Mr. Blonde

Metaphysical Naturalism is more of an athiest's view than Naturalism itself. Naturalism states "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature." Philosophy and science do have a link to one another. But Naturalism requires that theories and hypothesis' are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events, while branches of Naturalism do extend into philosophy where I.D should be studied and discussed. You're incorporating philosophy and science and insinuating that all science is up for debate, by that standard why would we even bother with science class, but rather just expand philosophy. The fact is some things are considered to be scentific and other philosophical. The line may be thin, but there is a line. And there are clear reasons for that line.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Should ID be taught in school? Yes. Should it be taught in science class? Yes. And here is why: The fundamentals of secular humanism (aka standard atheism. Not including pagan atheism here) commit a hypocritical argument from ignorance towards their own claims, residing on certain philosophies admittedly because they have simply willed it so. These philosophies are naturalism, humanism, and uniformity. Each of which, are unprovable, because each one must decide that the initial conditions are true in order to prove that the initial conditions are true. When confronted, it is stated that it is better to assume the inexistance of the outside forces (begs the question) because it makes things simpler. This, of course, is an argument for ignorance. It is also the standard for all atheistic sciences. To claim the superiority of naturalism and humanism, or to deny the presence of other arguments creates the "church of secularism"; a concept that has been understood for hundreds of years yet is willingly ignored by many of the masses today. Indeed, humanism and naturalism stand on no firmer ground than the majority of serious religions. But it is a point of incredibly great importance in life, so if you are to teach one (which is the foundations of the majority of sciences), then you to teach the other to be fair. Or, you are to teach neither, and only briefly mention them in the beginning of science classes to show that there is no favor. [/QUOTE] This is clearly an argument more engineered for a philosophy class, not a science class. You've matriculated yourself as a fine philosophy connoisseur but it does little to help your case. The fact remains that one still holds its beliefs in faith and the other in science. I.D has it's place in a history or philosophy class, not in science class.

As stated Evolution does not disprove religion. It simply puts into question the Bible's version of creation. So while it may disprove certain biblical stories it does not destroy faith. Religion though the ages has been renewed by the acceptance of new and controversial ideas and just as a species must evolve or it will die, so must religion and our ideas surrounding it.

Okay, Drizzt, I'll bite. You and I have been trying to get an RP off of the ground for a while now. I'm determined. I'm using a character I created for your 'Death Squad' RP that never went anywhere just because I like him so freaking much. Name: Boris "Sheep" Nikitin Age: 43 Appearance: Sheep's long past his physical peak, but still as hard as old hickory. His large Fu Manchu mustache accents his wide jaw, and stubbled face. A deep scar goes over his left eye, where a glass eye now replaces it featuring a bulls eye target in the center. His stern cowl matches his strong man physique and arms incased in tattoos. He's got a real rough and tumble quality to him with his deep, bellowing Russian accent and his own version of the 'high and tight' regulation hair cut complete with large mutton chops. Personality: The mad Russian has a regal, even statuesque quality about it. He has much distain for these young guns who want to show what they're worth. He sees himself in them, and that bothers him more than anything. Due to his lack of solidarity with the rest of the brigade and the inability of most people to understand more than half of what he says there's a mystery to this man, which maybe deserved. Suit Color: Gun Metal Suit Power: State of the art detection Technology including: [B]Infrared and Heat Seeking Technology[/B] with the ability to detect the heat signatures of the machines and their weoponry from up to 1 mile away. It can detect faint signatures through most materials (cement, steel) but is rendered ineffective through lead. [B]Acoustic Detection[/B]. Picking up sounds waves and pinpointing their locations from up to 5 miles away. However sound waves travel slowly and this can be an unreliable attribute when used by its self. [B]RADAR[/B]. The suit transmits radio pulses, which are reflected by a target, and transmitted back to the suit. By comparing the delay times for various echoes, information about the geometry of the target can be derived and formed into an image. Effective up to 60miles. [B]Microwave Detection[/B] This is the most reliable of the suit's detection technology. A scanner can pick up the electro magnetic waves (microwaves) emmited by electronic sources and pinpoint their location. But like many other detection technologies there needs to be little to no barrier between the suit and the target. This is accurate up to 48 miles from the target. Primary Weapon: Twin Incendiary Gel Flamethrowers that project flames from the palms of the suit. While they do release linear waves of fire just like standard flamethrowers they have a hidden feature as well. Just below each palm is a small barrel that fires flint infused translucent shells the size of marbles (similiar to paintballs) full of Incendiary Gel Napalm that sparks on impact. The gel sprays over a 7 foot radiance, immediately catching ablaze. The gel burns slow and white hot; hot enough to melt iron. Just a couple of these green 'Gel shells' can easily take down a scouting party of cyborgs. They are true flame throwers. Two small cartridges underneath the forearms hold both the Gel and the Gel shells. Secondary Weapon: Dual barbed, titanium bayonets that can be unsheathed from the tops of the forearms. They measure 23" from the wrist to their end. These blades will shred the cyborgs to bits in hand to hand combat. Bio: Sheep shovels down the last bite from his lunch. He's barely able to stomach the gruel that the Rebellion serves up to them, but he's not one to complain. At least they're alive to eat. He sucks his fork clean and makes his way to the hanger for training. He arrives there and across the hanger notices Leon just stepping out of the simulator, and Cassandra coming in from the air field still suited up. They both appear to be in quite a hurry. Sheep picks the last of whatever he just ate out of his teeth and steps up to his suit which is mounted for cleaning and repair. A couple boys (too young for enlistment) have just finished giving it a proper shine. He smiles in approval. "Does it look good, sir?" one of the boys asks. "Da, it looks good." Sheep answers in his garbled mix of Russian and English. The boys step away and move on to another suit. Sheep runs his fingers over the small ram's head emblem on the suit's left chest plate (under his name and tag number). He checks the Incediary cartridges. They'll need to be filled. In the glossy reflection of the suit Sheep can see a man approaching him from behind. "'Dobroye 'ootr, Mr. Lench," Sheep says acknowledging the man's presence but doesn't bother to turn around and face him. "Um, your presence is required," the man answers. Sheep turns around and notices the Lench has his arm raised in salute. Sheep chuckles and gives a quick one of his own to placate the green horn. "Oh is it now?" Sheep scoffs. "It's a team meeting," Lench responds. "Team, what team? This brigade's defining attribute is arrogance. The only thing they can accomplish as a team is getting us all killed," Sheep flicks open his lighter and stokes up a cigar. "Fill up those Insendiary cartridges for me," Sheep hands Lench a plastic card. Lench looks at him with a puzzled look. "It's a key card for the armory. Just don't blow yourself up, or rather don't blow my suit up." Sheep blows out a large cloud of smoke and walks from the hanger, making his way for the conference room.

[quote name='Vicky'][size=1]Unfortunately, the documentary I watched I forgot to record (I was planning on doing so to use it as a reference). Which makes me point seem really... shrewd. Going off what I remember, a zoologist (he was also some kind of primate expert if I recall) recited how that when two monkeys had a fight and one went away, another monkey would go over to them and, on occasions, even put their arm around them. There were also points he discussed where the monkeys displayed general concern and compassion for one another - not as strongly as a human I suppose - that can be seen in a zoo. Arguably this can be penned as simple animal behavior, but the recorded images shown had some intriguing implications. I'm determined to find it. However, there's a lot of videos on youtube relating to primate social structure and primates using tools - which isn't evident in any other animal so far as I'm aware. I'll do some digging for you folks anyways. [B]EDIT: I found the documentary it's in - the Genius of Charles Darwin, Part Two. I'll do some more digging to find the actual clip on youtube or something.[/b][/size][/QUOTE] Interesting stuff. I remember seeing a documentary about a group of chimpanzees in the congo that uses sex to barder for goods and services. For an example if one chimpanzee wanted a certain fruit that another had they would trade sex for the fruit, or if one chimp wanted to use another's tool for lets say extracting termites from a mound that would offer sex as a trade. They do say it's the oldest profession. Is this where it started for humans?

Okay unfortunately I'm back in this thread again, but I've already smashed my computer and brought in a new one so I'm fine now. So here it goes, Anime girl.. where to begin... The bible doesn't prove anything. It's a single view on the world. We must rely on multiple views for a fair and balanced outlook of the world. The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors (who often contradict one another). The Bible is a compilation of 66 separate books, divided into two primary divisions: the Old Testament and the New Testament (which denounces much of the Old Testament). Look past what you've been spoon fed your entire life and look at facts. How reliable would you consider this book (Which despite its irregularities claims to be the voice of a single God) if you weren't religious? And you might say you have to factor in human error, which is exactly my point. And how the bible was collected also deminishes its valildity. A council was assembled that went from city to city around the Mesopotamia collecting these stories along their travels. They actually held open auditions for people to showcase their tales. Think of it like American Idol BC. Now these stories had been floating around these areas for hundreds of years now but mostly through oral dictation (story tellers). Multiple people had multiple versions of these stories. Whichever version they considered best showed the 'word of God' was included. They doesn't sound too reliable to me. Others were left out, banned from the bible. And what more is that the church slaps a nice little seal on the bible and says, "Don't look at those other books, if this book is changed you're damned." Well... basically. So most Christians believe those other books (Gospel of Mary Magdalen and the Gospel of Judas, among the many) are blasphamis and don't regard them as the word of God. Wouldn't reading these books give you a better understanding into the life of Jesus Christ? Now I'm not damning religion in this post, all I'm doing is saying that the bible can hardly be considered to be proof of anything. And our relation to primates? "Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species." Science. [B]4 Kings 2:23-24[/B] 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. Basically one day Elijah was making the long walk to Bethel, when he is attacked by a roving band of children who tease him about this baldness. But Elijah was having none of this, turns round and curses them in the name of the Lord, and instantly two female bears emerge from a nearby wood and maul all 42 children to death. Bible. I know that last one is an extreme example, but it again questions the validity of this document, which Catholics will say you must believe in, in its entirety.

All of my posts in this thread have been filled with reasoning and rational thought but I'm going to take this post to challenge anime girl to a debate to defend her position (I guess you could call it that) right here in this thread, since this is the debate thread. I know this message could be handled in a pm but I think a lot of people would be interested to see this debate. So you're all invited to come and watch the train wreck. Take care. [COLOR="Blue"]Obama '08[/COLOR]

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"] Just as I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong about God existing, I think others need to be willing to accept the possibility that someone who already knows and understands the science that we are still learning about, could exist. [/FONT][/QUOTE] This could be the most sensible response in this entire thread. Everyone has been throwing around the weight of their own brains for nearly 5 pages now and this is just one of those subjects (like sexuality and politics) that will (at least in our lifetime) not be given a definitive resolution. I think people are opposed to accepting new ideas largely on the way they're presented. If you immediately insult someone you're going to lose them. If you go into a church screaming "God is dead" and then try to teach the congregation science experiments, you're going to be out of luck. I'm not saying I haven't been guilty of doing a bit of the same (not to that extreme of course) but Sabrina's comment has perhaps lightened my feelings (at least for this moment), which is no easy task.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]I suggest you read some Thomas Aquinas and some Aristotle before you make that assertion. Aquinas relied heavily on Aristotle to prove that science and theology were perfectly able to exist in tandem. Also, proven. Then again, neither can be proven without extrapolation. (And by 'neither' I mean Evolution and Creation. I agree with [COLOR=DarkRed]The13thMan[/COLOR] that ID was constructed in an attempt to make the two theories coexist, but I find such an act more than a little cowardly. More succinctly, Intelligent Design is a Christian cop-out.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] And I suggest you comprehend my post fully before replying to it. I didn't say these ideas could not co-exist. I simply said they could not be compared to one another. And while evolution is not able to be "100% proven" it is a lot more reliable of a sourch with scientific evidence to back it, which is why it is widely considered to be scientific fact, as I've stated. And Aquinas was a philosopher (not to mention a catholic priest), who studied more human behavior and its relation to the existance of God, which has no bearing on this subject matter. Evolution was not even introduced until hundreds of years after Aquinas' death. And I realize I put a 'd' at the end of proven instead of an 'n' but i didn't feel it was important enough to go back and fix it, but I have now. So congratulations.

If I say what I want to say I'm going to get beaten with lash and rod and banned from this site, so I will only say this: Religion was first designed to explain the unexplainable, but now we have science, so questions are being answered for the first time in our history; questions that people don't neccesarily want answers to. Religions come and go, it's the way of the world, and eventually religion will be abandoned for scientific reasoning. The world changes and ideas that were once considered blasphamis are now commonly accepted as fact. There's always apprehension to something new, it's scary for some people. So everyone should take their time and believe what you want to believe as long as you don't force your beliefs on anyone else. For me these subjects aren't even comparable. One is a story in a book, the other is scientific fact. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Religion can not be proven.

First of all, I'd hardly turn to the NY Post for comprehensive journalism. It's little more than a glorified tabloid. Murdoch prints what Washington bureucrats pay him to print. But thats not the point. And I'm also washing my hands of this thread after this because I'm about to Incredible Hulk my computer, so this is all I have to say on this subject: Through all of the articles we've sited and experts (some of us) have quoted, one fact remains undeniable, that Barack Obama's health care plan is more favorable to a wider majority of the population. You mentioned you had a problem with government backed insurance, how do you believe McCain is going to pay for those "high risk" pools? The same way they pay for them now, with government backing. His plan is unnessesarily complicated. The Brookings Institution and Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center estimate that the tax-related provisions in the McCain plan would cost about $1.3 trillion over ten years starting in 2009. In addition, the Guaranteed Access Plans, or high-risk pools, envisioned in the plan would cost about $70-$100 billion over this period. Over the 10-year period analyzed by the TPC, Obama's plan provides far greater "bang-for-the-buck," and spending far less per capita for its coverage of the uninsured population. Also how does McCain expect to be able to cover millions upon millions of high risk Americans with a pool that can barely (and ineffeciantly) cover a couple hundred thousand people now. Even with the expansion of these pools the Tax Policy Center estimates that under McCain's health plan by 2013, 16 million Americans would lose the health benefits they get from their employer and the number of uninsured would increase to 55 million, 8 million more than today. Twenty million Americans; about one in every eight people with job-based coverage would lose their current coverage as a result of the change in the tax treatment of coverage. Initially, this loss of job-based coverage would be offset by an increase in coverage in the nongroup market (although not necessarily for the same individuals). Within five years, however, the net effect of the plan is expected to be a net reduction in coverage relative to what would have been observed if the tax treatment of employer-sponsored coverage remains as it is now. The decline of job-based coverage would force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system (the nongroup market), where cost sharing is high and covered services are limited. McCain's proposal to deregulate this market would mean that people in it would lose protections they now have. How will he deal with age rating, medical underwriting, and pre-existing conditions? If McCain does not develop an individual health insurance market everyone can access, no matter how old they are or how sick they are, his scheme will fall way short. Loop hole after loop hole leaves his plan looking more like a leaky ship than a way out of our healthcare crisis. The question regarding the health care crisis has always been how do we protect the sick? What is an AIDS patient that spends nearly 1 million a year on medication going to do with $2,500? They're going to die. By deregulating the healthcare market, McCain plan would clearly decrease the sharing of health care risk. This would result in lower insurance costs for the young and healthy but would increase cost and decrease access for older individuals and the sick (the people who need health care.) You're assuming that capitalism and social Darwinism would take over just as it has in other industries and then you say you can't compare health care to other industries. Why hasn't your theory worked regarding oil prices? Why doesn't Shell just drop their price of gas by $1 a gallon and clean up? Because that's not how the real world works. Healthcare cost inflation is a constant. It has always rose and it will always rise. A dip in healthcare costs under McCain's plan is next to impossible. It won't dip under Obama's plan either but at least the sick will get the care they need. The $2,500 ($5,000 for families) bonus would be obsolete as soon as the market costs rise, which is inevitable.

I have an odd feeling that this thread has lived out its usefulness. It's making way too many people angry. But as for what Darren said... This is absolutely true. After "Resconstruction" african americans were considered to by only 3/4 of a white man. To not give everyone in the country equal rights is not a matter of religion or beliefs it's a matter of human rights. All of the commandments or ideals that have survived into modern law are in place to protect the people, but the ban of gay marriage only hurts the people. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is law just like every other thing that people never thought would happen. And I'm done with this thread as well. Also, if I offended anyone with my comments earlier I apologize.

As someone in film school I'm not going to be sucked into your "Battle of Opinion" but I'll only say this for a movie to be good certain plot devices must click at certain times and certain character arches must fall and rise as specific times. It's more of a math problem then anything else. If a movie has the right formula, no matter what the context of it is, it will be a good movie. Anchorman is hilarious. "Neato gang."

I've looked at this thread multiple times but anger. frustration and not wanting to type out a 30 page post have prevented me from doing so. But now I only have one thing to say: Gay rights is human rights. I don't care how you were raised, what you believe in or what you were told as a kid. Get over it and except the fact that people exist and behave outside of the protective bubble of Jesus and gumdrops that have shielded you from the real world. And Crimson, quoting babylonian and egyptian definitions of marriage... Really? It's 2008, times change, definitions change, laws change. And thats exactly why sacrificing goats is no longer socially exceptable. People have a hard time coming to terms with modern ideals because they're holding true the words of men that died thousands of years ago, Grow up.

"Following a pair of Supreme Court decisions which deregulated the banking industry, credit card companies relocated to states with no interest rate caps and charged “what they wanted” to borrowers in states with interest rate limits. McCain’s reform takes a similar tact. He would allow health insurers to operate across state lines “without complying with the laws in the state in which they operate,” and permit insurance plans from out-of-state to lure away healthier patients. I insurance companies “would have little incentive to continue doing business” under certain state rules which “require that companies issue coverage to all new customers and not set higher rates for people who are already sick”: [Under legislation that McCain supports], insurers wouldn’t even need to pick up and move their operations; it would be enough to file some paperwork with a state insurance commissioner and pay that state’s relevant taxes…An insurer operating under Arizona law would be able to offer healthy New Yorkers a cheaper policy than an insurer working under New York law that has to price policies the same for everyone. If the deregulated environment allows credit card companies to “use pricing practices, like teaser rates, to attract cash-strapped families and then…double or triple those rates without notice,” Robert Gordon (senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund) argues that McCain’s approach to deregulating the health insurance industry would similarly permit insurance companies to deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions and “improve their own profits by offering targeted policies to people with the fewest health expenses”: As with the history of credit cards, it’s Robin Hood in reverse. Apart from the obvious injustice, this approach could add to spiraling health costs. The sickest 10 percent of Americans are already responsible for 70 percent of the nation’s health expenses. When more such Americans go uninsured, skip checkups, and land in the emergency room, they end up costing taxpayers more. Pre-existing conditions are not confined to chronic diseases. In fact, some individual insurance companies do not count a C-section as a pre-existing condition, and policies differ based on state laws and regulations. Under McCain’s proposal to free insurance companies from state regulations, insurers that continue to extend coverage to moms who have had a C-section would quickly find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with insurers that provide the least protection to new moms. Thus, McCain’s deregulation scheme, like past banking reforms, seeks to extend industry profits, not consumer protections." -thinkprogress.org

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The fact is, the commonwealth fund provided an evaluation that makes several shallow assumptions that McCain will just sit on his hands and do nothing through the years, even though his health plan already has provisions for putting certain regulations on states.[/QUOTE] "Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) makes his case for deregulating the health insurance industry by extolling the benefits of the last decade of deregulation in the banking sector. ?Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation,? McCain writes. Since the banking industry?s collapse this week, the McCain campaign has tried to distance itself from the senator?s remarks, claiming that McCain was referring to ?policies which allowed Americans to use an ATM anywhere in this country.? But McCain?s proposal to allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines is evidence that the senator supports the same kind of deregulatory polices that created the economic crisis. The latest financial meltdown highlights the dangers of deregulating the health insurance industry and only underscores the sheer impracticality of McCain?s proposal." -Roxanne Walker Doesn't sound like regulation to me. The straight talk express lost a tire on that one.

I've pulled all of my information from 3rd party studies and evaluations. Of course John McCain's website will praise his health plan, it' JOHN MCCAIN'S WEBSITE. The fact remains that what John McCain says and what he does are completely different things. You can be liberal or conservative, but what is painfully obvious is John McCain is fundamentally wrong on healthcare. Just look at the facts, and not the twisted logic from the McCain website. It's like the bizarro world. "The Commonwealth Fund is a private, charitable foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable populations. These populations include low-income, uninsured, ethnic minorities, young children, and elderly adults." So yes they may have a view sympathetic to these groups, and they may focus on issues pertaining to these groups. Is that a bad thing? These are the people that health insurance is the most imporant for, and the same people that the McCain health plan will damn. "The goal of McCain's healthcare plan is to reduce the number of people who get employer provided health insurance coverage. Here's what will happen: Younger, healthier workers will opt-out of their employer's plans and take up private policies. That will leave behind older people, and those with preexisting insurance - in other words, a higher risk insurance pool. This will inevitably cost the employer more to insure his employees and increase the incentive to stop providing insurance for his employees. This isn't a bug in McCain's plan, it's a feature. Assuming that most employers won't increase wages to compensate for the dropped healthcare benefits, as the program matures how will the government pay for the $5,000 credit when less benefits are taxed and more people receive the credit? To use an extreme example, what if no one had employer provided healthcare anymore? Then we would all be getting the $5,000 tax credit - paid for with our own taxes. Ultimately the program will stop being revenue-neutral, and will become a huge annual government subsidy to the health insurance companies. At that point the program will probably end. Obsolete by design." -emaxhealth.com

[quote name='Crimson Spider']If the Commonwealth Fund came out with accurate predictions, exactly how did the fund account for the price decrease due to the competitive national market? I get the feeling that they didn't, because that isn't some value that can just be calculated. It is dynamic in relationship to a non-numerical system (culture). What they can do is give a "theorized projection", but those have been consistently wrong in the past. I don't think that it is by direct tax credit that McCain's plan will insure people, but the effects on the market that will allow people to be insured. It is unfortunate that this factor is invisible until it is too late.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=707948[/url] That "theorized projection" is based on history and actual numbers. It's usually pretty accurate. And even if it is slightly off, the spand (34 million to 2 million) is so wide that even with a lot of inflection Obama's health plan still covers many more individuals. McCain's plan suits the young and healthy so it may be good for you, but for low income families, children, elderly people or people with pre-existing conditions, the fact is it will be more difficult to find affordable health insurance. "John McCain's plan for a health-care system built around consumers shopping for their own insurance comes with a significant downside: for people with a history of illness, it can be impossible to find coverage on their own. The Republican presidential candidate's main answer is to bolster the role of high-risk pools, which sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, cancer and AIDS. These pools, typically created by state governments, require significant government subsidies, charge high premiums and sometimes sharply restrict benefits or enrollment. Nationally, fewer than 200,000 people are enrolled in such pools, while 47 million people in the U.S. are without insurance. These plans would work only for individuals who are healthy and who will remain healthy, defeating the purpose of insurance. In a less-regulated market, more comprehensive coverage comparable to current employer-sponsored plans attracts individuals who have greater health care needs. It is unlikely that those plans would even be offered in the individual market under Sen. McCain's proposal, but if they were, they would rapidly withdraw from the market because of the death spiral caused by the ever higher premiums that must be charged as the sick enroll and the healthy drop out. People who need care would be shut out of the individual market." -Wall Street Journal Enough said. [COLOR="Blue"]Obama '08[/COLOR]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]For the record Joe Biden is 66 and has his own health problems, so he could also at any time drop dead from an aneurysm or an attack of the myocardial sort. You never know. After all, if you don't have your health... [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Okay, so if Joe Bidden died then Nancy Pelosi would become vice president. But if McCain died then Palin would become president, big difference.

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Do you think the debates should be held earlier in the campaign? It seems that the final ticket is confirmed so late in the process that people either stop caring or are already too set in their ways. If only they have the final tickets set in stone earlier. I suppose that's tough with the primary system the way it is now.[/font][/QUOTE] I think the first debate should be help a couple days after the conventions. They wait until more than a month after the RNC to hold the first debate and the last debate is like a week before the election, thats way too late. But like some people on this thread have been saying that was the final (excuse the pun) nail in the coffin for me not voting for McCain; the choice of Palin. I could handle McCain as president if he would have choose Mitt Romney or even the mayor of America, Rudy Giuliani, but not Palin. I don't think McCain would do a bad job, but I just don't think anything would really improve, and thats what we need... improvement. It's really a shame Clinton didn't get the nomination but Barack Obama can play a mean game of hoops, so that counts for something... right?

I may have not been clear on this but for the sign ups all I'm looking for is a number. For example if you want to be personality 1, your sign up would be: 1 That's all. I'm not too worried about what kind of personality you're going to have or whatever, of course they're all going to act slightly different but I'm more focused on telling this tale of intrigue. For the first post in this thread I'll start with my personality (5) finding the woman's body like I stated above and elaborate a bit on that. Then it'll be up to 1-4 to explain how I came across this woman and how I got to that point. I've decided to write the posts in Journal form with a time and date at the top of the entry. It'll be as if each personality keeps an entry in the same journal, and the only way this man can find out what happened to him is by reading the journal. The events leading up to the finding of this woman is the first time all five personalities have kept a journal, so it's really the first time our character gets a glimpse into his other identities.

.........................

[QUOTE]That doesn't even make sense. And it insults women. People who assume that disgruntled Hillary voters will automatically turn to Palin just because she's a woman are suggesting that female voters don't have any intelligence or strongly held views on issues. Palin and Hillary are ideologically opposed in most areas. I doubt any informed woman would vote for Palin just because of her gender. Also as a general note (not to you, but just overall), I may not necessarily want to vote for Palin...but I see no need to insult her character. The amount of personal attacks I've seen in the media especially are kind of surprising - and it mostly seems okay "because she's a woman". The same was true about Hillary. There seems to be little real policy discussion and a lot of discussion about how people talk or whatever. Makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what I'm saying, James. It is very insulting to women. I'm not saying she's the devil incarnate, all I'm saying is that she is not qualified to be president or vice president of the United States. She spent 21 months as governor of the 3rd smallest state in the union (population wise), and before that spent two terms as mayor of a town with a population of 9,000. I could ignore all of that if she had new and progressive political views. But she delivers canned answers that she obviously memorized. She was reciting her answers during the debate like she read them out of a text book. She obviously cannot perform under pressure (the Gibson and Couric interviews). I never insulted her character either. I said she was a tool, and I doubt she even knows it; a tool being used by the McCain campaign in a desperate attempt to "mop up" those Clinton votes. It's wrong and insulting to women, but it doesn't make it not true. She maybe be qualified to be governor of Alaska, but not vice president. I have no interest in her personal affairs, absolutely none, and that has no bearing on my statement above. The media has been cruel to her, but they're cruel to almost everyone. The conservative media tore Obama apart in the beginning, just like the liberal media is tearing Palin apart right now. Does she deserve it? Well if you're asking if she deserves her private life being brought into the spotlight: no. If she deserves her political views and qualification being brought into question: yes. Every unknown candidate is going to get put under the looking glass. What Barack Obama lacks in experience he makes up for with his other attributes. But the pick of Sarah Palin as the Repulblican vice presidental nominee is... I'm sorry to say, a joke.

I think all of this Palin nonsense can be sumed up like this: She's a tool, and a gimic for McCain to attract disgruntled Hillary voters; nothing more. "You betcha'." [url]http://uglyrepublicans.com/republicans/United-States/Sarah-Palin/[/url] listen to the phone call, hilarious

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Now, the issue with having government-backed insurance is the government backing. The United States already spends 53% more per capita for health coverage, and is unsuccessful in having universal coverage. With the price on Health Care taking up more and more tax dollars, the government is left taking care of a problem that can be handled on a private level. The current Health Care system needs a reform, and a reform doesn't require that the Government back it with tax dollars. It just requires a better system.[/QUOTE] I agree that it does require a better system and neither of these guy's plans are perfect. Obama's health plan seems to provide for those with less annual income. While McCain's plan caters to those who can already afford insurance. What we have to look at here is a combination of the two. We already have government backed insurance (Medicare, Medicaid). It works smoothly. "In 10 years, McCain's proposal would reduce the number of people who are uninsured by 2 million out of a projected 67 million, while Obama's plan would reduce the number of uninsured people by 34 million," a report by the Commonwealth fund said. Now Obama does propose we increase our overhead to pay to ensure quality healthcare. Which is already 31% higher than Canada. But McCain will introduce tax incentives to large Insurance Companies. Either way the tax payer will pay. I don't fully believe either one of these are the answer. I believe it's going to have to be multiple phases of varying health plans until we reduce our overhead and manage to provide quality healthcare to those you can't afford it.