Empire of the Iguanadons

(Signed PDF copy of the above)

As you should all know by now, President Obama's healthcare bill (aka Obamacare) is coming up for a vote today in the House of Representatives. Our country now stands at a crossroads of history the likes of which we've not seen since World War II or 9/11. The political wrangling over this bill has been going on now since the day Obama took office and handed them the legislation to consider. Almost from the beginning, Republicans have been steadfastly opposed to this bill because of the enormous cost it would impose and the enormous damage it will do to our deficit. Some waffling went on back and forth which ended up allowing a floor vote in the US Senate in December of 2009 where the bill passed on a straight party-line vote of 60-40. However, because the bill the Senate passed was not the same as the one the House had passed before that, it needed to be reconciled. That debate has now been going on for the last three months.

I doubt I need to go into the myriad of back room deals, closed door meetings, and outright bribery that's been going on to get this thing to where we are today. That we are even at this point is terrifying enough. A health bill in which all Americans will be mandated BY LAW to purchase coverage or face fines imposed by the IRS, whether or not they can actually afford it. Never before in the history of the United States has the Federal government ever amassed the kind of power this bill would give them over our lives. The fact that Congress had to pull all sorts of shady deals such as the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and other forms of bribery and extortion to get this to this point should have told them something that's been loud and clear for the last 15 months: The American People don't want this bill.

Polls show that the majority of Americans do not support this bill. So why are the Democrats trying so hard to shove this down our throats despite the overwhelming opposition? It's part of their progressive agenda. If you don't believe me, then perhaps Nancy Pelosi can fill you in herself. Oh really now? Suppose we don't want that either, are you going to resort to the same dirty back room tactics you had to use to push Obamacare to this vote? Will you end up simply deeming future bills to have passed, like you stopped short of this time?

I will concede, we need reform of the current system in this country. What we don't need is Cuban style socialized medicine to do it. Why not instead attack the problems with Medicare? Implement tort reforms to bring down trial costs for BS lawsuits. Start deporting the illegal aliens, who are ultimately the real cause of why our medical system is in such disarray. I might even be willing to go so far as to allow government to subsidies drug research so that the costs of medications can come down, and shorten the time it takes to get FDA approvals. Surely there has to be something we can do to fix the government run system we already have that doesn't require a nearly 3,000 page bill nobody has read to create an entirely new system.

Whatever you Democrats decide to do, just remember, we voters have a long memory, and many of you are hurting badly in the polls already and only hurting more as time goes by. Pass this bill, and watch your majorities vanish come November. To John Boehner and the Republicans, stand fast, we're behind you on this one all the way.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

Oh, and on a totally unrelated and off-topic (like we're not already pretty off-topic anyway at this point, right?) note, I just wanted to also say Happy Birthday Samson!

It seems that Samson's birthday is the day after Dragona's.

Macro-Evolution in that context means the horse became a mule all on its own without input from man. Cross-breeding a horse with a donkey and getting a mule does not provide you with viable offspring. Genetically combining fish with frogs doesn't either, and yes, there have been some pretty strange genetic experiments conducted to do things like that. Most fail, and those that succeed usually produce hideous mutations that cannot survive. Yet we're expected to buy that completely random mutations in the wild turned amoebas into man over billions of years.

With regard to the flood, there is a theory floating around out there that says at one time the Earth had a water vapor canopy encircling it which rendered the planet more or less tropical except at the two poles, kept the temperature fairly constant in the 80s or so, and blocked out a great deal more radiation than what we have now. It's supposed to account for two things: The astronomically high ages of people mentioned in the Bible (Methusela etc) and the source of all the water that contributed to the Genesis flood. It requires that the water vapor canopy collapsed due to divine intervention, but if you're already inclined to believe the Bible such things aren't out of the question.

And yes, today is my birthday, for whatever that's worth

Happy birthday to the both of you.

Also, Re: Evolution, not that I feel like going there (he says, ignoring last time), but I think that this awesome Fatboy Slim music video demolishes your arguments through awesome fish faces and gorilla dancing.

Well, I don't know about mule's not being viable, I've met quite a few mules over the years and, according to the legends, the horse breeding with the donkey to produce the mule was without man's intervention. But for an animal to specifically become another animal all by it's self.. well, that's not evolution, that's mutation and seems more than a little far fetched even when they try to pull it off under the suspension of disbelief in SciFi...

Re: the flood. I'd never heard that theory about the water canopy before, but it does sound like rather ideal conditions to my liking.

Actually there are a few other theories that are fairly credible as a well, on top of this one you pointed out. My point was not to debate the merit of the theories, but to show that a literal interpretation of the Noah story might not be feasible due to technical limitations of his boat, etc, and thus that a literal interpretation of Genesis may not be the best way to read that book either.

So much of the Bible is parable or prophetic, that it just seems narrow minded to draw a line in the sand and say that Genesis has to be taken literally. God said that King David was a man after Gods own heart, and yet David was a monster a tyrant and could not keep it in his pants, some also suggest that he may have had homosexual relations.

So should we all follow in Davids steps and do all the delightful things that David did? Or is there something bigger at play here also and that we are meant to understand and not literally take the story of David as a blessing from God to kill, murder, euthanize and fornicate till the cows come home.

Paul said that All things are lawful to me in Christ Jesus, so should we take that without limitation and just go off and do what ever the hell we want and set outselves up as puppet dictators and take 30 women each, because we have such lustful desires .

SO much of the Bible is like this, full of greater meanings and truths that a literal reading of it really misses the mark and the point being made.

I must have missed it in grammar classes back in school, could you give an example of the prophetic writing style without any quoted material.. something original..

Well, perhaps we aren't godly enough to be as David was.. but maybe we should take that particular tale about David as evidence that we should be a bit more tolerant of homosexuals.. afterall, it's not like they're likely to reproduce anyway.

Paul never said any such thing in my version of the Bible.. in fact, I don't even recall Jesus making an appearance until the New Testament... but, assuming he said such a thing in your Bible, perhaps he meant that he was wiling to show tolerance towards any act of man. (If you really were going to take it as license to do whatever the hell you wanted, why would you want to be a puppet dictator?? ...What'd the puppets ever do to you??) ...is there really something so terrble about taking 30 women each? I won't oppose Hanaisse or Regina if they choose to, and I might just have a bit of fun myself should Dragona choose to do so.....)

So, you're saying that David didn't really slay a giant with a pebble in a slingshot??

LOL Conner, Irony is never wasted on you, i sat here for a few minutes giggling about your post.



1 Corinthians 6:12



Sure that's exactly what it shows, that no matter how you fail, God is not concerned with your failure, only that your focus is on him, fail however the hell you like, because God's forgiveness is big enough, no matter what you do.

The thing with David is that its a perfect illustration about Gods plan for man, David was, by the standard of the Judaic Law a failure, but here you have God saying, you know, David is alright, David's heart was for all the things of God while the flesh sinned because it is in our nature to sin, also no man could live to the letter of the law, thus the need for sacrifice and then latter on Jesus as one sacrifice for all. What that story clearly shows is the Grace of God, if your heart is with God, it does not matter that you sin and fail, because God is gracious and forgives all your short comings.



They terrified me as a child and scared me for life, the theme to Sesame St still caused me to break out into cold sweats and convulsions.



Oh the mental images, oh the images. I better not say that im going to take a shower now, because you might conclude that i am using said images for my own advantage

Well, you've got to remember that Corinthians is in the New Testament and we jews only follow The Torah (also called The Five Books of Moses or, in most Christian circles, the Old Testament) so, as I said, he never said any such thing in my Bible.

See, that's what confuses the hell out of me about Catholics and their routine confessions and all that rot, why do they need to buy their way into heaven through their church and repent for all their sins and so forth if God is already going to forgive them anyway as long as they keep faithful to him in their hearts and Jesus was supposedly the one great sacrifice for all future sins and so on?

I still say that I'd rather be a real dictator than a puppet dictator.. though I suppose I can see where you're coming from with Sesame Street... Muppets can be a little questionable too.

Would I accuse you of such a thing? What you do with the mental imagery I paint for you is your business, once given one simply does not take back a gift.

I've gotten ripped on pretty hard for saying it before, but screw those people. Catholicism isn't true Christianity. Nowhere in the Christian Bible is there a mention of Purgatory. Nowhere did Jesus say that I had to buy my way into heaven with 10 hail Marys. The 10 commandments expressly forbid worshiping any other than God, so all this crap with Mary and the Pope goes directly against the word of God.

The Catholic church is the modern day version of the old Pagan religions. They took all of the old Pagan holidays and moved them around to fit all of the new Christian holidays. You think the Easter Bunny is just a harmless rabbit? Try pagan fertility god. Christmas trees are a symbol of the winter solstice. Even that fish hat the Pope wears has a pagan meaning, though right this second I can't remember what.

I do not think that any of us really know what true Christianity really is, and i might go as far to say that it might not be all that important.



Its in the Apocrypha, and it will depend on your persuasion as to whether you accept that as cannon or not. But thats where the doctrine comes from.



Exactly, all in all its a pretty simple deal, He who believes (in Jesus) and is born again of the spirit will inherent the kingdom of God.




It is nothing more than a form of idolatry, however, this does not mean that people who are Catholic are not Christian. Only God can see into the hearts of men, so, if they accept Christ, then they are Christian.

And it is about here that institutional Christianity and I part ways. I see no need for a Pope, if God is 100 different types of awesome, why does he need a mini god here on earth. You have people like Kenneth Copeland and a myriad of others preaching "Prosperity Doctrine", which really amounts to a pyramid scheme where they are the winners. No where in the Bible does God promise to make you rich if you give all your money away, some get blessed others get given trials and tribulation, what matters is that you focus on God, not wealth or anything else.

And then you have the other evangelicals who are still all into their fire and brimstone mentality to Jesus, where you will go to hell for just about anything from killing an ant or touching your dong in the shower (hehe Conner). For them, they would have you sacrifice Jesus over and over for your sin and still not have any guarantee of salvation.

This is also the main issue i have with the Jehovah Witness and the Mormons, they have no guarantee of salvation. Stuff going thought all the bullshit they put themselves through if heaven is already full. If heaven is not a done deal for belief in Jesus then i will find some other religion that offers me a good deal where i know what i will get in the end. At least the Muslim gets his virgins and eternal after life when he explodes and the Buddhist continuity goes round and round the merry go round until enlightenment is reached and the Jews have God commitment to be his punching bag for all eternity.

See the truth of the Gospel is very simple, so simple that even my mind can grasp it, believe in Jesus, have God in your heart and live under his grace. Nothing more, nothing less, if only all the church goers grasped this very simple concept, they would be free to be happy and be themselves, and not have to pretend to be all pious and holy.

Oh, thank you for not making me point that one out!
It's one of my very favorite commandments to point out to Christians who insist on littering their lives with all those little statuettes.. I'll bet there was never a single lion who cared about whether you holding a statue would alter your taste any..


Interesting perspective.. the problem for those poor Muslims is that their 72 virgins are all the suicide bombers who went before him.. Buddhists, well, yeah, the merry go round is apt enough for me... Wait, God's our punching bag or we're his? No, in Judaism it's just that we're the "chosen ones" so we're pretty much guaranteed a spot in heaven, granted we still aspire to be "written in the great book of life" and we also don't believe in either hell or purgatory so there's really no alternative to heaven..

I will strongly agree with your general anti-institutional statement though, but I'd actually extend that cover all religions that are structured institutionally.

For sure, i think that is a fair statement, although can you think of an example where the religion has not been hijacked for nefarious purposes? Buddhism, Hinduism, perhaps?

I don't know that it's about hijacking for nefarious purposes, I think it's just sort of the nature of the beast when it comes to organized religion. Regardless of intent, when you get a large enough group of people all trying to structure their shared religious beliefs into a single religion there are going to be differences of opinion in best practices, beliefs, etc and one way has to win over the others if it's to be an organized thing, and then, somewhere in the process someone's going to point out that the "church" itself shouldn't need a separate income which means the community of believers will have to contribute to it's support and then who ever gets the position of priest starts to figure out all the ways to bilk members out of their money to support the church and, in the long term, some priest is going to get greedy, whether it's for the money or the power. Conversion efforts generally seem to me to stem from the same greeds ultimately at the top levels, though often it's conducted by the lower levels from misguided belief that they're doing the right thing by showing others the one true path sort of ideology. I think it can easily be shown that the Catholics have pretty much been the worst case examples over the centuries, but they're far from the only ones.

Catholic church sex abuse history

I saw this tonight on a comedy/current affairs show produced on public TV here in Aussie Land. It would seem, if the information presented is accurate (links to the info on the page), that the Catholic Church has had a kiddy fiddling problem since its inception. Food for thought.

You mean to say that you didn't think they did?

Historically, the catholic church has had people in high places within it's establishment who were easily amongst the most corrupt, or at least the most depraved, of any out there at the time. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge, it's just becoming a "big deal" lately because of all the high publicity and the fact that there are folks trying to hold the Vatican liable for the actions of it's worldwide priests and bishops now. Personally, I have a much harder time trying to defend redeeming qualities for the Catholic Church based on historical actions than I do bashing the Church any way you'd like. They've waged wars in the name of religious persecution repeatedly, they've... well, they've committed far too many atrocities to bother listing them all. But I honestly thought we all already knew all that as we have actually discussed it several times on this site in the past in one facet or another.