Profile

Scrapbook photo 1
Scrapbook photo 2
Scrapbook photo 3
Scrapbook photo 4
Dawnmarie Oyler
181 followers|89,594 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
"The Mad Hater's Tea Party throws everything overboard, not just the tea. The captain, the crew, the ships dog... Pirates could hardly do worse.

It seems especially perverse that people purporting to be Christian, a religion that vows to help the poor and heal the sick, should be so violently against helping the poor and healing the sick."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-idle/america-the-half-beautiful_b_4099243.html
3
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
A cool picture I took yesterday on a walk.   Love how it looks like the leaf is walking with me.
2
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
I see lots of commentary in the news about what Repbulicans need to do with their party. Here's my 2 cents: I think part of the struggle is how do I protect my beliefs while still allowing someone else to live by different beliefs. I choose to live by my own beliefs, but I don't want to be forced to live by someone elses, so I often vote more liberal to protect my right to continue to live by my own beliefs. I've always thought of myself as moderate, but the current repub platform makes me seem far left. I find I don't really relate to the tea party or the far left. I look for the middle, for tolerance, for cooperation. I didn't see any of that from the tea party. Until the repubs can retake their party from the extremes, they have lost moderate independents like myself.

Also, it's time for Repubs to stop calling this a Christian nation.   It's not.  And our founding fathers didn't intend it to be.  They created a nation where you were free to be a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim, an Atheist, a Druid, or whatever you wanted to be.  They specifically didn't want this to be a "Christian" nation.   The motto on our money was "Out of many, one" until the '50s when it was changed to "In God we trust."  That's around the same time that "under God" was added to the pledge of allegience.   We aren't a Christian nation.   It's not wrong to be a Christian, but it is wrong to try to make America be Christian.   That's a choice each individual needs to be free to make for themselves.
4
1
Dawnmarie Oyler's profile photoJohn Evans's profile photoChristopher Lamke's profile photo
7 comments
 
+Christopher Lamke  Thanks - feel free to share.   I doubt there's a republican who will listen though. :-)
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
Anyone have a photo sharing site they like?   I'm looking for something easy to use, that I can share an album via email link and not have the receiver have to join G+,  that can specify who can see the picture ( I sometimes want to limit and sometimes am open to sharing via link, I want to choose based on the album).

I'm fed up with Picasa as now you can only share through G+.  There's no longer a share via email option.  I'm one of those people that doesn't want every single thing in my life linked together.   I like some separation.

So - anyone have a suggestion, on a site to check out?
1
Eric Klanderman's profile photo
 
Hi Dawnmarie - love Shutterfly
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
This is a true example of the "nanny state" phrase I see thrown around so much.  Mothers should have a choice.  I know many of you will quote studies,but those studies are not perfect and honestly the science does not support most of the claims about breastfeeding.  First of all, the studies are volunteer, meaning you get who wants to participate.  Typically, most of the breastfeeding women in the studies have completed a higher level of education and are in a higher socioeconomic class.  The formula feeding women in the studies typically are working women who needed to quickly go back to work and free formula is a blessing for them. This makes it very difficult to correct even for socioeconomic bias.  And it's impossible currently to correct for genetic factors.  I've read comments from several scientists (sorry,can't find the links at the moment, will have to look for them) who believe that the difference between breastfeeding and formula feeding would be very small if we could accurately correct for genetics and socioeconomic factors.  The point is, the science doesn't support the "breast is best" viewpoint.  

The biggest issue here  is choice.  Mom's should not be made to feel like horrible people because they make a choice that is best for them.  And the government has NO business interfering with that choice based on parenting trends.  And that's what this is really, a parenting trend.  

So all you old white men, stop telling me how to be a woman and a mom.  I won't tell you how to be a man or a dad.  Now stop trying to control me.
1
Alison Marlowe's profile photo
 
WTF?
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
I've spent some time writing out my thoughts on personhood and abortion.    I spent some time on why I think like I do, not to change anyone's mind but in the hopes that maybe we can learn to respect a different point of view.   

I end with this thought:  "One of the most basic in my opinion is the freedom to choose how to believe and to not have to live by another’s belief system.  That means that I have to allow others to live by belief systems that I don’t share.  So, if in your belief system, abortion is wrong, don’t have one.   But please, respect my right to believe differently.  Don’t use legislation to try to make me live according to your beliefs."

Please, feel free to have a respectful discussion. . . . Or to share if you'd like.
1
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
181 people
John Spade's profile photo

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
This was shared by a friend on FB and it sums up my feelings well.  I believe it was written by Brooke Wilson.

"People:

Before you begin your rant about how terrible everyone in Washington is, make sure you get the facts straight.

This is NOT about the President, who is asking Congress to pay for expenses they've already approved, including the Affordable Care Act, which was approved by two houses of Congress, signed into law, upheld by the Supreme Court, and, when made into a central issue of the 2012 election, was not overturned by the voters.

This is NOT about the refusal of Democrats to compromise. Obamacare IS the compromise. It was the Republican counterproposal to the nationalized health care plan from the Clinton administration. That's why Mitt Romney pushed it through in Massachusetts (yes, the economist who wrote the Massachusetts plan said Romneycare is the same as Obamacare). It's a mandate for people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. Nothing could be more Republican. Many Democrats hate/d the Affordable Care Act because it didn't nationalize health care, but they . . . compromised . . . so 40 million more Americans, including people with pre-existing illnesses, could get health care. There's been no Republican counter-proposal because OBAMACARE IS THEIR PLAN. Obama adopted it because he thought they'd support their own plan. How crazy was that?

This is NOT about "Congress." The Senate -- which has brought the House resolution to the floor multiple times, and amended and approved the amended bill by majority vote -- has approved a "clean" funding resolution, but the Speaker of the House WILL NOT ALLOW THAT RESOLUTION TO COME TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE FOR A VOTE. Were it to be voted on in the House, there's a reasonable probability it would pass with support of Democratic members and a significant number of moderate Republicans.

Why won't the President and the Senate accept the Republican proposal to delay a year? Because it's already been delayed. The Republicans are trying to stall until after the 2014 elections, hoping to win both House and Senate so they can overturn the law. They also are terrified that once people sign up and get healthcare and like it, they'll think -- as they did with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security -- that it's a pretty good thing. THAT, Senator Cruz, is the real message of "Green Eggs and Ham," which you completely misunderstood.

This IS about a small group of about 30 legislative terrorists who would rather blow up the government than permit legislation they don't like, even when approved by majority vote, to be enacted. It's also about a Speaker of the House who will not permit a bill to come to the floor for a vote unless the terrorists approve.

This is really about whether we believe in democracy -- in majority rule -- or not. You don't get to wreck the country every time you don't get your way.

If all the Border Patrol officers -- who as of this morning are working without pay -- would go home, I wonder how long it would take the Senators from Texas to get the message?"
1
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
Absolutely
 
I've posted this before but it bears repeating.

I am an ally

#marriageequality #gaymarriage #gayrights  
1
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
Can I get an AMEN?
1
1
Alison Marlowe's profile photo
 
RAMEN
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
I’ve always loved trees.  So strong and stable, sturdy and dependable, silent.

 In the fall, they drop their leaves and throughout the winter they seem almost dead.   But in the spring, we see the bud of life they’ve been nurturing through the winter months begin to spring forth in new leaves and new growth. 

 In hard times, I’ve sat and leaned against them as I tried to find a solution to whatever problem was bothering me, cherishing their silence and lack of judgment.  In good times, I’ve enjoyed sitting beneath them with friends, enjoying their shade and beauty, feeling completely at peace with the world. 

Trees do so much for us.  They produce oxygen.  They clean the soil.  They help clean the air.  In the spring when they drop their seedlings, some stay close to the tree while some are carried by the wind to new places to put down their roots. Regardless of where that little seedling puts down its roots, its life came from that tree.   

The tree of life is a symbol I relate to.   It has different meanings for different people and cultures.   To me it symbolizes how everything in life is interconnected.  It reminds me that the spring always comes after the winter.  And it reminds me to have hope for the future.  
1
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
Okay, so I've been having a long discussion on the healthcare mandate on facebook.   I made this statement "you're already compelled to pay for things you don't want, social security, medicare, car insurance."  Which turned into people telling me that my analogy fails.   I wasn't necessarily trying to make a perfect analogy but for the sake of argument.  So read this exchange, and tell me - honestly, does my argument fail?  And really, suggestions on how I should have this conversation in the future.  I've obviously gone about it all wrong. :-)

So the argument was - you can hear it coming right - "well, I can choose not to have a car, and then I don't have to pay."

My response:  To me the analogy is still sound. Yes , you can choose not to have a car and therefore not need insurance. You can choose not to have life as well. I'd rather you didn't make that choice of course. :-) People who don't have insurance end up costing the rest of us in higher premiums and higher medical costs because we absorb the cost of their care which they will at some point in their life definitely need. Even the healthiest person can have an accident. And amazingly healthy appearing people have even had heart attacks. It's like driving a car without insurance, as long as you don't have an accident, you aren't contributing to the increased costs of everyone else. It's the same with health insurance, as long as you don't require care you aren't contributing to the cost of health insurance. But as soon as you have that accident, stroke, heart attack, cancer, a virus that turns into pneumonia because it wasn't treated, now you're the same as that car driver without insurance. That's one point of the individual mandate. Of course, that's not why the insurance companies wanted it, they want it because having healthy individuals in the pool off sets the costs of insuring the sick and helps maintain their profits. Our insurance system desperately needs reform but the insurance companies don't want that. They want to stay between me and my doctor and decide what care/ meds I should have without knowing anything about my medical history. They want to drop me if I get to be too costly and leave me unable to afford the care I need. They want to deny me coverage because I'm not perfectly healthy so that they can keep their costs low. In the end, they care about profits, not my health.

Their response:  "If I refuse healthcare, I add no cost to anyone, so the analogy fails."

My response: "No, The problem is that people don't refuse healthcare. That's a part of the problem. Our ER's are full of people who don't have insurance, that seek out care. It's easy to say you won't seek care, but until you are dying without insurance, you really don't know what you'll do. I know a number of people who didn't seek care at first because they didn't have insurance. They waited until it was life or death. I don't many people who would choose death rather than accept healthcare. Most people aren't wired that way."

Their response: "Yes.. the analogy fails. I have a choice to refuse healthcare or owning a car. If I don't own a car, I don't pay insurance. If I refuse healthcare, I still have to pay."

My response:  "You still have to pay because you still have a life which could require access to healthcare. You don't pay if you choose not to have a life. So the analogy is valid. Everyone keeps saying, if I don't have a car I don't pay. Yeah, if you don't have a life you don't pay. If you don't have car insurance, don't have a wreck, you haven't added cost either, but if you get caught, you'll pay a penalty. If you have a life and don't need to access healthcare, you don't add to the cost, but if you haven't bought insurance, yes you'll pay a penalty. And in both cases, when an accident (or unexpected illness) occurs, without insurance you add cost to the system. Is that mandate preferable? no, but the insurance companies demanded it in order to have the other reforms that were desperately needed. "

Their response:  "The analogy fails. I can have a life without healthcare"

My response:  "Technically - but most people don't choose that option when death seems possible. You can have a car without having an accident too."

Alright, someone help me out here with my logic dilemma.
1
Dawnmarie Oyler's profile photojohn sawyer's profile photo
4 comments
 
Well, that all depends on what you consider the dark side doesn't it. ;-)
Add a comment...

Dawnmarie Oyler

Shared publicly  - 
 
I'm looking at photo printers. Anyone have a suggestion of a nice, at home, not crazy expensive printer? Ideally, I'd like to print 12x12 but I'm sure that's out of my price range. I'll be happy with printing up to a 8.5 x 11 pic. Suggestions?
1
Jeanne Barnett's profile photo
 
In my experience, Epson has always printed the best color pics and HP the best b&w
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
181 people
John Spade's profile photo
Links
Contributor to
Story
Introduction
I love an intelligent conversation, beautiful scenery and fun people.  I enjoy escaping into a good book.   I think there should always be time for a beer with friends. 

I'm also a huge fan of SEC football, especially MSU and UGA!  Go DAWGS!!