's still trying to blame the invasion for every single excess death in Iraq, when it's the terrorists who are blowing up civilians with car bombs.

[Francis]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

They specifically said they did not ask for death certificates because it would give the impression that they didn't believe the interviewee. Where do they say they saw the certificates "in the majority of cases"? (Especially since the researchers were not even the ones collecting the data...) But if we say that they saw them in "the majority" of cases, let's say 60%, and the other 40% had no evidence to support their claim, they should not have been counted. So knock another 300,000 off the number. Combined with the faulty base, you now have a figure of 100,000 in the 2nd survey. Given that they included all deaths from any reason, not just violent means, I could possibly see that as the proper median. That's at least closer to the realm of reality.

Of course, it's still trying to blame the invasion for every single excess death in Iraq, when it's the terrorists who are blowing up civilians with car bombs.
You have not even slightly shown that the statistics are debunked. What you have done is posted a few links to a range of people, most of whom are statistically illiterate and called that a debunking. And if that was the best they could do, then the survey was probably pretty good. The methodology was only flawed because resources were limited. They did not ask the interviewees for certificates - they asked the morgues (and got more than 80%).

And the invasion is responsible for the upsurge in terrorism - once you remove the power, the running water, and the stability of course there is going to be violence.

[Paul McEnery]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

And if pigs could fly, we'd all have to wear hats.

The study wasn't debunked. It's completely solid. The methods weren't flawed, they're standard.

And you're still completely fucking lying about this.

[EdContradictory]

I'm just amazed both Bush's and Samurai's heads fit up there at the same time.

[the4thpip]

And if pigs could fly, we'd all have to wear hats.

The study wasn't debunked. It's completely solid. The methods weren't flawed, they're standard.

And you're still completely fucking lying about this.

He's also still "laughing out loud" at countless brown people dying.

Next time Lester posts that Samurai is really "a decent guy" who just disagrees with our politics, it's Man-Faye pics to his PM box.

[Brian M.]

I use to be with Bush pretty much on every subject. But he does have his head up his ass. He has refused to listen to folks on this illegal immigration problem we have. That bill that was just proposed was just a sham it's not even funny. It almost makes me wonder if those who were behind it every read the damn thing. The president is far from a conservative these days. We elected him to be a conservative. What's he done besides lower taxes? The only postive thing to come out of his presidency is a stronger economy. Afghanistan was a good idea, Iraq...was a good idea but it was executed with as much tack and skillfulness as a blind cripple running the 100yard dash. Smaller government? HAHAHAHA Smaller government spending? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If he wants a legacy, get those tax cuts permanent and secure the damn boarder. We don't need new laws for immigration, we just need the old ones to be enforced. You appropriated money for a 700 mile fence and we've built 13 miles. You want a legacy George? Secure the F!@#ing boarder. 85% of Congress and the American people agree we need to do that, so do it. Secure the boarder then come at us w/ a plan for the 12-20 million illegals. They aren't going anywhere, we know that. The American people would be a lot more open about things and willing to listen if you secured the boarder. So come on George, pull your head out of the sand and do something.

[Nick Soapdish]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

They specifically said they did not ask for death certificates because it would give the impression that they didn't believe the interviewee. Where do they say they saw the certificates "in the majority of cases"? (Especially since the researchers were not even the ones collecting the data...) But if we say that they saw them in "the majority" of cases, let's say 60%, and the other 40% had no evidence to support their claim, they should not have been counted. So knock another 300,000 off the number. Combined with the faulty base, you now have a figure of 100,000 in the 2nd survey. Given that they included all deaths from any reason, not just violent means, I could possibly see that as the proper median. That's at least closer to the realm of reality.

Of course, it's still trying to blame the invasion for every single excess death in Iraq, when it's the terrorists who are blowing up civilians with car bombs.

The terrorists are there because we are.

Car bombs weren't a daily occurrence under Saddam. He was an evil, repressive fuck, but he did manage to keep the borders fairly secure and al-Qaeda from getting any roots (except for in the Kurdish part).

We junked the functioning security force that was there.

We gave outright approval for punishment of Saddam's followers, predominantly Sunni which they took as tacit approval of reprisals, particularly since we didn't do much to stop them and our own tactics.

And we're an attractive target to terrorists. Isn't that what we keep saying? "Fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." And most of the terrorists have come from abroad. The insurgents are a different story although many of them also have a fairly specific grudge against the US.

So yeah, the deaths by terrorism are a direct result of our invasion.

If you have a gripe with the whole field of statistics, that's your own business.

[Nick Soapdish]

I use to be with Bush pretty much on every subject. But he does have his head up his ass. He has refused to listen to folks on this illegal immigration problem we have. That bill that was just proposed was just a sham it's not even funny. It almost makes me wonder if those who were behind it every read the damn thing. The president is far from a conservative these days. We elected him to be a conservative. What's he done besides lower taxes? The only postive thing to come out of his presidency is a stronger economy. Afghanistan was a good idea, Iraq...was a good idea but it was executed with as much tack and skillfulness as a blind cripple running the 100yard dash. Smaller government? HAHAHAHA Smaller government spending? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If he wants a legacy, get those tax cuts permanent and secure the damn boarder. We don't need new laws for immigration, we just need the old ones to be enforced. You appropriated money for a 700 mile fence and we've built 13 miles. You want a legacy George? Secure the F!@#ing boarder. 85% of Congress and the American people agree we need to do that, so do it. Secure the boarder then come at us w/ a plan for the 12-20 million illegals. They aren't going anywhere, we know that. The American people would be a lot more open about things and willing to listen if you secured the boarder. So come on George, pull your head out of the sand and do something.

He's a Christian Conservative and a neo-conservative. It's just that those are a long ways from what the traditional conservative position is on a few issues.

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

I think this is a poll that's about four years too late. The truly scary part? "The Past Is Prolouge".

JP

[Solaris]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.

But if the separation of Church and State is to be respected, then ALL religious run social programs should have equal status, in terms of receiving funding from the government. Bush's reasons for violating the principle and creating the program in the first place was along the lines of "often they are more efficient, or reach people the non-religion-run programs don't." He never said "only Christian programs need apply," or "only Christian programs can truly help people with social programs." He also never said "only those religious programs which the majority public *approves of* will be granted funding." Why wouldn't he say that? Well, DUH---because it clearly violates all the excuses he gave on how this funding would NOT be "partisian funding to religious charities, and therefore doesn't violate Church and State separation."

Bottom line is, he not only violated the principle, he applied the violation in such a way that IMO legally could be found to be "government support of a particular religion," because the funding has been granted to Christian charities, but refused to non-Christian charities like Pagan charities---and without their applications even being looked at or considered.

Which of course blows out of the water his *other* excuse: that only those which do not require religious participation by the recipients would be considered for funding." Ha.

(And FYI: the Pagan charities don't WANT to require religious participation on the part of the recipients... in fact, for most groups, it would be a violation of their principles. Pagan groups are NOT evangelical... and with most, you have to work and meet some requirements before you can even get *in*. :D)

[Reverend Smooth]

You want a legacy George? Secure the F!@#ing boarder. 85% of Congress and the American people agree we need to do that, so do it.That's not a particularly christlike thing to do. You're supposed to feed, clothe and shelter those with nothing, not build fences to keep them out just becaue it's too inconvenient to do your christian duty.

[Solaris]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.


There's a difference between "stating your personal opinion," "stating the stance (which is bigoted at the very least, and contrary to our laws and the spirit thereof at the worst) as the officeholder of the United States President," and "creating federal programs to funnel moneys to religions."

The first makes him a bigot. (A religious and homophobic bigot, btw.) The second makes him a questionable president, and the third makes him a major rights setback and deliberately malevolent president.

He's done all three... so what's your point?


And Sab, you know I love you---but I loathe Bush, have done so from before Day 1... and I won't sugarcoat my opinions on him for anyone.

:)

[Solaris]

That's not a particularly christlike thing to do. You're supposed to feed, clothe and shelter those with nothing, not build fences to keep them out just becaue it's too inconvenient to do your christian duty.

Aaaannnnndd.... do we hear a volunteer to help MAN and GUARD that 700 mile fence? (Speaking of Brian here Rev, not you.) :D

I can see it now:

They build the fence. People bitch because "there are insufficient guards manning the fence to keep the illegals out." So they supply sufficient guards... and the folks like Brian start bitching about how much money is being "wasted at the border," because it costs money to keep the guards there.

Brian, quit dodging around the bush (or Bush, heh!) and admit it: What you'd REALLY like to see is a border filled with landmines, razor-wire trenches, and a "motion-activated system" that lasers anyone who attempts to cross.

Far less cost and trouble than keeping soldiers down there, and it'd eliminate your "illegal alien" problem quite neatly, no?"

Aside from, of course, the local residents getting sick because of all the dead rotting bodies polluting their local air and water... but hey: that's what they get for living so close to the border, anyway, right? No skin off your nose. They should choose to live somewhere else, right? If they choose to live there, then they gets what they picks, eh?

Until, of course the outbreaks of cholera and other diseases that began with those dead rotting bodies, and were then communicated to the local population, then finally manage to make their way up to your local area, as the disease spreads.

Then, when the diseases are "suddenly" knocking on your own door, THEN it becomes a "national crisis," and something that you really do have to worry about.

Right?

[Brian M.]

Aaaannnnndd.... do we hear a volunteer to help MAN and GUARD that 700 mile fence? (Speaking of Brian here Rev, not you.) :D

I can see it now:

They build the fence. People bitch because "there are insufficient guards manning the fence to keep the illegals out." So they supply sufficient guards... and the folks like Brian start bitching about how much money is being "wasted at the border," because it costs money to keep the guards there.

Brian, quit dodging around the bush (or Bush, heh!) and admit it: What you'd REALLY like to see is a border filled with landmines, razor-wire trenches, and a "motion-activated system" that lasers anyone who attempts to cross.

Far less cost and trouble than keeping soldiers down there, and it'd eliminate your "illegal alien" problem quite neatly, no?"

Aside from, of course, the local residents getting sick because of all the dead rotting bodies polluting their local air and water... but hey: that's what they get for living so close to the border, anyway, right? No skin off your nose. They should choose to live somewhere else, right? If they choose to live there, then they gets what they picks, eh?

Until, of course the outbreaks of cholera and other diseases that began with those dead rotting bodies, and were then communicated to the local population, then finally manage to make their way up to your local area, as the disease spreads.

Then, when the diseases are "suddenly" knocking on your own door, THEN it becomes a "national crisis," and something that you really do have to worry about.

Right?


You know what I would like, the nation's laws to be upheld. But hey I'm glad you know what I would bitch about. I want the fence built, I want the boarder, both of them, protected. We're a soverign nation, protect our boarders. There is nothing racist or bigotted about it.

But hey, I love how you use hypotheticals to poke a hole in what I'm trying to say.

[Brian M.]

That's not a particularly christlike thing to do. You're supposed to feed, clothe and shelter those with nothing, not build fences to keep them out just becaue it's too inconvenient to do your christian duty.

No, your president of these United States, your suppose to protect your boarders. There are legal ways to come into this country, boarder hoping isn't. I don't want him to rule like Jesus would, b/c I don't want Jesus to be running my boarders either. I want the National Guard there. I bet if we started protecting our boarders the amount of drugs coming into this country would be cut in half. In a time when we're talking about national security it's amazing that these boarders remain as open as they do. It's a travesty.

[EdContradictory]

The president is far from a conservative these days.
Don't even.

He's your guy.

Don't even pretend otherwise.

[Brian M.]

Don't even.

He's your guy.

Don't even pretend otherwise.

He is. He is not a conservative. He's a republican, these days, there is a huge difference between those too. Republican does not equal Conservative views.

[Nick Soapdish]

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to recognize that. Either that or they just don't exist. Republican hasn't been the same as conservative since almost immediately after the Repubs took power in Congress.

Same goes for liberals and Democrats except I think they diverged a few years earlier.

[Brian M.]

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to recognize that. Either that or they just don't exist.

Same goes for liberals and Democrats.

The problem is that we've seen what happens when Conservatives disagree w/ Republicans. The recent boarder bill shows they'll just look at us and tell us we're uninformed or call us racist.

In all honesty I'm tired of both parties. Bush is a problem but Congress is as much to blame for the shit going on in this country. Seems to be that Congress wants to do everything to stay in power instead of everything it takes to better this country.

[Nick Soapdish]

No, your president of these United States, your suppose to protect your boarders. There are legal ways to come into this country, boarder hoping isn't. I don't want him to rule like Jesus would, b/c I don't want Jesus to be running my boarders either. I want the National Guard there. I bet if we started protecting our boarders the amount of drugs coming into this country would be cut in half. In a time when we're talking about national security it's amazing that these boarders remain as open as they do. It's a travesty.

BTW, it's borders.

Boarders are the people that pay rent for that extra bedroom over the garage.

The problem is that it's a damn big border. Both of them. We'd need a lot more National Guard and we'd have to stop screwing around and sending them abroad if we were to do anything.

Personally, I'm still more concerned about the ports and you would think that would be an easier problem. At least there, you know where the stuff is coming in.

[Nick Soapdish]

The problem is that we've seen what happens when Conservatives disagree w/ Republicans. The recent boarder bill shows they'll just look at us and tell us we're uninformed or call us racist.

In all honesty I'm tired of both parties. Bush is a problem but Congress is as much to blame for the shit going on in this country. Seems to be that Congress wants to do everything to stay in power instead of everything it takes to better this country.

Well, the Democrats haven't had a lot of time to fix the mess.

Not that I expect them to be able to since it's pretty hard to force an agenda over a President without a pretty strong majority, but they're still just beginning to fail.

[Brian M.]

BTW, it's borders.

Boarders are the people that pay rent for that extra bedroom over the garage.

The problem is that it's a damn big border. Both of them. We'd need a lot more National Guard and we'd have to stop screwing around and sending them abroad if we were to do anything.

Personally, I'm still more concerned about the ports and you would think that would be an easier problem. At least there, you know where the stuff is coming in.

Sorry, spelling right now isn't my strong point. I've been staring at financial graphs for the past 6 hours...unless it's numbers I got nothing. I agree with you on the Ports part too. The fact that we've not had something radioactive snuck in through there is amazing.

Well, the Democrats haven't had a lot of time to fix the mess.

Not that I expect them to be able to since it's pretty hard to force an agenda over a President without a pretty strong majority, but they're still just beginning to fail.

Oh yea I'm not blaming the Democrat Congress solely, I don't expect them to be anymore effective then the Republican Congress. Personally the idea of term limits for Congress would be wonderful...course that would have be introduced by Congress and who in their right mind is gonna fire themselves...

[Solaris]

No, your president of these United States, your suppose to protect your boarders. There are legal ways to come into this country, boarder hoping isn't. I don't want him to rule like Jesus would, b/c I don't want Jesus to be running my boarders either. I want the National Guard there. I bet if we started protecting our boarders the amount of drugs coming into this country would be cut in half. In a time when we're talking about national security it's amazing that these boarders remain as open as they do. It's a travesty.


Yeah... those Illegal Immigrant Zombies are a Holy Terror---especially the baby ones. Nothing worse than a Baby Immigrant Zombie Monster. They're the worst about bringing drugs over into our impeccable and immaculate nation.

:rolleyes:

Brian, nothing is ever truly solved by seeing the issue in stark black and white. As for my "hypothesis," I was merely carrying your apparent attitude to it's logical (but extreme) conclusion.

Yes, illegal immigrants are a problem. No, we're not handling the situation well. Yes, some of them are criminals (and I note you cited drug runners---when the worst problem, IMO, is the sexual predators that the US keeps catching and "deporting"---who then come right back---rather than sticking their asses in jail till hell freezes over). SOME of them are decent people, who work their asses off... and the only reason they're illegal is because our bureaucracy on immigrating legally is so fucked up it takes them forever to get processed, if they get processed at all.

You know what I think would work? A merit-based system. If you want to come into this country, fine. If after a year's residence you show that you're working hard at some job, and in some way are self-sufficient, then you can stay. If you are sitting on your ass collecting public aid, and have neither an able-bodied person who's officially supporting you, or a job, you get deported. And if you get convicted of a felony, you go to fuckin JAIL... NOT deported.

In all the brou-ha-ha about illegal aliens, it's the "deport the criminals" part of the US policy that burns me the most... because they don't get put into jail in their home country: they come right back to walk our streets. There was one case of a 12 yr old girl who got raped, who was confronted by her rapist a couple of months later. It seems the govt. deported the guy, and he came right back across the border.

Good goin', US govt. :rolleyes: :mad:

Brian: many of the folks who cross the border do so out of desperation, or out of hope that they will be able to work hard for a new life here, versus the infitessimal chances they had at home. TBH, that's GREAT! Let's make 'em citizens, subject to taxes, etc., and let them take their place in our economy as contributors.

Make it merit based: keep the good apples and let 'em live here---they work their asses off. Kick out the bad apples (the gang-type and "I want only the dole, and won't ever leave it) types... and put the rotten ones (every population has rotten ones) in jail where they can't hurt anyone.

Instead, we have this fuckedup system that runs on quotas, and jargon, and red tape. Jeez, a lot of these folks are a gold mine for the US: they work hard, pool their resources, are willing to live on less than what the average American considers "an adequate lifestyle"... and for many, are willing to take jobs that a lot of stupid lazy Americans turn their noses up at. THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, AND ARE WILLING TO WORK... LET THEM.

Maybe it'd wake up the lazy Americans among us, to see these hard-working folks ending up surpassing them, because they *will* work so hard.

[Brian M.]

Yeah... those Illegal Immigrant Zombies are a Holy Terror---especially the baby ones. Nothing worse than a Baby Immigrant Zombie Monster. They're the worst about bringing drugs over into our impeccable and immaculate nation.

:rolleyes:

Brian, nothing is ever truly solved by seeing the issue in stark black and white. As for my "hypothesis," I was merely carrying your apparent attitude to it's logical (but extreme) conclusion.

Yes, illegal immigrants are a problem. No, we're not handling the situation well. Yes, some of them are criminals (and I note you cited drug runners---when the worst problem, IMO, is the sexual predators that the US keeps catching and "deporting"---who then come right back---rather than sticking their asses in jail till hell freezes over). SOME of them are decent people, who work their asses off... and the only reason they're illegal is because our bureaucracy on immigrating legally is so fucked up it takes them forever to get processed, if they get processed at all.

You know what I think would work? A merit-based system. If you want to come into this country, fine. If after a year's residence you show that you're working hard at some job, and in some way are self-sufficient, then you can stay. If you are sitting on your ass collecting public aid, and have neither an able-bodied person who's officially supporting you, or a job, you get deported. And if you get convicted of a felony, you go to fuckin JAIL... NOT deported.

In all the brou-ha-ha about illegal aliens, it's the "deport the criminals" part of the US policy that burns me the most... because they don't get put into jail in their home country: they come right back to walk our streets. There was one case of a 12 yr old girl who got raped, who was confronted by her rapist a couple of months later. It seems the govt. deported the guy, and he came right back across the border.

Good goin', US govt. :rolleyes: :mad:

Brian: many of the folks who cross the border do so out of desperation, or out of hope that they will be able to work hard for a new life here, versus the infitessimal chances they had at home. TBH, that's GREAT! Let's make 'em citizens, subject to taxes, etc., and let them take their place in our economy as contributors.

Make it merit based: keep the good apples and let 'em live here---they work their asses off. Kick out the bad apples (the gang-type and "I want only the dole, and won't ever leave it) types... and put the rotten ones (every population has rotten ones) in jail where they can't hurt anyone.

Instead, we have this fuckedup system that runs on quotas, and jargon, and red tape. Jeez, a lot of these folks are a gold mine for the US: they work hard, pool their resources, are willing to live on less than what the average American considers "an adequate lifestyle"... and for many, are willing to take jobs that a lot of stupid lazy Americans turn their noses up at. THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, AND ARE WILLING TO WORK... LET THEM.

Maybe it'd wake up the lazy Americans among us, to see these hard-working folks ending up surpassing them, because they *will* work so hard.


I agree with what your saying. Believe it or not. I'm not one of those conservatives who are shouting at the top of the street to send every single one of them home. That's ridiculous and would tie up law enforcement for many years to come.

What I want is to first just secure the border. Cut off the traffic. Then when we're sure that is taken care of then address the folks here. Hard working honest illegal immigrants, stay. But if you have committed any kind of crime, gone. I know why they come here, it's that American Dream that many of us here seem to have forgotten about. Those folks I want, b/c they represent what this country was founded on.

I think if you secure the border, the problem of deporting criminals and them coming right back over will stop. All these cases we hear about an illegal criminal drunk driving and killing someone, the 12 yr old girl example you gave are huge failures for our government. Each time it happens it's a smack in the nuts to the laws we've established here.

I know it's a complicated issue, but when 85-90% of the folks in this country agree we have to secure the borders I dont' see why we don't do that first. Then address the issue of those who are here.

[Reverend Smooth]

The only thing that'd possibly be workable fence-wise is some kind of solid concrete reinforced stuff; you can take apart the steel sheet and rebar crap in minutes if you're determined enough.

Problem is, that'd fuck up a lot of wildlife and national parkland, not to mention be an exhaustive drain on resources.

[Solaris]

Maybe because "securing the borders" will get a lot of innocents killed, ultimately? I think that's where it would lead to.

I'd rather see the immigration system fixed *first*---so that the hardworking people don't *have* to "jump the border." Let's start bringing them in legally, and in a decently timely fashion, and let 'em know it's being done.

THEN, once you get those folks out of the loop, work on securing the border... because it's much more likely that anyone trying to cross illegally has criminal intent, rather than simply being a desperate person wanting a place where their hard work will actually get them somewhere.

[Brian M.]

Maybe because "securing the borders" will get a lot of innocents killed, ultimately? I think that's where it would lead to.

I'd rather see the immigration system fixed *first*---so that the hardworking people don't *have* to "jump the border." Let's start bringing them in legally, and in a decently timely fashion, and let 'em know it's being done.

THEN, once you get those folks out of the loop, work on securing the border... because it's much more likely that anyone trying to cross illegally has criminal intent, rather than simply being a desperate person wanting a place where their hard work will actually get them somewhere.

Thing is though once you start legalizing folks w/o a secure border your gonna get a mad rush into this country, it won't stop. I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant. I also don't see how building a fence or securing the border (I know their are other ways to secure it w/o building a fence) will lead to loss of innocent lives.

[Brian M.]

The only thing that'd possibly be workable fence-wise is some kind of solid concrete reinforced stuff; you can take apart the steel sheet and rebar crap in minutes if you're determined enough.

Problem is, that'd fuck up a lot of wildlife and national parkland, not to mention be an exhaustive drain on resources.


I gotta find the report, but we're exhausting a lot of money and resources taking care of the illegals we have here. I think the cost of securing the border w/ a fence/technology/patrols is worth it in the long run.

[Reverend Smooth]

I gotta find the report, but we're exhausting a lot of money and resources taking care of the illegals we have here. And they're offsetting that-- but legalising the good ones would solve a lot of problems.

[Nick Soapdish]

They're also contributing a lot to our economy, such as the aforementioned labor force for jobs that Americans don't want. And they do get taxed for their wages, but can't often claim benefits because of their status.

[Nick Soapdish]

Thing is though once you start legalizing folks w/o a secure border your gonna get a mad rush into this country, it won't stop. I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant. I also don't see how building a fence or securing the border (I know their are other ways to secure it w/o building a fence) will lead to loss of innocent lives.

Haven't read the news stories about illegals trying to bypass the border patrol by going through more difficult areas and dying of exposure? Or the problems coyotes that smuggle them in?

Or do they not count as innocent?

[Paul McEnery]

The problem is that we've seen what happens when Conservatives disagree w/ Republicans. The recent boarder bill shows they'll just look at us and tell us we're uninformed or call us racist.

In all honesty I'm tired of both parties. Bush is a problem but Congress is as much to blame for the shit going on in this country. Seems to be that Congress wants to do everything to stay in power instead of everything it takes to better this country.

Oh wait, I think I see the problem

When you say "conservative", you mean "fascist".

[Reverend Smooth]

Oh wait, I think I see the problem

When you say "conservative", you mean "fascist".

Goldwater Conservatives are in short supply, nowadays.

[Cam63]

I'm just amazed both Bush's and Samurai's heads fit up there at the same time.

Bionic sphincter.

[Magneto_X]

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to recognize that. Either that or they just don't exist. Republican hasn't been the same as conservative since almost immediately after the Repubs took power in Congress.

Same goes for liberals and Democrats except I think they diverged a few years earlier.

Liberals recognise it far more then Conservatives do.

In fact the liberal & progressive wings *hate the DLC wing of the party with a firey passion.

[Tages]

The entire study is garbage. The margin of error was ridiculously high. They were only 95% certain that they were somewhere within 500,000 of the correct number! Maybe you don't know statistics, but that's crazy. Think of it this way... you are asked to count some pennies in a jar. Each time you get a different number. You do it 100 times, and you find that 95 of those times your total came to somewhere between 155 and 1,155 (scattered within that range). 5 times your count went either higher or lower than even those extremely wide boundaries. That is a range where the bottom number is just 1/9 the top number. You know how most studies talk about a margin of error of 3 or 4 points? That's a margin of error of 500 points! Simply picking the number in the middle of such a horribly inaccurate study is still worthless. Add to that the political bias of some of the researchers, the fact they almost never got any confirmation of stated deaths such as death certificates, they used an extremely small number of samples, they took no census data on the interviewees (commonly done in studies like this), they either lied or were way off on their base figures for life expectancy and mortality under Saddam's rule (by at least 50% if you use UN statistics), and it all adds up to a completely worthless piece of junk that has absolutely no scientific value at all. Anyone who is still quoting it is either ignorant of real scientific methods or blindly partisan. These studies have been thoroughly debunked.

Oh, Jesus.

I'm not even going to discuss this with you. Ian, among others, already demonstrated on Comm that the overwhelming majority of statisticians who have looked at the report support its methodology (and amongst the few who don't, the majority of criticism is that its estimates are too low), and that none of the right-wing caterwauling comes from anyone with any expertise at all. You're just regurgitating standard blogosphere bilge.

I don't know why you feel you need to constantly lie about this.

[Cam63]

It's not a lie if Sam believes in it.

[Magneto_X]

Yeah... those Illegal Immigrant Zombies are a Holy Terror---especially the baby ones. Nothing worse than a Baby Immigrant Zombie Monster. They're the worst about bringing drugs over into our impeccable and immaculate nation.

:rolleyes:

Brian, nothing is ever truly solved by seeing the issue in stark black and white. As for my "hypothesis," I was merely carrying your apparent attitude to it's logical (but extreme) conclusion.

Yes, illegal immigrants are a problem. No, we're not handling the situation well. Yes, some of them are criminals (and I note you cited drug runners---when the worst problem, IMO, is the sexual predators that the US keeps catching and "deporting"---who then come right back---rather than sticking their asses in jail till hell freezes over). SOME of them are decent people, who work their asses off... and the only reason they're illegal is because our bureaucracy on immigrating legally is so fucked up it takes them forever to get processed, if they get processed at all.

You know what I think would work? A merit-based system. If you want to come into this country, fine. If after a year's residence you show that you're working hard at some job, and in some way are self-sufficient, then you can stay. If you are sitting on your ass collecting public aid, and have neither an able-bodied person who's officially supporting you, or a job, you get deported. And if you get convicted of a felony, you go to fuckin JAIL... NOT deported.

In all the brou-ha-ha about illegal aliens, it's the "deport the criminals" part of the US policy that burns me the most... because they don't get put into jail in their home country: they come right back to walk our streets. There was one case of a 12 yr old girl who got raped, who was confronted by her rapist a couple of months later. It seems the govt. deported the guy, and he came right back across the border.

Good goin', US govt. :rolleyes: :mad:

Brian: many of the folks who cross the border do so out of desperation, or out of hope that they will be able to work hard for a new life here, versus the infitessimal chances they had at home. TBH, that's GREAT! Let's make 'em citizens, subject to taxes, etc., and let them take their place in our economy as contributors.

Make it merit based: keep the good apples and let 'em live here---they work their asses off. Kick out the bad apples (the gang-type and "I want only the dole, and won't ever leave it) types... and put the rotten ones (every population has rotten ones) in jail where they can't hurt anyone.

Instead, we have this fuckedup system that runs on quotas, and jargon, and red tape. Jeez, a lot of these folks are a gold mine for the US: they work hard, pool their resources, are willing to live on less than what the average American considers "an adequate lifestyle"... and for many, are willing to take jobs that a lot of stupid lazy Americans turn their noses up at. THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, AND ARE WILLING TO WORK... LET THEM.

Maybe it'd wake up the lazy Americans among us, to see these hard-working folks ending up surpassing them, because they *will* work so hard.

I agree with you Solaris.

[Magneto_X]

The only thing that'd possibly be workable fence-wise is some kind of solid concrete reinforced stuff; you can take apart the steel sheet and rebar crap in minutes if you're determined enough.

Problem is, that'd fuck up a lot of wildlife and national parkland, not to mention be an exhaustive drain on resources.

That's why it needs to be given a massive budget.

Spend millions of dollars on a wall like that (not a flimsy fence anyone with shears can cut through), get thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to guard it (possibly with military for assistance), get them the best weaponry and equipment to spot and defend themselves (as a last resort) against illegals.

Give the Border Patrol working with local law enforcements (especially from the border towns) and Fed agencies so the Feds/cops have some leads to go on to track any who get through.

The only problem is this would cut into the nation's budget which is the biggest dept in America's history. OTOH, what's a few million or trillion added to the dept? It's not like it'll make it any worse.

[Magneto_X]

They're also contributing a lot to our economy, such as the aforementioned labor force for jobs that Americans don't want. And they do get taxed for their wages, but can't often claim benefits because of their status.

You know why Americans don't want those jobs? Because they're not willing to work below minimum wage. If those businesses were paying decent wages in the first place the illegals wouldn't be in such demand.

[Magneto_X]

Haven't read the news stories about illegals trying to bypass the border patrol by going through more difficult areas and dying of exposure? Or the problems coyotes that smuggle them in?

Or do they not count as innocent?

They're not entirely innocent. They're still breaking the law.

Not that it means their deaths aren't something that should occur.

They also know the risks associated by crossing the border into deserts, coyotes etc.

No-one's *making* them cross, they're doing it of their own free will. (Children are excluded for this. They sure won't know what the dangers are.)

[Reverend Smooth]

OTOH, what's a few million or trillion added to the dept? It's not like it'll make it any worse.
If that's the case, nationalise healthcare, you'll save more lives. :)

The impact to wildlife would be bad, which is why I wouldn't advocate a fence at all. But if one was gonna build one, the way that israel did it would probably be the way to go, I've seen the ones that were being test-built by the gov't dismantled within minutes.

[Solaris]

Thing is though once you start legalizing folks w/o a secure border your gonna get a mad rush into this country, it won't stop. I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant. I also don't see how building a fence or securing the border (I know their are other ways to secure it w/o building a fence) will lead to loss of innocent lives.


Because truly desperate people are willing to gamble... even with their lives. And at some point that means a really desperate person (or family, or group) will attempt to defy whatever armed guards are there, and rush like lemmings past them... and someone is going to get shot. If we're lucky, it'll be one person; but it's much more likely that it'll be a blood-bath that's turned into a media circus, as in the aftermath it's revealed that the "border forcers" were merely families who had no hope where they were, and when the media finds the children's injured or dead bodies among the victims.

Put it this way:

There is an immediacy to such an event that no removed analysis can truly describe or predict. It's a lot like being on the street when a mob forms around you: you have no idea what's going to happen, and you're terrified at the level of blind action that's happening all around you, as people allow their emotions to utterly control their actions. So when the police show up, and they're trying to deal with this "mob" that's acting crazy and in a fashion that people normally won't do... there's a good chance that some scared cop will open fire with a real gun, and real bullets. Once the shooting starts... there's no going back, and you never know if other panicked cops (or protestors with hidden guns) will continue the shooting or not. It's only afterwards that calmer heads come in and look at what really happened, and count up the cost.

In other words, desperate/emotionally-charged groups of people often don't behave in a normal fashion... and when they don't, those charged with stopping them are faced with group split-second decisions of how to handle it. Often there's fear and panic among the Law Enforcement, even IF they've gotten training in these kinds of situations... and sometimes all it takes is one scared young (or ignorant, or both) cop to start a hailstorm of bullets. Once it starts... you're screwed.

So... yes, I can see how trying to bottle up the border when there are still desperate familes trying to cross, could turn into a major cluster-fuck. Especially if there are babies and children in the body count afterwards.

[Magneto_X]

If that's the case, nationalise healthcare, you'll save more lives. :)

Great idea. Might as well.

The impact to wildlife would be bad, which is why I wouldn't advocate a fence at all. But if one was gonna build one, the way that israel did it would probably be the way to go, I've seen the ones that were being test-built by the gov't dismantled within minutes.

The wildlife thing sucks, but it's unavoidable to deal with a problem like this without doing it 100%.

Since no wall is indestructable they should add building companies to constantly repair the damage --- leaving holes alone is *not* something that should be ignored.

[Brian M.]

Haven't read the news stories about illegals trying to bypass the border patrol by going through more difficult areas and dying of exposure? Or the problems coyotes that smuggle them in?

Or do they not count as innocent?

No I've heard it, but when you make it harder for the coyotes to be successful you'll cut back on the business they get. Look we have a problem on our side of the border, but if Mexico had a better economy and took better care of their people, this problem would not be what it is.

Oh wait, I think I see the problem

When you say "conservative", you mean "fascist".

I was wondering when I'd get called a fascists. Thanks.

Nationalize Healthcare = Good
Government Controlled Healthcare = Bad

[Brian M.]

The wildlife thing sucks, but it's unavoidable to deal with a problem like this without doing it 100%.

Since no wall is indestructable they should add building companies to constantly repair the damage --- leaving holes alone is *not* something that should be ignored.

Contract out the work to construction companies to make the fence.

[Magneto_X]

Contract out the work to construction companies to make the fence.

No, the government always uses the cheapest business with those. Go with the best or most competent who will get the job done well.

[Brian M.]

No, the government always uses the cheapest business with those. Go with the best or most competent who will get the job done well.

I'm waiting for an illegal immigrant joke w/ that one.

But yea, that's what I was kinda hinting at w/ the contract it out statement.

[Paul McEnery]

I was wondering when I'd get called a fascists. Thanks.


If the shoe fits.

I'm always fascinated by the way people who advocate racist policies get upset when people call them racist.

[Samurai]

But if the separation of Church and State is to be respected, then ALL religious run social programs should have equal status, in terms of receiving funding from the government. Bush's reasons for violating the principle and creating the program in the first place was along the lines of "often they are more efficient, or reach people the non-religion-run programs don't." He never said "only Christian programs need apply," or "only Christian programs can truly help people with social programs." He also never said "only those religious programs which the majority public *approves of* will be granted funding." Why wouldn't he say that? Well, DUH---because it clearly violates all the excuses he gave on how this funding would NOT be "partisian funding to religious charities, and therefore doesn't violate Church and State separation."

Bottom line is, he not only violated the principle, he applied the violation in such a way that IMO legally could be found to be "government support of a particular religion," because the funding has been granted to Christian charities, but refused to non-Christian charities like Pagan charities---and without their applications even being looked at or considered.

Which of course blows out of the water his *other* excuse: that only those which do not require religious participation by the recipients would be considered for funding." Ha.

(And FYI: the Pagan charities don't WANT to require religious participation on the part of the recipients... in fact, for most groups, it would be a violation of their principles. Pagan groups are NOT evangelical... and with most, you have to work and meet some requirements before you can even get *in*. :D)

Where is your evidence of the bolded part above? Because it is clearly against the law that Bush passed, which guarantees no discrimination...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html

(c) No organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs;

(d) All organizations that receive Federal financial assistance under social services programs should be prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries or potential bene-ficiaries of the social services programs on the basis of religion or religious belief. Accordingly, organizations, in providing services supported in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance, and in their outreach activities related to such services, should not be allowed to discriminate against current or prospective program beneficiaries on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice;

(e) The Federal Government must implement Federal programs in accordance with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, organizations that engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, and proselytization, must offer those services separately in time or location from any programs or services supported with direct Federal financial assistance, and participation in any such inherently religious activities must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the social service program supported with such Federal financial assistance; and

(f) Consistent with the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the Constitution, faith-based organizations should be eligible to compete for Federal financial assistance used to support social service programs and to participate fully in the social service programs supported with Federal financial assistance without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression, or religious character. Accordingly, a faith-based organization that applies for or participates in a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain its independence and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use direct Federal financial assistance to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization. Among other things, faith-based organizations that receive Federal financial assistance may use their facilities to provide social services supported with Federal financial assistance, without removing or altering religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols from these facilities. In addition, a faith-based organization that applies for or participates in a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain religious terms in its organization's name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other chartering or governing documents.

So, if you really have evidence that the law is being violated, you should report it, because I agree completely with all of the above requirements and restrictions.

[Samurai]

If the shoe fits.

I'm always fascinated by the way people who advocate racist policies get upset when people call them racist.

Yeah, protecting our borders, something every country in the world does, is SOOOOO racist and fascist... :rolleyes:

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, protecting our borders, something every country in the world does, is SOOOOO racist and fascist... :rolleyes:

Look, I'm really sick to death of this shit, so let's lay it out properly.

The economy of the United States completely depends on the migrant labour we get from Mexico, and has for a hundred years. The workers have been treated like shit for the entire time, and grossly underpaid, which is the entire point, isn't it. Next best thing to slave labour.

So when you people complain about migrant labour, you're talking completely out of your arses. And you're being racist against the people YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.

But go ahead and pretend this is an issue of principle.

Because you wouldn't just kick the hell out of non-white people because some fascist on the internet told you do, would you.

I'm sure not.

[Solaris]

Where is your evidence of the bolded part above? Because it is clearly against the law that Bush passed, which guarantees no discrimination...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html



So, if you really have evidence that the law is being violated, you should report it, because I agree completely with all of the above requirements and restrictions.


*sigh* Sam, you always ask for quotes from articles I've read months ago... and have a tough time locating again. I'm not Rick (d), you know!

In the meantime, here's an article you might find of interest:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8773

Article title: Supreme Court Accepts Case Dealing With Taxpayer Challenge To Bush 'Faith-Based' Office
Friday, December 1, 2006


Here's another interesting article:

How a 'fourth tier' religious law school infiltrated the US Government
The hiring of 150 graduates of a poorly regarded faith-based law school has raised questions about the influence of faith on the American political process, says a New York trial lawyerJames D Zirin
The influence of religious faith on the American political process cannot be underestimated. According to a Newsweek poll conducted in March, 73 per cent of Evangelical Protestants said that they believed that God created men and women in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In recent debates, four of the ten Republican candidates for President took the position that they do not subscribe to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, preferring the biblical creation narrative that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that many people are beginning to wonder whether America is on a downward slope towards its own form of Sharia, where secular matters are governed by religious law, especially when an increasing number of legal posts are being filled by students from one poorly regarded faith-based law school. Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia, has roughly 500 students and is ranked at the rock bottom as a “fourth tier” law school in an authoritative survey published by U.S. News & World Report.

One of its prominent graduates is Monica Goodling, a lawyer with scant prosecutorial experience, who resigned under fire last April after a five-year stint as a top aide to Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General. She wrote her besieged boss a letter: “May God bless you richly,” she said, “as you continue your service to America.” Goodling received her legal and religious training at Regent, which was established by Pat Robertson, the televangelist, himself a Yale Law School graduate, in 1986 to provide “Christian leadership to change the world”.

Up until 2001, it was exceedingly rare for Regent graduates to take governmental positions; since it took office, the Bush Administration has hired 150 Regent graduates and with most of these lawyers are employed by the Department of Justice. In a recent Regent newsletter, a 2004 graduate provided a revealing snapshot of how the Church-State divide may have been crossed. Describing his interview for a position with the Civil Rights Division, the student was asked which Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he found most objectionable. He cited Lawrence v Kansas, the gay civil rights case in which the Justices decided to invalidate the Kansas sodomy statute. The interviewer readily agreed, and said he found the decision “maddening”. Thereupon, the correct-thinking Regent alumnus received an appointment to the housing section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the only job offer he received on graduation.

To the dismay of her alma mater, Goodling took the Fifth Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating her role in firing eight federal prosecutors. One third-year student criticized the decision: “You should not be in a situation where you have to plead the Fifth,” as though there would be something immoral about invoking a constitutional right. Goodling, who was granted Congressional immunity, later testified that she may have gone “too far” in the course of her official duties and inadvertently “crossed the line” by asking “political” questions of applicants for non-political jobs in the Department of Justice. It was at Goodling’s insistence that one of the coveted “jobs” - United States Attorney for Arkansas - went to Timothy Griffin, a close political aide to Karl Rove in the White House. Griffin resigned the post after it appeared that he could not survive the scrutiny of Senate confirmation hearings.

The infiltration by mediocre graduates of a poorly rated faith-based law school into key positions in the Department of Justice is just plain scary. The New Republic website, referring to the Goodling affair, observed with uncharacteristic understatement: “That a recent graduate of one of the worst (and sketchiest) law schools with virtually no relevant experience could ascend to this position is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong at the [Department of Justice].”

The collision course between fundamentalist religious values and the operation of the Justice Department was set in 2002 when the much-maligned John Ashcroft served as the Bush Administration’s first Attorney-General. Ashcroft was criticised for bridging the divide between Church and State by “inviting” his subordinates to attend daily morning prayer devotionals in his office. It was Ashcroft who had to backpedal from a statement he made in a press interview that: “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” A clever turn of phrase, perhaps, but not when you are the Attorney-General of the United States. Small wonder that, after his resignation in February 2005, Ashcroft decided to teach a law school course on “Human Rights, Civil Liberties, and National Security” — at Regent Law School.

In 1952, the Supreme Court - in approving a New York “released time” school programme that permitted student absences from state-supported schools for off-premises religious observance and instruction - stated that Americans “are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being”, but that there “cannot be the slightest doubt that . . . Church and State should be separated”. Justice Black, dissenting from the result, emphasised the history of constitutional separation between Church and State: “It was precisely because 18th-century Americans were a religious people divided into many fighting sects that we were given the constitutional mandate to keep Church and State completely separate. Colonial history had already shown that, here as elsewhere, zealous sectarians entrusted with governmental power to further their causes would sometimes torture, maim and kill those they branded ‘heretics’, ‘atheists’ or ‘agnostics’.” In other words: meritocracy, yes; theocracy, no.

It is uncomfortable to see something so personal as religion worn on anyone’s sleeve. The issue is really whether faith is an unwelcome intruder in political discourse and governmental business or whether there must be some legitimate place for an intersection between the tenets of faith and the ethical ideals of justice and humanity that are instinct in the United States Constitution.

Let’s face it, America is a faith-based country. Although seldom sung, there endures the closing verse of the fourth stanza of the National Anthem:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

James D. Zirin is a trial lawyer in New York

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2033067.ece

[Solaris]

Okay, here's something, Sam:

Democrats inspect faith-based initiative
2 call for probe to determine use of taxes
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | December 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Two leading Democrats on the House International Relations Committee said they want to investigate President Bush's faith-based initiative to determine whether taxpayer funds are being used to reward Bush's Christian conservative supporters and whether the faith-based groups are using the funds to help gain converts.

In addition, Democrats on the panel said they could be in a strong position to try to overturn a measure that requires one-third of AIDS prevention money overseas to be spent on "abstinence-until-marriage" programs.

The $1 billion abstinence measure was passed by the Republican-led Congress and signed by Bush, but many Democrats have complained that the money could be better spent on other measures such as condoms. Many of the religious groups receiving funds under Bush's faith-based initiative have received money as a result of the abstinence-until-marriage program.

Representative Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said last week that she wants the committee to follow up on an October report by the Globe that the Bush administration has given 98.3 percent of the faith-based foreign-aid money to Christian groups and to examine whether faith-based groups are using taxpayer funds to help their proselytizing efforts.

The review could be overseen by Representative William D. Delahunt, the Quincy Democrat who is in line to chair the International Relations subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Delahunt last week said he agreed that the program should be examined.

The Globe reported that Bush has doubled the percentage of US foreign aid dollars going to faith-based groups and that the president systematically eliminated or weakened rules designed to enforce the separation of church and state. As a result, some faith-based providers attempted to recruit members immediately before or after providing government services, and others favored Christians over Muslims.

The Globe also reported on cases in which secular groups said they were denied funding because they emphasized the distribution of condoms or worked with prostitutes in an effort to stop the spread of the AIDS virus.

"When you look at what has been exposed and revealed, I think we have a factual basis to move forward with this," Lee, a member of the International Relations Committee, said in an interview.

Calling for a review of whether the faith-based initiative has violated the separation of church and state, she said wanted to examine whether "people are being required to participate in faith-based prayer service. Are people being steadily convinced or subtly pressured to participate in organized religions activities in terms of the funding?"

Bush was unable to win congressional approval for the faith-based program even with Republicans in control of Congress, so he used executive orders to implement the program. The International Relations Committee, which oversees foreign programs, has been chaired by Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who strongly supported the faith-based initiative.

Now, with Democrats preparing to take over the chairmanship, party members who had questioned the faith-based program and the abstinence policy are preparing to use their majority power to review the administration's effort. "It certainly demands some sort of review," Delahunt said.

He said, for example, that if US-funded Christian groups work in Muslim-dominated countries, the effort could be "perceived to be proselytization and it can generate a harsh negative reaction that implicates and impacts in a negative way on America's image in the world and have significant consequence to our foreign policy goals."

Delahunt said that the recent trip by the pope to Turkey, which prompted protests, provides the latest evidence that non-Muslim faith-based organizations tread a difficult line if they want to operate in a Muslim nation.

"One only has to pick up today's newspaper and note the visit of Pope Benedict to Turkey to understand that there can be an unfortunate reaction to initiatives that implicate proselytizing," Delahunt said.

Democrats said they also want to repeal a Bush-backed measure that required US groups receiving faith-based funds to have a policy opposing prostitution. Some groups have said the pledge impedes their work with prostitutes who spread AIDS, and two federal judges have ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional; the Bush administration has appealed the rulings.

Lee, meanwhile, is the prime sponsor of a bill that would remove the Bush-backed requirement that one-third of the money spent by the US government on AIDS prevention overseas go for "abstinence until marriage" programs. The measure has garnered 85 cosponsors and Lee said she is "cautiously optimistic" that she can gain enough backers to pass the bill.

A report issued earlier this year by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that the effort to steer money to abstinence has taken funds away from other anti-AIDS programs.

The GAO said that devising a system around spending mandates for abstinence had created a program that is "ambiguous and confusing."

"We will take a close look at the impact of these ideological restrictions on the effectiveness of HIV/AIDS programs abroad," Representative Tom Lantos, the California Democrat who will chair the committee in January, said in a statement to the Globe.

Lantos expressed concern that contractors who favor distribution of condoms and work with prostitutes have lost out to groups who agree to preach abstinence before marriage as an AIDS prevention measure. He said he would investigate reports about "contractors who have been harassed for providing comprehensive prevention services and denied federal government funding on the basis of their AIDS education programs."

"Our global HIV/AIDS policy should be about saving lives," Lantos said. "It is inconsistent with this goal to place ideologically driven restrictions on the implementation of efforts to prevent spreading the virus."

In addition to the review by the House International Relations Committee, an investigation might also be conducted by the House Government Reform Committee.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the likely chairman, has been a vocal critic of the way the Bush administration awarded an abstinence-based contract to a group that a government review panel found "not suitable for funding." Waxman has said that the Bush administration's decision to award the $10 million contract to the group "raises questions of political cronyism."

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/04/democrats_inspect_faith_based_initiative/?p1=email_to_a_friend


I bolded the above, because it highlights the objections I've voiced earlier over the African AIDS program.

I'll try to go back further in the archives as I can, Sam, to find the articles you wanted to see. (They have no real search engine... sigh.)

Oh, btw---yes, Arlington Nat. Cemetary FINALLY approved the pentagram as a religious symbol permissable for veterans' headstones... after more than SEVEN YEARS of fighting for it, on family and friends' parts. The first headstone to be decorated as such (which has been blank for over two years, as this lady lay beside her husband, who's tombstone displayes a cross) was finally dedicated this July 4, 2007. What's really funny is that Wicca has been classified as a religion for many years by the military... but the Board that runs Arlington refused, all that time, to allow Wiccan and Pagan fallen soldiers buried at Arlington to have the pentagram displayed on their tombstones.

Ironic, eh?

[Solaris]

Okay, the stories have expired from what I can find so far, but here's one of the story's opening blurb:

Souder Says That Under 'Charitable Choice' Or The Bush Administration, Wiccans Need Not Apply

Author: Jeremy Leaming Source: First Amendment Center, Freedom Forum (4/10/00)

Title: HOUSE PASSES BILL WITH CHARITABLE CHOICE PROVISION

On April 7 the House added a "charitable choice" provision to the Homeownership and Economic Development Act of 2000. Charitable choice allows religious institutions to compete on the same level as other nonprofit organizations for federal funds.

Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., who introduced the charitable-choice amendment, argued on the House floor that the Department of Housing and Urban Development already allowed religious institutions to use federal funds to provide social services and that his amendment would simply codify the practice.

Reps. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, and Barney Frank, D-Mass., rose to question the constitutionality of Souder's charitable-choice provision.

Edwards asked Souder whether Wiccans could be eligible for charitable-choice funds.

Souder, seemingly looking past November's presidential election results, said, "It is unlikely under President Bush that the witches would get funding."


Now, this story is from 2000... which, while it's nothing to show that later Pagans did or did not receive funding (as much as I can find so far, they did NOT)... it DOES quite clearly indicate the "Christian-slanted" or even "Christian-Only" climate Bush promoted, when he set up his provision.

[Solaris]

And, oh ye who hates Clinton... here's a goodie from that same year, 2000:

Clinton Proclaims January 16, 2000 'Religious Freedom Day'



Title: THE WHITE HOUSE

THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press Secretary

January 14, 2000

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY, 2000:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

On January 16, 1786, the Virginia legislature enacted a law whose impact is still felt around the world today. Authored by Thomas Jefferson and introduced by James Madison, this act affirmed religious freedom as one of the "natural rights of mankind" and pledged that none would "suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs."

Recognizing the fundamental importance of this right to human dignity, our founders modeled the First Amendment to our Constitution on the Virginia statute and made religious freedom and tolerance core values of our democracy. More than a century and a half later, Eleanor Roosevelt, as the Chairperson of the U.N.'s Commission on Human Rights, worked to extend that vision to peoples around the world through her contributions to the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Americans draw great strength from the free exercise of religion and from the diverse communities of faith that flourish in our Nation because of it. Our churches, mosques, synagogues, meetinghouses, and other places of worship bring us together, support our families, nourish our hearts and minds, and sustain our deepest values. Our religious beliefs give direction to our lives and provide moral guidance in the daily decisions we make.

Freedom of religion, however, still has enemies. In America in recent years, churches and synagogues have been destroyed by arson and people have been attacked because of their religious affiliation. Across the globe, many people still live in countries where the right to religious freedom is restricted or even prohibited. Some totalitarian and authoritarian regimes actively persecute those who seek to practice their religion, imprisoning, torturing, and even killing men and women because of their faith. Other governments monitor and harass religious minorities, tolerating and even encouraging hostility or acts of violence against them.

My Administration is committed to safeguarding freedom of religion at home and promoting it around the globe. Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials are working in partnership to prosecute and prevent crimes aimed at people because of their religious affiliation, and I have called on the Congress to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to combat such crimes. On the international front, we have made issues of religious liberty a consistent and fundamental part of our public diplomacy. My Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom and his staff have crisscrossed the globe, from China and Uzbekistan to Laos and Russia, to advance religious freedom and to assist those who are being persecuted for their beliefs. In accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act that I signed into law in 1998, the United States recently published the first annual report on the status of religious freedom worldwide and publicly designated the most severe international violators. This report highlights the many crucial efforts of individuals and agencies in the Federal Government to advocate religious freedom abroad, from negotiating with foreign heads of state to pursuing individual cases of persecution or discrimination.

As we observe Religious Freedom Day this year, let us give thanks for the wisdom of America's founders in protecting our precious right to express our beliefs and practice our faith freely and openly. Let us resolve to be vigilant in defending that freedom and teaching tolerance in our homes, schools, communities, and workplaces. And let us continue to lead the world in assisting those who are persecuted because of their religious faith and in proclaiming the rights and dignity of every human being.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2000, as Religious Freedom Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs, and I urge all Americans to reaffirm their devotion to the fundamental principles of religious freedom and tolerance.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.Department of State-)



Hey, Sam... :p

:D

[Solaris]

Yeah, protecting our borders, something every country in the world does, is SOOOOO racist and fascist... :rolleyes:

Didn't you hear? The Wall came down in Berlin... quite a few years ago, as I recall.

:D

[Samurai]

*sigh* Sam, you always ask for quotes from articles I've read months ago... and have a tough time locating again. I'm not Rick (d), you know!

In the meantime, here's an article you might find of interest:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8773

Article title: Supreme Court Accepts Case Dealing With Taxpayer Challenge To Bush 'Faith-Based' Office
Friday, December 1, 2006


Here's another interesting article:



http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2033067.ece
The 1st lawsuit I already knew about. It's from a radical atheist group called "Freedom From Religion", who object to any and all faith-based groups getting govt funds, no matter the circumstances. The case has nothing to do with supposed discrimination for Christian groups.

The 2nd isn't about the funding of faith-based charities at all, and has no bearing on this discussion.
Okay, here's something, Sam:



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/04/democrats_inspect_faith_based_initiative/?p1=email_to_a_friend


I bolded the above, because it highlights the objections I've voiced earlier over the African AIDS program.

I'll try to go back further in the archives as I can, Sam, to find the articles you wanted to see. (They have no real search engine... sigh.)

Oh, btw---yes, Arlington Nat. Cemetary FINALLY approved the pentagram as a religious symbol permissable for veterans' headstones... after more than SEVEN YEARS of fighting for it, on family and friends' parts. The first headstone to be decorated as such (which has been blank for over two years, as this lady lay beside her husband, who's tombstone displayes a cross) was finally dedicated this July 4, 2007. What's really funny is that Wicca has been classified as a religion for many years by the military... but the Board that runs Arlington refused, all that time, to allow Wiccan and Pagan fallen soldiers buried at Arlington to have the pentagram displayed on their tombstones.

Ironic, eh?
The 3rd article states that 2 Democrats (including the whacko radical Barbara Lee) want to investigate Bush's Faith-based giving in Africa. That they are calling for an investigation is no surprise. The Democrat Congress has launched more than 300 separate investigations of the Bush administration since taking over (they spend so much time trying to dig up dirt, they don't have much left for anything else... they've accomplished almost nothing of any value).

Also, The Globe is cited as claiming most funding for faith-based groups in Africa are Christian groups. Well, while the number may seem a bit high, there's no evidence given that this is not a representative figure of the American groups actually working over there. If 93% of the American faith-based groups in Africa are Christian, then the fact that 93% of the faith-based groups getting funds over there are Christian is just what it ought to be.

Then it says 1/3 of the funds to fight AIDS are for abstinence programs. That means 2/3rds are probably being spent on condoms and other programs. I don't have a problem with that split. Like I said before, I think abstinence SHOULD be taught, just so long as it isn't the only thing being taught. And if only 1/3 is for abstinence, it clearly isn't the only thing being taught. What do you think would be a better split? 75/25? 90/10? 100/0?

Also, while you're trying to find those stories, please answer me this: Do you agree with the rules as written, that I quoted above? Would you support it if those rules were thoroughly and completely enforced? Do you simply object to people not following the rules as written, or do you object to the rules and the very idea of funds going to groups like the Salvation Army, Christian Children's Fund, and the YMCA and YMHA?

[Samurai]

Didn't you hear? The Wall came down in Berlin... quite a few years ago, as I recall.

:D

Doesn't mean Germany now has open borders and allows anyone to enter the country without any papers or govt approval...

[Samurai]

Okay, the stories have expired from what I can find so far, but here's one of the story's opening blurb:



Now, this story is from 2000... which, while it's nothing to show that later Pagans did or did not receive funding (as much as I can find so far, they did NOT)... it DOES quite clearly indicate the "Christian-slanted" or even "Christian-Only" climate Bush promoted, when he set up his provision.

And yet, back in 2000, if this guy Sounder were asked "Do you think Wiccans will be able to have the pentagram on their headstones in Arlington cemetery under George Bush?", he'd also have said "Probably not..." There is no evidence of any real bias there except 1 guys opinion of what might happen in the future.

Oh, and going back for a moment to that fight for the Wiccan symbol, the site I linked to before (A Wiccan news site) clearly stated that the fight took over 10 years, not 7. Clinton refused to grant them the right either. Yet you said "over 7 years", limiting it to only Bush who refused. Not sure if it was intentional or just a mistake, but it jumped out at me...

[Solaris]

Well, Sam, to be honest, I'm not happy with *any* government funds going to *any* religion or religious institution. They already get tax breaks... and once you open the door to govt. funding religion-based initiatives, you get into very muddy waters.

IF they're going to do it, they ought to do it based on the program's goals, effectiveness, and lack of requiring religious participation on the recipients in order to receive the aid they give. Denomination or kind of religion should have no part in it.

And, that's why I support my first statement... because in a country where one religion (no matter how many denominations it has) is in a strong majority, it's tempting, if not impossible, for those who make the "where do the funds go?" decisions to ignore their own biases, in terms of religion. That's the purist's view. The reality is, the people in charge (under Bush) have ignored religions that they believe aren't "real", and IIRC ignored programs that *do* require recipients to participate religiously in some fashion in order to receive their aid... in order to send moneys to Christian groups that violate the latter ideal.

And Sam, that's just plain wrong. Our government should be putting taxed moneys into religion-driven programs. Goodness knows, there are plenty of government programs that could well do with the moneys, that are designed to help people in need.

So, basically, I'm of the "if you're going to do this, and no one will stop you, you simply HAVE to do it in an impartial and fair manner" camp... but really, I'd prefer that they don't do it at ALL---because I think it severely compromises the separation of church and state.

Considering that I belong to a minority (and often ridiculed and persecuted) religion, it's not hard to see why I would feel uneasy, threatened, and frightened by the idea of our government funding religious initiatives... especially when those who set up the program are pro-Christian, anti-Pagan, and carry those biases over into the program they created.

[Sabrinaset]

I say we dig a gigantic trench between the US and Mexico. And then we fill this trench with sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. And if we can't get that, let's settle for ill-tempered mutated sea bass.

[Red Jack]

Look, I'm really sick to death of this shit, so let's lay it out properly.

The economy of the United States completely depends on the migrant labour we get from Mexico, and has for a hundred years. The workers have been treated like shit for the entire time, and grossly underpaid, which is the entire point, isn't it. Next best thing to slave labour.

So when you people complain about migrant labour, you're talking completely out of your arses. And you're being racist against the people YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.

But go ahead and pretend this is an issue of principle.

Because you wouldn't just kick the hell out of non-white people because some fascist on the internet told you do, would you.

I'm sure not.

This, I'm sad to say, is not the right position.

It is slave labor. The reason illegal migrants have been allowed in and exploited is BECAUSE slavery and Jim Crow finally went away. However, the solution is not to fling open the borders and let everyone come in. The solution is to FORCE the corporations who depend on slave labor for their existence to pay AMERICAN wages, across the board, for all of their jobs.

That would put an end to border crossing because, despite the slogan that claims Americans don't want to do those jobs, the fact is Americans have ALWAYS enjoyed manual labor, provided they were compensated for that labor fairly.

The entire middle class, the class that allowed this nation to become the powerhouse it is today, was based on the ability of those without college degrees to STILL find work that would not only allow them to live decent lives but to pay for the improvement of the lives of their progeny.

The more power corporations, especially multi-national corporations, have to pay shit wages, the fewer Americans will flock to their doors.

Conversely, those same slave wages are massively superior to what is offered to similarly unskilled persons south of our borders (and in Asia and Africa). So, it is only logical that they would seek to come here to make more of a buck than they can at home what with those amazingly corrupt systems they have in most of the countries there.

But, again, the solution I propose, paying a decent wage for a days work, would also deter illegals from coming here because the jobs wouldn't be plentiful enough to be attractive. They would be forced to stay home and have a rebellion or two to fix what's broke there.

You would see American poverty drop, literacy rise and more people buying into the American Ethos rather than the American money machine.

But, of course, no one wants to actually discuss the greed machine in this country that allows for the real problem to continue and continue. God forbid.

OTOH: maybe the idea of nation states is just so passe we don't want to deal with them anymore and just line up with whatever company is paying our wages.

I'm cool with that, I guess. Dog eat dog is a way to go. But we need an announcement or something that the old system is really gone.

[Paul McEnery]

Doesn't mean Germany now has open borders and allows anyone to enter the country without any papers or govt approval...

Don't be stupid.

The EU now has massive open borders and is working in general to have more open borders.

Not that this is in any way the point.

The point is that the issue with our southern border is completely trumped up. It didn't matter before, it doesn't matter now, and it won't matter in the future.

The only reason it matters is because it's an issue that unscrupulous politicians and their friends in the far right media can use to get racist idiots riled up.

And more to the point, get regular, trusting people just a little bit more racist.

And that's completely fucking scummy.

Don't you think?

[Solaris]

And yet, back in 2000, if this guy Sounder were asked "Do you think Wiccans will be able to have the pentagram on their headstones in Arlington cemetery under George Bush?", he'd also have said "Probably not..." There is no evidence of any real bias there except 1 guys opinion of what might happen in the future.

Oh, and going back for a moment to that fight for the Wiccan symbol, the site I linked to before (A Wiccan news site) clearly stated that the fight took over 10 years, not 7. Clinton refused to grant them the right either. Yet you said "over 7 years", limiting it to only Bush who refused. Not sure if it was intentional or just a mistake, but it jumped out at me...

That was my bad... I remembered at least 7 years, so that's what I said. I didn't want to push it further back than it was.

Yes, that problem was also in place under Clinton. No, I don't think the president's office has direct impact on that agency... either Clinton OR Bush. They were just a bunch of dinosaurs in a government backwater who were refusing to move ahead with the times... even though the very services that they play host to were acknowledging said religions *as* legitimate.

That doesn't negate the very long, arduous, and extremely pathetic fight these relatives and friends of the deceased had, in trying to get this change made to tombstones... it merely points out that this particular point was under the radar of both Clinton and Bush.

I only mentioned it, because you or someone else tried to make a point of it in a prior post... something about "Well, Wiccans can now get their tombstones decorated with the Pentagram---and it happened under Bush!" In reality, I seriously doubt Bush even is aware of it---he has other fish to fry. If you'd said it happened under Clinton, I'd say the same thing. This wasn't about presidential mandate, or influence: it was a dinosaur agency being stubborn.

[Paul McEnery]

I say we dig a gigantic trench between the US and Mexico. And then we fill this trench with sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. And if we can't get that, let's settle for ill-tempered mutated sea bass.

Is your eating disorder playing up or something?

[Sabrinaset]

Is your eating disorder playing up or something?

Nah, just watching Austin Powers. And it's more like the flu anyways, I can't even go to work for awhile because of it.

[Samurai]

Well, Sam, to be honest, I'm not happy with *any* government funds going to *any* religion or religious institution. They already get tax breaks... and once you open the door to govt. funding religion-based initiatives, you get into very muddy waters.

IF they're going to do it, they ought to do it based on the program's goals, effectiveness, and lack of requiring religious participation on the recipients in order to receive the aid they give. Denomination or kind of religion should have no part in it.

And, that's why I support my first statement... because in a country where one religion (no matter how many denominations it has) is in a strong majority, it's tempting, if not impossible, for those who make the "where do the funds go?" decisions to ignore their own biases, in terms of religion. That's the purist's view. The reality is, the people in charge (under Bush) have ignored religions that they believe aren't "real", and IIRC ignored programs that *do* require recipients to participate religiously in some fashion in order to receive their aid... in order to send moneys to Christian groups that violate the latter ideal.

And Sam, that's just plain wrong. Our government should be putting taxed moneys into religion-driven programs. Goodness knows, there are plenty of government programs that could well do with the moneys, that are designed to help people in need.

So, basically, I'm of the "if you're going to do this, and no one will stop you, you simply HAVE to do it in an impartial and fair manner" camp... but really, I'd prefer that they don't do it at ALL---because I think it severely compromises the separation of church and state.

Considering that I belong to a minority (and often ridiculed and persecuted) religion, it's not hard to see why I would feel uneasy, threatened, and frightened by the idea of our government funding religious initiatives... especially when those who set up the program are pro-Christian, anti-Pagan, and carry those biases over into the program they created.

Fair enough, thanks for answering that. Personally, I'm an agnostic, which is a minority (religion-wise) in this country too. But I think the rules as written are good ones, and if they are followed, I think it would actually be wrong to discriminate against a charity group just because it has religious motivations of connections. Groups like the Salvation Army and Christian Childrens Fund help a lot of people, of all religions and backgrounds, and certainly deserve a the same chance to get a helping hand from govt funds the same as other charities.

I noticed 1 phrase you used: "I would feel uneasy, threatened, and frightened by the idea of our government funding religious initiatives." I would too, but as written, the rules forbid it. Absolutely no proselytizing is allowed at the same time and location as an event receiving govt funds, and no discrimination against helping people of other religions or no religion. If a Christian groups wants to only help Christians (for example, insert other religion if desired), and preach and proselytize to recipients of their help, they should NOT get funding. But if they are willing to help all people, and do not push their religion on the people they help, why should we discriminate against them?

[Solaris]

This, I'm sad to say, is not the right position.

It is slave labor. The reason illegal migrants have been allowed in and exploited is BECAUSE slavery and Jim crow finally went away. However, the solution is not to fling open the borders and let everyone come in. The solution is to FORCE the corporations who depend on slave labor for their exitence to pay AMERICAN wages, across the board, for all of their jobs.

That would put an end to broder corssing because, despite the slogan that claims Americans don't want to do those jobs, the fact is Americans have ALWAYS enjoyed manual labor, provied they were compensated for that labor fairly.

The entire middle class, the class that allowed this nation to become the powerhouse it is today, was based on the ability of those without college degrees to STILL find work that would not only allow them to live decent lives but to pay for the improvement of the lives of their progeny.

The more power corporations, especially multi-national corporations, have to pay shit wages, the fewer Americans will flock to their doors.

Conversely, those same slave wages are massively superior to what is offered to similarly unskilled persons south of our borders (and in asia and africa). So, it is only logical that they would seek to come here to make more of a buck than they can at home what with those amazingly corrupt systems they have in most of the countries there.

But, again, the solution In propose, paying a decent age for a days work, would also deter illegals from coming here because the jobs wouldn't be plentiful enough to be attractive. They would be forced to say home and have a rebellion or two to fix what's broke there.

You would see American poverty drop, literacy rise and more people buying into the American Ethos than the American money machine.

But, of course, no one wants to actually discuss the greed machine in this country that allows for the real problem to continue and continue. God forbid.

OTOH: maybe the idea of nation states is just so passe we don't want to deal with them anymore and just line up with whatever company is paying our wages.

I'm cool with that, I guess. Dog eat dog is a way to go. But we need an announcement or something that the old system is really gone.



You know... you have a point, in regard to wages for manual labor.

But... you're also ignoring the current generation, which is obese on average by 20% or more.

The hard reality is, far fewer of our current children (or even young adults) have ever had to even touch a toilet brush, much less pick up a mattock or a shovel. And far too many of them find such work "too hard" or "too demeaning" to bother with. They'd rather, if they have to take a "crap job," work at McDonald's... where they can get a discount on a Big Mac and large fries.

I grew up on a farm. I learned hard work. In my life, I still know how to use a mattock, shovel, rake, hoe, tiller, hammer, and even *gasp* toilet brush. I tend to clean my floors, after sweeping or vacuuming, on my knees---because I can see all the sticky spots and dirt, and because I'm not afraid of a little hard work. My mom made me help her hand wax and hand buff our hardwood and linoleum floors... along with cleaning the bathrooms and other such "icky" tasks.

Even when I was in high school, I was amazed at the number of my fellow students who'd not only never cleaned a toilet, but thought it was "beneath them." (There's a story behind that, but I'll leave it for another time.)

Anyway, I often go shopping, etc., after I've been doing my yard work---and you'd be amazed at the number of scornful glances I get: I'm a woman... yet I'm wearing a sweaty t-shirt, jeans with clay ground into the knees, very dirt-stained tennis shoes... and I smell like hard outside work and sweat. It's like, "Hey, guys: I know you think real people don't do this kind of thing anymore... but when I work, I work HARD... and I'm happy with what I'm doing, so DEAL WITH IT."

My point is, while it used to be the norm that someone would "dig ditches if they couldn't get anything else, because honorable employment is better than nothing at all"... I don't think the same can be said of our generation or more recent, on average. Too many feel that such work is "beneath them," whether they're able-bodied for it or not.

And that's just plain sad. People who do physical labor jobs fulfill a vital need in our society, and I hate seeing it looked down upon the way it is.

[Samurai]

That was my bad... I remembered at least 7 years, so that's what I said. I didn't want to push it further back than it was.

Yes, that problem was also in place under Clinton. No, I don't think the president's office has direct impact on that agency... either Clinton OR Bush. They were just a bunch of dinosaurs in a government backwater who were refusing to move ahead with the times... even though the very services that they play host to were acknowledging said religions *as* legitimate.

That doesn't negate the very long, arduous, and extremely pathetic fight these relatives and friends of the deceased had, in trying to get this change made to tombstones... it merely points out that this particular point was under the radar of both Clinton and Bush.

I only mentioned it, because you or someone else tried to make a point of it in a prior post... something about "Well, Wiccans can now get their tombstones decorated with the Pentagram---and it happened under Bush!" In reality, I seriously doubt Bush even is aware of it---he has other fish to fry. If you'd said it happened under Clinton, I'd say the same thing. This wasn't about presidential mandate, or influence: it was a dinosaur agency being stubborn.

While I agree it's probably something lower bureaucrats opposed and then finally approved (and took too long to do so, IMO), I'm sure Bush knew about it, and probably could have prevented it if he really wanted to. But even among conservatives, most agree that it's the right thing to do. Here's a left-wing blog celebrating the victory, and quoting the right-wing freepers as also celebrating it (with some amazement). http://pandagon.net/2007/04/24/bush-administration-finally-allows-wiccan-pentacle-on-veteran-memorials/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822235/posts
Believe it or not, the Freepi are on board with this…see after the flip.

Actual Freeper Quotes

Good for them. They fought for our country, there’s no reason not to bury them under the symbol of the faith that they’ve chosen.

But you know what? If you have died in the service of your country I figure you have earned the right to have what ever you want on your tombstone.

Whatever they want is fine by me.

Whatever they want is fine by me too. I have my own salvation to worry about.

The only people who will care are the families and friends of the fallen soldiers. Though I might disagree with their beliefs, I salute their sacrifice to their country.

Agreed. We should honor their sacrifice in whatever manner their families wish.

Die for this country, and you have earned the right to put just about anything you want on your headstone.

VA idiots. This should have been settled a long time ago. If you can put Wiccan on your dog tags, you can have a Wiccan symbol on your headstone.

Thank God! (Yes, I see the irony here)…

Why is this a problem? Not all of us bow to Jesus or Allah, you know.

Agreed. If our government allows Wiccans to serve in our military they should be allowed to have their symbol on their headstones.

If a man is good enough to die for his country, he deserves to have his faith respected in this one, final gesture.

Hmmmm, I’m sure the Cult of the Huge Phallus will have a neat design.

That all may be true and still be utterly irrelevant in this case. In the eyes of a secular government, all faiths should be treated equally.

Put whatever you want on your loved one’s tombstone, but enough with the “ancient, historic symbolism” of a religion that was made up in London less than a century ago.

“They fought for our country, there’s no reason not to bury them under the symbol of the faith that they’ve chosen.”

Agreed. This is American. They’ve fought for the right to believe any way we — or they — choose. It’s very sad this was the choice, but…

Frankly I don’t care if they want a Hula Girl or a #3 inscribed on their tombstone. If they died in the service of their country then their wishes should be honored.

If this hero believed in it, if it was his faith, than it is every bit as legitimate as Christianity when it comes to recognizing his faith on his grave. I personally think that Scientology is a silly religion, but I would never be so crass as to say so to the grieving family of a military hero who wanted that symbol on his gravestone. All faiths were once new, after all. The important thing is honoring the wishes of our dead soldiers, not nitpicking those wishes.

[Samurai]

This, I'm sad to say, is not the right position.

It is slave labor. The reason illegal migrants have been allowed in and exploited is BECAUSE slavery and Jim crow finally went away. However, the solution is not to fling open the borders and let everyone come in. The solution is to FORCE the corporations who depend on slave labor for their exitence to pay AMERICAN wages, across the board, for all of their jobs.

That would put an end to broder corssing because, despite the slogan that claims Americans don't want to do those jobs, the fact is Americans have ALWAYS enjoyed manual labor, provied they were compensated for that labor fairly.

The entire middle class, the class that allowed this nation to become the powerhouse it is today, was based on the ability of those without college degrees to STILL find work that would not only allow them to live decent lives but to pay for the improvement of the lives of their progeny.

The more power corporations, especially multi-national corporations, have to pay shit wages, the fewer Americans will flock to their doors.

Conversely, those same slave wages are massively superior to what is offered to similarly unskilled persons south of our borders (and in asia and africa). So, it is only logical that they would seek to come here to make more of a buck than they can at home what with those amazingly corrupt systems they have in most of the countries there.

But, again, the solution In propose, paying a decent age for a days work, would also deter illegals from coming here because the jobs wouldn't be plentiful enough to be attractive. They would be forced to say home and have a rebellion or two to fix what's broke there.

You would see American poverty drop, literacy rise and more people buying into the American Ethos than the American money machine.

But, of course, no one wants to actually discuss the greed machine in this country that allows for the real problem to continue and continue. God forbid.

OTOH: maybe the idea of nation states is just so passe we don't want to deal with them anymore and just line up with whatever company is paying our wages.

I'm cool with that, I guess. Dog eat dog is a way to go. But we need an announcement or something that the old system is really gone.

While I agree that we should go after corporations to make sure they don't hire illegals, I'm not sure about govt-set wages for every job. However, 1 Congressman is putting forward a bill that could work, IMO. Companies can currently right off the wages they pay their employees, without regard for the legality of the employee. This bill would change the tax laws such that if an employee's name a social security number are not valid, the company would NOT be able to write off that employee's wages. That would cause a strong financial incentive to hire legal immigrants or Americans for the jobs, and they'd need to increase wages due to the sudden market demand and increased economic viability of hiring legal workers.

[Nick Soapdish]

Liberals recognise it far more then Conservatives do.

In fact the liberal & progressive wings *hate the DLC wing of the party with a firey passion.

We hate it, but we still don't seem to be able to do anything about it.

You know why Americans don't want those jobs? Because they're not willing to work below minimum wage. If those businesses were paying decent wages in the first place the illegals wouldn't be in such demand.

Not all of them.

I think I remember stories about illegals working in chicken processing plants and getting paid $20 an hour because the work is so disgusting that they still can't get legal Americans to do it.

They're not entirely innocent. They're still breaking the law.

Not that it means their deaths aren't something that should occur.

They also know the risks associated by crossing the border into deserts, coyotes etc.

No-one's *making* them cross, they're doing it of their own free will. (Children are excluded for this. They sure won't know what the dangers are.)

That's why I asked if he considered them innocent. Personally, I think that they are relative to that punishment. (I'm not in favor of capital punishment anyway, but definitely not for that.)

And yeah, they do know the dangers. So it says a lot about their condition that they'll still risk it. It's like the illegals from Cuba, but we'll take them as long as they successfully get on land.

No I've heard it, but when you make it harder for the coyotes to be successful you'll cut back on the business they get. Look we have a problem on our side of the border, but if Mexico had a better economy and took better care of their people, this problem would not be what it is.


You'll also amp up the danger level to those taking that route and "force" more people to try it because they won't think they can get in on their own.

And part of the problem with Mexico's economy (and that of a lot of Latin America) is that we keep deep-sixing it to protect our own.

I'm waiting for an illegal immigrant joke w/ that one.

But yea, that's what I was kinda hinting at w/ the contract it out statement.

Joke? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6626823)

The Colbert Report has used the joke a few times already. (I wish I'd been fast enough to rip them off. It'd be a cut above my usual rip-offs.)

And then there was the border fence that we built partly on the wrong side of the border that he described as a gift to Mexico. :D


Nationalize Healthcare = Good
Government Controlled Healthcare = Bad

I'm still confused by this. Are you advocating that we nationalize healthcare and put it in the hands of a corporation to administer?

[Red Jack]

Government sets minimum standards for ALL aspects of work. health codes, labor laws, over time, age limits, waste management, etc.

If you set a minimum wage, across the board, with a REQUIREMENT to keep up with the rise in the cost of living, ALL tangential wages would adjust to fit. Duh.

Also, what you're talking about is "limiting the ability of the rich to get richer." Well. Fuck them, frankly. Greed is NOT good. Ambition is good. But you can't have ambition, not REAL ambition, unless the field is essentially level and fair. People who are adept at making money will ALWAYS find a way to get rich. Why shouldn't we limit their ability to makes slaves of some class of people or another? Isn't that precisely what this country was designed to do?

Lumberjacking (aside from the eco issues) is a MANUAL LABOR job that nobody thinks is beneath them. Too hard maybe, but not beneath. Ditto being a fireman, a policeman, a construction worker, a carpenter, etc.

Anyone who's ever picked cotton or any field produce, even for an afternoon, will IMMEDIATELY have great respect for those who do it for a living. It's WORK. It's not disgusting. It's just wicked hard, backbreaking work.

Also, the EU is not an analog for the US and our neighbors. All of Europe fits into our Eastern seaboard and none of the EU nations have social systems that are set up quite like ours. Also they spent a few centuries trying to murder each other off and on (not to mention the occassional purges of their various ethnic populations) so I think we can avoid looking east for solutions to our situation here.

The bottom line is, if you're going to have nation states, those states must defend their borders against any unasked for incursions. Otherwise what we really are is a place where a bunch of multinational corporations have their primary HQs.

If you think of the world as sets of economies you will make ugly decisions regarding the people who live in those economies. Because you've reduced them to decimal points on some ledger. If you think of the world as nations of people, you will, on the whole, make other choices.

So what if the rich aren't able to get quite as rich? The upside is the poor won't be quite so destitute. You can only use one Learjet at a time after all. How many do you need?

[Dazzler]

I am dead set against illegal immigrants being given work visas because the new popular opinion that Americans are adverse to hard labor and thusly that is why illegal immigrants take the jobs.
Anyone who grew up in a coal mining town with coal mining parents can tell you that it's pure crap coming from some californians and new yorkers who think "hard labor" is when your computer crashes or the water cooler's on the blink.
I can't blame illegals for taking the jobs they do. I blame the employers who continue to actively seek out the illegal workers because they can pay them so low and without any kind of tax collection or benefits or anything of the like. I think they are the ones who should be punished the heaviest to discourage active hiring of illegals.

--Dazz

[kingdom2000]

I think the disintigration of the IT and engineering fields in the United States due to outsourcing disproves the notion of the "lazy American". Its about saving money pure and simple. To find an American to do to the jobs would cost more money not only from wage but insurance and so forth. An illegal (or sending it overseas) doesn't have that kind of overhead so the savings go straight into the profit margins.

The problem at the end of the day is the estimated 13 million but more likely 25 million illegal immigrants. Those numbers are simply unacceptable. If this was a few million I doubt anyone would care but damn, there is actually more illegal, non-Americans in this country then Africa-Americans, Native-Americans and pretty much every other "race" that has been a part of this country for centuries. All in the space of about 15 years. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the issue isn't resolved sooner rather then later, illegal immigrants may literally become the majority in the United States.

Another important distinction is desire. The illegals are using the US rather then becoming a part of the US. In the past the goal was to come to the US, become a citizen of the US, and integrate with the US. Now the goal is simply money, maybe noble reasons but none have anything to do with the US (as the mexican flag waving demostrations proved). Becoming a citizen isn't required nor necessary. The only difference between a citizen and non-citizen currently is they can't vote. That's it. Learn the language? Nope, don't have too. Many literally live here for decades and don't bother to learn english. Thats not integration, thats not a desire to become part of the united states. Its simply about using the United States.

As for the nonsense about enforcing the law will devistate the economy. I think thats a bunch of BS and fear mongering. The job gap will be filled as it always has been. Either way, boon or bust to the economy, there is only one way to prove which theory right and that is to finally, after nearly 2 decades of not bothering, to fully and completely inforce the law in regards to immigration. That means zero tolerance, that means sweeps, that means punishing businesses so its financially better to hire legal immigrants or citizens then illegal. No new laws are even needed, the current ones just need to be enforced.

Sadly that takes money which the republicans have bent over backwards to spend on Haliburton...i mean Iraq. Maybe Haliburton should get in the "war on illegal immigrants" business. I bet the money would become available then.

[Solaris]

I think the disintigration of the IT and engineering fields in the United States due to outsourcing disproves the notion of the "lazy American". Its about saving money pure and simple. To find an American to do to the jobs would cost more money not only from wage but insurance and so forth. An illegal (or sending it overseas) doesn't have that kind of overhead so the savings go straight into the profit margins.

The problem at the end of the day is the estimated 13 million but more likely 25 million illegal immigrants. Those numbers are simply unacceptable. If this was a few million I doubt anyone would care but damn, there is actually more illegal, non-Americans in this country then Africa-Americans, Native-Americans and pretty much every other "race" that has been a part of this country for centuries. All in the space of about 15 years. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the issue isn't resolved sooner rather then later, illegal immigrants may literally become the majority in the United States.

Another important distinction is desire. The illegals are using the US rather then becoming a part of the US. In the past the goal was to come to the US, become a citizen of the US, and integrate with the US. Now the goal is simply money, maybe noble reasons but none have anything to do with the US (as the mexican flag waving demostrations proved). Becoming a citizen isn't required nor necessary. The only difference between a citizen and non-citizen currently is they can't vote. That's it. Learn the language? Nope, don't have too. Many literally live here for decades and don't bother to learn english. Thats not integration, thats not a desire to become part of the united states. Its simply about using the United States.

As for the nonsense about enforcing the law will devistate the economy. I think thats a bunch of BS and fear mongering. The job gap will be filled as it always has been. Either way, boon or bust to the economy, there is only one way to prove which theory right and that is to finally, after nearly 2 decades of not bothering, to fully and completely inforce the law in regards to immigration. That means zero tolerance, that means sweeps, that means punishing businesses so its financially better to hire legal immigrants or citizens then illegal. No new laws are even needed, the current ones just need to be enforced.

Sadly that takes money which the republicans have bent over backwards to spend on Haliburton...i mean Iraq. Maybe Haliburton should get in the "war on illegal immigrants" business. I bet the money would become available then.

I think you're right with all of that (especially about companies outsourcing and/or hiring illegals to cut costs---that's such bullshit on their parts)... but I *do* agree with Daz in that there *are* Americans who think they're too good to dig ditches.

Let's put it this way:

Whether or not you are willing to work such a job, there is a sad lack of respect, and a whole lotta scorn, (on too many people's parts) for low-income hard labor job workers... and that's not right. They fulfill a vital role in our lives, and I appreciate the ones who do their jobs well, and have a work ethic... certainly more than the Paris Hilton's of the world.

I mean, what would it kill some of us, to walk out to the curb when our trash is being picked up and say "You have a tough job, and I really appreciate what you do---thanks for helping keep my life, and our world, clean."???

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't know why you feel you need to constantly lie about this.

It's Samurai. Lying for partisan purposes is as natural to him as breathing. He's learned well from the Administration and other neo-cons that truth doesn't matter if it doesn't support your favored ideology.

[Samurai]

It's Samurai. Lying for partisan purposes is as natural to him as breathing. He's learned well from the Administration and other neo-cons that truth doesn't matter if it doesn't support your favored ideology.

And this is Jeffrey. Making insipid little insult posts about people comes as naturally as breathing to him. He has not just a lack of respect, but an utter contempt for people he disagrees with, and he has to let the world know every chance he gets.

And the greatest irony is that he ignores any truth that doesn't fit his preconceived world view, and calls challengers to it "liars", even while complaining that it's everyone else doing the same thing. What a small, blinkered world he must live in, that his hypocrisy and prejudice have created for him and he must lash out so often to protect. It's doubtful that the shining rays of truth will ever pierce the heavy clouds of ignorance surrounding your world, Jeff, but I feel it's my duty to keep trying, for your sake...

[JeffreyWKramer]

And this is Jeffrey. Making insipid little insult posts about people comes as naturally as breathing to him. He has not just a lack of respect, but an utter contempt for people he disagrees with, and he has to let the world know every chance he gets.

And the greatest irony is that he ignores any truth that doesn't fit his preconceived world view, and calls challengers to it "liars", even while complaining that it's everyone else doing the same thing. What a small, blinkered world he must live in, that his hypocrisy and prejudice have created for him and he must lash out so often to protect. It's doubtful that the shining rays of truth will ever pierce the heavy clouds of ignorance surrounding your world, Jeff, but I feel it's my duty to keep trying, for your sake...


See, the reality is, there are people I disagree with, but have great respect for, because they don't behave like you. They admit to the weaknesses in their POV when such are pointed out, they don't keep posting things that have been thoroughly discredited by actual, reputable sources, they don't pretend their agendas and ideology are anything other than what they are, they admit to their biases and *they don't lie.*

Then, on the other side of the coin, there is you.

[stealthwise]

I wonder what would happen if instead of a Minimum Wage law there existed a Maximum Wage or Earnings Cap law, that stated that any single individual who singularly possessed millions of dollars should be hunted down and stoned? (Not getting high, but blugeoned by big f'n rocks.)

:)

[Tages]

And this is Jeffrey. Making insipid little insult posts about people comes as naturally as breathing to him. He has not just a lack of respect, but an utter contempt for people he disagrees with, and he has to let the world know every chance he gets.

Sam, I try very, very hard to respect everyone, regardless of their views. But you make it very difficult when you so stridently support such obvious liars, whose words and deeds have restricted more liberty and gotten more people killed than those radical Muslims you won't stop yelling about could have ever done.

You still support a war built upon twin pillars of obvious faleshood, that Saddam had WMDs and ties to al-Qaeda. Don't you realize how many people have had their lives ruined or ended because of this? That more people have died because the U.S. invaded Iraq, a country that never presented a threat to the U.S., than Saddam or his shitbag sons could ever have killed themselves?

Doesn't it frighten you that the people you support have put American citizens in prison without trial, like Jose Padilla? That Constitutional protections like the right to habeus corpus and the right to a fair trial do not present a roadblock to justice if the evidence is strong enough, but give the innocent the best guarantee to not be punished for crimes they never committed?

Don't you realize that Bush is spending us into a debt pit we may never dig ourselves out of, and how that is a much greater threat to our future security than an unsecured border with Mexico?

Honestly, I don't think you're an evil person, Sam. But you have dedicated yourself to a cause that is, put bluntly, the greatest threat to the liberty and safety of Americans and the world at large we face. Your support has been given to pure, unapologetic evil.

So you have to appreciate that Jeffrey, Paul, Ian, myself and others are going to get very angry with you.

[Reverend Smooth]

something about "Well, Wiccans can now get their tombstones decorated with the Pentagram---and it happened under Bush!" In reality, I seriously doubt Bush even is aware of it---he has other fish to fry. If you'd said it happened under Clinton, I'd say the same thing. This wasn't about presidential mandate, or influence: it was a dinosaur agency being stubborn.
Bush had nothing to do with it. Co-opting that as an example of Bush's tolerance or benevolence towards wiccans when it happened in spite of fundamentalist efforts to stop it is a flat-out lie (http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9077&JServSessionIdr007=2tvm1x6wc4.app5b).

Americans United’s attorneys uncovered evidence that the VA’s refusal to recognize the Pentacle was motivated by bias toward the Wiccan faith. President George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas, had opposed the right of Wiccans to meet at a military base in that state. Bush’s opinion of Wiccans was taken into consideration when making decisions on whether to approve the Pentacle.

So no. They had to sue to get that right and the Bush Administration had no legal choice but to recognize it, especially since it is a legally recognized religion.

People should not lie about Wiccan-related stuff 'round these parts. I'm quite happy to debunk nonsense like that.

[Paul McEnery]

And this is Jeffrey. Making insipid little insult posts about people comes as naturally as breathing to him. He has not just a lack of respect, but an utter contempt for people he disagrees with, and he has to let the world know every chance he gets.


Is there greater contempt than completely disregarding other posters when they show that your posts are factually in error? And in fact were lies made up by somebody else, and you're just quoting them? And then you repeat the same lie, time and again?

I think that shows a little lack of respect, don't you?

[Paul McEnery]

I wonder what would happen if instead of a Minimum Wage law there existed a Maximum Wage or Earnings Cap law, that stated that any single individual who singularly possessed millions of dollars should be hunted down and stoned? (Not getting high, but blugeoned by big f'n rocks.)

:)
Sorry. I can't get around to that until I hunt and kill Billy Ray Cyrus.

[Darediva]

Bush had nothing to do with it. Co-opting that as an example of Bush's tolerance or benevolence towards wiccans when it happened in spite of fundamentalist efforts to stop it is a flat-out lie (http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9077&JServSessionIdr007=2tvm1x6wc4.app5b).



So no. They had to sue to get that right and the Bush Administration had no legal choice but to recognize it, especially since it is a legally recognized religion.

People should not lie about Wiccan-related stuff 'round these parts. I'm quite happy to debunk nonsense like that.

Most people don't realize how many different symbols can be requested for tombstones at national cemeteries. More than just the standard cross, Star of David, or the pentagram.

http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp

If you serve, you should rightfully have whatever you want on the marker.

[Reverend Smooth]

Most people don't realize how many different symbols can be requested for tombstones at national cemeteries. More than just the standard cross, Star of David, or the pentagram.

http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp

If you serve, you should rightfully have whatever you want on the marker.Oh, I know. I've been keeping tabs on the whole thing. There's all sorts of WTF religions in there, and it took how long for wicca to be allowed?

[Darediva]

Oh, I know. I've been keeping tabs on the whole thing. There's all sorts of WTF religions in there, and it took how long for wicca to be allowed?

I don't know the particulars, but I do know how slowly the VA can move on a lot of things. I've been part of that system for the past 21 years, and am still fighting for benefits.

[Samurai]

Is there greater contempt than completely disregarding other posters when they show that your posts are factually in error? And in fact were lies made up by somebody else, and you're just quoting them? And then you repeat the same lie, time and again?

I think that shows a little lack of respect, don't you?

So then why do you do it? I and others have proven the "650,000 dead" Lancet study is nothing but lies, yet you keep repeating it. Doesn't that show a lack of respect for your fellow posters, who are trying to help you out and keep things based in reality?

[Solaris]

So then why do you do it? I and others have proven the "650,000 dead" Lancet study is nothing but lies, yet you keep repeating it. Doesn't that show a lack of respect for your fellow posters, who are trying to help you out and keep things based in reality?

Wouldn't your sense of patriotism and "what is right" be better served in asking why someone like Darediva has been fighting with the VA for so long for their rights? After all, that's a bit more personal and to the point, no?

IMO, if someone serves our country in the military and puts their life on the line, and some bureaucratic paper-shuffler decides they don't need benefits (and that goes all the way up to the president, IMO)... something is wrong in this country.

[Samurai]

Wouldn't your sense of patriotism and "what is right" be better served in asking why someone like Darediva has been fighting with the VA for so long for their rights? After all, that's a bit more personal and to the point, no?

IMO, if someone serves our country in the military and puts their life on the line, and some bureaucratic paper-shuffler decides they don't need benefits (and that goes all the way up to the president, IMO)... something is wrong in this country.

I try not to comment about specific posters cases unless they a) describe the situation in detail and with as little personal bias as possible, and b) ask the board what they think, or for comments in general. Without knowing why she's being given the run around, and for what problems, how can I talk about it? But yes, in general, of course she should be given help by the VA if she's supposed to get it.

[Paul McEnery]

So then why do you do it? I and others have proven the "650,000 dead" Lancet study is nothing but lies, yet you keep repeating it. Doesn't that show a lack of respect for your fellow posters, who are trying to help you out and keep things based in reality?

Oh Jesus God!

Look. The original 100,000 figure is universally regarded as scientifically valid.

We're more than a few years on now, and things have hardly gotten better.

So why would we think that 650,000 is all that unlikely?

Oh, and one extra thing:

Using the phrase "Lancet study" is implicitly dishonest, because it implies that Lancet itself either did the study or commissioned the study, which it did not. Presumably the reason for that is to bring Lancet itself into disrepute. But perhaps its simply to conflate the study with the earlier study. Who knows?

Anyway, the correct name for the study would either be the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study or the Burnham study.

However, I'll grant that this study is far less reliable than the original study, which is the one to which I thought you were referring.

[Reverend Smooth]

I want to know why it's ok to lie about Bush being down with the wiccans when he's actively discriminated against them and was part of why their requests for headstones were turned down?

[Samurai]

Oh Jesus God!

Look. The original 100,000 figure is universally regarded as scientifically valid.

We're more than a few years on now, and things have hardly gotten better.

So why would we think that 650,000 is all that unlikely?

Oh, and one extra thing:

Using the phrase "Lancet study" is implicitly dishonest, because it implies that Lancet itself either did the study or commissioned the study, which it did not. Presumably the reason for that is to bring Lancet itself into disrepute. But perhaps its simply to conflate the study with the earlier study. Who knows?

Anyway, the correct name for the study would either be the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study or the Burnham study.

However, I'll grant that this study is far less reliable than the original study, which is the one to which I thought you were referring.

Both studies have extremely large ranges of figures, enough that there is no real confidence in the studies results. For instance, using the statistics gathered in the 1st study, not a single person had died (for any reason) in 3 of the Iraqi provinces since the war began. Do you believe that? Other provinces reported large numbers of deaths, often without any supporting evidence. How do we know that they were telling the truth, or if either the interviewees or Iraqi questioners were fudging the numbers? Where are all the bodies, if that many additional people have died? They aren't being reported, so are they filling mass graves like Saddam did or what?

As for calling it "the Lancet study", they are the ones who published it, and that's how it's widely known. Calling it the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study or the Burnham study would have most people scratching their heads, until you say "the one published in Lancet, claiming 100,000/650,000 additional dead Iraqis."

[Samurai]

I want to know why it's ok to lie about Bush being down with the wiccans when he's actively discriminated against them and was part of why their requests for headstones were turned down?

As Sol said earlier, most of the decisions to prevent the recognition, both under Bush and Clinton, were made by career politicians lower down the totem pole. I think either President could, had they wanted, issue an order to either let it through or stop it cold, but neither seemed to take a hard stance. When lawsuits were filed, they finally approved the pentagram in a settlement rather than fight the lawsuits in court. And again, most conservatives agree it was the right decision, even on sites like Free Republic, which I quoted earlier.

[stealthwise]

Sorry. I can't get around to that until I hunt and kill Billy Ray Cyrus.

Aw sheeooot, am I channeling Bill Hicks again?

[Darediva]

I try not to comment about specific posters cases unless they a) describe the situation in detail and with as little personal bias as possible, and b) ask the board what they think, or for comments in general. Without knowing why she's being given the run around, and for what problems, how can I talk about it? But yes, in general, of course she should be given help by the VA if she's supposed to get it.

Here is the story: while on the job being trained for a new assignment, I ruptured the L4/L5 disc in my back. I spent nearly a month in the hospital, two weeks before they transferred me to San Antonio to have surgery, and almost two weeks after that. I spent a month at home recuperating before I went back to duty in Washington, DC. Medical evaluation had me seeing physical therapy three times a week for an entire year. Finally, they decided that since I shouldn't be lifting any heavy weight, that I could not do my electronic maintenance job, and decided to put me out of the Navy.

I had to go through a medical review, and was one of several people seen that day. While waiting, there were exchanges of war stories, of course. One female Marine had botched her knee up playing softball. Another guy had a motorcycle accident. Stuff like that. I had messed up my back ON THE JOB.
Those two came out pumping their fists with glee that the service had awarded them big percentages of disability. I went in for my turn, and the board awarded me 20%, but told me that I could probably get a bigger settlement with the VA after I mustered out of service.

Nothing was further from the truth. I was given a lump sum amount upon discharge from the Navy (about six months pay, in 1986 terms). I put it in the bank, and left it there, because the disbursement people didn't hold out any taxes. It was a good thing, because sure enough, Uncle Sam wanted a big chunk back the next year.

I went to the VA and enrolled in the system. It took a good six months to process everything, and when I finally got my Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam, the old fart doctor who saw me didn't even examine me. He asked me such things as was I married (yes), who does the housework (both of us), is your house one story or two (two). On this information, he deduced that since I was MARRIED, that I did not NEED compensation for my disability. He rubberstamped my application with 10%, just enough to let me see the doctors at the VA.

For over ten years, I got not one penny from the VA for compensation, because they prorated it out of my severance pay. It wasn't until I got into the Disabled American Veterans organization that anyone went to bat for my cause. I finally got another C&P hearing, and was raised up to 40%. My service connected condition has continued to deteriorate over the years. I got another exam, which raised me up to 60%, which entitles me to not have to pay a copayment on my medications, which I have had to do for years.

I have had to fight for everything I've gotten. It burns me up no end to hear countless people go on about how they've been drawing 100% disability for years, and in the next breath talk about the new fishing boat or motor home they have. I have no qualms about people with obvious war wounds and the like. None. But to have my injuries sustained on the job, and then hear MEN around me talking about the same injury, and having 100% awarded to them right off the bat? I get a little annoyed with that.

There is a huge difference in the monetary award between 60% and 100%. More than twice as much. I could not live on the 60% they are paying me. And my health is such right now that no one would hire me for a regular job, because I would miss too much work. I am once again trying to get in line for another C&P exam, as I was told this week that I will be back at the neurosurgeon to try to do something to relieve the pain I'm in. It will take a good six months to get the paperwork processed, and who knows how long after that before I really get to see the C&P people?

Now, tell me if this is being treated fairly? I'm thankful for what I CAN get, but the level of frustration for me and my fellow vets is at an alltime high. And Mr. Bush wants to cut VA funding???

[Samurai]

It sounds like the initial assessment hurt your claim for years. Had the 1st diagnosis been at a higher percentage, rather than "Oh you can raise it later at the VA...", I think it would have helped a lot down the road. I have a bad back too, though it's not constant (luckily), so I know how painful it can be. When it flairs up, I can't even walk. I used a chair with wheels on the legs as a makeshift walker to get to the bathroom and kitchen for 2 weeks. If you are like that all the time, then that is terrible. If it comes and goes, like mine, then it's hard to judge just what percentage to award... it'd depend upon how often it acts up, and how bad. I won't even guess at that from here.

However, Bush has not cut VA spending. That was a lie told by the Kerry campaign back in 04. He has actually increased the budget at twice the rate it was expanding under Clinton. Here are the facts: http://www.factcheck.org/funding_for_veterans_up_27_but_democrats.html

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut
February 18, 2004
Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.

Summary
In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.”

It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.
http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/VABudget.gif

In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.

By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.

One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.

According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.

And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million).

[Darediva]

It sounds like the initial assessment hurt your claim for years. Had the 1st diagnosis been at a higher percentage, rather than "Oh you can raise it later at the VA...", I think it would have helped a lot down the road.

That was the point. I didn't get a fair assessment way back then. It took me years to find out I had recourse. One asshole doctor who was ready to retire has made a huge difference in my life.

I have a bad back too, though it's not constant (luckily), so I know how painful it can be. When it flairs up, I can't even walk. I used a chair with wheels on the legs as a makeshift walker to get to the bathroom and kitchen for 2 weeks. If you are like that all the time, then that is terrible. If it comes and goes, like mine, then it's hard to judge just what percentage to award... it'd depend upon how often it acts up, and how bad. I won't even guess at that from here.

No, don't you even try. I've lived with chronic pain from this since 1985. It ranges from "bad" to "I can't bite this bullet any longer". Imagine that two weeks of your life lasting for the past twenty-odd years.

However, Bush has not cut VA spending. That was a lie told by the Kerry campaign back in 04. He has actually increased the budget at twice the rate it was expanding under Clinton. Here are the facts:

Hmm. 2004. That's really recent facts, there, Samurai. A lot more veterans are in the system now than there were in Clinton's time. Everyday brings new casualties into the VA system. No way has the funding kept anywhere close to being where it needs to be. And Bush has not given the VA anywhere near what they need or ask for, and has tried to cut benefits across the board. I'm not going to go drag up my copies of the DAV magazine to post it here, but I do disagree with you about how Mr. Bush has handled VA funding.

[Darediva]

Let me just give you a link to plenty of facts about the shortfalls at the VA, and let you decide if Bush has done enough. Most of this is from 2005, after the statistics you quoted me. This is not partisan rhetoric, it's cold hard facts from case after case across the US from different VA centers.

http://dav.org/voters/documents/articles_VA_funding_shortfall.pdf

[Reverend Smooth]

I just don't get why he'd argue in support of Bush re: the VA system when he's not educated about the VA system. It's completely illogical.

[Darediva]

That's why I decided that I would put my story out there, along with some cold, hard facts, not some bar charts from one political party or the other. The system is sadly lacking, and I, for one, many times get the short end of the stick.

One recent example: I was prescribed medication for a serious gastrointestinal illness. Most prescriptions are not filled at the Memphis VA; they are mailed out from the Nashville VA. TWO WEEKS LATER, I received the medications. By that time, I was much, much worse off. Why did it take so long? You tell me. Part of it is the cutbacks in the pharmacy system at the VA. When has this happened? During the Bush administration, during the past two years.

[Reverend Smooth]

On th plus side, it makes it personal. On the minus side, people who don't like that like to throw accusations of dramawhoring and victim complexes, so it's always a risk. Worse, it can be labeled as anecdotal and you can be dismissed as overemotional and biased.

[Samurai]

That's why I decided that I would put my story out there, along with some cold, hard facts, not some bar charts from one political party or the other. The system is sadly lacking, and I, for one, many times get the short end of the stick.

One recent example: I was prescribed medication for a serious gastrointestinal illness. Most prescriptions are not filled at the Memphis VA; they are mailed out from the Nashville VA. TWO WEEKS LATER, I received the medications. By that time, I was much, much worse off. Why did it take so long? You tell me. Part of it is the cutbacks in the pharmacy system at the VA. When has this happened? During the Bush administration, during the past two years.

The article I posted is from Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan site that checks all politicians. Check out their homepage and you'll see they critique both parties.

Second, the article you posted even admits that Bush has greatly increased funding nationwide, but then goes on to cherrypick a few individual hospitals that may have experienced a cut.

Pg 2, top of the page: "Lawmakers in Washington allocated $71 billion to the Department of Veteran Affairs for fiscal 2005, a more than $10 billion increase over 2004. About $30 billion of that is earmarked for veteran's health care", said US Rep Bob Beauprez, R-Col, a member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. "The funding is more than enough to cover both existing cases and new cases coming home from the battlefield. It's a tremendous increase, and it gets us beyond even what the VA said itself in committee it needed to meet demand." Beauprez said that while he approved the increases, he could not direct them towards his home state.

They then go on to show that, while there was a $10 billion increase nationwide in 2005, "Eastern Colorado" had experienced a cut back in 2003 (the nation as a whole didn't) and a fairly small increase in 2004 and 2005. That is a matter of properly allocating the funds to where they are needed most, not something President Bush has any control over. They are giving the VA billions of dollars more, so just where is the money going? If Eastern Colorado is getting little increases, somewhere else is probably getting massive increases. The rest of the articles are about a specific hospital here or there, and are obviously cherrypicked. But this is what happens when bureaucracy starts allocating resources, rather than market forces. There will be shortfalls in some places, excess in others. I wonder how the hospitals in the states of the people deciding where to send the $10 billion increase made out?

[Solaris]

On th plus side, it makes it personal. On the minus side, people who don't like that like to throw accusations of dramawhoring and victim complexes, so it's always a risk. Worse, it can be labeled as anecdotal and you can be dismissed as overemotional and biased.

Which is why such responses really piss me off. "Oh, you're exaggerating; you're too sensitive; one wonders if it's gone on that long if there wasn't a *real* reason you got denied some benefits, because no analysis of your problem woud leave someone hanging that long, if the problem was truly as severe as you suggest" kind of thing. I HATE when people react like that. Basically what they're saying is "I've never seen or experienced anything like that, and to take what you're saying as true challenges my world view more than I'm comfortable with---so it simply *can't* be exactly as you described." This kind of dismissal is one of the cruelest things you can hear... and it really gets me when people give it. [Note: no one here has done that to Diva---I'm speaking in general terms, when I've seen such things said to similar situations.]

Diva, I hope someone at the VA straightens this out. Further, if you have some kind of demonstrable proof (what they'd call it in court) that there are men with the same condition who've been awarded 100%, I have to wonder if you don't have the grounds for a sexual-discrimination lawsuit. The reasoning of "well, you're a married woman" presupposes that the family will "get by" because "you aren't the main breadwinner." Ummmm, yeah. For one thing, that's sexual discrimination, for another, it complete ignores the facts that in most households today, *both* partners must be employed in order to support themselves, in some households the female makes more money, or even the man is the "stay at home" partner... and regardless of all that, the bare bones of the question are this:

Did you receive this injury while in service? Yes.

Was it an on the job injury? Yes.

Does it prevent you from holding other comparable employment? Yes. (Not to mention that you were dismissed from the service because the NAVY said you couldn't do your job.)

Are you in constant pain, or otherwise in constant need of medical attention, as a direct result of this injury? Yes.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS THAT THEY SHOULD BE ASKING, in terms of your qualifications for benefits. "Well, you're female and married" is complete and total archaic bullshit---unless, of course, your husband was glued to your side during your entire tour of service. Literally. :rolleyes:

I hope you or someone finds a way to kick them in the nuts, good and hard. *fumes*

***

As to the tombstone issue... there's one thing about Sam's tone in his responses that irks me:

These families had to fight for over ten years. They incurred legal costs, in drawing up the suit. They endured ten years of pain on a very emotional issue, the government's lack of respect to their loved one's death in service to this country, and further, being told that their loved one's religion really isn't appropriate or legitimate enough to allow its symbol on the gravestone.

Now, suddenly everything is wonderful because the Agency caved to the lawsuit, and even the bulk of conservatives agree that it's okay?

Where were all these conservatives when these folks were fighting what seemed like an impossible, uphill battle against them, wading through deliberately-further-complicated tangles of red tape, getting their requests "misplaced, never received, we will take it under review (which never happened---the agenda minutes were checked for several meetings)" etc.? Where were the news agencies who are "hunky dory happily reporting" that "Hey, Wiccans and Pagans who died in service can now get their symbols on their tombstones at Arlington", when these people were getting pushed under the rug, and few news agencies seemed to give a damn?

Oh wait---they were all out there covering Paris Hilton. :rolleyes:

Yes, Sam, it's good that the managing agency for Arlington *finally* approved the symbols. It's very nice that no one in the public, even the conservatives, seems to have a problem with it. What pisses me off is the tone many seem to have of "That? Oh yeah, that's a good idea," and "Well isn't that nice? Ooo, everything is wonderful now," like it's a fairy-tale ending, rather than anyone taking a clear hard look at what these families went through, and saying "What is WRONG with this agency that it took TEN YEARS and a pending LAWSUIT for them to fix something that is so simple, and that no one has a problem with? Shouldn't we be making some personnel and rules changes in this agency, so it doesn't happen again to someone else?"

I have yet to hear anyone (in the public or in the media) say that, among all the sugar-sweet congratulatories.

[Michael P]

The VA's been fucking my grandpa over for 60 years.

[Samurai]

The VA's been fucking my grandpa over for 60 years.

Did they buy him dinner first, and isn't your grandma jealous?

But seriously, I know the VA has a lot of screwed up cases. The mechanic where I work is a veteran and he has several severe problems with his knees and back, and the VA has been dragging their feet for years now. Some days he's in a huge amount of pain and can hardly walk. They keep postponing his knee replacement surgery.

This is one reason I'm highly skeptical of the govt taking over all medicine. If they can't even handle America's vets, and keep long waiting lists for surgery, misdiagnosing ailments, and cutting corners with them, what makes anyone think the rest of America would get any better treatment if they took over that too? If they can't handle this, why would they do such a great job with a much larger group of people? If you knew that all of America would get service and treatment that is no better than our vets are getting now, would you still want socialized medicine?

[Sabrinaset]

Sam has a point on this one. The VA is a seriously screwed up place. We get people who used to work there who walk about talking about how *our* ER is Heaven. I strongly suspect that the reason Daddy didn't want me to go into the military was because he was afraid I would end up in the VA myself.

I'm not sure what kind of symbol will appear on my tombstone. Probably a cup of coffee.

[Darediva]

Did they buy him dinner first, and isn't your grandma jealous?

But seriously, I know the VA has a lot of screwed up cases. The mechanic where I work is a veteran and he has several severe problems with his knees and back, and the VA has been dragging their feet for years now. Some days he's in a huge amount of pain and can hardly walk. They keep postponing his knee replacement surgery.



What I have to say about this is, did he screw his knee up while in the service? See, there are levels of care provided to veterans. Highest priority is given to those with service-connected (on the job) injuries or illnesses. It's really hard to prove that something was service-connected years later. I am lucky in that I have no problem proving when my injury occurred. For that particular problem, I'm covered. But until I gained over 50% disability rating, I was not completely covered for my drugs (there is a co-pay system), and I did not receive any eye care. I still do not get dental care, because you must be rated 100% to get that.

So if your mechanic friend has a service connection for his knees and back, he is getting shafted big time. If not, he has to wait in line while all the service-connected folks get their turns first. The assumption is that ALL veterans are eligible for ALL types of care. This simply is not the case. There is an eligibility order. A lot of things are provided on a "fee-basis" sliding scale, where the individual pays according to what he/she can afford.

Overall, the care I get at the VA certainly beats what I would be getting otherwise, as I have no health insurance, and at this stage in my life, would not be able to buy it.

By the way, Sam, cherrypicking seems to be your specialty. That report went on for some 57 pages, and you chose something off page 2 to quote. When you have an increase in the budget, but the real expenditures are well over that budget increase, how much good did it do? It's like putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

And Solaris, I'm working toward making things right in the "good old boy" system. Female veterans are getting their due a lot more than when I came into the system. Enough of us just have to finally speak up.

[Magneto_X]

This is one reason I'm highly skeptical of the govt taking over all medicine. If they can't even handle America's vets, and keep long waiting lists for surgery, misdiagnosing ailments, and cutting corners with them, what makes anyone think the rest of America would get any better treatment if they took over that too? If they can't handle this, why would they do such a great job with a much larger group of people? If you knew that all of America would get service and treatment that is no better than our vets are getting now, would you still want socialized medicine?

The private sector isn't exactly doing very well with it, either.

At least with the government people can get better service if a good administration comes in. In the private sector capitalsm rules everything 100% ---especially since HMO's have taken over.

[Samurai]

What I have to say about this is, did he screw his knee up while in the service? See, there are levels of care provided to veterans. Highest priority is given to those with service-connected (on the job) injuries or illnesses. It's really hard to prove that something was service-connected years later. I am lucky in that I have no problem proving when my injury occurred. For that particular problem, I'm covered. But until I gained over 50% disability rating, I was not completely covered for my drugs (there is a co-pay system), and I did not receive any eye care. I still do not get dental care, because you must be rated 100% to get that.

So if your mechanic friend has a service connection for his knees and back, he is getting shafted big time. If not, he has to wait in line while all the service-connected folks get their turns first. The assumption is that ALL veterans are eligible for ALL types of care. This simply is not the case. There is an eligibility order. A lot of things are provided on a "fee-basis" sliding scale, where the individual pays according to what he/she can afford.

Overall, the care I get at the VA certainly beats what I would be getting otherwise, as I have no health insurance, and at this stage in my life, would not be able to buy it.

By the way, Sam, cherrypicking seems to be your specialty. That report went on for some 57 pages, and you chose something off page 2 to quote. When you have an increase in the budget, but the real expenditures are well over that budget increase, how much good did it do? It's like putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

And Solaris, I'm working toward making things right in the "good old boy" system. Female veterans are getting their due a lot more than when I came into the system. Enough of us just have to finally speak up.
I don't know exactly when or how his problems occurred. I know he served back in Vietnam, and I know he's had his problems for at least the 10 years he's worked at our company, and that they've gotten worse in recent years.
Whether they can be traced all the way back to his service time, I don't know, as he doesn't like to talk about it (and is usually too busy to sit around and chat about anything even if he did).

Also, you stated that when you first were diagnosed, one of the 2 people ahead of you (who were happy about their percentage awarded) was a woman as well, who'd hurt her knee playing softball. That suggests that it isn't sexism (or isn't just sexism) that caused you to get a lower % rating...

[Darediva]

Also, you stated that when you first were diagnosed, one of the 2 people ahead of you (who were happy about their percentage awarded) was a woman as well, who'd hurt her knee playing softball. That suggests that it isn't sexism (or isn't just sexism) that caused you to get a lower % rating...

What I did NOT tell you was that four of the five people on the board were Marines. The two people who came out happy were Marines. Possible that could have had something to do with it, too? Marines tend to think sailors are woosies, and I was only an E-5 and this female was an E-6. (Also someone whom I would never tangle with.) The board was anything but kind to me, but they did give me 20%, which the asshole at the VA knocked down to 10%.

Thank you for now picking apart my life from the sidelines, Sam. I do hope that your back problems are temporary ones. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

Bush still needs to get his rectal cranial inversion corrected.

[Samurai]

What I did NOT tell you was that four of the five people on the board were Marines. The two people who came out happy were Marines. Possible that could have had something to do with it, too? Marines tend to think sailors are woosies, and I was only an E-5 and this female was an E-6. (Also someone whom I would never tangle with.) The board was anything but kind to me, but they did give me 20%, which the asshole at the VA knocked down to 10%.

Thank you for now picking apart my life from the sidelines, Sam. I do hope that your back problems are temporary ones. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

Bush still needs to get his rectal cranial inversion corrected.
This is why I told Sol I don't like commenting on specific poster's cases. When you posted all that information, I thought it was because you were inviting comments. Otherwise I wouldn't have said anything.

Yes, it might well have been a case of Marines sticking together... they have a rep for doing that.

I hope you feel better too, and that's the last I'll say about your case.

[Sabrinaset]

Marines tend to think sailors are woosies...

...Thank you for now picking apart my life from the sidelines...

Daddy is a retired Marine (if there is such a thing), and my big brother is currently serving as one as well. He was in Iraq, but has been reassigned back in the states. My impression is that Marines think EVERYONE who isn't a Marine is a wuss. Mom was Air Force, and she STILL gets tweaked by Daddy. Not by my brother, though.

I think Daddy is still hunting Super Sonic.

Maaan, I hate talking about intensely personal stuff (as opposed to the personal stuff I don't care about) for exactly that reason. Three of the four people I have on ignore ... I mentioned something personal and they laughed at it. Luckily, the three are (surprise!) Comm people, so I don't deal with them much. You do haveta be careful about it. Heck, the first couple months I was on CBR, I had myself listed as "married" because I didn't want to get hit on here. If it means anything, I don't think Sam was being mean to you.

[Francis]

So then why do you do it? I and others have proven the "650,000 dead" Lancet study is nothing but lies, yet you keep repeating it. Doesn't that show a lack of respect for your fellow posters, who are trying to help you out and keep things based in reality?

Why do you even bother? Almost all of your so-called debunkings have themselves been thoroughly debunked*, and your posts have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no understanding of the things you write about (such as your claim that Iraqbodycount provides the real casualty count, when the very nature of its methodology makes that impossible).

And you want to talk about a lack of respect for other posters?

* The one remaining one being based on a lack of knowledge and on incredulity rather than on facts.