boyando

P.C.,You and I have agreed and disagreed on many topics through out the years. And my following comments are not born of anger, but a stern believe that I can find no honesty, in the first five pages of this tread. You as a moderator, have the right to ban me for what I am about to say, but I wouldn't bother. I have decided a self proclaimed ban is more appropriate. I have ho desire to belong to any group, even a silly political forum, that will not stand up and look truth in the eye. You know, that the purpose of a Christian Church is to help His children, come into Christ. The purpose of a Islamic Mosque, is to bring people closer to God. And yet you have decided, that it is more important to defend the action of going to Church, regardless of what is said across the pulpit. These church's of social justice have no more to do with Christianity, than people who would fly planes into a building full of people, have to do with the religion of peace. So, for me, it will be a longtime before I return to LDS.net. And I am sure that those who will miss me, and those who are glad to see me go, are far out weighed by those who don't care. This is my legacy. Good by

Me, I think the elitist, in Washington and in the press are targeting Toyota. But as always, they can't seem to rap their heads around human nature. If you are someone who would have bought a Toyota and now you are not, because of the recall, you will now go out and by a Honda, or a Mazda, or a Nissan, or even a Hundia before you by a Chevy. I like Chevy's and think they are putting out some very nice cars. With out the government stepping in, G.M. would have declared bankruptcy, got out of some really bad union contracts and come out just fine, in the end. Instead, we got G.M. declaring bankruptcy and the government making sure that the unions were fine. More On The $70 Total Labor Cost Per Hour For GM | Daily Markets With all of the efforts to make it a leaner machine, G.M.'s cost per man hour is still $12.00 an hour more than Toyota's. But not to worry, we the tax payer will make sure that the unions get theirs. And the unions will make sure that politicians who are pro union, get the money they need for their campaigns. Throw a party. Everyone wins but the tax payer and any one who thinks this is madness.

I appreciate your optimism and wish I had the same.Although it is true, that our economy is relatively good, the key word is relatively. No one has ever accused me of being to humble (even when my nic was allmosthumble), so I could say that I am relatively humble when compared to others. But the truth is, I lack when it comes to humility. So, in my not so humble opinion, this country needs a better economy. So does every other country on this beautiful blue planet. I too, am concerned about the spending, but not just the amount. Equal in this travesty, is the fact that money is being spent on big companies, in big amounts and given to small companies in small amounts, if at all. If I got it right, the new jobs bill gives a three thousand dollar tax credit to a small company who add a job to their roles. I try not to digress, but there is so much sarcasm in me, could not these companies also get a tax break for saved jobs? Am I the only one who can not see the value in giving a three thousand dollar tax credit to hire some one, if that new hire cost you twenty thousand a year, in wages, insurance and the cost of human resource? Why bother? If you ask me, and your probably won't, the Lord doesn't send down curses upon us. We bring them upon ourselves.

Breath dear Sister, BREATH.

Before you tie me to the stake, light the fire and do your little gotcha dance, may I point out that the article itself, points out that research was not done as to why there are more deaths with the uninsured, but added conjecture as fact.I am also a neophyte to animal husbandry, but still know enough to step around a cowpie. So maybe it is like one of the General Authorities once said, sometimes, PHD does mean piled deeper and higher.

Yes, but I have seen it on Top Gear. If you look at it from the right camera angle and you add a Jag, your bound to get a great picture.

Our side looks better than there side,lol.

I'm sorry I confused you. My point was and still is that so few Children die, in America. But that is not what the image of what our health care system looks like, when some one has an agenda.　 I'm in my happy place, I am in my happy place, I am in my happy place, lol.Because of the very small role I play in the politics of my community, I have seen first hand what a political joke these studies are. In one such study, my little township was called "the fattest town in Utah". Not looking for a fight, with a "very reputable group" here in Utah, but in one such study, I found their study very self serving and full of facts, with little information. I wish I could say it was different in other studies, that have been handed to me, but it doesn't seem to matter if it is a study on transportation or fire redistricting or how many children brush their teeth every night, the group doing the study, has an agenda. By it's very nature, a study to discover if our children have a better survival rate with insurance, than with out, has to have the one conclusion or the study is a waist. You don't get grants to do studies, if there is no action that needs to happen because of the study. So you put in the facts, and leave out a lot of information, if you want your study to "prove" something. Information like, how a first generation immigrant, from a small Polynesian island, may not fully understand the importance of health insurance, or when to take their child to the doctor (something that was pointed out to me by a dear friend who is a second generation Polynesian islander). My farm analogy, was in no way to put the importance of trying to save children lives on the same level as cold prevention. But rather to point out that facts, without information, is useless. Here is another analogy, that may ex-plain what I am trying to say. Many a study has been done, that shows the facts, that because of the word of wisdom and other intangible reasons, Mormons of all age groups, live a longer and healthier lives, than non-Mormons. Should the conclusion be that everyone should be forced to be a Mormon? (IF you are a Mormon and you answered yes to the previous question, you may want to make an appointment with any Church leader, so they can help you can figure out why you are wrong). I don't think you know how important H is to my family. She is one very special, sweetheart of a little girl.To bad I gave up being angry, I would have enjoyed beating the snot out of P.As always, you, B and H are in our thoughts and prayers. bro

Hi SisAbout the first of the year, I decided that I was going to develop a nothing is going to make me angry, attitude. With some on this post, this change in my character has made it very difficult to respond. Not so with you, because I know that much of what you write, is because you are no longer are able to give of your time and money. I would like to point out, though, a couple of things from this article. First, it stated that so few children die, that they had to greatly expand their study, to gather enough info, to make a study out of it. Second, the study pointed out that they tried to match neighborhoods, economics of the family's, ect.., this to me states that the uninsured, as an average, had just as much access to insurance as those who took advantage. Dr. Fizan Abdullah came to the conclusion that if more children were insured, less would die. I know I am not a doctor and I don't even play one on TV, but I drew a very different conclusion from the study. I think parental involvement plays a much bigger role in the health of a child and that insurance is a byproduct of the parents concern for there children. An exaggeration, to prove my point would be something like saying, if your son Brian's, father, was put in charge of his health care, then because of Brian's health problems, as a child, the chances are that Brian would have had 60% less chance of survival, because Brian's father was just not really concerned with Brian's health. As described in the article, this study was about as useful as studying how many colds children get on a farm and compare it to how many colds children get in urban settings and concluding that all children need to move to the farm, to avoid catching a cold. I had a third and forth point, but I started to get angry. Not at you, but the writer of this article and those who did the study. So I stopped, found my quiet spot and decided to go file papers, so I can get a government grant, to study why kids on farms don't get a cold as often as kids in New York City. Love yah, bro.

In my own life, the irony is that for me, the bigger the screen, the better. What struck me as odd, is how the article pointed out that the category is a long time off, if at all. why would you have a problem with a category the describes the product?

I think we all lose sight of the big question-will the US government take over of health care improve the health of it's people?On this I can agree with President Obama (feel free to mark it on your calender, the day the boyando agreed with President Obama), we are a different country than any other country on the earth. We have different lifestyles, different work ethics, different personal goals and different outcomes from the efforts that we put into our everyday lives. I am not saying that Europeans and Canadians are not happy with their lifestyles. I could argue that they can not afford that lifestyle much longer, but really, that is none of my business. I am questioning if we would be happier and healthier with their lifestyle, being administered by the US government? I think you know my answer. So how do we help out people like HEP? We are not without compassion, as a country. Even we evil conservatives don't want to see anyone suffer. The answer will always be grow the economy, not the government. At 5% unemployment, HEP and people like him (I include myself in this group, being a employee, and not an employer) have options. At 10% unemployment, we do not. At 10%, we tend to do what we can, just to hold onto what we got. At 5% job hopping is away to make more money and/or more benefits, depending on what you ambitions are. At 10%, your only option, with out much exaggeration, is to get a government job. There will always be people who will be busy pointing out the problems that will exist, until the second coming of Christ. And these same people will look for the government to solve these problems. So once more, I throw down the gauntlet. Show me were the US government has had a long term, positive affect, on these problems? b

Peoples, let us not lose focus. One call to the "family" over in Italy and pod-a-bing pod-a-boom, no problem. Google, there will be no fee for the service that I am about to perform for you. All I ask, is that some day I may come to you asking for a favor. I think that you can see that this is an offer you can not refuse. Jimmy "the milk toast" Romano (aka boyando)

What he might be saying is, goverments, and more specifically, the US government is not really that interested in outcome, but focus on governing. And they are certainly not concerned with saving money.The problem starts, when governments decide they can run things better than the private sector. There motivating factor, is power, not compassion, as you have been led to believe. The un-official montra of the Democratic party and rino's alike, is "We have to do something", which does sound like there is a clear concern for the problem. What they are really saying is "I am going to take money from the rich, then the middle class and any were else I can get it (if the poor had any money, they would get it there too), to work on the problem. But don't ask for the problem to be solved. That would put people out of work". Working for the government, of coarse. This may sound like a far reaching statement, so I challenge you to show me were I am wrong. b

I would rather walk with it.

I believe that it is I who owe you an apology, for being to eager to agree with you and not understanding your full point.Having said that, I would disagree with your statement, because society is a product of individuals, all with different morals, but coming together on some moral issues. Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We still agree that the government should not dictate what the morals of any society should be, but service the true needs of a society, including it's morals, while not forgetting the rights of the individual. b