Election Predictions

[Yoda]

Putting aside who you'd like to win as best you can, who do you think will win the 2004 Presidential Election, and why? Let's try to keep this particular political thread more on the side of objective analysis, if possible.

National polls contain some insight, but miss the strategic nature of the election. Whether a candidate gains or loses a point or two in a nationwide poll tells us something about general public opinion, but state-by-state polls tell us much more. Kerry could pick up 10% in Utah, for example, but the effect on the election would be negligible, as Bush would still have a commanding lead, and thus would easily receive the state's 5 electoral votes.

Bush is an interesting candidate in that he has both a ceiling and a floor in terms of popularity and support. There's a group of voters who wouldn't vote for him if he cured cancer and personally charged into Baghdad on a white stallion. Similarly, there's another group who would still vote for him if he referred to Colin Powell with a racial slur and kicked a puppy.

The latter group is made up of between 17 and 25 states, most of which Bush is leading by at least 10 points in. In some, he's up 20 or even 30 points; in none of them does he possess a lead lower than 6 points. Together, these states account for anywhere from 138 to 212 electoral votes.

In other words, even if Bush loses the next two debates, and news from Iraq gets worse, it's safe to assume that Bush will receive a minimum of 200 electoral votes (out of the 270 needed to win) come November 2nd.

Kerry's support is quite different. His bottom-line in terms of electoral votes lies somewhere between roughly 80-90 and 150-160. He's kept afloat by two of the three biggest electoral prizes in the nation: California (55 electoral votes) and New York (31 electoral votes).

No doubt, you've all heard much about "swing" or "battleground" states. There are at least a dozen of them, but the most crucial, in my opinion, are Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27). It's perfectly possible for either candidate to win all three and still lose, or vice versa, but my prediction is simply this: if Bush wins one of these three, he will take the election.

[2wrongs]

As much as I would like to see Bush totally stomp on Kerry, I think he'll win by the seat of his pants. I also predict that Hollywood will have a melt down after the results and the liberalites are going to cry "foul" again. They'll say the voting was rigged.

[Cabbage Head]

I am a Canadian, so what I say doesn't matter, but I like Bush, and I wonder if I haven't started to like him more as this election gets closer. The reason this may be so is because there is SO MUCH anti-Bush crap everywhere. Musicians having anti-Bush concerts, hundreds of anti-Bush books being written... It's all over the news, the radio, the internet, everywhere. It makes me sick. Obviously I carry a pretty heavy bias, being an 'evagelical fundamentalist extremist' like your President. I can't believe how much Bush's beliefs are a part of how people degrade him. Being anti-war is one thing, but knocking him as a Bible thumper or whatever... that's just not cool...

[Yoda]

Just so ya'll know, the voting is public, and everyone who ended up being way off (even if I'm among them) will be dragged into the metaphorical street and humiliated on November 3rd. :D

Fair warning.

[2wrongs]

Let them try!

[gummo]

omg, i realized i made a mistake. I ment to vote, Kerry will win narrowly. Oh well doesn't matter i guess.

[Yoda]

So far (five votes in), I'm the only one who doesn't think it'll be particularly close.

omg, i realized i made a mistake. I ment to vote, Kerry will win narrowly. Oh well doesn't matter i guess.Just updated it for you.

[gummo]

oh thank you very much Yoda!!!!!

[2wrongs]

So far (five votes in), I'm the only one who doesn't think it'll be particularly close.


Hmm...I think you'll be really wrong. If there wasn't so much media hoopla over everything and MoveOn.org and Mtv and all those concerts by really good bands, I'd say Bush would win by a landslide...but tis' not the way. People who never voted are registering to be cool with their liberal movie stars and bands.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Everyone I know in Ohio is voting for Kerry.
A friend of mine who is leaving for a job in Australia just cast her absentee ballot last friday. She said the polls were packed. She talked to a pollster who said she had never seen the absentee voting so heavy, that it was almost entirely Democrats voting, and that they were pissed. :D

[Piddzilla]

If we are talking about who will receive the largest number of votes, I hope and think Kerry will win narrowly. Even if the electoral system does not guarantee that the candidate receiving the most votes will be president, that is what happens most of the times.

I think Kerry will win because he will beat Bush in all three debates and I am also hoping that a little more people than usual will go and vote. The more people voting, and especially the more young people voting, the more votes Kerry will receive. The reason for this is that the majority of those not voting are staying home because of apathy, they think it doesn't matter to them who'll win the election. But if Kerry can get his message through, and the first debate convinced me that he will, then these people will realize that there is really only one alternative for them and that is John Kerry.

[Piddzilla]

I can't believe how much Bush's beliefs are a part of how people degrade him.

Well, you know... I think you can find some people here and there that feel degraded by Bush's politics as well. I think the prez survives.

[Piddzilla]

Hmm...I think you'll be really wrong. If there wasn't so much media hoopla over everything and MoveOn.org and Mtv and all those concerts by really good bands, I'd say Bush would win by a landslide...but tis' not the way. People who never voted are registering to be cool with their liberal movie stars and bands.

Sorry for triple posting but no matter how much I hope you're right in this case I really do think you're exaggerating the power of MTV.

[Yoda]

Everyone I know in Ohio is voting for Kerry.
A friend of mine who is leaving for a job in Australia just cast her absentee ballot last friday. She said the polls were packed. She talked to a pollster who said she had never seen the absentee voting so heavy, that it was almost entirely Democrats voting, and that they were pissed. :D Oh, we're going to see increased turnout in every demographic, I'm sure. As for Ohio, though; might say more about the company you keep than Ohio as a whole. State polls have shown Bush up in Ohio for the majority of the last few months. As of right now, it's pretty much a dead-heat.

Increased turnout is the real wildcard here, and makes predictions difficult.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

There's been so much spin on the news and poll results that I don't put much stock in them. I'm sure you've had occasion to compare what gets reported in the US with what they hear in England and elsewhere. It's orwellian.

I think the bottom line is this:
The Republicans are still hammering away on the fearmongering regarding terrorism and Bush being "the man we need in charge". I think most people are past the fear of attack and more worried about our economy (and they should be) and domestic issues. Edwards seemed interested in those issues in this last debate, but he seemed to run out of time before saying much about them. If Kerry picks up that dropped ball, I think it'll be over for Bush.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

... I can't believe how much Bush's beliefs are a part of how people degrade him. Being anti-war is one thing, but knocking him as a Bible thumper or whatever... that's just not cool...
It's plenty cool, and here's why: You can't legalize morality.
Bush is getting bashed for his religious beliefs because he's had the arrogance to apply them to our laws. That is abuse of power. The laws are for everyone here, and many of us do not subscribe to those beliefs. This country was founded on the ideal of religious freedom, and GWB's condemnation of things that harm, but that are against his personal beliefs, goes contrary to a very basic tenet of Americanism: live and let live.

[2wrongs]

I find it frustrating when liberals (not saying anyone here is of any political party) whine about the economy. It was so funny when Kerry scolded Bush for not sending the troops out with the best gear and the right protection and better armor on the tanks...then has the nerve to whine about how much the war is costing. Same with unemployment. There would be more minimum wage jobs for citizens if we stopped flooding the job market with illegal aliens who want to drive to work and make less than minimum wage.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I find it frustrating when liberals (not saying anyone here is of any political party) whine about the economy. It was so funny when Kerry scolded Bush for not sending the troops out with the best gear and the right protection and better armor on the tanks...then has the nerve to whine about how much the war is costing. Same with unemployment. There would be more minimum wage jobs for citizens if we stopped flooding the job market with illegal aliens who want to drive to work and make less than minimum wage.
I'd respond to this, since I mentioned the economy, only I'm not liberal and I don't subscribe to any of the opinions you list here.

[Yoda]

There's been so much spin on the news and poll results that I don't put much stock in them. I'm sure you've had occasion to compare what gets reported in the US with what they hear in England and elsewhere. It's orwellian.

I think the bottom line is this:
The Republicans are still hammering away on the fearmongering regarding terrorism and Bush being "the man we need in charge". I think most people are past the fear of attack and more worried about our economy (and they should be) and domestic issues. Edwards seemed interested in those issues in this last debate, but he seemed to run out of time before saying much about them. If Kerry picks up that dropped ball, I think it'll be over for Bush. C'mon. You're throwing around words like "Orwellian" and "fearmongering" pretty flippantly. You don't see anything similar from the Democrats? "We can't afford four more years of this." "We're alienating the entire world." "You've made us less safe." "Who's he going to take us into war with next?" The trendy thing to do has been to paint this election as Republican fear .vs. Democratic hope, but it just ain't so.

As for the economy becoming more of a focus; I say, good! Terrorism is perceived as Bush's strongest issue, but in terms of objective, demonstrable grounds, his economic policies are far more defensible.

[Yoda]

It's plenty cool, and here's why: You can't legalize morality.
Bush is getting bashed for his religious beliefs because he's had the arrogance to apply them to our laws. That is abuse of power. The laws are for everyone here, and many of us do not subscribe to those beliefs. This country was founded on the ideal of religious freedom, and GWB's condemnation of things that harm, but that are against his personal beliefs, goes contrary to a very basic tenet of Americanism: live and let live. I agree with the reasoning, but when has Bush done these things?

[2wrongs]

I'd respond to this, since I mentioned the economy, only I'm not liberal and I don't subscribe to any of the opinions you list here.
I specificly said I wasn't making claims about anyone's political affliation. So...???
I was just making a point about double standards.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I agree with the reasoning, but when has Bush done these things?
I found his statements about "the sanctity of marriage" being threatened by gay marriage to be heinously offensive. I have four friends who have gay parents, and several gay friends. Their desire for the same rights they'd have in a heterosexual relationship is not at odds with the sanctity of marriage. It is the very meaning of the phrase.

He's also anti-abortion, which is also a moral issue. I've read the lengthy debates on that here and elsewhere, so let's not rehash that. There are many, many people who regard that as a moral issue and since we still do not know the exact moment when a person becomes a person, it is still a moral, rather than legal issue. Bush has appointed people in critical positions who feel otherwise, and I feel this is wrong.

[Piddzilla]

It's plenty cool, and here's why: You can't legalize morality.
Bush is getting bashed for his religious beliefs because he's had the arrogance to apply them to our laws. That is abuse of power. The laws are for everyone here, and many of us do not subscribe to those beliefs. This country was founded on the ideal of religious freedom, and GWB's condemnation of things that harm, but that are against his personal beliefs, goes contrary to a very basic tenet of Americanism: live and let live.

I found his statements about "the sanctity of marriage" being threatened by gay marriage to be heinously offensive. I have four friends who have gay parents, and several gay friends. Their desire for the same rights they'd have in a heterosexual relationship is not at odds with the sanctity of marriage. It is the very meaning of the phrase.

He's also anti-abortion, which is also a moral issue. I've read the lengthy debates on that here and elsewhere, so let's not rehash that. There are many, many people who regard that as a moral issue and since we still do not know the exact moment when a person becomes a person, it is still a moral, rather than legal issue. Bush has appointed people in critical positions who feel otherwise, and I feel this is wrong.

*********!!!!

Rep for the first post and a :kiss: for the second!!

[Piddzilla]

There would be more minimum wage jobs for citizens if we stopped flooding the job market with illegal aliens who want to drive to work and make less than minimum wage.

The reason to why "citizens" don't have those jobs is that it pays too little. The reason to why it pays so little is because illegal aliens are the only ones desperate enough to take them. If the majority of the minimum wage jobs were being held by white men the wages would most certainly be much higher. So in order for the employers to be able to keep the minimum wages down on a ridiculously low level, they are dependent on cheap but illegal labour that accept these wages out of fear of being deported.

But hey, call it free trade...

[Aniko]

I'll wait to vote in your poll until after the next two debates Yoda. I'll be watching those closely. I'm on the fence and neither canidate is a clear cut winner to me. I do think whichever way it goes it will be close again though. It would be interesting if Florida was once again the deciding state.

[mack]

It would be interesting if Florida was once again the deciding state.

Ill tell you what, though: Florida got a serious wake up call in 2000. I saw a heap of Kerry2004 stickers on the back of cars----far more than Id seen years prior. In fact, Id go so far to say that prior to my last trip down (forgot to mention that 24 hr drive did I? :D), the Bush/Cheney stickers eclipsed everywhere.

So here I am wondering if Bush shot himself in the foot with some of his antics in office. People are angry at what him these days and they arent buying the bullcrap he's selling like hotcakes.

So yes, Im a raging Democrat (Actually, a conservative dem, myself). Sue me. :D

[Yoda]

I found his statements about "the sanctity of marriage" being threatened by gay marriage to be heinously offensive. I have four friends who have gay parents, and several gay friends. Their desire for the same rights they'd have in a heterosexual relationship is not at odds with the sanctity of marriage. It is the very meaning of the phrase. I don't support the FMA, and I'm glad it was voted down, but secular arguments exist against the santification of gay marriage. I don't think opposition to gay marriage demonstrates religious zealotry, or whatever it is, precisely, that you're accusing Bush of.


He's also anti-abortion, which is also a moral issue. I've read the lengthy debates on that here and elsewhere, so let's not rehash that. There are many, many people who regard that as a moral issue and since we still do not know the exact moment when a person becomes a person, it is still a moral, rather than legal issue. Bush has appointed people in critical positions who feel otherwise, and I feel this is wrong. I don't follow your reasoning. Many laws, from minimum driving ages to speed limits, are inexact. This doesn't make them "moral" issues as opposed to "legal" ones. The law has to address any issue in which people may unjustly harm other people, and abortion clearly fall unders that. So I don't see any merit to the idea that the issue should be outside the scope of the law from the get-go.

I also don't see how any of this demonstrates Bush's "abuse of power" and how he has done things "contrary to a very basic tenet of Americanism." That was what you were asked about, and your response seems to suggest that the pro-life position itself is an example of these things.

If so, I'm respectfully calling bullsh*t. Being pro-choice is a legitimate, arguable political opinion, but it doesn't lay any special claim to the basic tenets of America. These are policy differences, not examples of a breach of Presidential power.

[Yoda]

The reason to why "citizens" don't have those jobs is that it pays too little. Seems to me the exact opposite would be true. Continually raising the minimum wage only helps the people who are worth the new standard. There are plenty of entry-level employees who may be earning $6 an hour, but aren't valuable enough to be retained at $7 per.

Look at it from the standpoint of the employer: the minimum wage only forces you to determine who's worth the new rate, and who isn't. Where's the benefit in that? And why do we need the government to tell us whether or not we're willing to work for a certain amount of money per hour? We don't need them to tell us how much to pay for milk, do we?

[Godsend]

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/#unemployment

[Yoda]

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/#unemployment Nice chart. I've got one of my own attached to this post. It highlights the point on your chart at which Bill Clinton ran for re-election. During the month of the 1996 election, the unemployment rate was 5.6%. The current rate? 5.4%. I've even added arrows to compare the two, since you seem so easily persuaded by charts and pretty colors.

I'd also add that the unemployment rate began rising before Bush had even done anything in office. The rise, you see, coincided primarily with lagging GDP growth, which began before Dubya was sworn in.

I could go on, but it'd be overkill.

[Godsend]

See...the REAL big thing is that they were going down OVER the years.

[Yoda]

Uh-huh. And if Bush were running against Clinton, that might mean something.

Way to ignore the point about GDP, too, which is a far broader, more encompassing statistic for gauging the health of an economy.

[Henry The Kid]

Way to ignore the point about GDP, too, which is a far broader, more encompassing statistic for gauging the health of an economy.

It's undeniable that anything Bush has done is not affecting the economy right now, and will not affect us at anytime in the near future. But the deficit is ****ing out of control; in the long run, this is going to kill us.

In fact, the tax breaks would help the economy quite a bit. Of course, his refusal to cut spending is a major, major mistake and is adding to the deficit moreso.

Plus the whole Iraq thing... Yeah.

Basically, this election is nowhere NEAR as important as lot of people are making it out to be. Keep this in mind; there's a republican senate. Do you think a democratic president is going to be able to change much?

Anyway, I'm voting third-party. And I think Kerry will narrowly win. I don't feel particularily good or bad about that...

[Cabbage Head]

I found his statements about "the sanctity of marriage" being threatened by gay marriage to be heinously offensive. I have four friends who have gay parents, and several gay friends. Their desire for the same rights they'd have in a heterosexual relationship is not at odds with the sanctity of marriage. It is the very meaning of the phrase.

He's also anti-abortion, which is also a moral issue. I've read the lengthy debates on that here and elsewhere, so let's not rehash that. There are many, many people who regard that as a moral issue and since we still do not know the exact moment when a person becomes a person, it is still a moral, rather than legal issue. Bush has appointed people in critical positions who feel otherwise, and I feel this is wrong.

Okay, so then, he should either not take a stance, or he should agree with all the liberals...? I agree that gay rights and or abortion should not necessarily be election issues, but I support Bush for standing up for what he believes in. And I mean, hey, he's just not exactly in the minority either... although I know that doesn't appease the rabid leftists.

[Monkeypunch]

Okay, like it or no, the entire election is going to come down to one thing. Iraq. Kerry is going to whip Bush's @ss on this issue, even if he doesn't end up doing anything about it himself (very frustrating to us anti-war types). A lot of people don't think Bush has done a very good job with Iraq, I know that this has been thrown a round a LOT, but it really is becoming the new Vietnam, an unwinnable war being fought for who knows what reason, and well, its mobilizing people who don't normally vote to do something about it. I mean Polls are very fallible, they can be made to give you any sort of result you want, depends on who you ask. I really can't see Bush winning without help from his guardian angels in florida, and if THAT happens, I mean god help us all, cause people will riot in the streets of the sunshine state, let me tell you. History will not be kind to George W. Bush.

[Cabbage Head]

How can you compare Iraq and Vietnam? Is that a fair comparison, really, historically?

Open question.

[Anonymous Last]

This place and all of your posts have been very educational...I love it, THANKS! If you spend a little more time here, and I sure hope you do, you will find that there are more than a few individuals who can think outside party lines. A Democrat who thinks the war is justified, a Republican who think that Kerry served his country, and even some Libertarians who adhere to accepted standards of personal hygiene.

Of course, the opposite, and more typical, scenario is also true, there are apologists a plenty on both sides…but there can also be found here a great deal of folks who make up their own minds about things, who don’t need it spoon-fed to them or suckled from their respective party’s tainted teat.

Good luck fitting in, I fear as though you have made your journey an uphill one…but that doesn’t strike me as out of character for you, any of you- not at all.

[Monkeypunch]

How can you not? An unpopular war, led by an unpopular president who wants to keep escalating the conflict even as the chances of victory get slimmer and slimmer.....sounds tooo familiar.

[Henry The Kid]

even some Libertarians who adhere to accepted standards of personal hygiene.



I have very good hygiene, thank you very much.


Excuse me while I go force drugs on people and encourage rape.

[Cabbage Head]

How does one reply to that?

"You must be from the South"
"Can I come?"
"Libertarianism is cool"
"I don't know what that means"

[chicagofrog]

:-((( this is a mad mad mad world
how right u r Donnie, and is Bush in yr world too a potential winner?

[Anonymous Last]

I have very good hygiene, thank you very much.
You are welcome.
Reveling in it is far more satisfying
.Excuse me while I go force drugs on people and encourage rape.

Just as long as you try very hard and give it your best...I'm sooooo proud of you!

Take off Henry, take off...godspeed! Don't forget my cheese wiz.

[Henry The Kid]

How does one reply to that?

"You must be from the South"
"Can I come?"
"Libertarianism is cool"
"I don't know what that means"

"Henry the Kid, your continuing ambition in the education of others and incredible charm and wit are unmatched by even Divine figures. Please, have my soul."

[Godsend]

Uh-huh. And if Bush were running against Clinton, that might mean something.

Way to ignore the point about GDP, too, which is a far broader, more encompassing statistic for gauging the health of an economy.

You're ****ing with me right? Someone with your intelligence HAS to be kidding.

I mean..you're saying in the second term its AUTOMATICALLY going to be better? Pfft. I seriously thought you were somewhat on track...

[Henry The Kid]

Seems to me the exact opposite would be true. Continually raising the minimum wage only helps the people who are worth the new standard. There are plenty of entry-level employees who may be earning $6 an hour, but aren't valuable enough to be retained at $7 per.

Look at it from the standpoint of the employer: the minimum wage only forces you to determine who's worth the new rate, and who isn't. Where's the benefit in that? And why do we need the government to tell us whether or not we're willing to work for a certain amount of money per hour? We don't need them to tell us how much to pay for milk, do we?


Great post. (Any reputation added to your astronomical amount at this point is futile).

[Yoda]

You're ****ing with me right? Someone with your intelligence HAS to be kidding. No, I'm not kidding. Do you have an actual argument, or just sarcastic posturing? I assure you I can support everything I'm saying with empirical data, as well as full explanations. Try me.


I mean..you're saying in the second term its AUTOMATICALLY going to be better? Pfft. I seriously thought you were somewhat on track... Where did I say Bush's second term was "automatically going to get better"?

[Yoda]

It's undeniable that anything Bush has done is not affecting the economy right now, and will not affect us at anytime in the near future. But the deficit is ****ing out of control; in the long run, this is going to kill us.

In fact, the tax breaks would help the economy quite a bit. Of course, his refusal to cut spending is a major, major mistake and is adding to the deficit moreso. I disagree on both counts. First, though it often takes some time to measure the impact of an economic policy, it's been almost a year and a half since Bush's second tax cut, and we saw a difference almost immediately. Not in employment, mind you (which is generally regarded as a lagging indicator), but in GDP.

Second, I disagree on the deficit. I do not think it is by any means "out of control." Relative to the size of our economy, it's big, but not huge, and certainly not a major cause for concern. There is still a great lack of understanding towards the deficit; it, like any debt, is not inherently good or bad. Whether or not it's a good or bad thing depends on why we're running it, just as it's good to go into debt to buy a house or pay for college, but bad to run up debt on a 53' plasma screen TV.

I agree that he should reign in spending a bit, and I think he will, though he won't have to do so all that much now that the tax cuts have actually caused tax receipts to rise ($80 billion more than last fiscal year, if memory serves...I might be a bit off).

I think we'd agree that most people who fuss over the deficit have little to no idea why it's worth fussing over. I'm not implying that you're one of these people, but I do think you have an inflated sense of a) how large it really is, comparatively, and b) how much of a concern it should be.


Plus the whole Iraq thing... Yeah.

Basically, this election is nowhere NEAR as important as lot of people are making it out to be. Keep this in mind; there's a republican senate. Do you think a democratic president is going to be able to change much? You're right...even if Democrats take control of the Senate along with the White House, Republicans will still control the House. And these days it seems split levels of power like that are the best formula for fiscal restraint (though I don't know if we'd even agree on whether or not a balanced budget is something we should be aiming for to begin with...but that's another matter).

[Piddzilla]

Seems to me the exact opposite would be true.

What?? You mean citizens don't take those jobs because they pay too much??

Continually raising the minimum wage only helps the people who are worth the new standard. There are plenty of entry-level employees who may be earning $6 an hour, but aren't valuable enough to be retained at $7 per.

I don't know what you are talking about and I'm not sure it's the same thing as I am talking about. I am not talking about an overall raise for all of those who happen to receive the lowest salary on their own particular workplace. I am saying that the limit for minimum wages should be higher, that it should be possible to work fulltime and making a living by holding a minimum wage job. If I am correctly informed, in some states it is possible to hire someone for as low as $2/hour which is just absurd. It's close to slavery and I don't think that should be legal in a modern democracy in the Industrial World. There really is no way to defend minimum wages as low as that. Not from a financial, economic, political, social or ethical point of view.

Look at it from the standpoint of the employer: the minimum wage only forces you to determine who's worth the new rate, and who isn't. Where's the benefit in that? And why do we need the government to tell us whether or not we're willing to work for a certain amount of money per hour? We don't need them to tell us how much to pay for milk, do we?

Why should I look at it from the standpoint of the employer if he's not looking at it from the standpoint of the worker?

But okay.

It's simple. You hire the people you need. If you think it's too expensive with the new "high" minimum wages you can always say that you can't afford to hire as many people as before. Then you just let the lazy bum that was worth 2$/hour but not 3$ go. I'm sure it is possible. And what is the best motivator for making people work harder? More money. At least if you mostly are very short of it.

How is raising minimum wages the same as telling people if they are willing to work or not? But you have a point. I am pretty sure that if you raised the minimum wages dramatically you wold also see some dramatic change in for exampel social welfare statistics (for the better). And also, higher wages - more tax money for the government to spend. More people working, making more money, the less people depending on society. The more money that a minimum wage job pays, the less overtime that person has to work, or the less is the possibility that that person has to take an extra job to make ends meet. And the more time that person has to spend with his or her kids and take his or her responsibility as a parent. And, hey, what do you know!? That extra job just got vacant for some unemployed guy! The more people of the working class that work, the more they earrn and the more they have to spend, and the higher the GNP will get.

With a decent minimum wage the employer can't use the wage as a weapon. And at the same time it will give the employer the right to expect more from the employees. If the employee is not the man or woman for the job - just hire someone else who's worth the money. If the wage more or less lack a lower limit the employer can instead of sacking someone that he or she believes does a bad job lower the wage until the employee is more or less in villenage. And unlike what most conservatists seems to desire for, I don't see no point in going back towards feudalism.

Didn't get the reference to milk...

[Yoda]

What?? You mean citizens don't take those jobs because they pay too much?? No, I mean that employers don't GIVE citizens jobs if the citizens aren't worth it. Some people in some jobs aren't worth $6 an hour. So, if that's the minimum wage, those people simply won't get hired. Why would they?


I don't know what you are talking about and I'm not sure it's the same thing as I am talking about. I am not talking about an overall raise for all of those who happen to receive the lowest salary on their own particular workplace. I am saying that the limit for minimum wages should be higher, that it should be possible to work fulltime and making a living by holding a minimum wage job. Yes, after reading that explanation, I'm confident that we are definitely talking about the same thing. :)


If I am correctly informed, in some states it is possible to hire someone for as low as $2/hour which is just absurd. It's close to slavery and I don't think that should be legal in a modern democracy in the Industrial World. There really is no way to defend minimum wages as low as that. Not from a financial, economic, political, social or ethical point of view. Well, firstly, those who make $2 or $3 an hour only do so in jobs in which a great portion of the income comes from tips. I actually live with someone working a job like this, and know several others. Effectively, they make more than that.

Second, how can it be be anywhere near slavery (let alone "close" to it) when it's completely voluntary?


Why should I look at it from the standpoint of the employer if he's not looking at it from the standpoint of the worker? Because employers are human beings who react to their circumstances the same way employees do. They do not hire people unless they believe those people to be worth the salary they plan to pay them. Focusing on the employee alone is to ignore half of the equation.


But okay.

It's simple. You hire the people you need. If you think it's too expensive with the new "high" minimum wages you can always say that you can't afford to hire as many people as before. Then you just let the lazy bum that was worth 2$/hour but not 3$ go. I'm sure it is possible. And what is the best motivator for making people work harder? More money. At least if you mostly are very short of it. This is more or less exactly what I'm saying: when the minimum wage is raised, anyone who isn't worth the new minimum wage is let go. It doesn't help low-income people out...it just puts a higher cut-off point in place. The result is that those who can meet it benefit, and everyone who can't is worse off.


How is raising minimum wages the same as telling people if they are willing to work or not? But you have a point. I am pretty sure that if you raised the minimum wages dramatically you wold also see some dramatic change in for exampel social welfare statistics (for the better). And also, higher wages - more tax money for the government to spend. More people working, making more money, the less people depending on society. The more money that a minimum wage job pays, the less overtime that person has to work, or the less is the possibility that that person has to take an extra job to make ends meet. And the more time that person has to spend with his or her kids and take his or her responsibility as a parent. And, hey, what do you know!? That extra job just got vacant for some unemployed guy! The more people of the working class that work, the more they earrn and the more they have to spend, and the higher the GNP will get. You're describing the positive effects of this, but not the negative ones. Every dollar spent on employee salaries would've gone somewhere else. Sometimes, it would've gone to something less productive, like promotion for a failing product. Other times, it would've gone to something more productive, like a breakthrough in research and development.

Also, for every person who makes that new minimum wage cutoff and earns more money, there's someone who doesn't make it, and potentially becomes a leach on the system.


With a decent minimum wage the employer can't use the wage as a weapon. And at the same time it will give the employer the right to expect more from the employees. If the employee is not the man or woman for the job - just hire someone else who's worth the money. What if no one's worth the money? Some jobs are very simple and of very small actual value. I don't know that flipping burgers is really worth $7 an hour, for example. When the government enforces minimum wage laws, it is effectively saying that no job exists which is less valuable than their stated amount. But why isn't it up to the people actually doing the work, and paying for that work, to decide together on how much it is worth?


If the wage more or less lack a lower limit the employer can instead of sacking someone that he or she believes does a bad job lower the wage until the employee is more or less in villenage. And unlike what most conservatists seems to desire for, I don't see no point in going back towards feudalism.

Didn't get the reference to milk...How is this anything at all like feudalism? The minimum wage has nothing to do with assigning land, and even less to do with military service.

The reference to milk isn't about milk, really, but about the relationship between sellers/employers and consumers/employees. You don't need the government to tell you whether or not you're willing to pay $3 for a gallon of milk, so why would you need them to tell you whether or not you're willing to work for $5 an hour? Why can't people weigh the pros and cons with job offers the same way they do when buying and selling products?

[Henry The Kid]

You're a little bit too right in this thread for my liking, Yoda. We need a legalize prostitution thread, this agreeing is killing me.

[Yoda]

You're a little bit too right in this thread for my liking, Yoda. We need a legalize prostitution thread, this agreeing is killing me. I may be a conservative, but I'm definitely a libertarian-leaning one. As for legalized prostitution; I suppose I'd lean against it, if only by invoking the always-popular, always-vague "bad for society" rationale. I don't feel too strongly either way, though.

I'm glad we agree on the minimum wage. I've always thought it was a pretty straightforward issue. I can see some argument for it in some capacity (there's something to be said for government regulation if people are regularly being exploited, even voluntarily)...but I can't comprehend any defense of the minimum wage as it currently exists in the United States.

[Henry The Kid]

I may be a conservative, but I'm definitely a libertarian-leaning one. As for legalized prostitution; I suppose I'd lean against it, if only by invoking the always-popular, always-vague "bad for society" rationale. I don't feel too strongly either way, though.

I'm glad we agree on the minimum wage. I've always thought it was a pretty straightforward issue. I can see some argument for it in some capacity (there's something to be said for government regulation if people are regularly being exploited, even voluntarily)...but I can't comprehend any defense of the minimum wage as it currently exists in the United States.


Definitely. I admit a lot of what I stand for is difficult to understand where I come from, but minimum wage is more or less blatant. I feel similarily about state's-rights and nationalized health care. On the latter, I can't see how people think of it as a good idea. Meh.


And another question, would you support a repeal of Roe vs. Wade under the assumption that abortion would be left up for the states to decide?

[Cabbage Head]

Is it okay if I jump in? As a Canadian, not claiming to know all their is to know of American politics, I was wondering how giving the States the power to decide would be better? I guess you'd want it that way so that one man or one group doesn't decide for the whole nation, but rather that each individual state gets to choose for themselves... Historically, how has this played out? I mean, is it common for a President to give the states powers on these big issues?
Given the topic in hand, abortion laws, do you think Bush would give it to the individual states to decide? Do you think Kerry would if he were in power?

[Henry The Kid]

Is it okay if I jump in? As a Canadian, not claiming to know all their is to know of American politics, I was wondering how giving the States the power to decide would be better? I guess you'd want it that way so that one man or one group doesn't decide for the whole nation, but rather that each individual state gets to choose for themselves... Historically, how has this played out? I mean, is it common for a President to give the states powers on these big issues?
Given the topic in hand, abortion laws, do you think Bush would give it to the individual states to decide? Do you think Kerry would if he were in power?


I don't ever see Roe vs. Wade being appealed, so it's likely a moot point. Though nice to think about.

I have major problems with a strong centralized government, because I simply do not think it works without too much infringement on individual rights. I support state's rights in just about every issue.

I don't think Kerry is going to do much of anything, let alone a key issue like abortion.

[Anonymous Last]

a key issue like abortion.

I'm curious...and you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
I am not looking for statistics, articles, graphs, quotes, other people's ideas on this...just yours slick, just yours. I want you to be original with your own feelings/opinions- and not to have someone else's ideas on this.

My simple question is...
How would abortion issues help you as an individual?

Again, I'm only curious and you don't have to answer.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I don't support the FMA, and I'm glad it was voted down, but secular arguments exist against the santification of gay marriage. I don't think opposition to gay marriage demonstrates religious zealotry, or whatever it is, precisely, that you're accusing Bush of.
I'm not accusing him of zealotry, but I do accuse him of applying his personal religious beliefs to the laws. I cited an example of that. The remarks I have heard from him make it clear that his view of homosexuality is that it should not be sanctioned in any way by the laws of the land. Given that homosexual unions harm no one, I think it should be outside the scope of the law.


I don't follow your reasoning. Many laws, from minimum driving ages to speed limits, are inexact. This doesn't make them "moral" issues as opposed to "legal" ones. The law has to address any issue in which people may unjustly harm other people, and abortion clearly fall unders that. So I don't see any merit to the idea that the issue should be outside the scope of the law from the get-go.I do, and that one word is why.

I also don't see how any of this demonstrates Bush's "abuse of power" and how he has done things "contrary to a very basic tenet of Americanism." That was what you were asked about, and your response seems to suggest that the pro-life position itself is an example of these things.Absolutely not. I am fine with the pro-life position. I just don't think it should be the law. Bush does. I think that's wrong. That's pretty much what I said before, but in shorter sentances. I consider the question I was asked to have been answered twice, now.

If so, I'm respectfully calling bullsh*t. Being pro-choice is a legitimate, arguable political opinion, but it doesn't lay any special claim to the basic tenets of America. These are policy differences, not examples of a breach of Presidential power.
My point, again, is that pro-choice is also an arguable position and that the answer is not something that should be decided legally, unilaterally, by the government.

"Breach of presidential power" and "zealotry" are your labels, not mine. Overdramatization of my stance doesn't make yours right. In fact, in this case, it seems to have muddled your understanding of my point to a great degree. And that's ok - you don't have to understand it. Someone else asked, and I offered my perspective. In my opinion, the reasons I gave are why Bush is criticised for his religion. To recap: it's because he makes legal decisions based on his religious beliefs. I'm not cool with that.

[Yoda]

I'm not accusing him of zealotry, but I do accuse him of applying his personal religious beliefs to the laws. I cited an example of that. The remarks I have heard from him make it clear that his view of homosexuality is that it should not be sanctioned in any way by the laws of the land. Given that homosexual unions harm no one, I think it should be outside the scope of the law. If we're talking about civil unions, I'd probably agree.


I do, and that one word is why. And in response, I'd highlight the word "may." As you admitted, we don't really know when life begins, thus it can be said that abortion "may unjustly harm other people." You're perfectly entitled to your belief that a fetus is not a person, but you've already acknowledged that you don't really know, and thus it is perfectly legitimate for the law to consider the matter.


Absolutely not. I am fine with the pro-life position. I just don't think it should be the law. Bush does. I think that's wrong. That's pretty much what I said before, but in shorter sentances. I consider the question I was asked to have been answered twice, now. Well, saying it's "wrong" is all well and good; it really only implies disagreement, which I'm perfectly cool with. But you also cited it as an example of an "abuse of power," which is another thing altogether.

I still don't see what you're saying here, however; if you're "fine with the pro-life position," how can it be "against the basic tenet of Americanism" to actually enact it? Either the pro-life position is a legitimate social position (whether you agree with it or not), or it is an "abuse of power," as you implied before. And if it's the latter, I don't see why myself and other pro-lifers would be exempt.


My point, again, is that pro-choice is also an arguable position and that the answer is not something that should be decided legally, unilaterally, by the government.

"Breach of presidential power" and "zealotry" are your labels, not mine. Overdramatization of my stance doesn't make yours right. In fact, in this case, it seems to have muddled your understanding of my point to a great degree. And that's ok - you don't have to understand it. Someone else asked, and I offered my perspective. In my opinion, the reasons I gave are why Bush is criticised for his religion. To recap: it's because he makes legal decisions based on his religious beliefs. I'm not cool with that. Neither am I. But as I stated before, I see little evidence of him doing that; and certainly none in regards to abortion. How is abortion, for example, a moral or religious issue? We are surely in agreement that killing an innocent life is immoral, thus the only issue is whether or not a fetus qualifies. Seems to me that it's a technical issue, then, and not a moral one at all.

[Yoda]

Definitely. I admit a lot of what I stand for is difficult to understand where I come from, but minimum wage is more or less blatant. I feel similarily about state's-rights and nationalized health care. On the latter, I can't see how people think of it as a good idea. Meh. I think it's simple utopianism. They see all this wealth and power in the most fortunate, and contrast it with the scarcity of the least fortunate. It's not a nice thought, to be sure, but it has to be considered that we'll have less of that wealth if we get into the habit of inefficiently redistributing it.


And another question, would you support a repeal of Roe vs. Wade under the assumption that abortion would be left up for the states to decide? That's a really tough question. I'd lean towards yes. I'd definitely like to see a shift back towards states rights (within reason), and I imagine we'd probably get some useful data on the matter, too, if we could compare states that ban it with states that don't. Abortion is so polarizing an issue, and I don't imagine that'll change until we start getting some hard evidence, be it social or biological.

Cait and I agree, however, in that we both think the best situation is one in which abortions are simply not desired, rather than not allowed. I guess I've got a bit of utopian in me, too.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

If we're talking about civil unions, I'd probably agree.
The law can't force religions to marry people. So really, we're talking about civil unions and the legalities attached.

And in response, I'd highlight the word "may." As you admitted, we don't really know when life begins, thus it can be said that abortion "may unjustly harm other people." You're perfectly entitled to your belief that a fetus is not a person, but you've already acknowledged that you don't really know, and thus it is perfectly legitimate for the law to consider the matter.
The law on this is unable to consider the individual case, however. That is why the legalities should be confined to the definate and the choice should be made by the person who will wind up raising the child in question.

Again, I think we're hijacking this thread. It's your thread, but I'd still rather not turn this into the debate on abortion again. In regard to the topic, part of my prediction (and fervent hope) that Bush is toast is that he has over-religiocized (heh) his platform.

I still don't see what you're saying here, however; if you're "fine with the pro-life position," how can it be "against the basic tenet of Americanism" to actually enact it?
Holding an opinion is not the same as enacting it into law. I'm very understanding of the opinions that life is sacred, babies smell good and should not be killed, yadda yadda. I also see that the laws aren't to be used to enforce values on people.

Either the pro-life position is a legitimate social position (whether you agree with it or not), or it is an "abuse of power," as you implied before. I rate this binary set a */*****. There's WAY more to it than this and I don't think that's news to you. You used the word "Libertarian" back there, so I'm sure you're aware that not all "legitimate social positions" should be enacted into law.

And if it's the latter, I don't see why myself and other pro-lifers would be exempt. You're not the president. You're not appointing people with your religious beliefs/agenda to offices where they can ban access to services that some people need.

Neither am I. But as I stated before, I see little evidence of him doing that; and certainly none in regards to abortion. How is abortion, for example, a moral or religious issue? We are surely in agreement that killing an innocent life is immoral, thus the only issue is whether or not a fetus qualifies. Seems to me that it's a technical issue, then, and not a moral one at all.
I agree. I don't think it is a religious or moral issue. But the propaganda I see from the pro-lifers is usually religious/moral, and not technical at all. It's always a very passionate emotional appeal for the "innocent", with no regard to the adjacent lives or the future of that "innocent child". When Bush aligns himself with this stance, amidst remarks on the "sanctity" of this and that... he comes off moralistic, not objective, and not as respectful of the fact that other people have other opinions. Perhaps it's a semiotic fallacy, but he plays into it.

[Henry The Kid]

I'm curious...and you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
I am not looking for statistics, articles, graphs, quotes, other people's ideas on this...just yours slick, just yours. I want you to be original with your own feelings/opinions- and not to have someone else's ideas on this.

My simple question is...
How would abortion issues help you as an individual?

Again, I'm only curious and you don't have to answer.

This is a mildly irrelevant question, but I see your attempt to debunk what I have to say.

Anyway, whether abortion affects me as a person is completely unnecesary. Is the USA Patriot Act going to affect me? I break no laws, besides the occasionaly pot-indulgence. But whether it will hurt directly me is irrelevant; my main concern is where the power leads to. Simply put, it is the principle of being spied on for no good reason. However, I can add to that argument by detailing the dangers of letting a government have too much control and too much authority. If we don't put our foot down when it begins, how will we do so when it finally goes all through?

Now, that was more of an analogy to the issue at hand. The simple fact that abortion does not affect me, as was stated earlier, irrelevant. I am what they call pro-choice, but that is also irrelevant to what you were trying to nail me on. I am firmly anti Roe vs Wade for a lot of reasons; however, I mainly am against it because it just serves to continue this nation's continuing desire to have a strong centralized government ever since FDR pretty much destroyed what we had developed so far. My personal views on abortion are my own personal views; I don't seek to say my thoughts are any better than anyone else's. I do, however, feel it is important that the individual states decide what is best for their particular state.

I don't know quite what you were looking for, slick, but that's the best I can make of your attempt to relegate me as an extremist who has been told everything he believes.

Keep in mind, alot of libertarians seem to have similar ideals because it is a philosophy, not a political party. Similar to how many conservatives and liberals think almost indentically. Just because there's always disagreement within a party(where it's likely, at least in modern times than not every republican is a conservative and every democrat is a liberal) does NOT mean one person is not allowed to have all liberal ideas or all conservative ideas.

[Anonymous Last]

This is a mildly irrelevant question, but I see your attempt to debunk what I have to say.No...I was not. You have me all wrong! I was more interested on the personal views of the topic. Instead of someone sounding like a 1960's robot reading a news article.
I don't know quite what you were looking for, slick, but that's the best I can make of your attempt to relegate me as an extremist who has been told everything he believes.
Nicely done and well said. I was not looking for anything minus emotion and truth of an individual. I was not trying to assign you to a particular class or category. I respect your opinions just as I do for every person on this board. I think all views are important and should be respected.

No need for defense with me soldier. You don't have to explain anything.
Keep in mind, alot of libertarians seem to have similar ideals because it is a philosophy, not a political party. Similar to how many conservatives and liberals think almost indentically. Just because there's always disagreement within a party(where it's likely, at least in modern times than not every republican is a conservative and every democrat is a liberal) does NOT mean one person is not allowed to have all liberal ideas or all conservative ideas.

Yes, I agree and you have my respect sir.

Oh...I said slick before because I didn't want you to get slick with facts and numbers.

Sorry if I waisted your time and thanks...now back on to the politcal posting orgy.

[John McClane]

I'm with my gramps with the thought that Bush will win by a landslide.

[Henry The Kid]

No...I was not. You have me all wrong! I was more interested on the personal views of the topic. Instead of someone sounding like a 1960's robot reading a news article.

Nicely done and well said. I was not looking for anything minus emotion and truth of an individual. I was not trying to assign you to a particular class or category. I respect your opinions just as I do for every person on this board. I think all views are important and should be respected.

No need for defense with me soldier. You don't have to explain anything.


Yes, I agree and you have my respect sir.

Oh...I said slick before because I didn't want you to get slick with facts and numbers.

Sorry if I waisted your time and thanks...now back on to the politcal posting orgy.


I apologize. You had me a bit on the defensive, and when I'm buried amongst hours of work, I tend to be a bit more irritable than usual.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

... I also don't see how any of this demonstrates Bush's "abuse of power" and how he has done things "contrary to a very basic tenet of Americanism." That was what you were asked about, and your response seems to suggest that the pro-life position itself is an example of these things...
This is the sort of thing to which I was referring. This is from Time Magazine, 10/05/04.

Jesus and the FDA

By KAREN TUMULTY
Saturday, Oct. 05, 2002


A quiet battle is raging over the Bush Administration's plan to appoint a scantily credentialed doctor, whose writings include a book titled As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, to head an influential Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on women's health policy. Sources tell Time that the agency's choice for the advisory panel is Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment.

This is the second time I've heard of such an appointment from President Bush. To be fair, I'm not sure if it's the same appointment, but the other thing was months and months ago and I don't have the email to check it anymore. Even if it is the same though, I think this is pretty uncool. Medical positions should be filled with our most credentialed, educated and forward-thinking doctors, not a guy who is recommending prayer as a substitute for medication.

[Yoda]

Hmm...I was trying to honor your request that we not hijack, but, eh, as you wish. :)

The law can't force religions to marry people. So really, we're talking about civil unions and the legalities attached. I think the issue is a bit more nuanced than that. I really don't think this is just about hospital visitation (which I agree should be granted immediately). I think it's more about a stamp of social approval than technical benefits.


The law on this is unable to consider the individual case, however. That is why the legalities should be confined to the definate and the choice should be made by the person who will wind up raising the child in question. The law is unable to consider the individual case in regards to countless other things, too. Why shouldn't speed limits and driver's licenses be "confined to the definite"?

I think it's clear that society as a whole has already deemed it perfectly reasonable to preemptively regulate actions which may cause irreversible harm on an innocent bystander, which is why you get arrested for merely driving drunk even if you haven't yet hit anyone. Because, for certain actions, any punishment after the fact cannot equal the crime without becoming cruel.

I can dig the pro-choice position, to a degree. What I don't dig is the idea that abortion is untouchable, and that the debate should be over before it starts.


Holding an opinion is not the same as enacting it into law. I'm very understanding of the opinions that life is sacred, babies smell good and should not be killed, yadda yadda. I also see that the laws aren't to be used to enforce values on people.As I pointed out before (and which you agree with later in your post), the pro-life position in no way forces any value on anyone. It simply takes a different technial view of what constitutes human life. Saying that regulation of abortion amounts to forcing religion or morals on others is good rhetoric, but bad reason.


I rate this binary set a */*****. There's WAY more to it than this and I don't think that's news to you. You used the word "Libertarian" back there, so I'm sure you're aware that not all "legitimate social positions" should be enacted into law. When I say "legitimate social position," I mean simply that is it not in any violation of the Constitution or any fundamental American tenet. It can be controversial, and it can even be wrong, but it is not out of the question. It is not an "abuse of power."


You're not the president. You're not appointing people with your religious beliefs/agenda to offices where they can ban access to services that some people need. I'm not guilty of the accusations you've made simply because I lack the ability to put them into law?


I agree. I don't think it is a religious or moral issue. "He's also anti-abortion, which is also a moral issue." (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=199009&postcount=22)

I don't want this to devolve into a game of "gotcha!", but I think this needs clarifying.


But the propaganda I see from the pro-lifers is usually religious/moral, and not technical at all. It's always a very passionate emotional appeal for the "innocent", with no regard to the adjacent lives or the future of that "innocent child". When Bush aligns himself with this stance, amidst remarks on the "sanctity" of this and that... he comes off moralistic, not objective, and not as respectful of the fact that other people have other opinions. Perhaps it's a semiotic fallacy, but he plays into it. I can't (and wouldn't want to) defend everything every pro-lifer says, of course. Some are hysteric. Then again, so are plenty of pro-choicers, who use words like "rape" to describe the ban on partial birth abortions. For every "abortion kills children" sign there's a warning about teenage girls resorting to back-alley coat-hanger abortions. It's not an issue that is often argued rationally...from either side.

I also think any discussion about how Bush "comes off" is more or less irrelevant, but that's for another thread.

Also, whether or not a person has as much concern for a child after it is born is largely irrelevant to the issue of abortion. It's pretty much inarguable that the right to life is the most fundamental, because without it all other rights are inapplicable. Aside from that, though, even if people were expressing selective outrage, it would only undermine their stated motivation, or personal character; not the strength of the position itself. Is your goal to discredit overzealous pro-lifers, or to argue the pro-choice position?


This is the sort of thing to which I was referring. This is from Time Magazine, 10/05/04.

Jesus and the FDA

By KAREN TUMULTY
Saturday, Oct. 05, 2002


A quiet battle is raging over the Bush Administration's plan to appoint a scantily credentialed doctor, whose writings include a book titled As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, to head an influential Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on women's health policy. Sources tell Time that the agency's choice for the advisory panel is Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment.

This is the second time I've heard of such an appointment from President Bush. To be fair, I'm not sure if it's the same appointment, but the other thing was months and months ago and I don't have the email to check it anymore. Even if it is the same though, I think this is pretty uncool. Medical positions should be filled with our most credentialed, educated and forward-thinking doctors, not a guy who is recommending prayer as a substitute for medication. Well, for one, we're talking about what is basically an op-ed piece, rather than a news report. I'd like to hear more about this guy's credentials and, more importantly, how much power he really has. Hell, I'll bet we've got a KKK member in a city council somewhere...so I'd say a bit more information is needed.

I'm not, by the way, defending this appointee. It's quite possible that he did, in fact, appoint someone questionable.

[Yoda]

I think the bottom line is this:
The Republicans are still hammering away on the fearmongering regarding terrorism and Bush being "the man we need in charge". Speaking of fearmongering (which I addressed earlier (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=199001&postcount=19), but which I assume got lost in the shuffle), Kerry continues to insist that Bush may reinstate the draft, despite the Bush campaign's repeated, unambiguous claims that they will not:

Kerry Says President May Bring Back Draft (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35517-2004Oct15.html)
MILWAUKEE, Oct. 15 -- John F. Kerry charged Friday that there is a "great potential" President Bush will reinstate the military draft if reelected, as the two candidates battled furiously for an edge with voters in Iowa and Wisconsin who are deeply divided over the Iraq war, the economy and their presidential choice.

In comments displayed on the front page of Friday's Des Moines Register, the largest and most influential newspaper in Iowa, Kerry offered scant evidence to support the allegation of an impending draft under Bush. "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft," Kerry told the newspaper. Michael McCurry, a senior adviser, said Kerry based the charge on concerns relayed by voters, members of Congress and military officials.

The president has said several times that he will not bring back the draft, and all but two members of the House, both Democrats, recently voted against the idea. Like I said before: it may be chic to paint the Republicans as the ones peddling in fear, but it doesn't really add up. There is no monopoly on scare tactics, and the use of the phrase assumes, I'd point out, that there's nothing to be scared of, which is more than a little arguable.

[John McClane]

I just got the new issue of PC World the other day and I can say that I'm not to happy with Bush or Kerry in computer world. Click here (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118014,00.asp) to read the article on Internet Taxes, Company Liability, Spyware, and the most important too, Privacy and Spam.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Hmm...I was trying to honor your request that we not hijack, but, eh, as you wish. :)
Well, it really wasn't my intent to resurrect the entire discussion, but to substantiate the one point I'd been hazy on before... It seems like the original topic has run it's natural course anyway, so we may as well use it.

I think the issue is a bit more nuanced than that. I really don't think this is just about hospital visitation (which I agree should be granted immediately). I think it's more about a stamp of social approval than technical benefits.
You've isolated one point and are now responding as if it was my whole list of why the anti-homo stance is illogical, but ok, let me just ask you this: why , if it's only a social issue, is it in our laws? And why do people who are not hurting anyone have to lobby for a stamp of approval? If people don't want to be around gays, that's their loss, but to enforce legal disparity is messed UP.

I'm not guilty of the accusations you've made simply because I lack the ability to put them into law?No. Duh. :p My accusation was abuse of presidential power. If you're not the president, you can't abuse his power.


"He's also anti-abortion, which is also a moral issue." (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=199009&postcount=22)

I don't want this to devolve into a game of "gotcha!", but I think this needs clarifying.
I think the foggy area is this: I believe that people in general are better off when they're free to make their own decisions, as long as their decision doesn't hurt another person. I am not comfortable with taking the power to choose parenthood or not choose it away from individuals. I don't think it's an area that should be dictated by the government. Those who believe no fetus should be aborted, and those who believe only girl fetuses should be aborted, and those who believe only ugly babies or white trash babies should be aborted... can have their opinions, but need to stay out of the legal arena.


I can't (and wouldn't want to) defend everything every pro-lifer says, of course. Some are hysteric. Then again, so are plenty of pro-choicers, who use words like "rape" to describe the ban on partial birth abortions. For every "abortion kills children" sign there's a warning about teenage girls resorting to back-alley coat-hanger abortions. It's not an issue that is often argued rationally...from either side.
It's a difficult and emotional issue, to be sure, from either side.

I also think any discussion about how Bush "comes off" is more or less irrelevant, but that's for another thread.
Well, the topic was "election predictions", and how the candidates "come off" has all too much to do with that, unfortunately. That's sort of how this conversation got started, if I remember.


Well, for one, we're talking about what is basically an op-ed piece, rather than a news report. I'd like to hear more about this guy's credentials and, more importantly, how much power he really has. Hell, I'll bet we've got a KKK member in a city council somewhere...so I'd say a bit more information is needed.If this guy wants to serve on a city council where his views are shared by a large part of his community, that's up to the people who might elect him. My beef with this guy is: he wasn't elected, and his views most certainly do NOT represent most of the country. This guy has told women with PMS to read the Bible. I don't know how he's lived this long!

I'm not, by the way, defending this appointee. It's quite possible that he did, in fact, appoint someone questionable.Duly noted. :)

Re: the abortion stuff, I'm declining to delve into that in depth and I've excised your remarks that were concentrated on that topic of conversation. I don't think it's a topic that can be understood by those for whom it's a hypothetical question. That's sort of why I'm pro-choice, actually.

[Yoda]

Well, it really wasn't my intent to resurrect the entire discussion, but to substantiate the one point I'd been hazy on before... It seems like the original topic has run it's natural course anyway, so we may as well use it. Eh, fair enough.


You've isolated one point and are now responding as if it was my whole list of why the anti-homo stance is illogical, but ok, let me just ask you this: why , if it's only a social issue, is it in our laws? And why do people who are not hurting anyone have to lobby for a stamp of approval? If people don't want to be around gays, that's their loss, but to enforce legal disparity is messed UP. I wrote a reply to this several paragraphs long, but I hate bloated posts (if you care to read it anyway, I'll be glad to post it). I'll try a shorter answer...

It's not that homosexuals shoould have to lobby for a stamp or approval...it's that EVERYONE should. It's not the government's job to condemn or condone everything out there. The government shouldn't issue any opinion about homosexuality, cartography, or bird-watching.

I think you could make the case that it should have an opinion on marriage, though, seeing as how every study in the history of the world (uh...give or take a few) shows that stable homes and families produce more well-adjusted, productive members of society.

Summarizing my other reply has made it considerably less graceful, possibly more confusing, and not much shorter, but I'm going with it anyway.


No. Duh. :p My accusation was abuse of presidential power. If you're not the president, you can't abuse his power. Well, yes, of course, but I think abortion should be, if not illegal, substantially regulated. So do tens of millions of other pro-lifers. Your criticisms, then, would apply to all of us, because we lack only the ability, and not the desire, to enact legislation on the matter.

I know I'm engaging in the very conversation you'd like to avoid, but I don't feel comfortable letting this next bit go answered. Sorry.

I think the foggy area is this: I believe that people in general are better off when they're free to make their own decisions, as long as their decision doesn't hurt another person. I am not comfortable with taking the power to choose parenthood or not choose it away from individuals. I don't think it's an area that should be dictated by the government. Those who believe no fetus should be aborted, and those who believe only girl fetuses should be aborted, and those who believe only ugly babies or white trash babies should be aborted... can have their opinions, but need to stay out of the legal arena. It should go without saying that virtually NO ONE reasonable is comfortable with taking "the power to choose parenthood" away. But many are even less comfortable with taking the right to life away; I imagine you'd be among them.

So, we're left where we were six posts ago: with a largely technical/biological question in which many innocent human lives may hang in the balance. How, I ask again, is that not something the law should even be considering? All I've heard to this effect is that you simply don't like the idea, or are not comfortable with it, but I don't see any objective case against the government even considering involvement.

Abortion clearly meets the kind of criteria you've been laying out as necessary for the law to have a reason to intervene. So what's the logic that pushes it, for you, from a mere opinion, to something which should be beyond legal reproach?


If this guy wants to serve on a city council where his views are shared by a large part of his community, that's up to the people who might elect him. My beef with this guy is: he wasn't elected, and his views most certainly do NOT represent most of the country. This guy has told women with PMS to read the Bible. I don't know how he's lived this long! Yeah, if that's all true, it's pretty wacky.


Re: the abortion stuff, I'm declining to delve into that in depth and I've excised your remarks that were concentrated on that topic of conversation. I don't think it's a topic that can be understood by those for whom it's a hypothetical question. That's sort of why I'm pro-choice, actually. Oh boy...I don't mean to ask such a loaded question, but are you implying that I, being a man, cannot understand (and thus hold a valid opinion on) the subject of abortion? Because, apart from being somewhat offensive, there's loads of holes in the idea.

[Aniko]

This guy has told women with PMS to read the Bible. I don't know how he's lived this long!

:laugh: His wife must be a saint...or at least secured a spot with a special halo. I also could go into the fo-pa's of Kerry's and Edwards' wive's making Laura look even more saintly...but I'll be good. To bad Laura isn't running....better yet Barbara. ;)

On that note...,predictions....I finally voted Bush by a narrow margin. Why? after the debates I couldn't get over the media claiming Kerry the winner. I thought both appeared strong in there own right, but both also failed to answer some questions and the finger pointing didn't help either side. For the record...both said things I liked and both said things I PMS'd on. It was after the debates, with the analysis and spin doctors doing their job...and hearing people from the different call in shows that made me think that despite hollywood and some of the media's push (CBS and Dan Rather), that Bush may squeak this one out...so that's how I voted on your poll Yoda.

IRL...I just wish I didn't feel like I had to choose once again on who is the worst poison. I haven't felt good about a vote since Reagan.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

... It's not that homosexuals shoould have to lobby for a stamp or approval...it's that EVERYONE should. It's not the government's job to condemn or condone everything out there. The government shouldn't issue any opinion about homosexuality, cartography, or bird-watching.

I think you could make the case that it should have an opinion on marriage, though, seeing as how every study in the history of the world (uh...give or take a few) shows that stable homes and families produce more well-adjusted, productive members of society.
Gay marriages are not a threat to hetero marriage in any way, shape or form. None. Zero. If you have proof to the contrary, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, what you've said above just isn't relevant to the legality of the issue, and it's the legality that we're talking about here, not anyone's comfort level with a lifestyle choice made by their neighbors.

Summarizing my other reply has made it considerably less graceful, possibly more confusing, and not much shorter, but I'm going with it anyway.It's nearly my bedtime, so I appreciate your brevity. :)


Well, yes, of course, but I think abortion should be, if not illegal, substantially regulated. So do tens of millions of other pro-lifers. Your criticisms, then, would apply to all of us, because we lack only the ability, and not the desire, to enact legislation on the matter.And tens of millions of pro-choicers feel differently. And the laws of this land say that people should have the right to make that choice for themselves, and the president appointing people who feel counter to, and can be expected to enact controls thwarting the laws of the land is underhanded.

I know I'm engaging in the very conversation you'd like to avoid, but I don't feel comfortable letting this next bit go answered. Sorry.

It should go without saying that virtually NO ONE reasonable is comfortable with taking "the power to choose parenthood" away. But many are even less comfortable with taking the right to life away; I imagine you'd be among them.
You'd be mistaken. I believe that the choice to be a parent should be a positive one, not a mistake, and not a punishment for being sexually active. The "you played the game, now live with it" school turns my stomach. Your statement earlier that a person need give no thought to the raising of the child they bring into the world is the craziest thing I've read in ages. No offense intended, I just can't even express my horror at your words there without it coming out strongly. OF COURSE a person has to consider that. OF COURSE THEY DO.

So, we're left where we were six posts ago: with a largely technical/biological question in which many innocent human lives may hang in the balance. How, I ask again, is that not something the law should even be considering? All I've heard to this effect is that you simply don't like the idea, or are not comfortable with it, but I don't see any objective case against the government even considering involvement.The government should not be making personal decisions for it's citizens, when those decisions affect the rest of the lives of those people. It is not the business of the government, nor should it be.

Abortion clearly meets the kind of criteria you've been laying out as necessary for the law to have a reason to intervene. No, it does not. I understand your way of thinking. But you are not understanding my way of thinking. I do not accept that a fetus is a person. I made that clear from the get-go in this conversation. There is more to be considered than the "life" of a mass of cells. There is the life of the mother.... and the father. There is the future of all of them to be considered. That, to me, is more important than carrying every viable fetus that happens along to full term.

Oh boy...I don't mean to ask such a loaded question, but are you implying that I, being a man, cannot understand (and thus hold a valid opinion on) the subject of abortion? Because, apart from being somewhat offensive, there's loads of holes in the idea.
No. That's not what I'm saying at all. As a man you may very well one day face this decision for yourself. I am saying I doubt you have been in that position yet, and it's therefore a hypothetical situation for you. I'm saying it's possible that, faced with the sickening weight of such a decision and every stomach-churning detail of it coming down on you, when you are faced with raising a child alone that you don't even want and having NO help from your family and your job provides you with no insurance or childcare and not enough salary to pay for them, that you may feel differently and that until a person faces that situation, they're not in full understanding of what a person goes through who is.

[Anonymous Last]

All the politicians who lie, cheat and steal are not good for the health of well-adjusted, productive members of society.
I say they should all be locked up for the smallest little crime they commit while they are in office. Give them a taste of where justice truly has no eyes. Feed them to the killers and psychotics who no longer have a voice in society. Not some cushy type country club with cable and Cross Country skiing. I'm talking about lock-down, doors slamming shut. Who will hear them scream? Let's see which political figure is left for their views of patriotic corruption. Just give them one small dose. These suits in America need it. God bless our country when they handed Martha a vacation. I bet she has the prettiest designed cell on Cell Block # D. Now let's get to the individuals who make the rules...stick it to em'.

I'm just sayin'!

[Piddzilla]

You're one funny dude, Anonymous!

[EDIT] Btw, I want to change my vote! Aniko made me realize that also good people vote for Bush.

[Anonymous Last]

You're one funny dude, Ano!
Thanks!

Anonymous Last- for White House b!tch slap. Liberty & Responsibility!

Vote for me!

Damn it! I approve this stupid message.

[2wrongs]

Gay marriages are not a threat to hetero marriage in any way, shape or form. None. Zero. If you have proof to the contrary, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, what you've said above just isn't relevant to the legality of the issue, and it's the legality that we're talking about here, not anyone's comfort level with a lifestyle choice made by their neighbors. Gays don't have to get "married". I think that's where people are having a problem. Marriage is defined in all dictionaries as a union between a man and a woman. The whole concept of a wedding is the couple proclaiming to God and to witnesses that the two of them are joining together. Some people have elected to take God out of the equation but the part about having a witness has never changed. It's the deifinition of what marriage is that homosexuals are trying to bypass. Why can't they just get into some kind of legal agreement? Why do they need to take the institution of a religious ceremony and make it something it isn't? That would be like taking some other religious practice and using it to mean something entirely different. The only reason they don't is because there really is no other tradition that they can benefit from legally or financialy. I don't see any homosexuals trying to change the definition of "baptisim".





I believe that the choice to be a parent should be a positive one, not a mistake, and not a punishment for being sexually active. Well then I guess that makes my mother, pregnant at 18, some kind of humanitarian. I was a "mistake" but she "elected" to keep me around. She should win an award; so should millions of other women who get pregnant by accident and then choose not to be selfish. Wow. That's a profound concept, isn't it? We're all here by the good graces of our mothers. Well, not exactly since some of them actually wanted to get pregnant. *whew* that was a close call then. Well, there I go again...I was just a fetus at the time...it wasn't really me until I was born, then I was a human, not the potential to be one. That doesn't matter.

[chicagofrog]

Why do they need to take the institution of a religious ceremony and make it something it isn't?

real good, intelligent point you've got there, sweet 2wrongs! :)
(my humble opinion, for what it counts...)
(and i'm not christian, but traditions are not a christian-only thing, like it gets forgotten far too often in strongly christian countries like the US).

[Anonymous Last]

Why can't they just get into some kind of legal agreement? Why do they need to take the institution of a religious ceremony and make it something it isn't? That would be like taking some other religious practice and using it to mean something entirely different.

Maybe to a homosexual their god or their Jeevis is gay...

The only reason they don't is because there really is no other tradition that they can benefit from legally or financialy. I don't see any homosexuals trying to change the definition of "baptisim"..
I think they gave it some back alley meaning of being on the knees and being born again! When I find out for sure I'll let you all know.

[chicagofrog]

Me, i believe in a Tiger-god and y'all buddies? :yup:

[Anonymous Last]

Me, i believe in a Tiger-god and y'all buddies? :yup:
You are going to get struck by a discontinuous natural electric discharge in the atmosphere and I will be blamed for it!

[2wrongs]

I think they gave it some back alley meaning of being on the knees and being born again! When I find out for sure I'll let you all know.*cringe* nothing would surprise me.

[chicagofrog]

You are going to get struck by a discontinuous natural electric discharge in the atmosphere and I will be blamed for it!

http://www.ablehomeinspection.com/photo20.html

:eek:

http://www.ablehomeinspection.com/jpeg-photos/frog.jpg

[SamsoniteDelilah]

http://www.ablehomeinspection.com/photo20.html

:eek:

http://www.ablehomeinspection.com/jpeg-photos/frog.jpg
... the hell?

[2wrongs]

oh, it got way more interesting that that awhile ago...

[Anonymous Last]

... the hell?
Kentucky Fried Horny Toad!

[2wrongs]

stop quoting the same image! AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
this thread is so beyond repair.
*sigh*

[Anonymous Last]

AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH



http://www.animationartgallery.com/images/PEA/PEANPB4.jpg

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Gays don't have to get "married". I think that's where people are having a problem. Marriage is defined in all dictionaries as a union between a man and a woman. The whole concept of a wedding is the couple proclaiming to God and to witnesses that the two of them are joining together. Some people have elected to take God out of the equation but the part about having a witness has never changed. It's the deifinition of what marriage is that homosexuals are trying to bypass. Why can't they just get into some kind of legal agreement? Why do they need to take the institution of a religious ceremony and make it something it isn't? That would be like taking some other religious practice and using it to mean something entirely different. The only reason they don't is because there really is no other tradition that they can benefit from legally or financialy. I don't see any homosexuals trying to change the definition of "baptisim".
Apparently, you think of homosexuals as Godless people. I have not found that to be the case.

The problem is that the government has attached legalities to "marriage" that should not be.


Well then I guess that makes my mother, pregnant at 18, some kind of humanitarian. I was a "mistake" but she "elected" to keep me around. She should win an award; so should millions of other women who get pregnant by accident and then choose not to be selfish. Wow. That's a profound concept, isn't it? We're all here by the good graces of our mothers. Well, not exactly since some of them actually wanted to get pregnant. *whew* that was a close call then. Well, there I go again...I was just a fetus at the time...it wasn't really me until I was born, then I was a human, not the potential to be one. That doesn't matter.Kudos to your mom. Seriously. Not everybody can do what she did and fewer can do it well. I find it odd that you'd give your mother props in this sarcastic tone, but that's between you and her.

[Henry The Kid]

Libertarians eat babies.

[Anonymous Last]

Libertarians eat babies.
Just as long as it's OK, with GOD!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Pass the mustard.

[Anonymous Last]

Pass the mustard.

OOOOOOOh! Aren't you the rebel most take it with ketchup.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Babies are so sweet on their own, I like to mix it up.

[Anonymous Last]

Babies are so sweet on their own, I like to mix it up.
How bout a Bailey's after dinner chaser?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Absolutely. With a Similac mixer. :up:

[Anonymous Last]

Absolutely. With a Similac mixer. :up:
The Nipple Irish Cream!

I think I've screwed this thread from behind too long! I'm starting to glow like a Glow Worm.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Well, ah.... < mindwander > uhm...
In conclusion, I...

Look! Cows!!
http://www.pbtc.ca/Pictures/cows.jpg

[Yoda]

I've, like, totally given up on this thread.

[Anonymous Last]

I think I've screwed this thread from behind too long! I'm starting to glow like a Glow Worm.

I've, like, totally given up on this thread.

Yup! it's official...

[2wrongs]

Apparently, you think of homosexuals as Godless people. I have not found that to be the case.

The problem is that the government has attached legalities to "marriage" that should not be. did I say that? Are you saying that all the homosexuals demanding to be able to get married are doing so in the name of their rights as Christians?


Kudos to your mom. Seriously. Not everybody can do what she did and fewer can do it well. I find it odd that you'd give your mother props in this sarcastic tone, but that's between you and her.The sarcastic tone was not towards my mother and her chice but towards the idea that she did something that you would deem admirable just because she didn't terminate her pregnancy. I thought that was totally obvious but I don't mind explaining it.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

did I say that? Are you saying that all the homosexuals demanding to be able to get married are doing so in the name of their rights as Christians?
Yes, you did say that:
The whole concept of a wedding is the couple proclaiming to God and to witnesses that the two of them are joining together. Some people have elected to take God out of the equation but the part about having a witness has never changed. It's the deifinition of what marriage is that homosexuals are trying to bypass.
Homosexuals very often believe that they are acting with the blessing of God. Not everyone believes in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. I'm sure you're aware of that. The laws of the USA take that fact into account, and those appointed to uphold the law should, as well.


The sarcastic tone was not towards my mother and her chice but towards the idea that she did something that you would deem admirable just because she didn't terminate her pregnancy. I thought that was totally obvious but I don't mind explaining it.
You sarcasm was hardly indecipherable - just misplaced. I do admire your mother for her choice. If you don't, as I said, that's between you and her.

[Anonymous Last]

This brings back memories of that other thread!

Don't click on this! (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=185273&postcount=213)

[2wrongs]

Homosexuals very often believe that they are acting with the blessing of God. Not everyone believes in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Well, that's where the istitution came from though, isn't it? The way that my Judeo-Christian God set it up? They aren't presuming to marry under a marriage type ceremony of say...pygmies? So why use the concept at all?

You sarcasm was hardly indecipherable - just misplaced. I do admire your mother for her choice. If you don't, as I said, that's between you and her.
So now we admire women for not killing the human living inside them? Wow. Big steps for mankind, there. Just out of curiosity, when does life begin according to you?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Well, that's where the istitution came from though, isn't it? The way that my Judeo-Christian God set it up? They aren't presuming to marry under a marriage type ceremony of say...pygmies? So why use the concept at all?
Wow... it's just too tiny in your mind. I keep running into things, and all the people look the same... it's creeping me out!


So now we admire women for not killing the human living inside them? Wow. Big steps for mankind, there. Just out of curiosity, when does life begin according to you?
When you move out of your parents' house.

[2wrongs]

it's pointless having a debate with you. You're more involved in being obstinate than informative.
Here's you:
Ask me a question and I'll dance all around it.
Here's me:
No.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Not at all.
First of all, to be fair, you haven't asked me any questions that I haven't answered, although my last was tongue in cheek. It's not a question that has been answered by experts, and that was my initial point.

Secondly, it's been more like so:
Me: legality should be blind to prejudice and based on actual harm to others.
You: everyone who doesn't think like me is a pygmie!!!

[2wrongs]

Not at all.
First of all, to be fair, you haven't asked me any questions that I haven't answered, although my last was tongue in cheek. It's not a question that has been answered by experts, and that was my initial point. You need an expert to tell you when life begins? Come on. You're not serious. Here, let me help: Laci Peterson, you're familiar with the story, yes? She was pregnant. She wasn't just 3weeks or even 3 months. Worded in another way, if Laci delivered her baby the day before she was killed, the baby would have survived because she was that far along in the pregnancy. Bush is pushing for a bill that makes it a law that if you kill a pregnant woman, you get tried for two homicides instead of one. The reason being, the killer has stolen two lives. How do we know this? They baby would have lived had it not been killed. It's the same with abortion. The potential for life is stolen. It's the same with invetro fertilization. Multiple babies are created for the chance of one to survive. If it were the same life they were trying for time and time again and finally one took, that would be different. This isn't what happens though is it? It's lots of different eggs and sperm creating the potential for lots of babies but when one takes and the woman gets pregnant, what happens to all those other babies? *shuddering* stem cell research! Yea!

Secondly, it's been more like so:
Me: legality should be blind to prejudice and based on actual harm to others.
You: everyone who doesn't think like me is a pygmie!!! basically. :rolleyes:

[SamsoniteDelilah]

You need an expert to tell you when life begins? Come on. You're not serious. Here, let me help: Laci Peterson, you're familiar with the story, yes? She was pregnant. She wasn't just 3weeks or even 3 months. Worded in another way, if Laci delivered her baby the day before she was killed, the baby would have survived because she was that far along in the pregnancy. Bush is pushing for a bill that makes it a law that if you kill a pregnant woman, you get tried for two homicides instead of one. The reason being, the killer has stolen two lives. How do we know this? They baby would have lived had it not been killed. It's the same with abortion. The potential for life is stolen. It's the same with invetro fertilization. Multiple babies are created for the chance of one to survive. If it were the same life they were trying for time and time again and finally one took, that would be different. This isn't what happens though is it? It's lots of different eggs and sperm creating the potential for lots of babies but when one takes and the woman gets pregnant, what happens to all those other babies? *shuddering* stem cell research! Yea!
It's hilarious that you try to ladel in all this condecension, when you're wrong on so many basic points. For instance, you don't see the conflict between supposedly valuing human life, but denying it to people who could benefit from stem cell research. Another glaring fallacy in this is that you think you know what would happen to a baby who is unborn. You can't. It's as simple as that. You just don't know. Nobody knows. The law should be honoring it's responsibility to the people who are definately alive, and let those people make the decisions of their own conciences regarding those who may be.

[2wrongs]

I am sickened. That's what it ultimately comes to. I just can't believe there are people out there in the world that think like you do. Denying life to someone because I'm against embryotic stem cell research is a contradiction to my morals? No, dear. It goes hand in hand. Protecting the rights of people who are already living as opposed to protecting those who can't protect themselves? What planet are you from? Okay, according to your theory that everyone should protect individual choices at all costs, I choose to protect the rights of child molesters. Okay? Yeah, it's not the child molester's fault that that's how they get off. Who am I to deny a person's basic right of happiness. Where do you draw a line? I shudder to think. Something growing in a womb with the potential to live deserves just as much protection, if not more because they are helpless, than someone who is already walking the earth. It scares me to see that you can't understand the circle of life.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I am sickened. That's what it ultimately comes to. I just can't believe there are people out there in the world that think like you do. Denying life to someone because I'm against embryotic stem cell research is a contradiction to my morals? No, dear. It goes hand in hand. Protecting the rights of people who are already living as opposed to protecting those who can't protect themselves? What planet are you from? Okay, according to your theory that everyone should protect individual choices at all costs, I choose to protect the rights of child molesters. Okay? Yeah, it's not the child molester's fault that that's how they get off. Who am I to deny a person's basic right of happiness. Where do you draw a line? I shudder to think. Something growing in a womb with the potential to live deserves just as much protection, if not more because they are helpless, than someone who is already walking the earth. It scares me to see that you can't understand the circle of life.
Yes, we pygmies are challenged, that way.

[chicagofrog]

I don't see why protecting life at all costs would be an "OBJECTIVE", thus indiscutible, principle. It all goes back to the *auld* problem of free choice versus harming somebody with one's choices. If anyone thinks a *definitive* solution to that problem has been found, that someone should redefine "tolerance" for me, and others.

[Henry The Kid]

I am sickened. That's what it ultimately comes to. I just can't believe there are people out there in the world that think like you do. Denying life to someone because I'm against embryotic stem cell research is a contradiction to my morals? No, dear. It goes hand in hand. Protecting the rights of people who are already living as opposed to protecting those who can't protect themselves? What planet are you from? Okay, according to your theory that everyone should protect individual choices at all costs, I choose to protect the rights of child molesters. Okay? Yeah, it's not the child molester's fault that that's how they get off. Who am I to deny a person's basic right of happiness. Where do you draw a line? I shudder to think. Something growing in a womb with the potential to live deserves just as much protection, if not more because they are helpless, than someone who is already walking the earth. It scares me to see that you can't understand the circle of life.


You're pretty silly. Also, condescending.

[Anonymous Last]

You're pretty silly. Also, condescending.

I think you all are pretty silly!

Fine bunch!

[chicagofrog]

bunch bunch munch

[Henry The Kid]

I think you all are pretty silly!

Fine bunch!


But I eat babies.

[chicagofrog]

But I eat babies.

hence the aforementioned "munch".

[Anonymous Last]

***** man! No one is perfect!
As long as you have a permission slip from your GOD and you don't use wire hangers...I'm cool with ya! Oh yes, and use ketchup!







Would anyone like to eat some frog?

[chicagofrog]

Has anyone seen The Worshippers of the Tiger God? now that's a scary movie! ;-=

[2wrongs]

Yes, we pygmies are challenged, that way.
I'm actually sorry I even got into the debate. After re-reading through the arguments it was pretty clear to me, early on, that we were not in a position to change each other's minds. What we acomplished instead was making each other angry. I'm sorry if I said some things that were not exactly "nice".
I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I'm not got going to judge you by what I read here, although it's challenging not to, I don't even know you. So again, sorry.

[Henry The Kid]

***** man! No one is perfect!
As long as you have a permission slip from your GOD and you don't use wire hangers...I'm cool with ya! Oh yes, and use ketchup!







Would anyone like to eat some frog?

I heard frog tastes like people.

[Anonymous Last]

I heard frog tastes like people.

They are Kosher... I've heard!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I'm actually sorry I even got into the debate. After re-reading through the arguments it was pretty clear to me, early on, that we were not in a position to change each other's minds. What we acomplished instead was making each other angry. I'm sorry if I said some things that were not exactly "nice".
I think we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I'm not got going to judge you by what I read here, although it's challenging not to, I don't even know you. So again, sorry.
That's cool. :)
I appreciate directness over "nice" anyway.

[Piddzilla]

I appreciate directness over "nice" anyway.

My place or your place? :)

[SamsoniteDelilah]

hee! :blush:
Yours. I always like being able to leave when I want. :eek:

[Piddzilla]

hee! :blush:
Yours. I always like being able to leave when I want. :eek:

You live in jail? :dizzy:

*starts cleaning room and making bed*

[Anonymous Last]

You live in jail? :dizzy:

*starts cleaning room and making bed*

If your not happy with that I know a female prison guard that will cut your food for you, I can introduce you to her.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

If your not happy with that I know a female prison guard that will cut your food for you, I can introduce you to her.
Isn't Nony the helpful-est? :D

[Piddzilla]

Isn't Nony the helpful-est? :D

Hmm.. I'll answer that after I've seen the prison guard. :suspicious:

[Anonymous Last]

Hmm.. I'll answer that after I've seen the prison guard. :suspicious:
She's not a real prison guard...just plays one at night.

[2wrongs]

That's cool. :)
I appreciate directness over "nice" anyway. So...
...wanna be friends?
Heh.
Remember doing that on the playground at school? You'd have like this huge fight over something with another girl and there'd be all this drama, then someone would say they were sorry and you'd be back to playing on the bars?
I totally remember that.
Anyways, I'm glad that's over. I'd shake your hand and slap you on the ass if I could.

[Piddzilla]

She's not a real prison guard...just plays one at night.

I like it! And you say she'll cut my food too?

[Anonymous Last]

So...
...wanna be friends?
Heh.
Remember doing that on the playground at school? You'd have like this huge fight over something with another girl and there'd be all this drama, then someone would say they were sorry and you'd be back to playing on the bars?
I totally remember that.
Anyways, I'm glad that's over. I'd shake your hand and slap you on the ass if I could.

Both of you are cool as hell. There's no need to fight over politics on this on line thing of ours spend your energy on Nov. 2nd.

You keep to the shaking hands part and I'll slap the asses. Deal?

[Anonymous Last]

I like it! And you say she'll cut my food too?
Yeah, she baby sits my daughter when I need to go do something.
She cuts my daughter's food...I think she'll cut other people's food too. She's wonderful!

[SamsoniteDelilah]

So...
...wanna be friends?
Heh.
Remember doing that on the playground at school? You'd have like this huge fight over something with another girl and there'd be all this drama, then someone would say they were sorry and you'd be back to playing on the bars?
I totally remember that.
Anyways, I'm glad that's over. I'd shake your hand and slap you on the ass if I could.
This thread is taking a serious turn for the better. :D
Meet me at recess, 2wrongs:
http://homepage.mac.com/bkerstetter/media/MonkeyBarsWaterColor.jpg

[2wrongs]

Both of you are cool as hell. There's no need to fight over politics on this on line thing of ours spend your energy on Nov. 2nd.

You keep to the shaking hands part and I'll slap the asses. Deal?
I had a feeling you'd say that. ;)

This thread is taking a serious turn for the better.
Meet me at recess, 2wrongs:
You got it. :D
What shall we play?