|
|
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
First ... 17 67 107 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 127 ... Last
Originally Posted by Woof:
Just the slow folks.... lack of heath insurance doesnt cause death.
Also from the article:Just the slow folks.... lack of heath insurance doesnt cause death.
Originally Posted by :
After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40;n95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.
After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40;n95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.
Originally Posted by :
The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance.
You can play word games if you'd like, I suppose. But the simple conclusion is this: if you lack insurance, you are more likely to die. And for those who argue we already provide health care through emergency rooms, it simply isn't as effective (and certainly isn't cost effective) as actual health insurance. It's as simple as that. Can we agree on that and move on?The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance.
Originally Posted by Toby:
By those standards, it's completely reasonable to question President Obama on Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers.
Yes! Speaking of racism...By those standards, it's completely reasonable to question President Obama on Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/godingovernment/2009/06/jeremiah_wright_them_jews_keeping_him_from_obama.html
Originally Posted by Woof:
Oh please prove that.
I can't speak for churches teaching that Obama is the Anti-Christ, but well known right-wing nutjob site WorldNetDaily has certainly been spreading that little tidbit:Oh please prove that.
Is Obama the Antichrist?
Originally Posted by Bujin:
I can't speak for churches teaching that Obama is the Anti-Christ, but well known right-wing nutjob site WorldNetDaily has certainly been spreading that little tidbit:
Is Obama the Antichrist?
The same powerful group who continues to fan the flames on Obama citizenship (buying billboards in 3 states?) and mixes dogmatic religious views. A perfect marriage of extreme politics and religion, their books and tapes can be found in many fundamentalist church's bookstore.I can't speak for churches teaching that Obama is the Anti-Christ, but well known right-wing nutjob site WorldNetDaily has certainly been spreading that little tidbit:
Is Obama the Antichrist?
They even topped Alexa's who's who of where people were getting their info before the election. This is hardly some marginal, benign element.
WND most popular 'political site'
Originally Posted by Bujin:
I can't speak for churches teaching that Obama is the Anti-Christ, but well known right-wing nutjob site WorldNetDaily has certainly been spreading that little tidbit:
Is Obama the Antichrist?
So they are doing it with scriptures. I thought they'd be doing it with numbers. I can't speak for churches teaching that Obama is the Anti-Christ, but well known right-wing nutjob site WorldNetDaily has certainly been spreading that little tidbit:
Is Obama the Antichrist?
Like add 7, subtract 3 ... Is Shirley Lynn Phelps-Roper somehow involved with this?Originally Posted by groovy:
Apparently, the answer to the quesion on the marquee is no. While I disagree with this pastors theological point of view, at least he's making an attempt to address the issue (albeit, using the wrong forum, IMO).
Church marquee for sermon about Obama turns heads : News : KVII
That was my point. The question was semi-rhetorical since I had found the article already. I was just curious if the picture was just a Google image search posted without knowledge of its source, or if it was an attempt to mislead.Apparently, the answer to the quesion on the marquee is no. While I disagree with this pastors theological point of view, at least he's making an attempt to address the issue (albeit, using the wrong forum, IMO).
Church marquee for sermon about Obama turns heads : News : KVII
Originally Posted by Bujin:
I can't speak for churches teaching that Obama is the Anti-Christ, but well known right-wing nutjob site WorldNetDaily has certainly been spreading that little tidbit:
Is Obama the Antichrist?
That link isn't to WorldNetDaily. The article it references, though, does not seem to come to the conclusion that the Examiner author claims it does. Honestly people. Can't you see that you're all doing the same thing? Questioning whether Christian churches are teaching that Obama is the anti-christ based on a Youtube video is _exactly_ at the same level of reasoning as questioning whether Barack Obama is directing ACORN to endorse child prostitution based on one or two field offices getting candid camera'd.I can't speak for churches teaching that Obama is the Anti-Christ, but well known right-wing nutjob site WorldNetDaily has certainly been spreading that little tidbit:
Is Obama the Antichrist?
Originally Posted by Toby:
That link isn't to WorldNetDaily. The article it references, though, does not seem to come to the conclusion that the Examiner author claims it does. Honestly people. Can't you see that you're all doing the same thing? Questioning whether Christian churches are teaching that Obama is the anti-christ based on a Youtube video is _exactly_ at the same level of reasoning as questioning whether Barack Obama is directing ACORN to endorse child prostitution based on one or two field offices getting candid camera'd.
Actually, I specifically stated that I couldn't speak for what churches are teaching. I purposesly didn't link to WorldNetDaily, as I clicked the link to WND's site and my hand went numb in disgust. That link isn't to WorldNetDaily. The article it references, though, does not seem to come to the conclusion that the Examiner author claims it does. Honestly people. Can't you see that you're all doing the same thing? Questioning whether Christian churches are teaching that Obama is the anti-christ based on a Youtube video is _exactly_ at the same level of reasoning as questioning whether Barack Obama is directing ACORN to endorse child prostitution based on one or two field offices getting candid camera'd.
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
They even topped Alexa's who's who of where people were getting their info before the election. This is hardly some marginal, benign element.
WND most popular 'political site'
Let me see if I have this straight. We're going to trust the self-aggrandizing numbers from January of 2004 when their links are 404'd?They even topped Alexa's who's who of where people were getting their info before the election. This is hardly some marginal, benign element.
WND most popular 'political site'
The best they seem to do is fourth that I can find:
Alexa - Top Sites by Category: Society/Politics
Alexa - Top Sites by Category: Society/Politics/News and Media
Of course, that's not even considering that Alexa doesn't track anything more than traffic. It can't tell you influence.
Originally Posted by Bujin:
Actually, I specifically stated that I couldn't speak for what churches are teaching.
Neither can I, because I'm not a church goer, nor a Christian. However, as I said, trying to question some nebulous number of Christian churches due to some kook filmed by someone with their own agenda seems a tad ideological to me.Actually, I specifically stated that I couldn't speak for what churches are teaching.
Originally Posted by :
I purposesly didn't link to WorldNetDaily, as I clicked the link to WND's site and my hand went numb in disgust.
So suffice it to say that you didn't actually read the article and find out that it didn't say what your 'data' said it did.I purposesly didn't link to WorldNetDaily, as I clicked the link to WND's site and my hand went numb in disgust.
No intent to mislead 
as the marquee speaks for itself by leaving purposely ambiguous its intended audience (those sympathetic to believe Obama IS the antichrist vs those with an opposing viewpoint) may have been equally interested in how the church would explain itself. From one perspective, the question seems to legitimize that Obama may be the antichrist and is worthy of consideration.
At the time the marquee presented that question, is there proof that there was an accompanying disclaimer for passers-by to read which explained the church's intended message? Since this was not some internet ad by that church, but a physical marquee on its property, it seems reasonable that those traveling past the church, not knowing otherwise, might be titillated into attending.
Now that I've also seen the net article that followed the event, it's obvious, to me at least, that it was not teaching that Obama is the antichrist.
as the marquee speaks for itself by leaving purposely ambiguous its intended audience (those sympathetic to believe Obama IS the antichrist vs those with an opposing viewpoint) may have been equally interested in how the church would explain itself. From one perspective, the question seems to legitimize that Obama may be the antichrist and is worthy of consideration.At the time the marquee presented that question, is there proof that there was an accompanying disclaimer for passers-by to read which explained the church's intended message? Since this was not some internet ad by that church, but a physical marquee on its property, it seems reasonable that those traveling past the church, not knowing otherwise, might be titillated into attending.
Now that I've also seen the net article that followed the event, it's obvious, to me at least, that it was not teaching that Obama is the antichrist.
And this billboard has what to do with healthcare?
Originally Posted by Toby:
That was my point. The question was semi-rhetorical since I had found the article already. I was just curious if the picture was just a Google image search posted without knowledge of its source, or if it was an attempt to mislead.
We'll never know for sure. That was my point. The question was semi-rhetorical since I had found the article already. I was just curious if the picture was just a Google image search posted without knowledge of its source, or if it was an attempt to mislead.
Originally Posted by Woof:
And this billboard has what to do with healthcare?
That's like saying what does your avatar have to do with healthcare. And this billboard has what to do with healthcare?
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
No intent to mislead
You can feign rolling your eyes all you want, but it doesn't reinforce your point.No intent to mislead
Originally Posted by :
as the marquee speaks for itself by leaving purposely ambiguous its intended audience (those sympathetic to believe Obama IS the antichrist vs those with an opposing viewpoint) may have been equally interested in how the church would explain itself.
I'd be more interested in how you found the picture if you didn't read the article associated with it.as the marquee speaks for itself by leaving purposely ambiguous its intended audience (those sympathetic to believe Obama IS the antichrist vs those with an opposing viewpoint) may have been equally interested in how the church would explain itself.
Originally Posted by :
From one perspective, the question seems to legitimize that Obama may be the antichrist and is worthy of consideration.
From which perspective would that be?From one perspective, the question seems to legitimize that Obama may be the antichrist and is worthy of consideration.
Originally Posted by :
At the time the marquee presented that question, is there proof that there was an accompanying disclaimer for passers-by to read which explained the church's intended message?
I'd suspect not, since its intention with the marquee was to get people into church to hear the sermon.At the time the marquee presented that question, is there proof that there was an accompanying disclaimer for passers-by to read which explained the church's intended message?
Originally Posted by :
Since this was not some internet ad by that church, but a physical marquee on its property, it seems reasonable that those traveling past the church, not knowing otherwise, might be titillated into attending.
Exactly, which makes it strange that you'd only present the image and "Maybe he read it on the internet?" as support for what I asked.Since this was not some internet ad by that church, but a physical marquee on its property, it seems reasonable that those traveling past the church, not knowing otherwise, might be titillated into attending.
Originally Posted by :
Now that I've also seen the net article that followed the event, it's obvious, to me at least, that it was not teaching that Obama is the antichrist.
What was your source for the picture?Now that I've also seen the net article that followed the event, it's obvious, to me at least, that it was not teaching that Obama is the antichrist.
Originally Posted by palandri:
That's like saying what does your avatar have to do with healthcare.
Back at you. What does YOUR avatar have to do with healthcare.That's like saying what does your avatar have to do with healthcare.
Oh right the avatar has nothing to do with the thread youre in. It's more of a personal statement. Maybe things you like or an opinion on something.
Think before you post
Originally Posted by groovy:
We'll never know for sure.
No, if one just sits there in calm reflection, the answer will become self-evident.We'll never know for sure.
Originally Posted by Toby:
Exactly, which makes it strange that you'd only present the image and "Maybe he read it on the internet?" as support for what I asked.
No, I believe Bujin sufficiently addressed that with Worldnetdaily's "teaching" of "Barack Obama Equals Antichrist".Exactly, which makes it strange that you'd only present the image and "Maybe he read it on the internet?" as support for what I asked.
As to Worldnetdaily's popularity, I'm sure Alexa archives their old pages as most busy sites do. WND just hasn't updated their page to reflect this. I have no reason to suspect they were misrepresenting their popularity above other political sites at the time.
It was not my intent for anyone to associate the pic with the statement about "the gentleman having read about it on the internet", as I believed that a reader would come away understanding that the "teaching" could have originated in any of more likely sources.
Originally Posted by 1thing2add:
No, I believe Bujin sufficiently addressed that with Worldnetdaily's "teaching" of "Barack Obama Equals Antichrist".
You mean the one where Worldnetdaily actually didn't say that Barack Obama equals Antichrist?No, I believe Bujin sufficiently addressed that with Worldnetdaily's "teaching" of "Barack Obama Equals Antichrist".
Originally Posted by :
As to Worldnetdaily's popularity, I'm sure Alexa archives their old pages as most busy sites do.
I'm sure they do as well. After all, the page you posted was from January of 2004 making it almost 5.75 years old.As to Worldnetdaily's popularity, I'm sure Alexa archives their old pages as most busy sites do.
Originally Posted by :
WND just hasn't updated their page to reflect this. I have no reason to suspect they were misrepresenting their popularity above other political sites at the time.
Which time? The time 'before the election', or the time on the link you posted.WND just hasn't updated their page to reflect this. I have no reason to suspect they were misrepresenting their popularity above other political sites at the time.
Originally Posted by :
It was not my intent for anyone to associate the pic with the statement about "the gentleman having read about it on the internet",
You didn't have to make up a new quote. I quoted you exactly. Nice dodge on the source of the picture, though.It was not my intent for anyone to associate the pic with the statement about "the gentleman having read about it on the internet",
Originally Posted by :
as I believed that a reader would come away understanding that the "teaching" could have originated in any of more likely sources.
Like a church in Amarillo where the pastor actually didn't teach that Barack Obama was the antichrist because the Antichrist would likely come from Europe, around Italy? Yes, that makes perfect sense.as I believed that a reader would come away understanding that the "teaching" could have originated in any of more likely sources.
Man! Talk about reaching for conclusions for the sake of just being argumentative. Enjoy yourself, but I'm not going along on your joyride.
Not that any of this is remotely related to healthcare, as for Worldnetdaily's claim that the name "Barack Obama" = "antichrist", I believe Bujin's link speaks for itself. IMO, the issue of healthcare is much better served by removing the partisanism, so maybe it's best to just leave this bit of garbage behind? I should've known better than to accept the bait a couple pages ago.
First
...
17 67 107 112 113 114 115 116 117
118 119 120 121 122 127
...
Last
Not that any of this is remotely related to healthcare, as for Worldnetdaily's claim that the name "Barack Obama" = "antichrist", I believe Bujin's link speaks for itself. IMO, the issue of healthcare is much better served by removing the partisanism, so maybe it's best to just leave this bit of garbage behind? I should've known better than to accept the bait a couple pages ago.
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > Off Topic > Destroying Healthcare in America
