Rockadayjohnny

What the Supremes said was a tax is the $200 fine you pay if you don't do it. The cost of health insurance is just a sensible thing you do because you never know when you'll get a really expensive medical problem and spreading the risk over your life and over the population is the best way to keep money to cover those costs. That seems to me like all of the GOP talking points rolled into one: taking responsibility for yourself, putting the cost on the people who get the benefit, etc. Otherwise, if you go around uninsured, you're depending on the charity of the hospitals and doctors if you get in a car wreck, come down with a serious illness or disease, or fall and break your back. That seems like the ultimate act of irresponsible behavior.

So you hate Obamacare. Let me suggest that a) people who can't pay for care in America go to hospitals and doctors every day; b) our health care providers either turn them away or care for them for "free"; c) If the providers care for the poor for free then they have to raise their rates on the rest of us. One way or the other, those folks get care and we pay. Do you prefer chaos (what we have) or a managed approach (Obamacare) or do you have an alternative?

... take over the presidency, "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis."

A- Ted Nugent

B- Osama Bin Laden

C- Pat Robertson

D- Mitt Romney

I'm smarter than at least 2 owners. 1 failed to keep Payton Manning the other took Manning thereby ensuring the departure of Tebow and hard feelings from the fan base. Brilliant guys, just brilliant. Hint: the answer to my question may be symbolized on US typewriters by capitalizing the number 4.

Or does Yahoo filter them?

Just curious if the potential Republican candidate believes that all the Methodists (like GW Bush) and the Lutherans and the Episcopalians are led by Satan.

Dr. King was a Baptist minister. Still, we don't want to leave out all of the atheists who were martyred in service to humanity during that time.

Whenever someone suggests that atheism leads to nihilism one hears the response that atheists create their own meaning. I Googled that and found lots of statements like this one: "But just because our lives have no grand, universal meaning doesn’t mean they don’t have any meaning at all. You do not matter to the universe but you certainly matter to the people around you....you can make your own life and the lives of others better, reduce their pain and make their lives more happy and more fulfilling." Doesn't this sound a little, er, um, derivative?

"Still more depressingly, perhaps, other atheists sought to extinguish the fear of annihilation by stressing the generally miserable nature of human existence and thus encouraging detachment from life and even hopeful anticipation of death as a long awaited rest from the burden of living. Nicolas de Chamfort (1741-1794), for example, described life as an illness, for which death was the 'medication'." From the website Investigating Atheism, hosted by Cambridge University

Didn't Republicans lead the US in a civil war against people who claimed that states had the authority to decide matters? How do the Republicans now claim to be the party that upholds that principle when they put this nation through that bloodshed?

And what kind of weird stuff is going on with his wife who says she can forgive his behavior..blah, blah, blah, I mean, isn't the dude pretty much saying the Argentine chica is his one true love and he screwed up when he married the MRS, but he'll suffer through the rest of his life with the old ball and chain because a- he's a politician, and b-he has a duty to stick with her instead of the woman he really loves. Poor wife, that's just adding insult to injury.

Anyone who ever sat through a will contest in court knows all about family values.

I like the definition that Joseph Campbell refers to, that a myth is a story with explanatory power. With that understanding, there's no connotation whether the story accurately describes an historical fact or not. It is the opposite of the sense of the use of the word by the guys on "Myth Busters" who used myth as synonomous with fiction or misconception. I don't think that's strictly what myth means at all, but I suppose words mean what the majority of people believe they mean, at least in English in America, where we don't have an official Academy to decide.

A theme of atheists comments on this board is "Why do Christians try to convert people to believing what they believe? It's one of my main objections to Xianity." How is that different than going on a spirituality discussion forum, calling out Xians, asking what you believe to be a "gotcha" question, or answering something that a believer asks by ridiculing belief, name calling (Sky Daddy, Jesus the magic Zombie) and otherwise attempting to make someone quit believing? Or, for that matter, having an ad campaign on a bus, or writing books that denigrate belief? I don't see a difference.

hey, beloved, what if most people have a spiritual sense, but some don't, like you're kind of spiritually color blind, or you just can't relate to all that spiritual static, it bugs you like over stimulation to someone on the old Asperger's/Autism spectrum?

Now, i'm a universalist, so i don't think you're going to hell because you have a spiritual birth defect, but have you ever considered it?

Now they have a foil in the White House and Congress. How much fun could they have whining about liberals from 2000-2006 while they had Congress and the WH?

First you said Obama was a Muslim, but everyone knows that the Muslim's hate Godless communism, so is he a Muslim or a communist? You're getting my redneck cousins confused again on why it is they're not voting for Obama, even though now none of them can remember voting for Bush.