Religions Vs. Pork

[t316]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3189427
It was an example.

It's actualy related to what we're talking about too, so I really don't know what thread you were reading.
Okay, I thought you were saying I called him a Democrat because he doesn't believe in the same things I do, which was not the case.

 

[stevedave08]

"Okay, I thought you were saying I called him a Democrat because he doesn't believe in the same things I do, which was not the case."
Not at all dude, just clearing the air about something that was bothering me. I should have made it a point to say I wasn't referring to you in particular. No worries.

 

[katsafados]

Originally Posted by T316
http:///forum/post/3189432
Okay, I thought you were saying I called him a Democrat because he doesn't believe in the same things I do, which was not the case.

Then why was I called a democrat? haha you have nothing else to base your opinion on other then what I said in my first post

Either way we made our peace

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by Katsafados
http:///forum/post/3189435
Then why was I called a democrat? haha you have nothing else to base your opinion on other then what I said in my first post %%
Either way we made our peace

I know exacly what you're talking about, but maybe he changed his mind or responded incorrectly the first time. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[t316]

Originally Posted by Katsafados
http:///forum/post/3189435
Then why was I called a democrat? haha you have nothing else to base your opinion on other then what I said in my first post

Either way we made our peace

You are correct, I based my opinion/comment solely on the statements made in your first post. The whole comparison between early religion and government controlling the people because they can't control themselves, then leading straight into the argument that Church's are hoarding all the money and people are starving, yeah, that's where I was coming from.
But you have since stated your stance, and I respect that. The topic was more about the implications of pork in some religious beliefs, but I can see how politics can easily overlap into the conversation. Just don't want to totally stagger off onto politics alone, unless it relates to some bacon in some way...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Katsafados
http:///forum/post/3189435
Then why was I called a democrat? haha you have nothing else to base your opinion on other then what I said in my first post

Either way we made our peace

You say you believe in science. I have a question. Which scientific explanation do you believe in for the beginnings/creation of the universe/solar system?

 

[katsafados]

Creation I belive in evolution, single celled organisms, evolving through natural selection(survival of the fittest, addapting to surroundings) became an animal or what ever then formed into a human! lol Now I really sound crazzy haha, especially if you have no science background lol. But to me if you look closely we still have animal instincts, there just supressed because of what society says. For example look when women have kids, thy turn like animals, think what would happen if you got inbetween a loving mother and her kid. She'll kill you! Dont animals do that also? Elephants protecting their young.

Cant wait to hear the response now!
ONCE AGAIN WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK, YOU DONT HAVE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE

 

[katsafados]

Originally Posted by T316
http:///forum/post/3189442
You are correct, I based my opinion/comment solely on the statements made in your first post. The whole comparison between early religion and government controlling the people because they can't control themselves, then leading straight into the argument that Church's are hoarding all the money and people are starving, yeah, that's where I was coming from.
But you have since stated your stance, and I respect that. The topic was more about the implications of pork in some religious beliefs, but I can see how politics can easily overlap into the conversation. Just don't want to totally stagger off onto politics alone, unless it relates to some bacon in some way...

Everything is cool now!
So I still dont agree that the guy expected you to know what his restrictions were. But I also agree with flower and how she says maybe he just didnt know how he was acting, when I use to play hockey half my team was Jewish, and what flower said before (about most of them staying within their community) was true. Its just a missunderstanding! But then again there are people that think their religions/beliefes are better then others, and thats where the comment "theres one in every bunch" came into play. The poster didnt point fingers at a particular person/ religion, they just stated theres always that one person that takes it over the top.
I think everyone is just uptight and what not because its a touchy subject and all, but everyone needs to relax and just talk. Dont take anything personal in whats being said lol.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3189418
Modern political gameplay is changing scarily toward outward displays of intolerance. I'm sorry to say, but most of that intolerance is on the right. There have always been people in politics that may have severe intolerance issues, and are racist, or just crappy people altogether; but there have never been as many politicians who so publicly spout intolerant views as a way to attract the votes of ignorant people that share their views. It's breeding hate and bringing people, who would never think about running for office before because their views were too radical, out of the woodwork. People like this woman:
http://gawker.com/5425660/most-vile-...im-congressman
Let's not mention the intolerance and or blatant disregard for truth of Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin. Even when faced with facts that prove their statements are false, they move on as if they haven't been proven wrong ---- and people eat--it--up as truth. This kind of just keep pushing it, even if it's not true so people will believe it anyway strategy started under GWB. It's not his fault though. I actually voted for GWB the first time and I think he didn't do as bad as most people think he did. ---- Cheney and Karl Rove (though mostly the former) are the ones to blame for these kind of political games that have now taken over the way things are done. I truly believe that GWB meant well, but his Daddy's friend made his decisions go from bad to worse because they truly weren't his decisions, they were Cheney's. I think GWB was fed just as many lies as the American public was fed by him unknowingly. When you have CIA telling you there are WMD's and you're the president, you're probably not going to think they're lying to you.
WOW, you could not be more wrong. Let me ask you this, ever heard of Robert Bork? That is when it really started. It isn't the right that is incredably intollerant. If you disagree with Obama you're a racist. Last week on the senate floor, Harry Reid compared people who didn't want to pass his and Obama's version of healthcare reform, to people in the 1860's who supported slavery. Nancy Pelosi refered to the Tea Bag protestors as Nazi sympathizers. And the President of the United States has directly called out talk show hosts.
But yeah, it is the right that is increasingly intollerant.
BTW did you see the loopholes (in the senate version of Obamacare) that allow for a panel to decide to ration medicine at their disgression... Death Panel anyone?

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3189457
WOW, you could not be more wrong. Let me ask you this, ever heard of Robert Bork? That is when it really started. It isn't the right that is incredably intollerant. If you disagree with Obama you're a racist. Last week on the senate floor, Harry Reid compared people who didn't want to pass his and Obama's version of healthcare reform, to people in the 1860's who supported slavery. Nancy Pelosi refered to the Tea Bag protestors as Nazi sympathizers. And the President of the United States has directly called out talk show hosts.
But yeah, it is the right that is increasingly intollerant.
BTW did you see the loopholes (in the senate version of Obamacare) that allow for a panel to decide to ration medicine at their disgression... Death Panel anyone?
Really? Death panel? Please, that's another one of those run with it until people believe it things that apparently worked on you. I'm not even going to address that any further because it's ridiculous (almost as much as Birthers). The right has always been the more intolerant side, there is no doubt about that. In Harry Ried's case, if you take what he said and make a comparison, it's a viable argument. People in the 1860's who supported slavery did so because it benefitted them. Some people chose not to have slaves because they knew it was wrong and it was a hurtful, horrible practice that hurt those slaves and took their lives away. They only existed as slaves, they didn't live. People against healthcare refrom care only about themselves and most already have health care. In most cases the older tea party protesters had medicare or private insurance. Medicare which everyone loves to have, which was called socialism when it was proposed, that is government run health care. In Pelosi's case, people blindly followed Hitler and believed everything he said without question just like the people at the 9/12 tea party could only name talking points they heard on the new when asked why they were there. When given the chance to elaborate, they either had nothing of substance to say, spouted off ingnorant comments, or they were stumped and said nothing. Again, Pelosi's argument is viable in the context she was applying it in. Should they have said these ridiculous things wether they make sense or not? Maybe not. I believe it was an attempt at trying to be as controversial as the republicans when they speak out, which I think is a mistake. Democrats do not need to emulate any of those practices as the right will just use it as ammunition to try to tear them down even though they do the same thing. Even if taxes did go up, or some existing taxes were re-appropriated to fund part of a public option...are we really that dense and greedy a people that we don't want every single American that lives in this great country to have health care?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3189388
All animal meat is capable of killing you if not cooked correctly. You have a phobia about pork that is obviously self induced, or someone at one point grossed you out while eating it or talking about it and it stuck with you. It's like my wife and mushrooms. She tells me she doesn't eat them because she hates the texture, yet she eats eggplant which often has a similar texture. I honestly believe its just because its fungi and she automatically thinks foot fungus or something...I really am a fun-guy though, maybe that's why she doesn't like me. Anyway, I digress. Chickens eat as much poop as pigs do, if not more. I'm Cuban-American and we roast pigs all the time. In fact, I've got to go down to the farm and slaughter 120lb one this weekend to get it ready for Christmas eve. Try some roasted pork instead of ham and you might like it more. You're welcome to come by my house. It will be slow roasting the Cuban way with garlic and tangy yumminess.

Your wife sounds like a wise woman. I have 2 basic food rule. I don't eat nuthin that started out like as a fungal item and if it now or ever had suction cups don't put it on my plate.

 

[meowzer]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3189484
Your wife sounds like a wise woman. I have 2 basic food rule. I don't eat nuthin that started out like as a fungal item and if it now or ever had suction cups don't put it on my plate.

I'm gonna die eating a RARE steak and some calamari

 

[stevedave08]

A public option would still require people who choose to have it to pay premiums. It would eliminate pre-existing condition nonsense, and force private insurance companies to lower their through the roof premiums if they'd like to stay in business. If you currently have private insurance that you pay for, I'm pretty sure your paying out the pooper for it; and really, for what? Unless you have a major accident, cancer, or some other life threatening disease, you're more than likely not going to go to the doctor more than once or twice a year, unless you get a bad cold. Does it really make sense to you to pay as much as you do for something you hardly use? Even if you did use it, do you know how many people get denied coverage of a visit or hospital stay because of a pre-existing condition regardless of how long they've had that insurance company? Do they get all the money in premiums that they have already paid back, when the insurance company denies the claim? NO.
My father-in law is a retired LEO, he was a motorman. He retired with his pension and insurance, but my mother-in-law is self-employed and therefore does not have the option of having insurance through a company she works for. Long story short, he pays $1800 a month for her coverage and supplemental coverage to his existing insurance through his retirement. He's 67 years old, and I asked him how many times he went to the doctor this past year. He went 4 times, she went twice for regular check-ups. Once, for a cyst he had on his leg, another for a regular physical, one more when he got the flu, and the last time for a colonoscopy (what fun). Let's do the math. Supposing each visit cost $2000, I'm using a high amount to cover the visit and any bloodtests or procedures as an example, that's $12,000. He paid $21,600. Of that original $12,000, the private insurance he pays for probably didn't have to pay much either because he still has his insurance from the police dept. These companies make an absolute killing on people like this all the time, but let's let them keep doing it. Reform is socialism.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3189471
Really? Death panel? Please, that's another one of those run with it until people believe it things that apparently worked on you. I'm not even going to address that any further because it's ridiculous (almost as much as Birthers). The right has always been the more intolerant side, there is no doubt about that. In Harry Ried's case, if you take what he said and make a comparison, it's a viable argument. People in the 1860's who supported slavery did so because it benefitted them. Some people chose not to have slaves because they knew it was wrong and it was a hurtful, horrible practice that hurt those slaves and took their lives away. They only existed as slaves, they didn't live. People against healthcare refrom care only about themselves and most already have health care. In most cases the older tea party protesters had medicare or private insurance. Medicare which everyone loves to have, which was called socialism when it was proposed, that is government run health care. In Pelosi's case, people blindly followed Hitler and believed everything he said without question just like the people at the 9/12 tea party could only name talking points they heard on the new when asked why they were there. When given the chance to elaborate, they either had nothing of substance to say, spouted off ingnorant comments, or they were stumped and said nothing. Again, Pelosi's argument is viable in the context she was applying it in. Should they have said these ridiculous things wether they make sense or not? Maybe not. I believe it was an attempt at trying to be as controversial as the republicans when they speak out, which I think is a mistake. Democrats do not need to emulate any of those practices as the right will just use it as ammunition to try to tear them down even though they do the same thing. Even if taxes did go up, or some existing taxes were re-appropriated to fund part of a public option...are we really that dense and greedy a people that we don't want every single American that lives in this great country to have health care?
Until you walk a mile in someones shoes, I am on Medicare and even on a medicare advantage plan, which is far superior to regular medicare it is pretty much crap. If it weren't for the fact you get penalized once you do sign up if you don't do so when illegible I would already be off the system.
As far as the tea party people you have to be blind not to see the media engaging in a campaign against them. Were the Women standing in line to "get their Obama money" typical of an Obama supporter?
And exactly how much of my money do you want to support other people. Add up your taxes and mandatory government fees tacked on to utility and phone bills. We are already giving up half of what we earn to the government.
I don't mind giving temporary help to someone who fell on hard times or helping someone who isn't capable of helping them selves but I'll be damned if I want to see the quality of health care drop and the cost go up so people who make stupid life choices can have their health care handed to them. CHIP is an excellent example of this. If people made the right priorities in life and had insurance they were barred from participating in the program but someone who made as much or more than them who used the money on something else now get government paid insurance. Great deal there

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3189484
Your wife sounds like a wise woman. I have 2 basic food rule. I don't eat nuthin that started out like as a fungal item and if it now or ever had suction cups don't put it on my plate.
LMAO, I love some fish and octopus ceviche and if I go to a Japanese restaurant I always eat baby octopi whole. I've been trying to find a Japanese restaurant near me where they have the live baby octopi, but I'm a little concerned about them getting their suckers on me. What can I say, i eat just about anything. So far I've checked off: all the normaly consumed meats, and venison, buffalo, kangaroo, horse (didn't know it at the time and it tasted horrible), goat (also didn't like it), crocodile, rattle snake, iguana, sea turtle (i know, i know. I was a kid.), whale (yuck), octopus. I think that's it.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3189492
A public option would still require people who choose to have it to pay premiums. It would eliminate pre-existing condition nonsense, and force private insurance companies to lower their through the roof premiums if they'd like to stay in business. If you currently have private insurance that you pay for, I'm pretty sure your paying out the pooper for it; and really, for what? Unless you have a major accident, cancer, or some other life threatening disease, you're more than likely not going to go to the doctor more than once or twice a year, unless you get a bad cold. Does it really make sense to you to pay as much as you do for something you hardly use? Even if you did use it, do you know how many people get denied coverage of a visit or hospital stay because of a pre-existing condition regardless of how long they've had that insurance company? Do they get all the money in premiums that they have already paid back, when the insurance company denies the claim? NO.
My father-in law is a retired LEO, he was a motorman. He retired with his pension and insurance, but my mother-in-law is self-employed and therefore does not have the option of having insurance through a company she works for. Long story short, he pays $1800 a month for her coverage and supplemental coverage to his existing insurance through his retirement. He's 67 years old, and I asked him how many times he went to the doctor this past year. He went 4 times, she went twice for regular check-ups. Once, for a cyst he had on his leg, another for a regular physical, one more when he got the flu, and the last time for a colonoscopy (what fun). Let's do the math. Supposing each visit cost $2000, I'm using a high amount to cover the visit and any bloodtests or procedures as an example, that's $12,000. He paid $21,600. Of that original $12,000, the private insurance he pays for probably didn't have to pay much either because he still has his insurance from the police dept. These companies make an absolute killing on people like this all the time, but let's let them keep doing it. Reform is socialism.
Reform doesn't have to be socialist, the democrats just wish it to be that way. Are your in laws not illegible for medicare?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3189498
LMAO, I love some fish and octopus ceviche and if I go to a Japanese restaurant I always eat baby octopi whole. I've been trying to find a Japanese restaurant near me where they have the live baby octopi, but I'm a little concerned about them getting their suckers on me. What can I say, i eat just about anything. So far I've checked off: all the normaly consumed meats, and venison, buffalo, kangaroo, horse (didn't know it at the time and it tasted horrible), goat (also didn't like it), crocodile, rattle snake, iguana, sea turtle (i know, i know. I was a kid.), whale (yuck), octopus. I think that's it.

I've done a few of those but have only used octo as catfish bait, and they didn't like the crap either

I shot a young Buffalo a few years ago. Getting them young makes a huge difference, you could cut the stuff with a fork for the most part. Even the old stuff is tasty but that young one was fine eats. Gator was probably the most exotic thing I've eaten.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3189471
Really? Death panel? Please, that's another one of those run with it until people believe it things that apparently worked on you. I'm not even going to address that any further because it's ridiculous (almost as much as Birthers). The right has always been the more intolerant side, there is no doubt about that. In Harry Ried's case, if you take what he said and make a comparison, it's a viable argument. People in the 1860's who supported slavery did so because it benefitted them. Some people chose not to have slaves because they knew it was wrong and it was a hurtful, horrible practice that hurt those slaves and took their lives away. They only existed as slaves, they didn't live. People against healthcare refrom care only about themselves and most already have health care. In most cases the older tea party protesters had medicare or private insurance. Medicare which everyone loves to have, which was called socialism when it was proposed, that is government run health care. In Pelosi's case, people blindly followed Hitler and believed everything he said without question just like the people at the 9/12 tea party could only name talking points they heard on the new when asked why they were there. When given the chance to elaborate, they either had nothing of substance to say, spouted off ingnorant comments, or they were stumped and said nothing. Again, Pelosi's argument is viable in the context she was applying it in. Should they have said these ridiculous things wether they make sense or not? Maybe not. I believe it was an attempt at trying to be as controversial as the republicans when they speak out, which I think is a mistake. Democrats do not need to emulate any of those practices as the right will just use it as ammunition to try to tear them down even though they do the same thing. Even if taxes did go up, or some existing taxes were re-appropriated to fund part of a public option...are we really that dense and greedy a people that we don't want every single American that lives in this great country to have health care?
wow, so lets see here,
could you be a Democrat and support the wars during the bush term. No (Leiberman, Zell Miller) Both amazingly enough, spoke at the Republican National Convention, (you know where all the intollerants go to pick a nominee).
Did any Republicans speak at the Democratic National Convention. No.
Lets look at the recent Presidential nominations.
McCain Vs Obama
McCain is a big tent republican. (gang of 14, tree hugging, and the list goes on and on)
Obama is a far leftist who in his own words sought out the Marxist Professors.
Bush vs Kerry
Bush was no right wing extreemist. In his last months as President, a guy you should be familiar with, and is now Obama's Treasury secretary wrote most of Tarp.
Kerry - Well he refered to our troops "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."
Bush vs Gore
Gore is the biggest tree hugging nut out there. And will he debate anything nope. He's equated Global Warming Deniers to Flat earthers...
So the left has consistantly nominated far leftest loons. While there hasn't been a strongly conservative presidential nominee since Reagan. But who am I to point out reality.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3189508
wow, so lets see here,
could you be a Democrat and support the wars during the bush term. No (Leiberman, Zell Miller) Both amazingly enough, spoke at the Republican National Convention, (you know where all the intollerants go to pick a nominee).
Did any Republicans speak at the Democratic National Convention. No.
Lets look at the recent Presidential nominations.
McCain Vs Obama
McCain is a big tent republican. (gang of 14, tree hugging, and the list goes on and on)
Obama is a far leftist who in his own words sought out the Marxist Professors.
Bush vs Kerry
Bush was no right wing extreemist. In his last months as President, a guy you should be familiar with, and is now Obama's Treasury secretary wrote most of Tarp.
Kerry - Well he refered to our troops "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."
Bush vs Gore
Gore is the biggest tree hugging nut out there. And will he debate anything nope. He's equated Global Warming Deniers to Flat earthers...
So the left has consistantly nominated far leftest loons. While there hasn't been a strongly conservative presidential nominee since Reagan. But who am I to point out reality.
I'm sorry, Joe Lieberman is an idiot. I don't care who's side he's on or what he's got to say to anyone about anything. That guy is an absolute flip-flopping moron willing to support the highest bidder and has no business being in office. He only supports what is most beneficial to him at the time and I think he gets off by being so "mavericky" and getting in the paper.
You consider me a democrat, I supported the wars when when they started. Then I found out it was all a sham to get big money, and I wasn't so happy to say the least.
Again, don't get me wrong, in nothing that I stated did I say all conservaties or all anyone. And in nothing that I stated did I even propose that there are not loons on both sides. What I'm saying is that at the moment, the loons who are out there the most are the nutcase right-wingers. Notice I said nutcase right-wingers, not all right-wingers. I'm not generalizing.
Also, I'm not saying the left has not nominated idiots before, I wasn't even talking about that. I wasn't even talking about policy either. I was talking about the political strategies being implemented by some people to further their cause by appealing to ignorant people that can't tell they are being lied to even when facts that prove the lie are held out in front of them. Example. If I'm a politician and I choose to propagate a lie, and I am called out on it, I shouldn't keep propogating that lie and just hoping that people think it's true even though it's been proven false. That is what I have an issue with and it is a practice, I'm sorry to say that may be active in any political party, but is curently the favorite strategy of the right. That's what I meant.

 

[meowzer]

LOL...and this started over PORK