What next?

[dchester]

I'm curious what people think Bush should do now that he's won. Also, what do you think he will do.

I think he will fire some cabinet members. Possibly we'll hear the typical line about how they are leaving to spend more time with their family, or possibly the tried and true "health concerns". I'm hoping Rumsfeld is gone real soon. I'd really like to see Powell take over Defense.

One thing I think Bush ought to do, is to work to heal some of the divisions in the country (and the Congress). It should be a little easier to do with Daschel leaving the Senate.

Something that could make this hard will be when the next Supreme Court nomination comes up (Rehnquist doesn't look like he'll last much longer). Look for all the assorted nuts to try to crucify any nominee that has ever expressed an opinion on any subject.

In any case, it's going to be an interesting four years. What do others think?
________
Yamaha PSR-S500 specifications (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_PSR-S500)

[runnerone]

I believe, and hope that he is going to try and mend some fences, inside and outside the country. I believe he and Kerry have already started the healing process in the post election press releases. Kerry has been very gracious in his defeat and Bush in his own Bushism ways has tried to pass on his congratulations to the Kerry camp for a well run campaign and for raising many important issues facing the world and our country today.
I am very pleased that Bush was elected, I am not a huge Bush fan, but between the two, I truely believe the country made the right call.

[bideau]

I'll try to take a reasonable stab at this.

First, it should be no surprise to anyone who's read many of my posts that gay rights is extremely important to me. Having a member of my family that's gay makes it extremely difficult to listen to so much bigotry based in religious dogma. I sincerely hope that Bush drops his campaign to write bigotry into the constitution. It's very painful when someone I love is labeled and set aside and told that they can't have the same rights as most other Americans. There are too many people in this country who are spending too much time worrying about how other people live their lives instead of worrying about themselves.

I would hope that his administration can figure out an exit strategy for Iraq, but on this I don't have alot of hope. I'm not sure he's capable of mending international relations. I truly hope that four years from now, we're out of Iraq and Bush can look at us and say I told you so.

I'm not one of those who's overly concerned about the supreme court. I've always been a believer that once a justice puts on that robe, that ideology takes a back seat. There's been many cases of both liberal and conservative justices that make rulings that go against what their percieved beliefs are. There's something about that robe that makes the justice assume the massive responsibility of protecting the constitution.

I hope Bush can figure out a way to stop the drain of jobs that are going overseas. As an engineer working for a company with many interests in India, I and my peers feel a constant threat that our position will be transferred. Somehow, we must protect American jobs.

Those are a few things. All I can do is hope for the best and continue to make my voice heard.

[Annihilus]

I'm with you on most of those points Bid.

As far as gay rights go, I think that neither the Republicans NOR the Democrats have it right. The time will come when being gay is not the issue that it is today and this period of time in history will be looked back upon the same way slavery is seen now (only 150 years ago slavery was still accepted - that's NOT a long time in the grand scheme of things). A lot of people don't think this could ever happen, but I can see it clear as day. I'm not saying it will be soon - but maybe as near as when our kids are the age when their peers are running for President.

Losing jobs overseas is a no-brainer - gotta work on that.

Exit strategy for Iraq is important too. Just as important as finding Bin Laden and putting the hammer down on asses like him and Al Zarqawi (sp?).

I'm not concerned about the Supreme Court either.

The one thing I disagree with you on is how we are perceived by other countries when it comes to the war on terror. I don't care what they think - they're either with us or not. We can mend relations later once (if) the threat to Americans has waned.

That being said, I am well aware of the perceptions of the U.S. right now, and I don't plan on leaving the country any time soon.

[townes]

What's next?????????


The american people have spoken, and they have supported the following policies.

NO further stem cell research because of religious beliefs.

More tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% and less services to the neediest americans.

More war in the middle east.

Making abortion illegal.

No to environmental protection, Yes to further degradation of the ennvironment for the benefit of corporations.

Yes to No-Bid contracts for Halliburton and the other major defense contractors.

Yes to the closing of public schools and subsidies for religious schools.

Yes to the privatization of social security.

Yes to outsourcing jobs.

No to re-importation of cheaper medication.

Yes to higher deficits.

No to basic human rights for gays and lesbians.


And a great big "GO F*CK YOURSELF" to all of us on the left and the rest of the world.




Everyone who voted for Bush voted for the above, regardless of any excuses they wish to make about their vote.

The Republicans own this country. It's their President, their Senate, their Congress, their statehouses, and their problem. Everything that happens is their responsibility. If Bo Deitl gets his "great big mushroom cloud over Manhattan" then it's their goddamn fault.

George Bush can kiss my ass when it comes to "healing" the division in this country. He doesn't have my support and he never will. And, although that won't shock or bother anyone, it may help to know that i spoke with several moderate young moms this morning who just happened to say exactly the same thing. Republicans have zero respect or consideration for the views of the left, and they are now going to get the same absolute lack of respect, consideration and support right back.

Republicans have deemed the left irrelevant and insignificant, and they should expect no support or conciliation from us. We are the disnfranchised opposition, not a part of america, and I hope everyone on the left refuses to accept or go along with any of the garbage about reconciliation, because it's just lip service until they start shoving their nasty right wing policies down our throats again.


The blood of every soldier and civilian who dies in Iraq is now on the hands of everyone who supported the policies of this administration.

Good luck with your country republicans, you're going to need it.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by townes
What's next?????????


The american people have spoken, and they have supported the following policies.

NO further stem cell research because of religious beliefs.

More tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% and less services to the neediest americans.

More war in the middle east.

Making abortion illegal.

No to environmental protection, Yes to further degradation of the ennvironment for the benefit of corporations.

Yes to No-Bid contracts for Halliburton and the other major defense contractors.

Yes to the closing of public schools and subsidies for religious schools.

Yes to the privatization of social security.

Yes to outsourcing jobs.

No to re-importation of cheaper medication.

Yes to higher deficits.

No to basic human rights for gays and lesbians.


And a great big "GO F*CK YOURSELF" to all of us on the left and the rest of the world.




Everyone who voted for Bush voted for the above, regardless of any excuses they wish to make about their vote.

The Republicans own this country. It's their President, their Senate, their Congress, their statehouses, and their problem. Everything that happens is their responsibility. If Bo Deitl gets his "great big mushroom cloud over Manhattan" then it's their goddamn fault.

George Bush can kiss my ass when it comes to "healing" the division in this country. He doesn't have my support and he never will. And, although that won't shock or bother anyone, it may help to know that i spoke with several moderate young moms this morning who just happened to say exactly the same thing. Republicans have zero respect or consideration for the views of the left, and they are now going to get the same absolute lack of respect, consideration and support right back.

Republicans have deemed the left irrelevant and insignificant, and they should expect no support or conciliation from us. We are the disnfranchised opposition, not a part of america, and I hope everyone on the left refuses to accept or go along with any of the garbage about reconciliation, because it's just lip service until they start shoving their nasty right wing policies down our throats again.


The blood of every soldier and civilian who dies in Iraq is now on the hands of everyone who supported the policies of this administration.

Good luck with your country republicans, you're going to need it.

So you're saying you voted for Kerry???

[townes]

I'm saying that it's your country, do with it what you want, you were going to anyways. Those of us on the left are no longer a part of this country. Our views don't matter and we have absolutely no responsibility for anything that happens in this great big banana republic.

Democracy is DEAD.

RIP

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by townes
I'm saying that it's your country, do with it what you want, you were going to anyways. Those of us on the left are no longer a part of this country. Our views don't matter and we have absolutely no responsibility for anything that happens in this great big banana republic.

Democracy is DEAD.

RIP

I thank God that not all Democrats are like you and Michael Moore.

If you truly feel the way you stated above, you know what I think? Don't go away mad. Just go away. Tell us how your new home country is when you get there.

That sounds rude - but really. If you have no room for compromise, then I really don't have the time to listen to you. The reason this country is so polarized is because of people like you who refuse to listen to anyone else. The only way either party is going to change is if people are willing to meet in the middle.

Like they were discussing on the Daily Show last night: there is a reason that the Democrats lost the race and maybe you need to take a look at your platform and see what's out of whack about it. Or not - if you want to keep losing elections.

What's that old saying: It's not you, it's the rest of the world.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by townes
I'm saying that it's your country, do with it what you want, you were going to anyways. Those of us on the left are no longer a part of this country. Our views don't matter and we have absolutely no responsibility for anything that happens in this great big banana republic.

Democracy is DEAD.

RIP


Democracy dead? Gee, I could have sworn there was an election recently. I musta been dreaming.

[townes]

What a load of BS, republicans keep stealing elections and cramming their christian right wing sh*t down our throats, then get upset when we tell you we don't like the taste of it.

There is no room for compromise, there is your side and my side. Your side is in power and runs the whole show. You are responsible for whatever happens and I have no intention of signing off on your right wing christian crap.

Your country.

Your government.

Your responsibility.

Those of us who oppose war, oppose higher deficits, support stem cell research, and support basic human rights for everone have NO say in what happens.

No say, no responsibility.

There is no middle ground, George Bush and his nanny Dick erased it by behaving as though they had a mandate in their first term.

You don't like it? Tough ****, i don't like or agree with your side either, and that's where we stand today, and for the future.

Don't expect conciliation, it's not coming.

You should understand this, it's exactly how the right behaved throughout the Clinton years, or have you forgotten that witchhunt?

[townes]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
Democracy dead? Gee, I could have sworn there was an election recently. I musta been dreaming.

Isn't that what Baghdad Bob said right after Saddam pulled 99.9% in the last Iraqui election?

[pookie]

You are REALLY REALLY creepy townes, you know that?

[townes]

Originally posted by pookie
You are REALLY REALLY creepy townes, you know that?

The feeling is completely mutual.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
What a load of BS, republicans keep stealing elections and cramming their christian right wing sh*t down our throats, then get upset when we tell you we don't like the taste of it. townes, a serious question.

Did you see or hear something that led you to believe this election was stolen, or is this an assumption you are making based upon what seems to be (from your point of view) an unlikely result?

I'm geniunely curious why you're saying the election was stolen.
________
vapormatic (http://www.vaporshop.com/vapormatic-vaporizer.html)

[pookie]

Originally posted by townes
The feeling is completely mutual.

So you feel as though you are creepy as well? You've got explosive axe murderer written all over you sir. Take a vacation to Nicaragua or Panama or some country that is better than this POS that you live in.

[townes]

First-the electronic voting machines provided by stalwart Bush supporters Diebold.

Second-it was obvious to everyone watching that the turnout was massive, yet those numbers aren't reflected in the final vote count.

Regardless, dchester, of whether they stole it or not, the reality is that republicans do not want everyone to vote, if they di we wouldn't be having the problems we keep having.

I'm not going to bother banging on the "stolen election" drum because i can't prove it. However, the fact remains that everyone on the left has been completely disenfranchised form decision making in this country. Stem cell research, a huge issue to me, is done, stopped dead in it's tracks by Bush supporters. More war in the middle east is on it's way, as is a draft. Drug companies are going to keep gouging all of us. Gays and lesbians are goiun g to continue being denied basic civil rights, and a woman's right to choose is as good as gone. I care deeply about all these issues and everone who believes in the same things i do is going to have ZERO say in these matters. Now right winger want to say "let's all get along, we're all americans," and I'm not having anything to do with the complicity that entails. It's the republicans country, they can rename it whatever they choose. he's not my president and i'm no longer an american, because you have to be a republican to be a "true american." Just ask Dick Cheney if you don't believe me.

I'm the opposition, and there are millions and milliond and millions more who feel exactly like i do.



All the things i listed earlier are what the republicans who voted for Bush wanted, and i want no part of that "amercia."

[townes]

Originally posted by pookie
So you feel as though you are creepy as well? You've got explosive axe murderer written all over you sir. Take a vacation to Nicaragua or Panama or some country that is better than this POS that you live in.

Don't understand the term "the feeling is mutual," eh.


You support faith over science, war over peace, the rich over the poor, and bigotry over human rights. If opposing your beliefs makes me "creepy" then i'll wear label that proudly.

[pookie]

Originally posted by townes
Don't understand the term "the feeling is mutual," eh.


You support faith over science, war over peace, the rich over the poor, and bigotry over human rights. If opposing your beliefs makes me "creepy" then i'll wear label that proudly.

I actually don't support any faith. And I think that Bush bringing religion into any facet of his job is wrong.

War over peace? Where'd you get that ASSumption?

Rich over poor.... Well, I sure wish I were rich.

Regardless of all this, you are some type of extremist that has no idea what my beliefs are. Democrat, republican? Who cares? You are creepy.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
I'm not going to bother banging on the "stolen election" drum because i can't prove it. However, the fact remains that everyone on the left has been completely disenfranchised form decision making in this country. OK, here is my next question(s).

I'm trying to understand what you are getting at by saying you are disenfranchised. Is that simply because your candidate lost, or was there something unique about this particular loss? Where republicans disenfranchised when Clinton or Carter was President? I'm confused by what you really mean (other than you're somewhat disapointed that Kerry lost).
________
Tyros 2 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Tyros_2)

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
What's next?????????


The american people have spoken, and they have supported the following policies.
Oh, goody! A classic townsie rant. We were doing so well agreeing on issues, too, townes!

NO further stem cell research because of religious beliefs.
It was banned? How did I miss that?

How about an overview:

1. One kind of stem cell research was limited: research on NEW lines of EMBRYONIC stem cells.

2. Research on the above was NOT limited - it will just not be federally funded. Proponents of such research should be happier post-election than they were before it, as California passed prop 71 and will proceed with $3 Billion funding towards this effort.

3. Of the 3 major divisions of stem cell research, 2 kinds (adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells) have provided cures to humans for various conditions. A little more than 300,000 humans, in fact. 1 kind (embryonic stem cells) have provided ZERO. It has, however, resulted in a number of host-rejections and tumor developments in human patients.

More tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% and less services to the neediest americans.
Tax breaks for everyone, actually, but yes, the top 1% got the most of it.

More war in the middle east.
I suppose, but Kerry would have had to fight this, too. Whatever you think of Iraq, we're there now, we really can't just leave.

Making abortion illegal.
As Kerry said: "Would that it were, would that it were." Sadly, this is very unlikely to happen.

No to environmental protection, Yes to further degradation of the ennvironment for the benefit of corporations.
You got this right. While I think Bush was on the right track with the methodology of his environmental plan, the restrictions were far too lenient.

Yes to No-Bid contracts for Halliburton and the other major defense contractors.
If you can name even one other company who could do what Halliburton is doing in Iraq, consider your complaint lodged. But Halliburton has been getting these contracts on a no-bid basis for decades, because they are the only American company who can do it.

Yes to the closing of public schools and subsidies for religious schools.
Yes, because public schools all around the country are closing their doors! :rolleyes: And religious schools are ROLLING in federal funding. Again, I must have missed some important newsbriefs.
Full disclosure. I'm in the process of starting a charter school, and a significant portion of my practice is focused on school law (representing school districts) and NCLB. So try me on this one, hoss.

Yes to the privatization of social security.
If we can figure out a way to make it workable, I'm all in favor of trying to grow this money at more than 2%.

Yes to outsourcing jobs.
Good. The sooner America wises up and actually realizes it has to compete with the rest of the world, the better. In any case, we should be striving to get away from having too many manufacturing jobs in this country anyway.

No to re-importation of cheaper medication.
I'm with you here, townsie. BOOOO! HISSS! On the other hand, I'm all for the tort reforms that Bush keeps espousing. But we're going to need more than that to bring Health care costs down. But again, there's a reason its such a big issue - it's expensive because it's a) very valuable (invaluable?); and b) expensive to provide. It's also not a right. But I agree that we should work on trying to find a way to make it more affordable.

Yes to higher deficits.
Huzzah! Deficits are good for the economy. The national debt is about $7.4 trillion, which is a big number. But the GDP is $11 trillion. So the national debt, while huge, is essentially the equivalent of a $74,000 mortgage for a guy making $110,000/year. Not really such a big deal.

No to basic human rights for gays and lesbians.
Whoa, I really missed a memo here. What basic human rights are being denied them? Can they not earn a fair wage? Attend school? Raise a family, bear children? Adopt children? Oh, you mean attaching the word "marriage" to their relationship. I'm not sure that's a "basic human right," hoss.

And a great big "GO F*CK YOURSELF" to all of us on the left and the rest of the world.
I'm not sure about that...

Everyone who voted for Bush voted for the above, regardless of any excuses they wish to make about their vote.

The Republicans own this country. It's their President, their Senate, their Congress, their statehouses, and their problem. Everything that happens is their responsibility. If Bo Deitl gets his "great big mushroom cloud over Manhattan" then it's their goddamn fault.

George Bush can kiss my ass when it comes to "healing" the division in this country. He doesn't have my support and he never will. And, although that won't shock or bother anyone, it may help to know that i spoke with several moderate young moms this morning who just happened to say exactly the same thing. Republicans have zero respect or consideration for the views of the left, and they are now going to get the same absolute lack of respect, consideration and support right back.
Surely you jest. Because there's so much consideration and tolerance of the views of the right from the left? I must have been imagining all the comments about the "hicks and idiots" determining the direction of the country, the links purporting to show that the average IQ in Bush states was way below the average IQ in Kerry states, etc.

Republicans have deemed the left irrelevant and insignificant, and they should expect no support or conciliation from us. We are the disnfranchised opposition, not a part of america, and I hope everyone on the left refuses to accept or go along with any of the garbage about reconciliation, because it's just lip service until they start shoving their nasty right wing policies down our throats again.
Townes, surely you understand that from your vantagepoint, the middle of the road is right-wing, right? And look, Clinton HAD to be conciliatory. He had a republican Congress. Bush does not. He will do what he thinks is right, same as Clinton would have done if he had had a Democratic Congress.

The blood of every soldier and civilian who dies in Iraq is now on the hands of everyone who supported the policies of this administration.Fact. The blood of every soldier and civilian casualty is on the hands of the commander in chief and the country who placed him in power. It had better be worth it. And the only way to make it worth it is to work hard to install a real democracy with respect for human life and human rights. It would be ideal if it also became, down the road, a secondary place to put military bases in the ME, because the ones we have in Saudi are preventing us from dealing with them, a serious source of terrorism.

Good luck with your country republicans, you're going to need it. Thanks. Seriously, though, townes, you need to open your mind a little bit more. You're a bright guy, but I'm quite certain that you're not correct on 100% of these issues, but you ARE quite unwilling to admit that possibility or really hear the other side.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
Second-it was obvious to everyone watching that the turnout was massive, yet those numbers aren't reflected in the final vote count.
Um, yes they are. What part of "record turn out, 15 million more votes than in 2000" is confusing to you?

I'm not going to bother banging on the "stolen election" drum because i can't prove it. However, the fact remains that everyone on the left has been completely disenfranchised form decision making in this country. Stem cell research, a huge issue to me, is done, stopped dead in it's tracks by Bush supporters. More war in the middle east is on it's way, as is a draft. Drug companies are going to keep gouging all of us. Gays and lesbians are goiun g to continue being denied basic civil rights, and a woman's right to choose is as good as gone. I care deeply about all these issues and everone who believes in the same things i do is going to have ZERO say in these matters. Now right winger want to say "let's all get along, we're all americans," and I'm not having anything to do with the complicity that entails. It's the republicans country, they can rename it whatever they choose. he's not my president and i'm no longer an american, because you have to be a republican to be a "true american." Just ask Dick Cheney if you don't believe me.

I'm the opposition, and there are millions and milliond and millions more who feel exactly like i do.

All the things i listed earlier are what the republicans who voted for Bush wanted, and i want no part of that "amercia." [/QUOTE] Townes - understand that I like you from what I've seen online, and I say this with a great deal of affection: If you really feel that way, and you want no part of America, by all means move.

By that I don't mean "love it or leave it." I mean that there are many countries around the world that are much as you describe. You preach open mindedness, tolerance of other viewpoints, etc. Yet you insist on remaining a citizen of the United States and trying to make it exactly like Amsterdam, France, whatever your pleasure might be. Leave it alone and quit b!tching. Vote with your feet, and leave us to our budding misery.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by townes
Your country.

Your government.

Your responsibility.



All I hear is blah blah blah. You're as bad as Rush Limbaugh.

You never did say which country you were moving too - be sure to leave us your forwarding address on the way out so I can send you a Christmas card.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

For the rest of the people here, I hope you haven't been drinking Michael Moore's kool-aid.

You know, it's funny townes. Most Republicans aren't right-wing nazi's just like most Democrats aren't left-wing hippies. You want to know what you sound like to us rational thinking people further to the right on the political spectrum than you are? You know how spewing venom like that makes me want to react?

No offense to Bideau and my Mom.

[Ballbustah]

I bet Bush goes after one more Middle East Country.
Maybe Egypt cause it doesn't have much oil.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I bet Bush goes after one more Middle East Country.
Maybe Egypt cause it doesn't have much oil.

He might.

Iran comes to mind.

Something tells me though that most of those countries won't have the stones to fvck with W. or the U.S. again.

We just need to get Bin Laden now.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I bet Bush goes after one more Middle East Country.
Maybe Egypt cause it doesn't have much oil. Could you elaborate on why you think Bush would want to attack Egypt? Aren't they a friendly country that we give lots of foreign aid to?
________
iolite vaporizer (http://iolitevaporizer.net/)

[dchester]

Originally posted by Annihilus
He might.

Iran comes to mind.

Something tells me though that most of those countries won't have the stones to fvck with W. or the U.S. again.

We just need to get Bin Laden now. Iran would make some sense, although I'm actually enjoying (at least a little) the current situation where Europe keeps telling Iran to stop building nukes, and Iran keeps telling them to F off. At some point Europe (or the UN) will probably come to the US to ask us to enforce some type of action against Iran.
________
hot box vaporizers (http://hotboxvaporizers.com)

[Ballbustah]

Just because....

[spiderman]

Originally posted by townes
However, the fact remains that everyone on the left has been completely disenfranchised form decision making in this country.

This statement kills me. I'm so sick of hearing about you people being disenfranchised that I could puke. Here are some facts for you to ponder on...

1992 Presidential Election

Clinton 44,909,326 (43%)
Bush 39,103,882 (37.5%)
Perot 19,741,657 (19%)
Other 670,149 (.5%)

2004 Presidential Election

Bush 59,108,395 (51.5%)
Kerry 55,554,114 (48%)
Nader 395,871 (.5%)

So after the 1992 election a whopping 57% of the American citizens who voted were disenfranchised, meaning that they didn't want Bill Clinton as their President. Yet they still had to accept him as such. You could have made an argument then, (I'm sure you weren't) but you can't now.

Gimme a break. The people got who they wanted, and they aren't buying what your selling. Try and do a better job of selling as opposed to being such a poor loser, and an uncooperative ass. So what you're saying is that we all (as a country) have to suffer because you didn't get your way. You remind me of my daughter when I tell her that she can't go outside after dinner.

Quit pouting.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Just because.... Thanks for clearing that up. I have a much better idea of where you are coming from now.
:)
________
buy silver surfer vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/silver-surfer-vaporizer.html)

[Ballbustah]

George Bush is a monkey faced dumb dumb....


Originally posted by spiderman
This statement kills me. I'm so sick of hearing about you people being disenfranchised that I could puke. Here are some facts for you to ponder on...

1992 Presidential Election

Clinton 44,909,326 (43%)
Bush 39,103,882 (37.5%)
Perot 19,741,657 (19%)
Other 670,149 (.5%)

2004 Presidential Election

Bush 59,108,395 (51.5%)
Kerry 55,554,114 (48%)
Nader 395,871 (.5%)

So after the 1992 election a whopping 57% of the American citizens who voted were disenfranchised, meaning that they didn't want Bill Clinton as their President. Yet they still had to accept him as such. You could have made an argument then, (I'm sure you weren't) but you can't now.

Gimme a break. The people got who they wanted, and they aren't buying what your selling. Try and do a better job of selling as opposed to being such a poor loser, and an uncooperative ass. So what you're saying is that we all (as a country) have to suffer because you didn't get your way. You remind me of my daughter when I tell her that she can't go outside after dinner.

Quit pouting.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
George Bush is a monkey faced dumb dumb.... This is that nuanced, two-sided posting you're espousing? ;)

BTW, Bush's IQ is undisclosed, but one source (who is apparently trained for this sort of thing) who looked at many of his speeches, recognition patterns, etc., pegged it at about 115 ish. That's about what I would have guessed - somewhat above average, but not a brain surgeon by any stretch. Smarter than you're average person, dumber than your average politician.

But he does obviously have some learning disabilities, and could use some speech therapy.

[Pats247]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
George Bush is a monkey faced dumb dumb....

Kerry should have pointed that out during the campaign, he might have picked up enough votes to put him over the top.

[Ballbustah]

My IQ is higher than Bushies....

I feel very intelligent right now.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
George Bush is a monkey faced dumb dumb.... Originally posted by Pats247
Kerry should have pointed that out during the campaign, he might have picked up enough votes to put him over the top. ROFL
________
Voyager (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mercury_Voyager)

[Annihilus]

I feel bad about the hippy comments above, so in the interests of equal time I give you the following picture of some british tabloids.

Looks like you've got a place to move to, townes.

[Spinal Tap]

So the Brits think we're dumb.........................next :cool:

[dchester]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
So the Brits think we're dumb.........................next :cool: Well their media does anyways. Come to think of it, doesn't most of our media feel the same way?
;)
________
ios games (http://macgame.org)

[Ballbustah]

Most of the entire world thinks we are dumb for re-electing Bushy....

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Most of the entire world thinks we are dumb for re-electing Bushy....

Yup, and most of the entire world is still about 50 years behind the United States. Real dumb, aren't we.

[Ballbustah]

Actually with our born again Christian President we are the heavy favorites to drag 50 years behind the rest of the world.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Actually with our born again Christian President we are the heavy favorites to drag 50 years behind the rest of the world.

doom and gloom bustah. chin up man!

[jim_vh]

Originally posted by dchester
I'm curious what people think Bush should do now that he's won. Also, what do you think he will do.


i just hope the country still exists as a democracy after w's first 4 disasterous years.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by jim_vh
i just hope the country still exists as a democracy after w's first 4 disasterous years.

Its not a democracy now, nor has it ever been.

[townes]

Well well well, what have we got here? Leave for a few hours and all hell breaks loose.

What to start with?

Dchester-disenfranchised. By this I mean that the left has absolutely zero say in what goes on in this country. Far right wing republican administration, republican senate, far right wing republican house, and a right wing Supreme Court. Add to this leaders of each of those entities who completely shut out the left and moderates and go about business as though they had a mandate from a right wing GOD. The result is a country whose policies are so skewed to the right that it's not even recognizable in relation to the values that i believe this country was supposed to be about. This is why I say, to all those who support George Bush-Your country, your leaders, your policies, your responsibility. I don't agree with anything they are doing, i believe they are perverting democracy and destroying it in the process.

This country is supposed to stand for freedom and democracy, and this government stands for neither. They suppress democracy at every turn by making it as difficult as possible for people to vote. It's a simple goddamn process, and my state has it right-you can register election day and there are paper ballots and plenty of accessible polling stations. There is no excuse whatsoever for the massive election fraud and incompetence we witnness in each election, and there is no question who is blocking voters from participating.

As for freedom-???????This country has turned into the rogue nation that simply does what it wants, and ignores the rest of the world, which is why we are absolutely hated around the world. America disgraced itself this week, and everyone knows it but us. We invade other countries without reason, slaughtering their population for neo-con wet dreams, and then make up reasons for our actions after the fact. We support tyrannical regimes where we see fit (e.g.. saudi arabia, Pakistan, egypt) and mock long time democratic allies because they don't support our militaristic excursions.


I believe in an america that sets the example for democracy, not the one that invades other nations unilaterally, ignores the Geneva Convention, and espouses torture and executes prisoners summarily.Anyone who says that we haven't been behaving this way hasn't been paying attention.

This country is, and has been, on the wrong track for the past four years, and now we are faced with four more years of the same right wing crap, and i'm not going along with the idea that those who oppose that direction should sit idly by and sing kumbaya with those of who do.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
This country is, and has been, on the wrong track for the past four years, and now we are faced with four more years of the same right wing crap, and i'm not going along with the idea that those who oppose that direction should sit idly by and sing kumbaya with those of who do. If Bush were to get rid of Ashcroft as Attorney General, would that do anything to make the left wing feel better? BTW, I'm not advocating that Bush do this, but I've been hearing rumors that it is being considered. I'm just curious if an olive branch like this would really help mend any fences.
________
aromed vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/aromed-vaporizer.html)

[bideau]

Originally posted by dchester
If Bush were to get rid of Ashcroft as Attorney General, would that do anything to make the left wing feel better? BTW, I'm not advocating that Bush do this, but I've been hearing rumors that it is being considered. I'm just curious if an olive branch like this would really help mend any fences.

I've heard Ashcroft, Rice and Powell. I think Rice and Powell want to move on. I'd be happy if Ashcroft and Rumsfeld went. But Rumsfeld is the third head in the power structure, so that won't happen.

[townes]

Part two-Flagg-Good to speak to you, even if you are telling me to leave the country.You are right that I was ranting-no question about it. As such, it was filled with hyperbole, which is pretty much the norm when i go off.

fact is..........I am seriously pissed off.

The issues, in order of importance to me:

Iraq-First of all, I predicted this administration would invade Iraq before 2000, I said all along prior to this invasion and occupation that it was about neo-conservative philosophy, and not WMD. When I said these things people told me i was crazy, and i was right about the whole thing. I believe that this war was about privatizing the military and furthering the connection between the government and the military industrial complex. Now Halliburton is now making the food and washing the underwear for our military, and you're right, they are probably the only company in the world who could do that. It is also about the neo-conservative reverse domino theory of remaking the middle east as democracies so as to create new free markets for major corporations. I.e, Iraq was just the first step, and Iran, Syria, and Lebanon are on the menu for Bush II. Remake these countries as democracies and the whole region is part of the free market world, with all the riches that accompany that.

imo those who support Bush are supporting further wars in the middle east, and they should know that.

The environment-we agree, this administration is trashing it

Stem cell research-This one really pisses me off. That any government would allow personal religious belief by it's leadership to run science policy is an abhorration imo. I don't buy the argument that the existing limited stem cell lines are sufficient for real progress in this area, and i believe millions will ultimately suffer as a result of this. I believe that scientists everywhere saw the results from Tuesday as a huge blow to stem cell research, and won't accept the hollow argument that what exists is enough.

Once again, Bush supporters are responsible for electing a president who will absolutely do everything in his power to block stem cell research.


Choice-A benign word for a tough question. No-one that i know of is Pro-Abortion, yet those against a women's right to choose have taken the most inflammatory language possible to make their case "pro-life," which clearly implies that those who don't agree are "PRO_DEATH." And right wingers wonder why we on the left are so pissed off? Why just a few weeks ago, right after the first debate, i had a guy in a hardware store tell myself and my brother that we were "baby killers" because we supported John Kerry. I have spent most of my adult life working with kids, and i take serious offense to crap like this, which is why i shoot back just as hard when i go on a rant.

I digress. It is clear that Bush is going to pack the court with judges who oppose a woman's right to choose, and I'm completely opposed to making abortion illegal.

Bush supporters can either take credit for this when it happens, or they can regret their decision, but they are clearly responsible for it, as anyone paying attention could see this coming as part of a second Bush term



The rest--later, i have work to do tonight and can't spend more time on this.


My attitude is simply this. This is the administration and government that republicans asked for and got. This means that they are responsible for it's behavior, not those of us who adamantly oppose them. While i'm capable of having reasonable discussions about with reasonable republicans i'm still going to hold them accountable for the actions of those they support. My rant is intended for all those Bush supporters who have been trashing the left and democratic candidates, i'm fed up with their sh*t and i want to be sure they know it. They bought it, they own it, they are responsible for whatever happens from here on out.


One last thing, if i'm wrong about any of these things over the nexxt four years i'll own it, if i'm right then those who voted for Bush will have to do the same.


once again, good to talk to you.

Just for the record.....Costa Rica is currently the location of choice, the question is when. The surfing is great and i'm pretty sure they aren't going to strike anyone pre-emptively anytime soon.

[Ballbustah]

It's a Republic.

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
If Bush were to get rid of Ashcroft as Attorney General, would that do anything to make the left wing feel better? BTW, I'm not advocating that Bush do this, but I've been hearing rumors that it is being considered. I'm just curious if an olive branch like this would really help mend any fences.


I suppose that would depend upon how he disposed of him.

A few years back some guy in Wisconsin put his wife through woodchi........

never mind.




In truth, this is another area where i believe this country has been seriously perverted. The Patriot Act may be the single most un-american piece of legislation of my lifetime. That the whole lot of them went along with it without reading it shows just how badly this country is in need of an entire new government. The WHOLE THING. Civil liberties meant to protect the innocent are being erased and east german techniques for monitoring civilians employed. It;s unbeleivable that a country that is supposed to stand for freedom is allowing fear to dictate policy.

Didn't that commie Ben Franklin say something about that?

[Ballbustah]

Did you know that Ashcroft and Bushy say you can wire tap anyone?
Sure your suppose to shut down if there is no evidence in the first couple of minutes....

But if you don't get caught you can do anything you want.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
Part two-Flagg-Good to speak to you, even if you are telling me to leave the country.You are right that I was ranting-no question about it. As such, it was filled with hyperbole, which is pretty much the norm when i go off.Well, I was telling you to go ahead if you honestly believed what you were ranting about. And it isn't the desire to get rid of you, its just that it would be much more consistant with your position of tolerance and diversity and where you fall on the issues in American politics.

IraqYou're right, it's a neo-con's wet dream. But if you're going to tell me that Iran, Iraq, and Syria being stable democracies is a bad result...you're off your gourd. I'm not buying what you're selling. I have a number of problems with the Iraq war. The attempted result is not one of them.

Stem cell research-This one really pisses me off. That any government would allow personal religious belief by it's leadership to run science policy is an abhorration imo. Townsie, look: - ALL HE DID WAS LIMIT THE FUNDING TO A VERY NARROW SUBCATEGORY OF STEM CELLS!

It isn't an argument of "what we have is enough." He didn't ban the experimentation. You, of all people with your "disinfranchisement" arguments should understand that it is this simple: To a large portion of the population, experimenting on living humans, in whatever stage of development, is morally bankrupt. Creating those same beings, creatures, humans, people, whatever you want to call them, SPECIFICALLY for the purposes of experimenting on them, killing them, and discarding them is doubly so. As much as you want to paint Bush as an extremist, he took a very moderate position. He didn't ban the experimentation. He didn't ban federal funding for the experimentation. He banned federal funding for experimentation that necessitated the creation or harvesting of human lives. That is all.

Totally leaving aside the track record of failure in embryonic stem cell research in human medicine...

I don't buy the argument that the existing limited stem cell lines are sufficient for real progress in this area, and i believe millions will ultimately suffer as a result of this. I believe that scientists everywhere saw the results from Tuesday as a huge blow to stem cell research, and won't accept the hollow argument that what exists is enough.And yet suddenly there is $3Billion to be had for the research in California, and it explicitly includes the cloning and creation of embryos solely for harvest. You should be bouncing off the ceiling with joy.

Once again, Bush supporters are responsible for electing a president who will absolutely do everything in his power to block stem cell research.This has simply been proven false. If that were the case, he would have banned experimentation, or even banned federal funding to the experimentation. He didn't. He took an incredibly moderate position on the subject.

Choice-A benign word for a tough question. No-one that i know of is Pro-Abortion, yet those against a women's right to choose have taken the most inflammatory language possible to make their case "pro-life," which clearly implies that those who don't agree are "PRO_DEATH." Oh, COME ON! Every advocacy group puts the best possible spin on its position. You're freaking smarter than that, townes!

I could just as easily say that "those who are against the right of a developing infant to simply exist have taken the most inflammatory language possible to make their case: "pro-choice," which clearly implies that those who don't agree are "anti-choice" or "pro-fascism."

You would respond - well, on this issue they are anti-choice. So: on this issue, the pro-choicers are pro-death! It's a simple fact - that embryo is alive, and the choicers are in favor of killing it. And right wingers wonder why we on the left are so pissed off?Ditto. Before I was bemused...this pissed me off because you KNOW that this argument is bogus. EVERY ADVOCACY GROUP IN EXISTANCE DOES THIS - IT IS CALLED POSITIONING.

Why just a few weeks ago, right after the first debate, i had a guy in a hardware store tell myself and my brother that we were "baby killers" because we supported John Kerry. I have spent most of my adult life working with kids, and i take serious offense to crap like this, which is why i shoot back just as hard when i go on a rant.Every movement has its sh!theads. I have 2 kids under age 2 and my wife is pregnant. Some b!tch came up to her on the street the other day and demanded to know if she'd ever heard of a vascectomy. You learn to deal with sh!theads, townsie, or you go insane. You're starting to make me believe that you're well on your way.

I digress. It is clear that Bush is going to pack the court with judges who oppose a woman's right to choose, and I'm completely opposed to making abortion illegal.

Bush supporters can either take credit for this when it happens, or they can regret their decision, but they are clearly responsible for it, as anyone paying attention could see this coming as part of a second Bush termI'd love to see it happen, as you know. But I regret to say that this probably isn't true. Arlen Specter will chair the Judiciary Committee, and he's already released an open statement to Bush stating flat out that he's not going to simply shepherd hard-right judges onto the SCOTUS.

Just for the record.....Costa Rica is currently the location of choice, the question is when. The surfing is great and i'm pretty sure they aren't going to strike anyone pre-emptively anytime soon. Good choice. I hope you can have decent net access there - and find a job. The Costa Rican economy isn't exactly world renowned. Great opportunities for humanitarian work, though.

[townes]

lol, man i enjoy arguing with you.

i don't have enough time to respond tonight, but i will concede that you are right about some things. We aren't going to agree on stem cells, but i am obviously aware of the existence of sh*theads everywhere, and that abortion is an extremely complicated issue; it's one issue that I find hard to support on moral grounds, but hard to concede pragmatically.

As for Iraq, I don't believe we will create democracies in the middle east, only that we will further make a mess of it, engendering hatred and violence every step of the way. We would be far better served by not supporting the repressive governments that exist there instead of trying to impose democracy militarily. So I disagree because the neo-con wet dream has a nasty nightmare ending imo.

[dchester]

Originally posted by bideau
I've heard Ashcroft, Rice and Powell. I think Rice and Powell want to move on. I'd be happy if Ashcroft and Rumsfeld went. But Rumsfeld is the third head in the power structure, so that won't happen. I'm still hoping that Rummy is the first to go (actually he's the only one that I'd really like gone). I know liberals are upset at Ashcroft about the Patriot Act, although for the life of me, I don't know why. I understand them not liking the bill, but it was the Congress that passed it. Why wouldn't the liberals be more upset at the Congress?
________
silversurfer reviews (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/silver-surfer)

[townes]

How many here realize that the Bush administration is looking to make our presence in Iraq permanent?

How many agree that should be a goal or priority?

I don't agree with either.

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
You learn to deal with sh!theads, townsie, or you go insane. You're starting to make me believe that you're well on your way.




True.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
How many here realize that the Bush administration is looking to make our presence in Iraq permanent?

How many agree that should be a goal or priority?

I don't agree with either. I thought it was likely to happen, and I don't have any problem with it. After all, we still haven't left Germany or Japan (or Cuba for that matter).
________
california dispensaries (http://dispensaries.org/)

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
I know liberals are upset at Ashcroft about the Patriot Act, although for the life of me, I don't know why. I understand them not liking the bill, but it was the Congress that passed it. Why wouldn't the liberals be more upset at the Congress?

Not only did they ram it through without objection, but they didn't even read it. It's pretty frightening that congress is so politically reactive that they pass legislation without actually knowing what it is.

Call me a commielovingbleedinheartcardcarryin'memba of the ACLU, but that sounds downright stupid to me.

Presumption of innocence is a pillar of american law, yet John Ashcroft's Justice department managed to lock up about five thousand people after 9-11----without one conviction.

I guess you could say they are batting .1000.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
Not only did they ram it through without objection, but they didn't even read it. It's pretty frightening that congress is so politically reactive that they pass legislation without actually knowing what it is.

Call me a commielovingbleedinheartcardcarryin'memba of the ACLU, but that sounds downright stupid to me.

Presumption of innocence is a pillar of american law, yet John Ashcroft's Justice department managed to lock up about five thousand people after 9-11----without one conviction.

I guess you could say they are batting .1000. OK, I understand that liberals feel the republicans are stupid and/or evil people, so that's why they didn't read it or stop it. However that doesn't explain why didn't the Democrats didn't raise a fuss over it in Congress? If it was as bad as you say, I would have thought Kerry and the democrats would have led a filibuster in the Senate to kill it. My point, it's a lot more than just Ashcroft.

My understanding is that it has a sunset clause anyways, so it will have to make it through the Congress again to be renewed.
________
vaporizers (http://vaporizer.org/)

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
Yup, and most of the entire world is still about 50 years behind the United States. Real dumb, aren't we.

Most of the entire industrialized world has free health care, a fraction of our violent crime rate, higher math and science scores, lower national deficits, higher literacy rates, a fraction of our per capita energy consumption, gay rights, better public transportation, a true separation of church & state, and better beer.

You're welcome to throw me a "love it or leave it" line, but I ain't goin' nowhere. We got da best pro wrasslin'.

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
OK, I understand that liberals feel the republicans are stupid and/or evil people, so that's why they didn't read it or stop it. However that doesn't explain why didn't the Democrats didn't raise a fuss over it in Congress? If it was as bad as you say, I would have thought Kerry and the democrats would have led a filibuster in the Senate to kill it. My point, it's a lot more than just Ashcroft.

M

That was one of my few rants today that didn't blame the republicans, they all signed off on it, including Kerry, and it was an appalling lack of judgement and thoughfulness that they did. Creating the Law of the Land on ten minutes notice is STUPIDITY on the grandest level. The members of congress who voted on the Patriot Act never had a chance to read it, but they signed off anyways.

If that doesn't scare the hell out of people I'm not really sure what would.

Imo this country is supposed to be about safeguarding the rights of the innocent and a burden on the government to actually demonstrate valid reason for detention and incarceration. When we forego those rights we fold on what this country is all about, and that's the danger of fear based legislation.

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer

And yet suddenly there is $3Billion to be had for the research in California, and it explicitly includes the cloning and creation of embryos solely for harvest. You should be bouncing off the ceiling with joy.

This has simply been proven false. If that were the case, he would have banned experimentation, or even banned federal funding to the experimentation. He didn't. He took an incredibly moderate position on the subject.




Correct me if i'm wrong Flagg, but didn't the administration oppose that measure? I'm pretty sure that Ahnold had to split with his own party on that issue.

Also, I don't see how money forwards research without the necessary stem lines to actually do the research. Kind of like giving someone a million dollars to build a house with no materials.


As for the philosophical/genetic aspects of the debate over human life, it's exceptionally complex, and hinges, imo, on the distinction between potential and actual human life. This why I can't defend abortion on moral grounds, as it's simply not defensible, a fetus is an actual human, and it is definitely taking a life to abort it, an embryo is potential human life, not an actual being, and i believe research on embryo's is morally acceptable.

. If you are suggesting that the potential for life is the same as actual life then you are essentially making the same argument that the catholic church does in opposing all forms of contraception, and that's a tough argument to make imo. This my cliff notes layman version of the issue, hammered out in a few minutes before i take off for the day, and i'll be interested to hear the responses.

BTW-My reasons for supporting a woman's right to choose are practical, not moral, which is the only defense I can offer for it. I have gone through the experience myself, and i can honestly say that it is an awful situation from which nothing good comes. Ultimately it wasn't my decision to make, had it been it would have been a different choice.




later,

townes

[Annihilus]

Townes...

Are you two different people?

Your last few posts have been very well worded and level headed and I actually made it through all of them without feeling like I had to hit something.

Almost like my bi-polar ex-wife. I quickly learned to recognize when she was on one of her trips down and get the hell out of the house.

No offense intended.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
Correct me if i'm wrong Flagg, but didn't the administration oppose that measure? I'm pretty sure that Ahnold had to split with his own party on that issue.Yes, but that's the wonderful thing about state's rights, isn't it?

Also, I don't see how money forwards research without the necessary stem lines to actually do the research. Kind of like giving someone a million dollars to build a house with no materials.What choo talking 'bout, Willis?

It isn't that other lines can't be created, it's simply that no research on newly created lines will get federal funding. Cali can create new lines all they want. As a matter of fact, Prop 71 specifically provides funding for embryo cloning to provide new lines.

But I'll add, again: not only has embryonic stem cell research not produced any cures, in spite of theoretically being much more useful than adult stem cells or umbilical stem cells, but when attempted it has more often than not resulted in rejection by the host or the development of a tumor. When it has done neither of these things, it has done squat-ola.

In my opinion, the stem cell issue is a red herring for abortion, same as Laci's Law is on the other side. Both have a point unto themselves, but the reason the issue is so hot is because it is a question of how society defines when life begins. There's a reason that Planned Parenthood pours money into the embryonic stem cell PACs, and it isn't that they are branching out into biotechnology.

As for the philosophical/genetic aspects of the debate over human life, it's exceptionally complex, and hinges, imo, on the distinction between potential and actual human life. This why I can't defend abortion on moral grounds, as it's simply not defensible, a fetus is an actual human, and it is definitely taking a life to abort it, an embryo is potential human life, not an actual being, and i believe research on embryo's is morally acceptable.Okay, then riddle me this:
Is an embryo alive? Yes - undisputable scientifically.
Is it something besides human? No - undisputable scientifically.
Is it a cluster of cells of the mother's body? No - undisputable scientifically as it has distinct DNA.
When does an embryo become a fetus? Well, the definitional change is at 6 weeks, but that is an arbitrary designation, essentially comes down to "when it starts to look a little more humanoid."
If an embryo is "potential" human life (which questions 1&2 disprove logically), when does "actual" human life begin? Any determination is arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary point of designation is fertilization. You could make a case for implantation, but it is more a case of convenience than science.

If you are suggesting that the potential for life is the same as actual life then you are essentially making the same argument that the catholic church does in opposing all forms of contraception, and that's a tough argument to make imo. This my cliff notes layman version of the issue, hammered out in a few minutes before i take off for the day, and i'll be interested to hear the responses.I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm suggesting that a man and a woman getting it on is a good definition of "potential for life." An embryo is human life - an attempt to define it any other way is simply playing with language, not changing the science of the matter. The distinction you're hanging your hat on is simply a question of the point in development the human life in question is.

As an aside, townes, you of all people (as I see you as something of a rationalist, ranting aside) should appreciate the danger here. Until the early 1970s, when abortion became a legal issue, EVERY ACCEPTED MEDICAL TEXTBOOK defined life as beginning with either fertilization or implantation. In the wake of Roe, the science changed to fit the cultural moral and legal climate. That's freaking frightening to me, and it should be to you as well. In fact, divorced from this issue, I guran-d@mn-tee that it is to you. So show the same consistancy and some intellectual honesty on this issue that you demand from everyone else on other issues.

But back to your points - I can and do make the same argument the Catholic Church makes in opposing all forms of contraception (though I disagree that this follows from my original point, as barrier methods have nothing to do with the destruction of life at any point in developement). It isn't that hard to make, actually. I'm a convert to Catholicism because I found there the only single faith I could uncover whose life ethic was 100% internally consistant. Each position logically follows from and supports the others. It has to do with a theory and knowledge of human nature and humans as physical, intellectual, and spiritual beings. I am NOT in favor of making contraception ILLEGAL, because this is a moral position, and barrier contraception harms no one, takes no life. Abortion (at any phase of development) does.

BTW-My reasons for supporting a woman's right to choose are practical, not moral, which is the only defense I can offer for it. I have gone through the experience myself, and i can honestly say that it is an awful situation from which nothing good comes. Ultimately it wasn't my decision to make, had it been it would have been a different choice.I agree with you. The ONLY legitimate reasons for supporting the continued legality of abortion are practical rather than moral. Those were also the only legitimate reasons for supporting the continued legality of slavery.
Both issues come down to one simple factor - the value of, and respect for, human life AS human life, having a value seperate and distinct unto itself.

EDIT: townes, how long woulf this conversation have lasted on KFFL NST?

[TrueBeliever]

Originally posted by townes
Not only did they ram it through without objection, but they didn't even read it. It's pretty frightening that congress is so politically reactive that they pass legislation without actually knowing what it is.


I would just like to say that Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold actually read the Patriot Act and voted against it. And yes I voted for him.

[townes]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Townes...

Are you two different people?



No offense taken.

no, I'm one person. I do, however, react very diferently depending upon the topics and posters i am talking with. If the topic is policy and the people I'm talking to are able to discuss it without flamethrowing then i generally do the same. If the topic is politics i usually respond with more of a rant, as everything is basically subjective, and those i am directing it at are usually in the other universe and throwing an equal amount of sh*t at the wall. If the topic is Bush/Cheney and their pals then it usually gets ugly fast because many on these messageboards love them, and i consider them war criminals who are destroying this country at warp speed.

So, the answer is, that it depends on the topic and it depends on the posters i am discussing it with.

[townes]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
I would just like to say that Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold actually read the Patriot Act and voted against it. And yes I voted for him.

Russ Feingold is one of the few people working in this government who has real principles and stands by them.

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer

But I'll add, again: not only has embryonic stem cell research not produced any cures, in spite of theoretically being much more useful than adult stem cells or umbilical stem cells, but when attempted it has more often than not resulted in rejection by the host or the development of a tumor. When it has done neither of these things, it has done squat-ola.

In my opinion, the stem cell issue is a red herring for abortion, same as Laci's Law is on the other side. Both have a point unto themselves, but the reason the issue is so hot is because it is a question of how society defines when life begins. There's a reason that Planned Parenthood pours money into the embryonic stem cell PACs, and it isn't that they are branching out into biotechnology.




Flagg, it's way to early in terms of the research to know what embryonic stem cells can or can't do, which is why they need to really get going with the research imo.

I agree100% with your red herring statement, as that's exactly the political battle that's taking place.

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Okay, then riddle me this:
Is an embryo alive? Yes - undisputable scientifically.
Is it something besides human? No - undisputable scientifically.
Is it a cluster of cells of the mother's body? No - undisputable scientifically as it has distinct DNA.
When does an embryo become a fetus? Well, the definitional change is at 6 weeks, but that is an arbitrary designation, essentially comes down to "when it starts to look a little more humanoid."
If an embryo is "potential" human life (which questions 1&2 disprove logically), when does "actual" human life begin? Any determination is arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary point of designation is fertilization. You could make a case for implantation, but it is more a case of convenience than science.

I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm suggesting that a man and a woman getting it on is a good definition of "potential for life." An embryo is human life - an attempt to define it any other way is simply playing with language, not changing the science of the matter. The distinction you're hanging your hat on is simply a question of the point in development the human life in question is.

As an aside, townes, you of all people (as I see you as something of a rationalist, ranting aside) should appreciate the danger here. Until the early 1970s, when abortion became a legal issue, EVERY ACCEPTED MEDICAL TEXTBOOK defined life as beginning with either fertilization or implantation. In the wake of Roe, the science changed to fit the cultural moral and legal climate. That's freaking frightening to me, and it should be to you as well. In fact, divorced from this issue, I guran-d@mn-tee that it is to you. So show the same consistancy and some intellectual honesty on this issue that you demand from everyone else on other issues.




Flagg, I never realized i demanded intellectual honesty from anyone, but i'll take it as a compliment.


1)I agree with you about the arbitrary definition of life, which is why said earlier that i can't argue abortion on moral grounds, as it is clearly taking a human life imo. In all honesty i have a harder time with this issue than any other. I have always supported a woman's right to choose, primarily for practical reasons, as outlawing abortion would not stop it from occuring, but would criminalize it, and I have yet to see any proposal that would handle the issue with decency and the compassion necessary to bridge the gap between the two alternate realities.
I consider a fetus a human and i won't argue otherwise.

2)Cultural context always impacts scientific definition, and, while i agree that it can have a frightening effect, I also think that it has positive effects as well. The medical textbooks that defined life prior to the 1970's were also created in a cultural context and reflected accepted thought at that time. I'm not suggesting that redefining life was a good thing, simply that scientific discourse is always culturally affected. The scientific texts of earlier centuries are far more culturally reflective than those of the last fifty years, but it's always a problem nonetheless.

3)The embryo's to be used in stem cell research are frozen and have no likelihood of becoming human beings, and that is where the arbitrary good of the benefit to mankind outweighs the logical morality of it to me.

4) I oppose abortion, i just can't see outlawing it.

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
No offense taken.

no, I'm one person. I do, however, react very diferently depending upon the topics and posters i am talking with. If the topic is policy and the people I'm talking to are able to discuss it without flamethrowing then i generally do the same. If the topic is politics i usually respond with more of a rant, as everything is basically subjective, and those i am directing it at are usually in the other universe and throwing an equal amount of sh*t at the wall. If the topic is Bush/Cheney and their pals then it usually gets ugly fast because many on these messageboards love them, and i consider them war criminals who are destroying this country at warp speed.

So, the answer is, that it depends on the topic and it depends on the posters i am discussing it with. I'm just glad I'm such a really nice guy. I'd hate to have you ranting at me.
;)
________
buy glass pipes (http://glasspipes.net)

[Ballbustah]

May be we can invade Mexico...

Cancun would be a pretty good place to have...

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
I'm just glad I'm such a really nice guy. I'd hate to have you ranting at me.
;)


lol

[townes]

How can millions and million and millions of people say that they are Pro-Life, yet support a government who engages in pre-emptive ideologically motivated war that kills and wounds tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand plus, people?

The Bush administartion apparently believes that the right to life begins at conception but ends at birth.Their policies funnel our tax dollars back to their rich corporate freinds while homeless people starve and freeze to death on our streets. They oppose international land mine treaties that kill and maim children the world over, and they are engaged in a war that is wholly immoral.

How anyone who values life can support these vicious bastards is completely beyond me?

[bideau]

Originally posted by townes
How can millions and million and millions of people say that they are Pro-Life, yet support a government who engages in pre-emptive ideologically motivated war that kills and wounds tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand plus, people?

The Bush administartion apparently believes that the right to life begins at conception but ends at birth.Their policies funnel our tax dollars back to their rich corporate freinds while homeless people starve and freeze to death on our streets. They oppose international land mine treaties that kill and maim children the world over, and they are engaged in a war that is wholly immoral.

How anyone who values life can support these vicious bastards is completely beyond me?

I have a brother-in-law who's a militant "pro-lifer". He also believes that we should use nuclear weapons in Iraq and wipe out the population.

In his puny little brain, he doesn't see the contradictions of his views. It would actually be quite hilarious if he wasn't so serious.

[townes]

Originally posted by bideau
I have a brother-in-law who's a militant "pro-lifer". He also believes that we should use nuclear weapons in Iraq and wipe out the population.

In his puny little brain, he doesn't see the contradictions of his views. It would actually be quite hilarious if he wasn't so serious.



Belichikfan is your brother in law?????:eek: :eek: :eek:


You poor bastard.

[townes]

My mistake, your brother in law only wants to nuke Iraq, belichikfan wants to nuke the entire middle east.


Let me know if your brother in law supports torture, if so, then BF is back in play.

[Ballbustah]

Maybe we can invade Brazil????
I heard the Carnival is most excellent there.

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Well, I was telling you to go ahead if you honestly believed what you were ranting about. And it isn't the desire to get rid of you, its just that it would be much more consistant with your position of tolerance and diversity and where you fall on the issues in American politics.




Btw, Flagg. The precinct i live in just held a redistricted election where the incumbent Green ran against an incumbent democrat redistricted into the precinct and the republican challenger.

The results:

Green-re-elected with 51% of the vote. the only Green in the Maine state legislature.

Democrat-41%

Republican-8%


Something tells me I'm in the right precinct but the wrong country.


One last thing. My precinct went for Kucinich in the Maine state caucus-the only one in the state to do so, i believe.

[HOF]

Originally posted by pookie
So you feel as though you are creepy as well? You've got explosive axe murderer written all over you sir. Take a vacation to Nicaragua or Panama or some country that is better than this POS that you live in.

Pookie, I am surprised at you! I only "lightly read" the thread! Isn't he entitled to his opinion? You are also within your right to think of him as "creepy" but the tone of your comment was disappointing! ( Maybe I mis read you thought )