Mr. Big Dog

Get out of the kitchen? Give the terrorists what they want? Cave in to them? That's just not good enough. What happened to this nation standing up to terrorist threats? Why are the folks on the right all of a sudden soft on terrorism? People that engage in that kind of activity ought to be apprehended, prosecuted to the full extend of the law and sent up the river. It's simply unacceptable conduct in a civil society.

And it's still not your call to make. Say you'd actually get to ban the burka. You would then have stripped those women that choose to wear them of their freedom to do so and those that are forced to wear them wouldn't suddenly pop up on the streets in regular clothing either. Chances are they'd then be forced to remain in their home. So you'd inadvertently strip them of the freedom to move about. And the burka in their heads is still there all the same. What an accomplishment.

Takes a lot of assumptions for that to be clear. Last time I checked the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion and expression was still a part of it. Why do people with a different belief and value system have to conform to yours? Where in the Bill of Rights do you have the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot believe?

And you're most certainly free to wish that. But that doesn't exactly have any bearing on their right to live where they live. You know, some folks are annoyed by the smell of garlic and curry that some folks carry with them. Just sayin'...

So people have strong belief systems. Belief systems that differ from our mainstream. And that's why they can't be tolerated? The first amendment of the Constitution be damned? Are we really that weak that we can't have a small fraction of the population follow their - from our point of view - odd belief system? Are the Amish threatening to us? Surely, they don't assimilate - never have and a lot of them very likely never will. Kick them out too because we just can't stand them little buggies they ride around in or that ridiculous attire they wear?

Is it a choice they make or are we making that choice for them by excluding them because of their religion?

I don't know. My wife likes to dress in her native attire from time to time simply because it's part of her identity. Certainly, when she attends church she'll wear Ethiopian dresses. That doesn't mean, though, that she's resisting assimilation. Either people are free to express themselves or they're not. Are we prepared to deny people the right to choose what they wear?

There was a very interesting commentary in the German media today regarding this issue making a very basic and very valid point: The issue is the burka in rather than the one on the head. Banning the burka addresses merely the symptom rather than the underlying cause. What's the most likely result? Surely it won't be the desired liberation of women but their incarceration in their homes.

Your inability to grasp context is what worries me.

I know that we're rapidly shifting into hiring mode. Looking at the career mobility site on the intranet was quite sad for the last couple of years. Now, every time I look, there are more positions opening up. Running the same query, I had less than 10 search results in December. That figure is now exceeding 50 - just a few short months later. There's positive development going on in the private sector - I am quite encouraged.

Here, to all those with these critical questions: Make your own fcuking hats. Fcuktards.

So, state gubmint = good gubmint, then?

Get out of the kitchen? Give the terrorists what they want? Cave in to them? That's just not good enough. What happened to this nation standing up to terrorist threats? Why are the folks on the right all of a sudden soft on terrorism? People that engage in that kind of activity ought to be apprehended, prosecuted to the full extend of the law and sent up the river. It's simply unacceptable conduct in a civil society.

World Nut Daily? Really? And you expect anyone to take this seriously?
Here you go, my contribution to your well-being.

you're getting more ridiculous with every post you make, kiddo.

World Nut Daily? Really? And you expect anyone to take this seriously?
Here you go, my contribution to your well-being.

The headline should read: So, what's the reason the paranoid keep making the ridiculous claim that anyone wants to take their guns away?

Total overhead in PHI averages about 25% - 30% while total overhead for Medicare / Medicaid is less than 1/10 of that.
So, take the 2.5 trillion we spend on health care and do the math. I'd prefer the lower overhead because we'd be saving a truckload of money. If there was a value add that PHI brings to the table to justify their take, then I'd be all ears. I just don't see what value they actually add. They created one of the biggest and most bloated bureaucracies in this country and force medical providers to maintain bureaucracies to accommodate theirs.
It's cost, cost, cost - hundreds of billions of dollars a year - and no discernible value added.

Total overhead in PHI averages about 25% - 30% while total overhead for Medicare / Medicaid is less than 1/10 of that.
So, take the 2.5 trillion we spend on health care and do the math. I'd prefer the lower overhead because we'd be saving a truckload of money. If there was a value add that PHI brings to the table to justify their take, then I'd be all ears. I just don't see what value they actually add. They created one of the biggest and most bloated bureaucracies in this country and force medical providers to maintain bureaucracies to accommodate theirs.
It's cost, cost, cost - hundreds of billions of dollars a year - and no discernible value added.

Total overhead in PHI averages about 25% - 30% while total overhead for Medicare / Medicaid is less than 1/10 of that.
So, take the 2.5 trillion we spend on health care and do the math. I'd prefer the lower overhead because we'd be saving a truckload of money. If there was a value add that PHI brings to the table to justify their take, then I'd be all ears. I just don't see what value they actually add. They created one of the biggest and most bloated bureaucracies in this country and force medical providers to maintain bureaucracies to accommodate theirs.
It's cost, cost, cost - hundreds of billions of dollars a year - and no discernible value added.

Where's the right to life in all this, though? Why can't the conservative movement care as much about the born as they seem to care about the unborn?

Consensus between who? Republicans and Democrats? That's what the new law of the land is. Don't get confused by the Republicans putting short term political calculus over standing for what they've promoted for decades.

You know, I do agree that parents ought to be responsible for the upbringing and well-being of their children. Problem comes in when it is made virtually impossible for parents to do that. The couple in the OP isn't some gathering of welfare folk that were looking to dump the responsibility for their child's welfare on the taxpayer. They were looking to purchase health insurance as they've done for their other kids and simply can't do that because the child was born with a defect. That's what makes my blood boil. That much of the right-to-life crowd only cares about the life that isn't (yet) rather than the life that is. They don't care about life, they care about their narrow view on abortion. If they'd care about life, they'd support reform of the health care system from a system where one needs to be able to afford care (and thus life) to one where we recognize the right to life and hence the right to health care.

Good to see that we're rounding up them terrorists.