foxbat

It doesn't surprise me. I recall when I had heart surgery that the bill was some ungodly amount before insurance and by the time insurance had done their part and the hospital had done its deductions and everything else, it ended up being easily manageable. It's been a long time, but I'll see if I can track down ballpark numbers to give an idea.

I thought it was going to be related to the old joke about something else that bears do in the woods. 😀

Source: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140 Also see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265234206_Sydney_Harbour_Sea_Level_Rise_Vulnerability_Studies

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Inspector Clouseau: Do you have a rheum? Munich Hotel Clerk: I do not know what a "rheum" is. Inspector Clouseau: [Checks his translation book] Zimmer. Munich Hotel Clerk: Ah, a room! Inspector Clouseau: That is what I have been saying, you idiot. A rheum. [gesturing to the hotel's government] Does your government bite? Munich Hotel Clerk: No. [Clouseau bends down to pet the small government; it immediately growls and bites him.] Inspector Clouseau: I thought you said your government did not bite! Munich Hotel Clerk: That is not my government.

I think you are completely proving my point from earlier ... you buried your lead with what is, in your words, a non-issue ... except that it is a very big issue for you apparently.

I will remind you that past actions many years ago do not exonerate a person who eventually engages in racist activity. http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us-world-news/racist-sword-killer-james-jackson-sentenced FTA: A white supremacist who killed a black man with a sword wanted to ignite a worldwide race war, a prosecutor told a judge who sentenced the man Wednesday to life in prison without parole. ... Jackson's attorney, Frederick Sosinsky, said his client had marched with family members to protest racial injustice, had served honorably alongside blacks in the military, and had never committed a crime before "the worst day of his life."

Saw an article earlier today talking about some of the folks that may be attached to the Sri Lanka bombing folks and the links to "rich families" is rearing its head again. Sounds like this ISIS stuff is going to have some al Qaiea -esque trapping as things play out. This is where you really need the network of allies ... that we have unfortunately been pushing away.

I see a VERY distinct difference though between Christianity and the "religious right." Christianity perhaps got lumped in in the response. The "religious right" deciding to push toward weaponizing religion in politics brought lots of backlash with it ... similar to what I was referring to in an above post. The Moral Majority push of folks claiming Christianity while also looking sideways at things that were pretty un-Christian. The danger of taking the moral high ground, especially with morality, is it puts one at a higher standard ... especially if condemnation is at play. It just doesn't work out to claim a religious superiority in looking at candidates and tearing down an opponent because they are divorced or pro-choice or have had an affair or cheated on their taxes and then look the other way and claim "I really didn't have a choice" when it's their own candidate. Many politicians from that religious right side of the aisle are more than happy to try to politicize that faith ... and that's where the backlash often comes from. Again, it's also very likely that Christianity gets caught up in that backlash too. When someone like State Rep. Stephanie Borowicz of Pennsylvania takes an opening prayer of a session, "coincidentally" on the day of the swearing in of the first Muslim woman in that chamber, and for all intents and purposes weaponizes it, it's going to draw backlash. The more that it becomes a rallying cry for why you don't even consider the other person, policies be dam*ed, the more it becomes subject to backlash. While backlash should probably be directed to the person, the problem is that the religion is the often used by the wielder as the authority of truth and direction. You'll hear such reasoning as, "That's not my law, but God's" as a way for someone to absolve themselves of being the target of backlash. "God says that gays shouldn't get marriage licenses, so don't blame me for not doing my job as the county clerk." When that tends to be the story line, then the religion tends to get the backlash too. BTW, the fact that we often talk about this idea of the religious right tells you just how much the idea of the religion has been co-opted, or hijacked if you prefer. There are LOTS of religious left people in the world. I'd venture a guess that there are easily as many religious left folks as there are religious right folks. But we don't often associate religion with the left. That issue that you mentioned about Trump and his Muslim ban stuff is in line with what I was talking about regarding the backlash. People see it as an attack on the religion and, whether they embrace Muslim or are otherwise indifferent too it, they are likely to provide support and positive affirmation. If someone is fat-shaming someone else, a by-stander might well offer support and non-condemnation of the heavy person, not necessarily in support of obesity, but in support of not supporting the attacking person's actions. I think the same may well be that, while more people may have a live-and-let-live attitude to various religions, it sometimes looks like much more of a "positive vibe" as part of the response to the attack. Note: The "you" above isn't meaning you, @Impartial_Observer, ... just a generic "you."

And the GOP knows theirs as well. And there are a whole bunch more of those six-in-ten white Protestants than there are of those four-in-ten Muslims. I still find it quite interesting that so much data analysis is taking place over what Obama said or is perceived to have said when the current President didn't mention Christians or Easter in his statement. Reminds me a lot about the analysis of Obama's golf game too.

I would disagree. Muslim just has more notoriety now, both positive and negative, because of the "newness" ... at least in the West and specifically the US, and coverage. There's a general disenfranchisement across the world of religion in general ... or perhaps more an issue of organized/structured/mainstream religion ... although religion of all marks is still holding its own fairly well. I don't see anything "hip" about the Muslim faith, but I think what you are seeing in perception of favorable coverage is potentially backlash to discriminatory actions domestically as directed to members of the Muslim faith. If you look at worship-place attacks in the past few years in the US, which ones have been specifically targeted against Christians vs. those that were specifically targeted against Jews, Muslims, Blacks, etc.? There were certainly a few, like the one in Texas, that occurred at a Christian church, but that turned out to be a driven by personal issues with a family member that spilled over to taking the lives of others. Faith, like many things, and the persecution of it in whole or by denomination happens globally ... and is also perceived as more or less than the norm often by the lenses in which it is viewed and by the backgrounds that we have grown up in and are exposed too. I don't see there being anything all that "hip" about the Muslim faith anymore so than when a new Kardashian love interest is introduced or emerges or gets coverage. It tends to be "hip" not always in its own right, but merely in the sense of the exposure to coverage that it receives.

Looking for Woundwort?

Because he's a secret Muslim and Christian hating? You SERIOUSLY believe that Obama has an anti-Christian agenda? For folks that claim that liberals are too sensitive and always looking for something, I think these kinds of FoxNews storylines show that sensitivity and flair for the dramatic plays across partisan lines.