# If the Election were tomorrow?



## Arnold (Aug 2, 2004)

who would you vote for?


----------



## Monolith (Aug 2, 2004)

Bush will own your commie ass.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 2, 2004)

Bush-wacker is gonna lose


----------



## aggies1ut (Aug 2, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Bush-wacker is gonna lose


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 2, 2004)

Libertarian across the board. Been voting this way since the 1996 elections. 

^ To me Bush is more communist than any other candidate if you look at the growth of government spending, the deficit, reduction of civil liberties, attempted passage of the Total Information & Awareness Act, drug laws, wire tapping laws, domestic spies agancies, and more.


----------



## SJ69 (Aug 2, 2004)

Bush, for more reasons than I have energy to articulate.
Ah I can't leave it at that.
So here's the top 2
1. Kerry (and Dems) think I'm rich (I'm not) and want to redistibute my money.
2. Bush has BALLZ ("We don't need a permission slip....")


----------



## PreMier (Aug 2, 2004)

I dont know... probably some third party.  Perhaps Libertarian.


----------



## SJ69 (Aug 2, 2004)

I'd vote libertarian if I thought there was achance, my main goal is to keep the people who want to take more of my money out of office.
I did vote libertatrian for Pennsylvania Gov last time though.  The candidate (Damn I forget his name now) said "Gun control kills" and during a debate he held up a dollar bill and starting ripping slivers off saying this much of your tax dollor goes here, this much there, etc and when he was done there was a little sliver left and he said this is how much is left that directly benifits you.
For those two things he got my vote.


----------



## PreMier (Aug 2, 2004)

Too bad all the people think like you IE"I want my vote to count for something/If there was a chance I would vote Libertarian"


----------



## SJ69 (Aug 2, 2004)

It's not just that like, I said I voted 3rd party before, and I'd do it again.  But I like Bush and haven't yet heard anything to convince me to give my vote to any of the 3rd party candidates yet.
Now maybe if Buchannen (sp?) was running.....


----------



## Monolith (Aug 2, 2004)

Only vote for Bush (or Kerry) if youre in a state that your vote actually has a chance of meaning something.  Im in MA, so it means fuck all.  This place is a clusterfuck of liberal bastards.


----------



## KataMaStEr (Aug 2, 2004)

Bye bye Bush


----------



## PreMier (Aug 2, 2004)

Yea, Utah is total Republican.  So vote whatever here.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 2, 2004)

Anyone wanna make some friendly wagers on the outcome of the election?  I'll throw down 2 bottles of M1T that bush is gonna take it...


----------



## Jodi (Aug 2, 2004)

I think its going to be another Bush/Gore situation......neck and neck.  Every vote is going to make a difference on this one.


----------



## PreMier (Aug 2, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Anyone wanna make some friendly wagers on the outcome of the election?  I'll throw down 2 bottles of M1T that bush is gonna take it...




  Prince can be in.. he has a stash lol


----------



## KataMaStEr (Aug 2, 2004)

Monolith I'll take your two bottles of M1T now if you dont mind


----------



## aggies1ut (Aug 2, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Only vote for Bush (or Kerry) if youre in a state that your vote actually has a chance of meaning something.  Im in MA, so it means fuck all.  This place is a clusterfuck of liberal bastards.



Gee sounds like the town I went to undergrad. in.  I also used to live in the East Bay where it is notoriously liberal. Lol, when I visited Texas though, I got along just fine. Guns, beef, Republicans...


----------



## P-funk (Aug 3, 2004)

bush


----------



## I Are Baboon (Aug 3, 2004)

I think they both suck, but at this point in time I am leaning towards Kerry.  A vote for anyone other than Bush or Kerry is a wasted vote.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

IMHO kerry is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

IMO Kerry is the Devil.  Almost everything that dipshit stands for, I am against.


----------



## tomas101 (Aug 3, 2004)

both really suck but bush is just a horrible president...so anybody but bush, which means it will be kerry


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> both really suck but bush is just a horrible president...so anybody but bush, which means it will be kerry


That's pretty much how I feel.  Honestly, i was voting for Gore last election.  I still think he would do a pretty good job.

Stickboy, 

  Can you give me some examples?  I'm an impressionable youth.  You may just get an extra vote out of me if you try hard enough.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> both really suck but bush is just a horrible president...so anybody but bush, which means it will be kerry



exactly.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> That's pretty much how I feel. Honestly, i was voting for Gore last election. I still think he would do a pretty good job.
> 
> Stickboy,
> 
> Can you give me some examples?  I'm an impressionable youth.  You may just get an extra vote out of me if you try hard enough.


 oh shit!  QUICK EVERYBODY, HE'S ONE OF THOSE *SWING VOTERS*!!!  EVERYONE PILE ON THE PARTY TALKING POINTS!!


----------



## kvyd (Aug 3, 2004)

heh even on this board its all tied up....how will we know....ahhhh


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 3, 2004)

Vote for Duke!!!


----------



## Crono1000 (Aug 3, 2004)

I have always had respect for the third party, they often seem less caught up in political mumbo jumbo and more determined on actually improving things.

bush acts like this election is a high school football game

and kerry... gawd I can't imagine listening to him for 8 years try to spit out a single sentence


----------



## Crono1000 (Aug 3, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> both really suck but bush is just a horrible president...so anybody but bush, which means it will be kerry




hell even cheney said so


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

ooooo...it's a 11 to 11 tie!!!


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> oh shit! QUICK EVERYBODY, HE'S ONE OF THOSE *SWING VOTERS*!!! EVERYONE PILE ON THE PARTY TALKING POINTS!!


 
I'd like to at least pretend like i'm open minded


----------



## Pepper (Aug 3, 2004)

Bush. I don't vote for Democrats...I pay enough taxes as it is. Bush has been disappointing, but that does NOT lead me to vote for Kerry.



Edit: added the missing "NOT"


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Bush. I don't vote for Democrats...


Because of taxes?!?! That's kind've weak.  What else?


----------



## Pepper (Aug 3, 2004)

Yeah, taxes are an insignificant issue

Just tell my client who is stroking a $22K check today to get square with the house. Tax policy is a huge deal for both economic and social issues.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 3, 2004)

Abortion
gay marriage
supreme court nominees

the list is long, but taxes are at the top.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Yeah, taxes are an insignificant issue
> 
> Just tell my client who is stroking a $22K check today to get square with the house. Tax policy is a huge deal for both economic and social issues.


Agreed, But, it would seem more like economic would determine taxing; than vise versa.  ?!?!


----------



## KataMaStEr (Aug 3, 2004)

Dayam this is a close battle...


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Abortion
> gay marriage


So you are 'pro life' and anti same sex marriage?  

If their were more gay marriages, there would be less abortions


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Bush. I don't vote for Democrats...I pay enough taxes as it is. Bush has been disappointing, but that does lead me to vote for Kerry.



does not really matter, either way the rich get richer, the poor ger poorer, and the middle class gets bigger.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> and the middle class gets bigger.


This is the part I like.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> does not really matter, either way the rich get richer, the poor ger poorer, and the middle class gets bigger.


 Err... im failing to see the problem with that.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Err... im failing to see the problem with that.



Yeah, works for me.  I've finally graduated from the middle class and am waiting for the $$$ to just start rolling in.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Yeah, works for me. I've finally graduated from the middle class and am waiting for the $$$ to just start rolling in.


 Isnt it nice that if you work hard you can make an awesome life for yourself?  It's a good thing we dont live in one of those socialist european shitholes.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 3, 2004)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> I have always had respect for the third party, they often seem less caught up in political mumbo jumbo and more determined on actually improving things.


I would like to see a libertarians president at least for one term. Would also need some libertarians in the houses too. I dont think they would do too well after 8 years tho, They seem irresponsible in the long run; but I think 4 - 8 years of repealing BS laws would do the country some good, and restore some form of sanity. 
Granted, we do need SOME new laws.. Like holding news agencies, and government officials accountable for what they say. If they lie or overstretch the truth its jailtime. Lol, Feinstein would get the death penalty if that happened 
Not to mention how many news agencies would go out of business. I dont mind them spreading propagandist BS as long as they put a disclaimer at the bottom saying,"_This is my opinion only; In other words Im lying and planting subliminal messages. If I feel the need to give you actual facts Ill give an objective report later. For now, Im a duschbag._"
I dont plan on voting this year tho, its a lose-lose situation.. If anything I would be a 1-reason voter.. If Kerry gets elected they're going to want to reinstate some other dumbass weapons ban to replace this one expiring in September.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

What law is expiring, btw?  Not the brady bill...?

 Doesnt matter anyway, i live in MA, you'll have a swat team out in front of your house if youre caught with mace.


----------



## PreMier (Aug 3, 2004)

I keep hearing that the assault weapons ban is going to be lifted.. Have any info on this?  Articles, etc..


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Isnt it nice that if you work hard you can make an awesome life for yourself?  It's a good thing we dont live in one of those socialist european shitholes.



Ah, the American dream is alive and well.  Here's to ya' Monlith.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Err... im failing to see the problem with that.



If you're rich there is no problem.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Ah, the American dream is alive and well.  Here's to ya' Monlith.



not really, it'a quite dead actually, it's pretty much "corporate america" anymore, try and open a small non-franchise business.

who the hell can compete with companies like Wal-Mart, Home Depot and the like?


----------



## PreMier (Aug 3, 2004)

No one.  Walmart is the LARGEST comapny on the planet.


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

I have *no idea* who to vote for in this election.  I typically vote Republican, but Bush has been a raging disappointment (yes, I voted for him the first time around).  Republicans typically suit me regarding gun control, taxes, military...but lose me on things like the environment, health care, and (recently) foreign policy.  I'd *love* to see a Libertarian in office, but can't imagine Badnarik having any chance at all!


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

You have to find a market for your product(s).  If big corporations are already in that market, your product better be infintely better or cheaper to even have a chance.

For example, if you can design, produce and market a plasma screen TV for the price of a CRT television, you could make a killing.

The dream is alive, buy to have a chance you better have a better way of doing it, have a better product, etc.

A buddy of mine in the early '90's made alot of money by inventing something never seen before.  It basically was a pacifer that had a gel in it that would freeze and act as a teether.  Once the gel melted, babies would keep it in their mouth and suck on it.

One of the nameless baby product companies bought the rights to produce it from him.  As far as I know, the product was purchased to keep it OFF the market.  (He could sell it for just a bit more than a pacifier, but less than a pacifier and teether together, and still make a profit).  I don't think it ever saw the light of day, but he got paid either way.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> If you're rich there is no problem.


 so an expanding middle class is a bad thing?


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

I thought the Democrats were claiming at the DNC that the middle class was shrinking.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

I would just like to see a better separation between church and state.  And less laws telling me what we can't do to our body.  (i.e. abortion/ ph/ps ban)


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> not really, it'a quite dead actually, it's pretty much "corporate america" anymore, try and open a small non-franchise business.
> 
> who the hell can compete with companies like Wal-Mart, Home Depot and the like?


 If youre opening up a small store with the hopes of competing with wal-mart, id wager youre not too business savvy to begin with. 

 Making money isnt easy.  If you want to be successful, you have to innovate... bring something new to the market.  And that doesnt mean a new product necessarily, but just a new twist on an old standard.  i.e. the first banks with drive up windows, or new car bodystyles every few years.

 It sounds like youre trying to argue that all the companies that have been successful at this should be reprimanded, so that all the other people who didnt have the balls/intelligence/creativity to do the same can get a piece of the action.  You'd think that the economic powerhouse we've been for the last 100 years would be proof enough that the system works.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> I thought the Democrats were claiming at the DNC that the middle class was shrinking.





			
				Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> does not really matter, either way the rich get richer, the poor ger poorer, and the middle class gets bigger.


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I would just like to see a better separation between church and state.  And less laws telling me what we can't do to our body.  (i.e. abortion/ ph/ps ban)



I feel differently about abortion (I think there should be some regulations), but agree completely about seperation of church and state.  I think things like drugs, prostitution, etc... should all be legal.  Libertarians want to do away with all blue laws.  I love that!


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

A larger middle class sounds like progress to me.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> A larger middle class sounds like progress to me.



Sure, once we are all middle class, the next step would be socialism.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Im thinking it has to be a typo.


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Sure, once we are all middle class, the next step would be socialism.



I was actually thinking the same thing, but still...better than a growing lower class.    I'm pretty sure there would be a few more steps before socialism though.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

A society that can support a large upper class without a totalitarian government is truly a remarkable thing.  Thank you, US of A.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

I'll leave it up.  Not exactly what I meant to say, LOL,  but.....


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

What did you meant to say???


----------



## P-funk (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> does not really matter, either way the rich get richer, the poor ger poorer, and the middle class gets bigger.



How can that be???  We live in a coutry with the wealthiest lower class in the world!!  There are people on welfare that are collecting more money than I make.  The last thing I hate hearing is that "Oh well, this women from the Brox has it so bad becasue she has to collect food stamps and work her shit job at CVS to pay for her 5 kids."  Ya know what....screw her!  I didn't tell her to have five damn kids.  All these people in this country want a hand out!!  We have illegal immigrants coming into this country and getting medical attentino and having their children be born here.  I can't get medical isurance for myself!!  The democrats run this country like a dman union. Everyone is equal my ass.  We are not on an even playing field and if I work harder than the next shumk screw him, why should he be allowed to ride my ticket!!  The republican way is the right way.  Work hard for yourself, take of you and yours and the sky is the limit.  If you don't want to put forth the effort then to damn bad.  I am sick of hearing about tax cuts and the rich getting richer.  The thing to remeber is the percentage of taxes and were they are coming from. If the rich guy is making $500,000/year and paying 30% of that to taxes he is paying $150,000 of his hard earned money!!  The poor guy that is banking $20,000/yr is paying 10% of his money so he is only paying $2000 in taxes.  The rich guy is still paying $148,000 more dollars! Why shouldn't he get a break??  What is wrong with the middle class getting bigger?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> What did you meant to say???



It should have read more like:

Sure, once we are all middle class, what do we have to look forward to - socialism, or some form of it?

Then again, if everyone is middle class, then there are no classes.


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

Ah...gotcha


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> Ah...gotcha



Add more after I posted it, Var.  Sometimes the mouse moves quicker than the mind when I'm typing.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 3, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> A larger middle class sounds like progress to me.


I'm with you man.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> If youre opening up a small store with the hopes of competing with wal-mart, id wager youre not too business savvy to begin with.



right, but my point is a store like Wal-Mart sells just about *everything*!


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> so an expanding middle class is a bad thing?



not the point, rather than the rich getting richer wouldn't it be nice to see more people getting rich?


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> not the point, rather than the rich getting richer wouldn't it be nice to see more people getting rich?



It would be nice for me to wake up tomorrow morning surrounded by 6 Playboy bunnies, but some things just ain't in the cards.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> It sounds like youre trying to argue that all the companies that have been successful at this should be reprimanded, so that all the other people who didnt have the balls/intelligence/creativity to do the same can get a piece of the action.  You'd think that the economic powerhouse we've been for the last 100 years would be proof enough that the system works.



No I am not, I am just making the point that the American Dream is not really what it used to be, that is all. 

If I wanted to go open up an ice cream shop I would be put out of business by Dairy Queen and Cold Stones, my only chance for success is to franchise with one of those corporations.

I am not saying that it's impossible to be innovative and start up some new niche or whatever, just extremley difficult to do.

Obviously if I am trying to build my own supplement company I must believe that the dream is still alive right? I must believe that if I put out a quality product that is a bit different than others, and better that I can succeed right?

When I started this board I was up against some very large bodybuilding/fitness boards, but that did not stop me, I busted my butt and kept this thing alive. Here we are 3+ years later and now I am proud to say this board is one of the bigger more successful ones on the web. 

So, please do not misconstrue my points I am making here.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 3, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> It would be nice for me to wake up tomorrow morning surrounded by 6 Playboy bunnies, but some things just ain't in the cards.



true if you sit around and expect things to happen it probably won't, as Kid Rock says "people get what they deserve", if you bust your butt and truley believe that will happen and do everything that is necessary to get it, than it will.


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> No I am not, I am just making the point that the American Dream is not really what it used to be, that is all.
> 
> If I wanted to go open up an ice cream shop I would be put out of business by Dairy Queen and Cold Stones, my only chance for success is to franchise with one of those corporations.
> 
> ...



Glad you feel that way and very glad to be able to come to this site.  Its definitely the best on the net.  As far as Mono misconstruing your point...I dont think he did.  It was just the way it came across.  I thought the same thing when I read it.


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> true if you sit around and expect things to happen it probably won't, as Kid Rock says "people get what they deserve", if you bust your butt and truly believe that will happen and do everything that is necessary to get it, than it will.



Wow.  Didn't think anyone was going to get my underlying point in that post.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 3, 2004)

Is it lower, middle and upper class or not ambitious, ambitious, and very ambitious? 
Who gives a shit about that.

I want new rules that give people power no matter how much they earn.  I want a system that lets the people decide what actions they will take on major issues instead of letting a select few that "represent" them decide.  Certain things like going to war shouldn't be the decision of "supposedly elected" humans who are prone to corruption it should be put to a national vote.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> right, but my point is a store like Wal-Mart sells just about *everything*!


American made and I've noticed, at least here, that they also use small local vendors for some things.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> not the point, rather than the rich getting richer wouldn't it be nice to see more people getting rich?





			
				Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> true if you sit around and expect things to happen it probably won't, as Kid Rock says "people get what they deserve", if you bust your butt and truley believe that will happen and do everything that is necessary to get it, than it will.


 Ok... so which is it?  Make people work hard to be successful, or elect someone who will forcefully redistribute the wealth so more people get a free meal?


----------



## Var (Aug 3, 2004)

I like this...

[IMG2]http://www.badnarik.org/swf/politicians.gif[/IMG2]


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

Wal-mart?  Alot of their stuff is made outside the US.  Sure, they carry american made products, but I'd bet you,.....say $10 thru paypal that at least 60% of the products at Wal-mart are made elsewhere.  (Even if it's an american company selling it.  I.E. Mattel, Sony, RCA, etc.

Look at the labels at Wal-mart.  Made in China, Taiwan, Bangledesh, etc. are rampant.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> No I am not, I am just making the point that the American Dream is not really what it used to be, that is all.
> 
> If I wanted to go open up an ice cream shop I would be put out of business by Dairy Queen and Cold Stones, my only chance for success is to franchise with one of those corporations.
> 
> ...


 Ok... so it seems like youre answering your own accusations here.  The little man cant compete with large national corporations/franchises... yet you managed to open a successful fitness site against behemoths like bb.com?

 I'm lost.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 3, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Wal-mart? Alot of their stuff is made outside the US. Sure, they carry american made products, but I'd bet you,.....say $10 thru paypal that at least 60% of the products at Wal-mart are made elsewhere. (Even if it's an american company selling it. I.E. Mattel, Sony, RCA, etc.
> 
> Look at the labels at Wal-mart. Made in China, Taiwan, Bangledesh, etc. are rampant.


Shhhhhh, I'm playing crazed small town republican today.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 3, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> right, but my point is a store like Wal-Mart sells just about *everything*!


Yes...so what? They sell products cheaper...what's wrong with that? How many do they employ?

Are you suggesting you'd prefer to pay more? That is sort of like moaning b/c no one has the opportunity to start their own car manufacturing company.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 3, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Yes...so what? They sell products cheaper...what's wrong with that? How many do they employ?
> 
> Are you suggesting you'd prefer to pay more? That is sort of like moaning b/c no one has the opportunity to start their own car manufacturing company.


Cheap being the keyword.  Finding quality long lasting goods at a store like that is near impossible.  Don't buy anything with moveable parts at Wal-Mart or K-mart, I usually use it to buy bulk items that normally a mom and pop store wouldn't have enough of in stock.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 3, 2004)

OH MAN, I just bought a Oyster Blender for a bit of $$$.

It has moving parts.   Am I doomed?    AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 3, 2004)

The American dream is still alive and well. We are all living it, we just don't see it as easily as we would have 40 or 50 years ago. We change with the times and we prosper as we mature. We take for granted the quality in what we consume, listen too, drive, or communicate with. From a man's perspective even our women are of a higher quality ... stronger, smarter, more independent, true partners in life and way more open sexually. We expect and enjoy all this as a *middle class* standard of living.  By the standards of the '60s or even the '70s we of the middle class are wealthy.

 All the guy with the local hardware store was really selling was himself. His inventory was his personality, his knowledge, and his time. He just supplemented that with pipe wrenches and drain cleaner. We are all still going out there each day marketing the same inventory as the old hardware dealer. We just do it in a more competitive environment to a global economy. It has become as easy as breathing to us.

 Hell even our poor have cell phones and eat fresh sushi, wear designer clothes, and suffer the indignities of being over fed.

 How is this a bad plan?


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 3, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> What law is expiring, btw? Not the brady bill...?
> 
> Doesnt matter anyway, i live in MA, you'll have a swat team out in front of your house if youre caught with mace.


The 1994,"assault weapons" ban. Its a really neat ban that prohibits *Semi-automatic*(Full automatics were banned in 84, contrary to what the dems would have you believe)rifles with a detachable magazine, and *TWO* or more of the following: (So if any one seems bad, well.. its still legal, lol)

*Folding or telescopic stock *
Folding stock: This is based on the idea that every assassin will use a weapon with a foldable stock and put it in his briefcase then walk away past the cops. Frankly it would be a nice feature to have if all you had was a rifle and needed a firearm for self defense when you were inside(Home ect). Not to mention it makes it alot easier to transport.
Telescopic stock: LOL, It just looks,"menacing" thats all I could guess. First off, aside from the benefits of a folding stock, a telescopic stock has 4 - 6 positions to set the length of the stock to a comfortable length. The funny thing about this is, a rifle is already by law required to be at least 26 inches in total length; on most rifles(Mainly seen on AR-15s) even with a telescopic stock set to the smallest it can be, the rifle is still over 26 inches!
*Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock *
The pistol grip, being perhaps the most "military-like" feature in appearance, in most cases is a necessity of the firearm's design due to the stock being directly in-line with the bore, as opposed to being lower than the bore as is the case with "traditional" rifles. Because the positioning of the stock in the manner does not provide for a place that the shooter can hold on to with the trigger hand, a pistol grip is used.
Anti Gunners say this would allow you to "spray"(Anti gunners claim semi-automatic weapons fire ammunition automatically while holding the trigger) bullets while firing from the hip. Well yeah, even if it was full auto, it would be a pretty big waste since you would hit everything 'cept what you were aiming at.
*Bayonet mount *
Cuz in da projects drive by bayonettings are WAY too common.
LOL, if anyone has ever seen a crime committed with a bayonet post it! Seriously tho, the only practical use a bayonet could have(aside from collectors value) would be in home defense where someone doesnt know you know they're there. Personally I prefer knife to handgun when it comes to home invasions. So to have both is a blessing; not to mention if you shoot at someone and miss(esp with a rifle cartridge) you could take out the neighbors kid in his sleep.
*Flash suppressor or threaded barrel *
Flash Suppressor: Good choice of words. "Suppressor" meaning it stops, or retards it from being seen. Granted the gun community has always called these,"flash hiders" Because they hide the flash, not get rid of it. The idea being that a hunter(or in a case of rifle being used in home defense) doesnt blind themselves by shooting at night. Frankly its humanly impossible to stop the 18 inches of explosion that follow the bullet out, and thats plenty bright to see if someone is shooting; plus hiders still vent off to the sides. 
Threaded barrel: This way people cant readily put a silencer on a rifle. Yeah, silencers are pretty scary, except one part.. They're LEGAL(well, in some states) Heavily regulated as machine guns(So it takes alot to get one legally.. better off making your own unless you're a collector) Smart move for anti-gunners; if the ban continues, in 10 years they can say,"Hey, Its illegal to have guns setup to accept silencers, so why are we still allowing some states to sell them?(Conveniently forgetting the preban weapons can still use silencers) And the silencers ban would be passed almost unanimously.
*Grenade launcher* 
I have to agree with this law, an M203 grenade launcher could be serious trouble. Minor detail though; Grenade launchers have been banned for a LONG time, and the prebans are very heavily regulated by BATF as,"Destructive Devices" Obviously Clinton and Feinstein knew this, but they pressed this(as well as the rest of the law) for shock value.

I can guarantee this law would have NEVER been passed if every voter knew what was being banned and why. "assault weapons" (by their definition) account for less than 1% of gun crime, and yet the brady campaign ect claims that due to the assault weapons ban gun crime fell like 50%,  Also the term,"assault weapon" has ALWAYS been associated with rifles having selective fire for full automatic or semi automatic. Even if it were, thats how the general public perceived the term(Thats how I di as well.)

They banned "assault pistols" as well, lol. Restrictions look something like this..
it must have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features:

*Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip *

*Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer* *

*Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned *

*Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded *

*Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm *


Also, the ban limited the size of magazines to 10 shots. 



			
				PreMier said:
			
		

> I keep hearing that the assault weapons ban is going to be lifted.. Have any info on this? Articles, etc..



Id say websearch; find the law in black and white. Ive read a large portion of it(Ok, So I got bored, LOL) but this seems to tell it the sam way I heard it(Hell, I just quoted them for pistol grips )
http://www.awbansunset.com/

Basically the law was written that in 10 years it would sunset and die unless it was renewed. Since the ban has literally no affect on lethality of any weapon, and bans very few(Those semi auto mp5ks are killing machines!) guns, it has every reason to die. Sadly the antigunners are up to the same 1994 scheme and trying to convince people that if the ban ends anyone can buy machine guns and anarchy will break loose! sad..


----------



## KataMaStEr (Aug 3, 2004)

This thread would make for really nice joke for people from a few other countries.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 4, 2004)

Why did the Libertarians chose Mr. Rogers as their candidate?   And how did they manage to dig him up in such a pristine condition?


----------



## TheWolf (Aug 4, 2004)

I love guns and hate the re-distribution of wealth......oh and anyone who uses the phrase "Won Life's Lottery" to describe someone who earns over 30K a year.  The Dems love that one.

It's gotta be BUSH


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 4, 2004)

I think we know where I currently stand on this issue.  So I voted...Once.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 4, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I think we know where I currently stand on this issue.  So I voted...Once.



Yeah, but that's only because you're a dumb ass who can't count any higher than that.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 4, 2004)

Thanks for the info, Chain.  Good stuff.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 6, 2004)

Interesting.  I notice Bush is 10% above Kerry in our little straw poll here.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 6, 2004)

LMFAO ... them dumbass demo's tossin their votes to the third party is gonna kill 'em again.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 6, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I notice Bush is 10% above Kerry in our little straw poll here.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 6, 2004)

Why are so you against Bush, Robert?

As a small biz owner, I'd expect you to be riding the wave with him.  Kerry is sure to try and kill your hard work.  (He'll tell you something different to get your vote).


----------



## Pierzin (Aug 6, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Is it lower, middle and upper class or not ambitious, ambitious, and very ambitious?
> Who gives a shit about that.
> 
> I want new rules that give people power no matter how much they earn.  I want a system that lets the people decide what actions they will take on major issues instead of letting a select few that "represent" them decide.  Certain things like going to war shouldn't be the decision of "supposedly elected" humans who are prone to corruption it should be put to a national vote.



i would go for that!


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 6, 2004)

I don't want to sound repetitive, but I've never actually disliked - or hated - someone like I hate Bush.

Obviously, we all have are own opinions.  I think he is crazy, and his religious zealots that he surrounds himself with are possibley more nuts.  

Bush is the most religious President, as far as using his religion to shape public policy of any President ever.

As Carl Bernstein recently said, Bush is the "most radical President of the last 100 years."  Even moreso than FDR.  

Bush has irrevocably changed this country with the legislation that has been passed in the Patriot Acts I and II, and the attempted passing of the Total Information Awareness Acts.


----------



## Pierzin (Aug 6, 2004)

I think taxes should go across the board, everybody pay a certain percentage.

I heard Dennis Kucinich had a good education platform for our colleges. But like he had a chance of being elected! hahaha! Shit! Only the rich can get a good education anymore! tuition keeps going up and up and up. I'll never go at this rate!

I would never shop at Walmart! Not until I hear they treat their employees right.
Anyways I want to support the small business owner, even if it does cost more. We tree-huggers out here love being iconoclasts, so we go out of our way not to shop at chain businesses. In my neighborhood, the Burger King got shut down, and just recently, an unheard of thing....yes a McDonalds closed, right across the street!!
hehehe!
Heck, I get all my food from different places now, cause thats how it works out.

Bring back the Mom&Pop stores! wooo hooo! peace!


----------



## Pierzin (Aug 6, 2004)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound repetitive, but I've never actually disliked - or hated - someone like I hate Bush.
> 
> Obviously, we all have are own opinions.  I think he is crazy, and his religious zealots that he surrounds himself with are possibley more nuts.
> 
> ...



When you think about it, FDR was pretty scary! Shit, I had to go to court today, and throw all my metal stuff in a tray. Ewwwwww! Man, i didnt want nobody lookin at all my contraband! 
At least they gave my knife back to me when I left the building.   


I agree with Robert, I hear from small business people all the time, they need more breaks. get rid of some of this red tape.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 7, 2004)

You think Kerry is going to give those breaks?  First thing that guy does in office will be to raise taxes.  

Let's look at Kerry's voting record on taxes, shall we?

1989-90: Votes against considering a capitol gains tax cut. 

1993-94: Votes against spending reductions ??? an amendment to reduce budget spending by $94 billion. *Votes for the largest tax increase in American history.* 

1995-96: *Votes against balancing the budget * ??? a bipartisan plan to balance the books in seven years. 

1997-98: Votes against approving a GOP budget to cut spending and taxes. *Votes against a balanced-budget constitutional amendment.* 

1999-2000: *Votes against reducing federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years.* 

2001: *Votes against the Bush tax cut* ??? a $1.35 trillion tax cut package to reduce income-tax rates, alleviate the ???marriage penalty??? and gradually repeal the estate tax. Votes to reduce Bush???s proposed tax cut ceiling by $448 billion over 10 years. 

You really think Kerry is going to help small businesses?  Not likely.  He'll raise taxes and in the process kill alot of small businesses.  Corporations will lay off more people to offset their increased taxes, etc.  If Kerry wins, you better start saving those pennies.

You know folks, talk is cheap.  The way to find out what kind of President Kerry will make is by looking at his voting record.  Don't listen to what he says, look at what he's done.  It doesn't paint a pretty picture.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 7, 2004)

Since I have info here, here's more of his voting record:

*Military defense:*

Votes to Cut Defense Spending by 2%  (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49, Apr 25, 1991)

Votes to Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense  (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182, Sep 10, 1991)

Votes to Cut $6 Billion from Defense  (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73, Apr 9, 1992)

Votes Against Military Pay Raise  (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73, Mar 24, 1993)

Kerry Introduces Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs:

-Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews 

-Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one 

-Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force 

-Terminate the Navy???s coastal mine-hunting ship program 

-Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces 
  in one year. 

(S.1163, Introduced Jun 24, 1993)

Voted YES to freeze defense spending for 7 Years, slashing over $34 Billion from defense. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181, May 24, 1995)

Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.  Conference Report on H.R. 927; Bill H.R. 927 ; vote number 1996-22 on Mar 5, 1996

Voted NO on considering deploying National Missile Defense, and amending ABM Treaty.  Bill S 1635 ; vote number 1996-157 on Jun 4, 1996 

Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions.  Motion to table the Lugar Amdt #3156.; Bill S. 2159 ; vote number 1998-201 on Jul 15, 1998

Voted NO on deploying missile defense as soon as possible.  Bill S 1873 ; vote number 1998-262 on Sep 9, 1998 

Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.  Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999 

Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.  H.R. 2606 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2606 ; vote number 1999-312 on Oct 6, 1999

*Education:*

Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer.  Bill S.1513 ; vote number 1994-236 on Jul 27, 1994 

Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education.  Bill S 1956 ; vote number 1996-231 on Jul 23, 1996 

Voted NO on school vouchers in DC.  DC Appropriations Act; Bill S. 1156 ; vote number 1997-260 on Sep 30, 1997

Voted NO on education savings accounts.  H.R. 2646 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2646 ; vote number 1998-169 on Jun 24, 1998

Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules.  Motion to Invoke cloture on Jeffords Amdt #31; Bill S. 280 ; vote number 1999-35 on Mar 9, 1999 

Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts.  Bill S.1134 ; vote number 2000-33 on Mar 2, 2000 

*Government:*

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.  Murkowski Amdt to S. 1061; Bill S. 1061 ; vote number 1995-339 on Jul 28, 1995

Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment.  Reference: S. J. Res. 1; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 1997-24 on Mar 4, 1997 

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.  Campaign Finance Reform Bill; Bill S. 25 ; vote number 1997-267 on Oct 7, 1997

Voted NO, killing an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 years.  Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-55 on Apr 5, 2000 

*Immigration:*

1996:  Voted to continue chain migration which has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million today. Sen. Kerry voted AGAINST both the Simpson Amendment and the Feinstein Amendment to S. 1664. 

1997:  Voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population. There was no separate vote on the amnesty, as it was included in the DC Appropriations bill.

2000:  Voted to include an amnesty for illegal aliens from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti in the Senate H-1B bill (S.2045). The move to include the amnesty with the H-1B legislation failed 43-55 in a procedural vote on the Senate floor

*Taxes: *  (again)

Voted YES To Keep 1993 Gas Tax Increase.  (H. R. 8, CQ Vote #183: Motion Rejected 40-59: R 40-15; D 0-44, 7/13/00) 

Voted YES To Increase Gas Tax By 6 Cents Per Gallon.  (S. 3209, CQ Vote #280: Rejected 45-55: R 8-37; D 37-18, 10/18/90) 

Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'.  Bill HR.4810 ; vote number 2000-215 on Jul 18, 2000

Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years.  Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-165 on May 23, 2001 

Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.  Bill HR.2 ; vote number 2003-196 on May 23, 2003 

Voted Against A Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times. Several times in the mid-nineties the Senate took up the Balanced Budget Amendment. Kerry voted five times against the amendment.  (S. J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: R 55-0; D 11-34, 3/4/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #158: Rejected 64-35: R 52-1; D 12-34, 6/6/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 1, Roll Call Vote #98: Rejected 65-35: R 51-2; D 14-33, 3/2/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. J. Res. 41, Roll Call Vote #48: Rejected 63-37: R 41-3; D 22-34, 3/1/94, Kerry Voted Nay; S. J. Res. 225, Roll Call Vote #45: Rejected 66-34: R 43-10; D 23-24, 3/25/86, Kerry Voted Nay)

*The enviroment:*

Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.  Bill HR.2107 ; vote number 1997-242 on Sep 17, 1997 

Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat.  Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588; Bill H.R. 2466 ; vote number 1999-272 on Sep 14, 1999

*Other:*

Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.  Flag Desecration Bill; Bill S. J. Res. 31 ; vote number 1995-600 on Dec 12, 1995

Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes.  Bill S Con Res 57 ; vote number 1996-140 on May 22, 1996 

Voted NO on banning human cloning.  Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998 

Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts.  Bill S.Con.Res.86 ; vote number 1998-56 on Apr 1, 1998

Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees.  Roth Amdt #2339; Bill H.R. 2676 ; vote number 1998-120 on May 6, 1998


----------



## trHawT (Aug 7, 2004)

Bush all the whey!   lol


----------



## oaktownboy (Aug 7, 2004)

maybe no one will win and it will go to the house...lol i don't really care all politicans are liars nowadays


----------



## maniclion (Aug 7, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Since I have info here, here's more of his voting record:
> 
> 
> *Taxes: *(again)
> ...


I suppose you've read every one of those Bills and resolutions and can assure us that none of them were geared towards giving some large corporation an upperhand, that their wording was fully intentional on the summary of the Bill.

I've learned over the past few years that these bills and resolutions have to be scrutinized letter by letter because the corporate lobbyists like to sneak their own little tricks into them.  How do we know that as a senator he wasn't going on the majority of what the people he represents wanted.


----------



## Zak2013 (Aug 7, 2004)

Kerry has fought for our country.. What has Bush done????? Not a dam thing, except take the longest vacation a president has every seen before 9/11.


----------



## Pierzin (Aug 7, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I suppose you've read every one of those Bills and resolutions and can assure us that none of them were geared towards giving some large corporation an upperhand, that their wording was fully intentional on the summary of the Bill.
> 
> I've learned over the past few years that these bills and resolutions have to be scrutinized letter by letter because the corporate lobbyists like to sneak their own little tricks into them.  How do we know that as a senator he wasn't going on the majority of what the people he represents wanted.



I agree with that. 
Also keep in mind that Kerry is a product of his times. There was widespread beleif that we did not need a huge military pre-9-11. I am sure that will be changing. 
     However, I just cannot with good conscience support a president who has sent our troops to war based on misleading accusations. Why didn't he just come out and say to people, "I'm gonna take out Saddam cause he tried to kill my daddy?"

BTW, good work. Wheres your source?


----------



## Pierzin (Aug 7, 2004)

that last comment about source was for Stickboy.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 7, 2004)

Kerry on income taxes from Kiplinger...




> Kerry's plan hits upper-incomers hard.
> The top two tax rates would be raised.
> The 33% and 35% tax brackets in the law now
> would return to 36% and 39.6%, respectively.
> ...


This is the kind of crap that makes me NEVER vote for Democrats!


----------



## oaktownboy (Aug 7, 2004)

"Kerry's plan hits upper-incomers hard. The top two tax rates would be raised."
Isn't this a good thing? Who wouldn't agree with this besides rich people?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 7, 2004)

Pierzin said:
			
		

> that last comment about source was for Stickboy.



Um, DUH, see it listed at the end of each statement?    

Perhaps, I need to walk you thru it?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 7, 2004)

If you want to see valid polls in all 50 states, regarding how Bush and Kerry are stacking up, you can go to google.com.  Type in election polls and you'll find a couple sites from Gallup and the other major polling firms.  If polling is done correctly it is a science.  Polls can predict an outcome.  Hopefully these firms are doing it correctly.

In so many states either Bush or Kerry is ahead by a small margin of say, 2-3%.  But the margin of error is day, 3-3.5%.  And the undecided are at say, 6%

It's going to be tight.  Might not know until the early morning hours of election say.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 7, 2004)

Pierzin said:
			
		

> When you think about it, FDR was pretty scary! Shit, I had to go to court today, and throw all my metal stuff in a tray. Ewwwwww! Man, i didnt want nobody lookin at all my contraband!
> At least they gave my knife back to me when I left the building.



Pierzin, the reason for the metal detectors in Seattle courtrooms is because of an incident about 7-8 years ago.  I guy was getting a divorce, and he was in the halls before or after going into court.  He pulled out a .38 revolver and shot and killed 4 people.  His wife he was divorcing, her mom, and some friends or family members of their.  After that, they put in the metal detectors.  People can go "psycho" in courtooms.   



> I agree with Robert, I hear from small business people all the time, they need more breaks. get rid of some of this red tape.



Definately!!  Some of my friends started their own small businesses.  The were good at what they were doing.  They worked very hard, and worked very long hours.  Quarterly B & O taxes, regulations, and even paying to entire Social Security amount was hard on them.  One of my friends quit, and becamse an employee again because of it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 7, 2004)

oaktownboy said:
			
		

> "Kerry's plan hits upper-incomers hard. The top two tax rates would be raised."
> Isn't this a good thing? Who wouldn't agree with this besides rich people?



This is the way I look at it:  EVERYONE is paying too many taxes.  Everyone.

Sales taxes, state income taxes, federal taxes, car registration, and more. 

The federal and state government keep spending more and more.  Above the rate of inflation.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 8, 2004)

oaktownboy said:
			
		

> "Kerry's plan hits upper-incomers hard. The top two tax rates would be raised."
> Isn't this a good thing? Who wouldn't agree with this besides rich people?


Hell no it is not good. Who do you think provides the capital to get the economy rolling? You should never be exicited to see ANYONE's taxes going up. It hurts the economy and you might be next.

Besides, even if you aren't "upper income" don't you want to be? Wouldn't you like fair tax rates when you get there?


----------



## Pepper (Aug 8, 2004)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> This is the way I look at it: EVERYONE is paying too many taxes. Everyone.
> 
> Sales taxes, state income taxes, federal taxes, car registration, and more.
> 
> The federal and state government keep spending more and more. Above the rate of inflation.


Mr Snafu, don't pass out, but you are exactly right...

Don't forget payroll taxes (FICA and it ugly twin sister Medicare - a regressive tax that takes 15.2% out of the pocket of all workers,) estate taxes, gasoline taxes, transfer taxes, "sin" taxes, Property taxes...the list goes on and on.....


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 8, 2004)

^ The very reason you should leave the Republicrat party and join the Libertarian party


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 8, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> so an expanding middle class is a bad thing?



The middle class has been shrinking since the early 1970s.

And still continues to shrink today.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 8, 2004)




----------



## Arnold (Aug 8, 2004)

don't look now you Bush lovers, but it's a 24-24 tie!!!


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 8, 2004)

Yeah, but this isn't the real election.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 8, 2004)

no, but I think it gives us a good idea of how the real one will be...very close!


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 8, 2004)

I think it will be close, too.  I predict Bush (or Kerry) wins or loses by 5 percentage points.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 8, 2004)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> The middle class has been shrinking since the early 1970s.
> 
> And still continues to shrink today.


 I never said the middle class was expanding, prince did.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 8, 2004)

Sanfu ... no-one is jacking with you on that post of yours.  Hmmmm ... wonder why?


----------



## Pierzin (Aug 8, 2004)

Mr Snafu,

nice graph!   woohoo, now 25-24!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2004)

Unfortunately popular vote means relatively nothing.  There was a great SNL sketch where Al Gore kept mentioning that he won the popular vote, but lost the election.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Aug 9, 2004)

Snafu's graph needs to be updated to include "$10 million:  Paid to I Are Baboon so he can live comfortably the rest of his life."


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 9, 2004)

Here are some links to polling organizations that are conducting frequent polls in all 50 states.  If polling is done correctly, it is a science.  In a few states, a candidate will have a 3% lead, but the margin of error is 2.5-3% and the undecideds are at say, 6%.
The electoral college invalidates any of the "nationwide polls" that say Bush is up by 4 points, or Kerry is up by 7, for example.   The battlgrounds states - and there are many - will likely go down to the wire.  International ogranizations will be observing some polling centers.  With electronic vote counting machines there has been allegations of fraud in certain Congressional districts during the last round of Congressional elections.   We will all be hearing about American election fraud - yes, American election fraud in the USA, in the next 6 months to 3 years.  

Here are some polling links, broken down, by each state.  Some will be preferred by some of you more than others. 

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/showdown/

This link below used the red and blue maps and has the poll results and the electoral college count. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral College Table.htm


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 9, 2004)

If we are inviting international poll observers for the purpose of protecting the validity of our election process, then we are rapidly degenerating into a nation that is hardly more honorable than a struggling Third World country attempting to embrace democracy for the first time. Hopefully this isn't true - if it is, it should be a national embarassment.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 9, 2004)

^ KBM,

Sadly, there will be international monitors in some polling places.  Both Bush and Kerry have a team of lawyers that are focusing on the potential problems.  Electronic vote machine leave no paper trail.  The corporation that makes them refuses to let anyone inspect them. 

We'll be hearing more soon.  But we should note, that this isn't the first time that American elections have involved Fraud.  

in the 1960 Presidential election there was fraud in the state of Illinois - this gave Kennedy the election.  Nixon claimed several time in private that the election was "stolen" from him.  He didn't pursue an investigation because he felt it would make him like like a sore loser, and Nixon still had a political career ahead of him.

In 1984 many dead people "voted for Mondale" in his home state of Minnesota, which he one (and it was the only one).  Tim Rollins, one of Reagan's campaign managers decided not to pursue it, because he thought it would make the Reagan look "greedy."

Lyndon B. Johnson won his Congressional election in Texas thanks to the help of many dead voters who just happened to show up at the polls and cast their vote for him. 

Such is politics, ay?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 9, 2004)

A couple of things:



> an article Kerry published the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:
> I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.



Now, the fact:



> Ignore the fact that Nixon wasn't President on December 25, 1968. The real scandal is that Kerry couldn't have been in Cambodia at that time. None of Kerry's crewmates remember Cambodia. American armed forces didn't enter Cambodia until Spring 1970, which prompted widespread protests and "four dead" at Kent State University--on May 4, 1970, not year-end 1968. Even the authorized hagiography of Kerry in Vietnam, David Brinkley's Tour of Duty, says Kerry wasn't there.  SOURCE:  Boston Globe.



Um, what did he say again?


----------



## ASSPUNCTURE (Aug 9, 2004)

bush drives a truck lives on a ranch

kerry is an out of touch billionaire forbes with a "man-servant"


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 10, 2004)




----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 10, 2004)

Maybe Kerry was lying.  But then again he may have been there.  He may have been there and not necesarrily known he was even in Cambodia.

American fought a 10 year war in Laos against the 'Viet Minh' (Vietnamese Communists" and the Pratet Loas (Laotion Communists)

Ten years of american war.  Laos is the most bombed country in the history of the world.   More than all of the countries of WWII, and more than Vietnam.  And Vietnam had more tonnage of bombs dropped on it than the other WWII nations, combined.

If Kerry is bull of B.S. it wouldn' surprise me.  If he was in Cambodia - several times 'unfocially' - it wouldn't surprise.  

Bush is just as full of sh*t.  Even moreso.....

Don't be too selective on who to focus on when it comes to politician lying.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 10, 2004)

The minute their lips move you know they're b.s'n ya!


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 10, 2004)

"""""""""Ten years of american war. Laos is the most bombed country in the history of the world. More than all of the countries of WWII, and more than Vietnam. And Vietnam had more tonnage of bombs dropped on it than the other WWII nations, combined.""""""""""

                             The Ho Chi Minh trail ran thru Laos. What else were we to do? Allow the commies to resupply the enemy and continue to kill our troops. To bad we didnt incinerate the place. I place more importance on the life of ONE of our boys then any million commie heathens. While the flagburners like to use these statistics about Vietnam they dont tell the whole story. True the monstrous B-52 was capable of delivering unheard of tonnage on an enemy, MOST of these strikes were against jungle supply lines far away from any population centers. In fact in 1968 alone over 150,000 NVA soldiers infiltrated the south via the HCM trail. Until late in the war, when the North had violated cease fire agreements. We were actually much more humane with our bombing during Vietnam then we were during WW-ll . In WW-ll we, and anyone else, didnt hesitate to anhiliate entire cities,regions,countries, with arial bombing.

                     Of course the revisionists, and assorted long-hairs, like to portray Vietnam as something out of an Oliver Stone movie. Kerry did in the '70's also. As to "being in Cambodia"? Of all his lies this one is the stinkiest. BTW he made this claim to a senate panel, in front of cameras".........."""""In 1986, Kerry told the Senate:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared ??? seared ??? in me."""""""""

                       Now if a memory is "seared into you" then you'd think hed be damned sure he was actually "in Cambodia". The problem with that is not only wasnt he in Cambodia, many of his shipmates have it "seared into their memories" that they were never IN Cambodia. At the time American involvement in supposedly neutral Cambodia was an important issue. I say "supposedly" because NVA and Vietcong used the place quite regularly to stage,run into,resupply, and launch attacks from. And I guess each time they ran across the border they laughed their asses off at the dumb Americans who stopped the chase. The WW-ll analogy would be the Nazis slipping into Switzerland to re-arm,rest, get some pussy, and then slip back into Germany/France to attack our boys.

                      By saying he actually WAS in Cambodia Kerry was able to position himself at the head of VVAW and along with Jane Fonda be at the pinnacle of the anti-war movement. Here read more about the Fonda/Kerry connection........

"""""""""""For the story behind the story...  



Click Here 


Click Here 


Click Here 


Click Here 


   Saturday, Feb. 14, 2004 12:58 p.m. EST
Kerry Teamed Up With Fonda's 'F*** the Army' Cast

When Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry teamed up with 'Hanoi' Jane Fonda and actor Donald Sutherland for a September 1970 anti-Vietnam War protest at Valley Forge, Pa., he was joining the same cast that Fonda had assembled earlier that year for her "F*** the Army" tour ??? a kind of reverse USO tour designed to undermine the morale of U.S. soldiers fighting in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

On Friday, Kerry suggested that he had no idea how radical Fonda would eventually become, telling radio host Don Imus that he thought her decision to turn against her country by traveling to Hanoi 18 months after Valley Forge was "terrible." 

But by the time Kerry agreed to follow the anti-American actress and Sutherland onto the same stage 34 years ago, Fonda's anti-military road show was already well known to both soldiers stationed in Vietnam and those who had returned home. 

In "Winter Soldier: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War," author Richard Stacewicz notes that when Fonda and Kerry addressed the Valley Forge rally ??? as depicted in the now infamous photo published by NewsMax on Monday ??? Fonda's military-bashing credentials were already well-established.

"Fonda was becoming very well known at that point for her support of the GI movement. She and Donald Sutherland had been going around to GI bases for a while with the FTA show ["F *** the Army," a spoof of USO shows that was performed just outside bases]," writes Stacewicz.

Fonda's role as a kind of reverse Bob Hope is confirmed in the Vietnam veterans history "Stolen Valor," by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley.

"Fonda was involved in an organization called F.T.A., which we all knew stood for 'F--k the Army,'" Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, reports.

Though both Fonda and Kerry are now both claiming their contact was minimal at Valley Forge and afterward, in fact, while the Massachusetts Democrat served as the VVAW's leading spokesman under the title "National Coordinator," Fonda was named the group's "Honorary National Coordinator," according to two histories of the VVAW, Andrew Hunt's "The Turning" and Gerald Nicosia's "Home to War."

With her celebrity drawing power, Fonda became Kerry's leading fund-raiser at the VVAW, traveling the country to tout the group's mission to expose so-called U.S. war crimes in Vietnam.

The effort culminated in the next Kerry-Fonda collaboration, the "Winter Soldier Investigation," which she financed and where Kerry and other members of the VVAW tried to elicit the most gruesome testimony possible from combat veterans. More than a few Winter Soldier witnesses later turned out to be complete impostors.

Al Hubbard, VVAW's executive secretary, was also one of the principal organizers of the Winter Soldier event. His supposed combat heroism had earned him mythical status within the organization, writes author Hunt. He and Kerry would later go on to appear side-by side on NBC's "Meet the Press" to denounce the war.

But as "Stolen Valor" author Burkett explained to the Wall Street Journal last month, his research showed that Hubbard had grossly inflated his combat credentials.

"Hubbard claimed to be an Air Force pilot who was wounded in Vietnam. Truth: Hubbard was never a pilot, never an officer, never wounded and never assigned to Vietnam," said Burkett.

Hubbard is also featured prominently in Kerry's 1971 book about the group's April 1971 Washington, D.C., protest, "The New Soldier," where he and Kerry appear in a photo together on the same stage as Ramsey Clark.

In several calls last week to the Kerry campaign, NewsMax.com requested financial records from the Winter Soldier Investigation, including Kerry's tax returns from 1970 and expense records for the event, to determine to what extent ??? if any ??? he may have personally benefited from Fonda's largesse.

The calls have not been returned"""""""""""""""""


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 10, 2004)

Re-do your links Rich they didn't work this time.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 10, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> """""""""Ten years of american war. Laos is the most bombed country in the history of the world. More than all of the countries of WWII, and more than Vietnam. And Vietnam had more tonnage of bombs dropped on it than the other WWII nations, combined.""""""""""
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich46yo (Aug 11, 2004)

""""""""The Ho Chi Minh trail running through Laos was NOT the reason that most of the bombing was conducted.""""""""""

                 Gee, I guess all the thousands of commis soldiers who had invaded the place were also targets eh? Ya Think? Or do you think we bombed it just so the place could make the Guiness book of world records as "most bombed".

"""""""Laos? Why incinerate Laos? """"""""

                      Incinerate the enemy, his economy, military targets, political leaders, blockade their ports....ect Thats the general Idea of getting into a war, to win it! Of course when Hanoi Jane, and Hanoi John, were pushing for America to accept a UN peace aggreement, that basically gave the commies the victory they wanted, these same communists were peeling the fingernails off our POWs and beating them daily with canes.

"""""""So do I. I hate Communists, but the U.S. Air force killing 100,000 Cambodian civilians didn't do much good, did it? """"""

                     Who gave you that figure? The communists? Or maybe Jane Fonda? We killed 110,000 japanese in the firebombing of Tokyo, more then that of Germans in Dresdon. Civilians die in war, the commies massacred many more then that during, and after, their takeover of Laos. I agree those people suffered horribly, and civilian casualties should be avoided if possable. But it is war! And its not pretty. We never targted those civilians just like we never targted Iraqi civilians. But we cant make bombs and bullets that only kill enemy soldiers.

                  War itself is an atrocity. It always has been and always will be. Stalin killed millions of his own people by purposely starving them, Hitler killed millions in his mad plan for eradicating undesireables, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people with his madness. Free people must be prepared to do what we have to do to end tyrrany in this world. In an age of WMDs we must stop these tyrants now!!!

                  Snafu Ive seen more then my share of death and inhumanity in my lifetime. Its all madness, its all terrible, there is no sense to such wanton disregard for human life. But we must stand now against tyrrany ; We must force democratic principles in these dictatorships and terrorist supporting states. With diplomacy if possable. With force if necessary!

                    The action in Laos was part of a larger action against North Vietnam. History has proven the policy of containment against communism was sound. Those boys of ours who served in S/E Asia, those who were maimed, and those killed, were heros. And their lives, their service, and their deaths meant something.

                  And a scamming,malingering, self promoting, bullshit artist like John Kerry is an insult to them..............take care...................Rich


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 12, 2004)

I hate communism, and I hate communists also.  The Cambodian figure was from the Pentagon.  Do I care?  Not really.  Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killed more with tire irons.  If someone is communist, I think they should be killed.  But in times of war innocents suffer.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 12, 2004)

SO much of the liberal agenda has the taint of communism on it.  Look at the ACLU nowadays.  No longer protectors, now they are bullies.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 12, 2004)

The ALCU is now a waste of time, ran by people who are trying to get richer off of ethnic hate.  Is Kerry endorsed by the ACLU?

What do ya say we all just vote for Stickboy as a write in ...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 12, 2004)

Stickboy as Prez, Dale as Vice Prez, and Rich as our Iraqi Ambassador.  Prince can be our Drug Czar and team up with Nikegurl as the National Health Advisor.  Snafu can replace Alan Greenspan and get our economy rolling.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 12, 2004)

as a conservative there's no question... I'm voting for Bush.  

I guess I'm one of the few who actually like him. 

I haven't seen one thing about Kerry that I agree with... abortion, stem cells, gay marriage...  in general, I don't like him.  he seems fake.

just MHO.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 12, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> as a conservative there's no question... I'm voting for Bush.
> 
> I guess I'm one of the few who actually like him.
> 
> ...


Voted for him twice for Gov & once for Prez. Do not like Kerry much as he has no stance on issues that I have been able to align myself with. I'm a pro-gun pro-life pro-state's rights pro-death sentance kinda guy. I am sooooo unhappy with what Bush has done that I must vote against him this time around ... not *FOR* Kerry but against Bush. I hate that! 
    ​


----------



## Pepper (Aug 12, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Voted for him twice for Gov & once for Prez. Do not like Kerry much as he has no stance on issues that I have been able to align myself with. I'm a pro-gun pro-life pro-state's rights pro-death sentance kinda guy. I am sooooo unhappy with what Bush has done that I must vote against him this time around ... not *FOR* Kerry but against Bush. I hate that!
> 
> 
> ​


This is understandable but illogical. Suck it up and vote for Bush, Kerry stands against everything you stand for. I am not happy with Bush, but I would not for one second consider electing a Democrat.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 12, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> This is understandable but illogical. Suck it up and vote for Bush, Kerry stands against everything you stand for. I am not happy with Bush, but I would not for one second consider electing a Democrat.


I am a Republicrat anyway Pepper, but the things done to our rights under Bush are just plain wrong.  It is taking way to long to catch the people behind 911, and costing way to much to get it done when you factor in the Iraqi war.  I just wish he was only half as dangerous as he is and I would vote for him again.  With no third term in store for him, he now has nothing to lose and will be twice as non-responsive to the American public's wishes.  All the back door BS he has pulled will now be increased exponentially.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 12, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> With no third term in store for him, he now has nothing to lose and will be twice as non-responsive to the American public's wishes.  All the back door BS he has pulled will now be increased exponentially.



Interesting, never thought of it this way.  The more I think about it, I can see all of my rights, as well as all of the progress in science, go right into the shitter if Bush stays.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 12, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Interesting, never thought of it this way.  The more I think about it, I can see all of my rights, as well as all of the progress in science, go right into the shitter if Bush stays.




I say stem cells aren't progress. they are a rationalized form of abortion.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 12, 2004)

How so?  If you are going to argue that stem cells are abortion, I could easily argue that sending soldiers to Iraq is abortion, albeit a very late term abortion.  A fetus is far from viable at the time when stem cells are removed.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 12, 2004)

The stem cells are removed within 14 days... right before the cns is formed.  That's viable enough to me.

I'm not arguing the politics of the war.. which you clearly are... just the current method of getting stem cells.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 12, 2004)

What's wrong with abortion?  There's too many whiny, little brats running around as is.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 12, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> What's wrong with abortion?  There's too many whiny, little brats running around as is.



What's wrong with murder?  There's too many dumbasses running around as is.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 12, 2004)

while we are at it, let's kill old people... they drive too slow.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 12, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I say stem cells aren't progress. they are a rationalized form of abortion.


I agree, so is menstration, and masteurbation   Except with masteurbation you kill MILLIONS of innocent babies- You're all going to hell.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 12, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Interesting, never thought of it this way.  The more I think about it, I can see all of my rights, as well as all of the progress in science, go right into the shitter if Bush stays.


What rights? Er, I mean, on which issues?  I know hes responsible for the,"Patriot Act" But as far as I know its only abortion and gay marriage hes against.. Well, that and governmental health care and letting people get cheaper drugs(Wonder how much money he made off that) But those are really the only 2 issues I know of. 
I wont vote for Kerry, as Ive said before- Itd be a one issue vote for me, thats gun rights. Bush says he backs the "assault weapons" ban, but hes not doing anything about it; therefor hes letting it die since it wont be brought to the floor unless he pushes for it  I love that asshole at times. Plus I dont think he fcked up going to war; he just keeps fcking up by saying stupid sht after the fact. Me wonders if he is got speesch riters?
Seriously.. Hes approval rating during the war was huge, and now as he claims there was,"Misinformation" it bottoms out.. How irresponsible does that make America look?   Perhaps he could.. point out the reasons we took Sadam out of power that are still solid? Point out the good of what we're doing in Iraq? Make fun of the UN for not backing their resolution? Who cares if there were some intel mistakes. We still had a good, solid reason to go(Not Al Quieda.. lmao) and have done alot of good there. Though frankly Im still leaning liberitarian for a term or two. Enough to repeal the stupid laws both sides have put up, but not long enough to cause serious damage


----------



## tomas101 (Aug 12, 2004)

as i said, both choices are horrible, but if there was a more credible person who would be going up againt kerry if say kerry was president i would pick that republican...but that isnt the case, imo bush is not doing a good job...now for abortion..i'm all for it, i'm all for killing these sick fukers in the electric chair, i'm all for having your guns, but you do not put your religious and social beliefs in front of science and the freedom of choice...so you would rather have more kids growing up in broken down homes, drug babies, babies that arent wanted or will be loved...do u actually know what the percentage of adoptions are?? it is very small...i mean very small...do u know the statistics of children who turn 18 and leave adoption clinics and live on their own, to only end up in jail, become fiends, or murders?now i feel abortion should be legal...your gonna have sex no matter what, its part of nature, we are the only creatures who have sex for more things than reproduction, and we do b/c thats the part of our nature...how are u gonna stand in the way or science that could cure alhemeirs,parkinsons, colitus, forms of cancer, being paralyzed (excuse my mispellings...)now if you were to have any of these condtions, or if your family were, would you not want you family to be able to have the chance to live a normal life(if there is such a thing..lol)..but you say no b/c an embryo wil be destroyed and used for the better of mankind? WHY? oh ya..and u all do realize that our right to bare arms will never be taken away from us right, so stop using that as your only excuse...lol

that is all


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 12, 2004)

Stem cell research is coooool.  It will allow me to get a new bicep when the one I have wears out. J/K don't flame me Busy.

The main stream person will draw his or her own lines as to where the fetus has the right to mature.  But people, if the cells were made in a lab and not the direct result of a union between man and woman for the express purposes of conception then it's all good.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 12, 2004)

Chain Link said:
			
		

> What rights? Er, I mean, on which issues?  I know hes responsible for the,"Patriot Act" But as far as I know its only abortion and gay marriage hes against.. Well, that and governmental health care and letting people get cheaper drugs(Wonder how much money he made off that) But those are really the only 2 issues I know of.
> I wont vote for Kerry, as Ive said before- Itd be a one issue vote for me, thats gun rights. Bush says he backs the "assault weapons" ban, but hes not doing anything about it; therefor hes letting it die since it wont be brought to the floor unless he pushes for it  I love that asshole at times. Plus I dont think he fcked up going to war; he just keeps fcking up by saying stupid sht after the fact. Me wonders if he is got speesch riters?
> Seriously.. Hes approval rating during the war was huge, and now as he claims there was,"Misinformation" it bottoms out.. How irresponsible does that make America look?  Perhaps he could.. point out the reasons we took Sadam out of power that are still solid? Point out the good of what we're doing in Iraq? Make fun of the UN for not backing their resolution? Who cares if there were some intel mistakes. We still had a good, solid reason to go(Not Al Quieda.. lmao) and have done alot of good there. Though frankly Im still leaning liberitarian for a term or two. Enough to repeal the stupid laws both sides have put up, but not long enough to cause serious damage


When you said the lil line about the patriot act you sorta shrunk it down in importance a weeeeee bit. It is a BIIIIIIIIIG FUUCCKING DEALLLLL! Really. It is a major step back and a very horrifying look into the future. We will see some press about Americans being detained that have names like Brown or Oreilly for no reason for whatever length of time with no due process and no recourse. It will be a problem in the near future, and that is a direct result of Bush.



Let the extreme right-wingers start their posts about if you're not doing anything wrong then you have no worries   ...


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 12, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> as i said, both choices are horrible, but if there was a more credible person who would be going up againt kerry if say kerry was president i would pick that republican...but that isnt the case, imo bush is not doing a good job



And I ask you...Is Kerry a credible person?  Truth is, you don't know.  I look  at his past track record and come the conclusion that he is not.  I have no idea what the man stands for.  Do you?



> ...now for abortion..i'm all for it



Ok, we have it on record you don't mind killing other humans



> , i'm all for killing these sick fukers in the electric chair



Just what 'sick fukers' are you talking about?



> i'm all for having your guns



On what basis?  



> do not put your religious and social beliefs in front of science and the freedom of choice



Oh, so I cannot vote in the manner I believe? 



> so you would rather have more kids growing up in broken down homes, drug babies, babies that arent wanted or will be loved...do u actually know what the percentage of adoptions are?? it is very small...i mean very small...do u know the statistics of children who turn 18 and leave adoption clinics and live on their own, to only end up in jail, become fiends, or murders?



You said it.  What exactly are the percentages?  (Include a source, please)



> now i feel abortion should be legal



Why not just make murder legal?  That's what it is, correct?




> your gonna have sex no matter what, its part of nature, we are the only creatures who have sex for more things than reproduction, and we do b/c thats the part of our nature



People are going to have sex, no doubt.  History proves, however, that a society that condems pre-marital sex has lower rates of out of wedlock children.  Why is it on the upswing?

Why?  Because our current society glamorizes it.  It's the "cool" thing to do.



> how are u gonna stand in the way or science that could cure alhemeirs,parkinsons, colitus, forms of cancer, being paralyzed (excuse my mispellings...)now if you were to have any of these condtions, or if your family were, would you not want you family to be able to have the chance to live a normal life(if there is such a thing..lol)



Actually, it's already been proven that stem cells cannot cure Alzheimer's.  It cannot be done, not with stem cells anyway.  Would I save my life at the expense of another?  No.



> but you say no b/c an embryo wil be destroyed and used for the better of mankind? WHY?



Because now, we are playing God (That's an EXTREMELY dangerous thing).  How does the murder of one become better for mankind?  That's akin to cloning humans, and farming the clones organs (which is pretty much what that is all about).  It's not a matter of IF we can do, it's more a matter of SHOULD we do it?  I say no.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 12, 2004)

Stickboy does that mean I don't get my new mail order bi-cep?


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 12, 2004)

ok, my turn...



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> But people, if the cells were made in a lab and not the direct result of a union between man and woman for the express purposes of conception then it's all good.



Tell that to the fetus!



			
				tomas101 said:
			
		

> do u know the statistics of children who turn 18 and leave adoption clinics and live on their own, to only end up in jail, become fiends, or murders?now i feel abortion should be legal



logical point.. let's kill them all before they have the chance to kill!!! 



			
				tomas101 said:
			
		

> now if you were to have any of these condtions, or if your family were, would you not want you family to be able to have the chance to live a normal life(if there is such a thing..lol)..but you say no b/c an embryo wil be destroyed and used for the better of mankind?



I feel you would have to be in the situation to honestly answer that, but I like to think I would stand strong in my opposition. 

My grandma died of alzheimer's couple years ago... I guarantee she wouldn't have accepted cells that killed an embryo.



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Stickboy does that mean I don't get my new mail order bi-cep?



only if i get two


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 12, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> do not put your religious and social beliefs in front of science and the freedom of choice





you prioritize your way, and I'll do the same.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 12, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Stickboy does that mean I don't get my new mail order bi-cep?



Not if I have anything to say about it.    

Oh, vote for me in 2008.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 12, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> When you said the lil line about the patriot act you sorta shrunk it down in importance a weeeeee bit. It is a BIIIIIIIIIG FUUCCKING DEALLLLL! Really. It is a major step back and a very horrifying look into the future. We will see some press about Americans being detained that have names like Brown or Oreilly for no reason for whatever length of time with no due process and no recourse. It will be a problem in the near future, and that is a direct result of Bush.



lol, you misunderstood what I wrote. The entire first paragragh-


			
				Chain Link said:
			
		

> What rights? Er, I mean, on which issues?  I know hes responsible for the,"Patriot Act" But as far as I know its only abortion and gay marriage hes against.. Well, that and governmental health care and letting people get cheaper drugs(Wonder how much money he made off that) But those are really the only 2 issues I know of.



- was about freedoms bush has, and wants to take away. I wasnt praising him at all. Like I said in the end there, Im more biased to liberitarian than republican; so naturally any time someone works against civil freedoms Im going to be opposed. 
I was asking(seriously, not rhetoically) what other freedoms bush would work to take away; I dont browse Democratic news areas much so I dont get to see all of Bush's bad side, Im sure. The only issue I care about the two parties disagree on Ive found I care about is the 2nd A, So I asked in the case that perhaps Im overlooking another important issue.
I figure-

Abortion- Im all for mothers rights, as far as Im concerned its not considered a baby until its a self sustained being - IOW once its born so +1 dem (Granted Id perfer to keep it to 3 month max..)

Gay marriage - Why not? It shocks me its even a debatable issue, +1 dems

Patriot act - Sigh.. Really stupid; perhaps it will make up for its infringement on individual rights by capturing someone important someday.. But just like abortion, and gay marriage, It doesnt really effect me, so only +1 dems

Then theres the 2nd A, which some dems want to impose higher control, some want an all out ban, either one is horribly stupid and misguided. Doesnt effect me now, but it will soon; plus theres the,"assault weapons" scandel which gave me an incredible bias against democrats, so +15 reps, an -10 dems.

The war I dont like, But I believe we have/had proper reason, so I could care less politically about it.

The rest of the issues I know of(Health care, taxes, ect) all have their +s and -s, but in the end they equal out.. Both candidates suck, so those equal out.

Needless to say I lean republican between the two parties, Thats why I asked if there were other issues Dale was refering to.
Hope that cleared that up


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 12, 2004)

Geez, Stickboy, is there ANY Republican policy that you ever disagree with? I'm beginning to think you are on the Administration's payroll. 

I'm not going to offer an opinion about stem cell research except to add the curious observation that we can justify murdering innocent people "because that's just part of war and we can go to war for no reason other than just because we CAN" but claim human life as sacred from the moment the first drop of sperm in a masturbation ejaculation. After all, the Bible understood that it is the Man who produces babies during ejaculation. It was that blasphemous science that determined women had more of a role than just an owned beast of burden. 

There are so many reasons I cannot vote for this President that even I'm sometimes surprised - I've never been as against a candidate (well, except perhaps Alan Keyes) as I am this current Adminitration. No President in our history has been as secretive as he has - he  has held fewer press conferences, taken more vacations, been more demanding about ideological control and yet not responsible for mistakes. 

He talks about the need for unity because we are a nation at war - and then openly violates his own campaign promise and promotes a "culture" war on his own nation in this time of "great peril". He hands over taxpayers monies to only those religious organizations that align themselves with his Administration, including those with very questionable histories of their "charitable" functions while refusing to recognize other denominations as "christian." He has encouraged legislation to attack the same judiciary as "activist" that gave him the Presidency in the first place. And his supporters are curiously not capable of ever finding a single policy they ever disagree with. . .sort of like absolute adoration for everything he stands for, or anyone the Party selects. 

He fabricated his own military record and left it published on the official State Department web site for over three years. And we talk of flip-flopping? How about the "No, we don't need a 9/11 commission," well, "Yes, we'll go ahead and have one" ...or how about his infamous adamant defense of the Texas sodomy law when he was governor (a law that was curiously only enforced against the gay citizens) and then eventually struck down the Supreme Court? Of course, the President suddenly said that "consenting adults should be able to do what they want and make whatever legal contracts they choose" and then call for a constitutional amendment that was worded so that wouldn't be the case?  Or that he could call for the dissolution of over 3000 American legally performed marriages in a state but would never accept the government doing that to his own? I won't even begin to talk about Cheney's contribution to flipflopping on this issue. 

Of course, on that note, we have the 10,000 gay soldiers discharged from the military over the past decade, no movement by the Pentagon on their own  report charging violations of  the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and reports of harassment and witch-hunts. Naturally, there is no comfort for those soldiers who are fighting for "freedom" in Iraq while their commander-in-chief tries to outlaw their relationships at home, force them to watch their British gay comrade soldiers receive packages from home and support benefits while warning ours of dismissal (unless we desperately happen to NEED them there) if they openly write their partners. Ah...and then there is the Administration statement that if there was a draft, gay Americans would certainly NOT be exempt....so much for the old "incapatibility" argument. 

And then we have the appointments of religious ideologues to the National Science Board, so all research has to be approved by evangelicals and slanted to fit the ideological needs of the Administration...or the rash of legislation designed to turn sanctuaries into meeting halls of the political parties, his official support for freedom or religion while his major contributors trash every other religion in the world. Then he shows them support by attempting to evangelize every other culture on the planet while trashing his own nation's "indulgences" in speeches before their religious groups. 

Of course, we could go on about his foreign policy, or lack of one, but that would take hours to write about. Or we could talk about sex, which of course means that the only answer is "discouraging" pre-marital sex (a policy which historically wasn't enforced on men) and resort to vilifying those women who become pregnant as an example of social disapproval of the high rate of teen pregnancy. The men would be, naturally, not held socially responsible for responding to their "natural urges." So while we shame the women who are unfortunate enough to become pregnant (we can ship them off to those old, impersonal homes where they are forced to give up the baby with far too few parents allowed to adopt them). 

We could probably cut down on the teen pregnancy rate by performing involuntary vasectomies on men who have sex before marriage. Of course, since those gays can't get married, we'll have to just criminalize their relationships again, encourage violence to "eliminate the anti-christian" illness, and throw them in prisons or mental institutions again. 

Of course, there would be fewer single parents if adultery were punishable by death (isn't that what the Bible calls for?) or if the State were allowed to dissolve marriages that are violated by the failure to keep eternal vows and prohibit the offending parties from ever marrying again. And we'd have fewer bratty children around if we could stone them whenever they spoke out against the parent. 

Now, according to the Constitution Restoration Act, (which right wingers champion as the only true salvation for our nation.) we have to take our nation back to the original and TRUE Godly intent of our Founding Fathers. This will require that we strip women of the right to vote and hold property, either reinstate slavery or re-learn those biblical verses that confirmed the separation of the races, and establish men of European heritage who speak English as the only true citizens of America. 

The Press will continue to be free, but freedom will be redefined as only viable as long as it doesn't criticize The Party or question the heroism of the President appointed by God. Freedom of speech will be limited to only dissenting choices for dinner at a government-approved buffet, and family disagreements will be expected to kept within the home so that alcoholism and spousal abuse will not be noticed in those marriages which will be banned from dissolution. Schools will only use textbooks after students have memorized and mastered every verse in the Bible (something I got from...gosh, a rightwing evangelical program) and every interpretation of scripture will be approved by the official religion. Disagreement and breaking of any of those interpretations will result in expulsion and punishment of a lifetime of unemployment. 

Tax cuts will continue to be made to only the wealthiest, so they will have more revenue to move their plants overseas. WalMart, which will be owned by an "official christian" group, will continue to be the nation's largest employer, but they will be allowed to pay women less and overlook them for promotion because they should be concentrating on finding a man to marry and having children. Of course, since there are more women in the country than men, those women who cannot marry will be limited to careers in the lowest paying professionial fields since God has chosen them to suffer. 

Of course, society will try to discourage men from thinking about sex at all. Swimsuit issues of sports magazines will be banned, since they could cause erections. Adult stimulus magazines for men will be limited to only two, and sold behind brown paper covers in state-licensed stores. The Hays Commission regulations will be revived, and there will be no swearing in movies and no signs of any kind of nudity, since it could suggest sexual conduct could be expressed in ways other than for procreation. 

Clothing styles will be altered to reflect the need for modesty in dress in keeping with our evangelical leaders standards. Even men will be required to wear long bathing suits on the beach, as it is inappropriate to show off the bodies that we've worked hard to create. Women's clothing will be worn in layers on the beach, and swimming will be discouraged so that suits cannot indicate curves. 

No citizen will be able to seek redress for grievances from the government unless approved by the Party's Spiritually Correct Council. The judiciary will be appointed on the basis of their adherence to proper "christian" religious beliefs. . .the ability to furnish large marble statues of the Ten Commandments will be considered an appropriate offering for the appointment committee. 


 I'll be voting for some Libertarian candidates this fall.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 13, 2004)

Captain Kirk said:
			
		

> In an insane world, the sane man, may seem insane.


With that said, kbm, You're insane.  Welcome to the club


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 13, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> But people, if the cells were made in a lab and not the direct result of a union between man and woman for the express purposes of conception then it's all good.


Sarcasm? Im all for biological research, and genetic engineering; its the future despite religious groups. But if the cells as you're refering to are made in a lab and become a living being(From a human to a chicken) I believe they have the same rights as any other being. Otherwise we would have scientists creating lab-humans only to conduct what would normally be considered unethical research on. Now, if you made a complete human, minus the active memory/conciousness- IOW, a vegtable human, that would be another story.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 13, 2004)

Ok, where to begin.

First off, I find it ironic that the president who sent more people to the electric chair as governor of TX has a problem with killing.  And honestly, those of you who don't think that a relative with some disease wouldn't give their left nut to have a stem cell organ are seriously flawed in your thinking.

The fetus' that come from fetal stem cell research, as busy pointed out, do not even have a CNS.  No CNS, no feeling.  If you had a relative who was in a completely vegetative state and had absolutely no chance of recovering would you force them to live?

Think about it, say you lost your arm through some accident, wouldn't you like the ability to have a new one?  I am not saying this technology is around now, but it could be provided research was funded and allowed to continue.

We will never know what is possible if we try to get in the way of prgress.  And then, of course, this jack ass Bush wants to go to Mars.  What the fuck is the point of going to Mars, honestly?  He is just so ass backwards it is ridiculous.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

But that's the entire debate... leave it alone & it will have a CNS.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> And then, of course, this jack ass Bush wants to go to Mars.  What the fuck is the point of going to Mars, honestly?  He is just so ass backwards it is ridiculous.




 I agree... it's cool, but an incredible waste of time & money.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Aug 13, 2004)

This is scary, but I find myself agreeing with Chain Link on almost everything. (Except the Gay marriage thing..... )  Needless to say, I've scheduled an appointment to have my head examined.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 13, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I agree... it's cool, but an incredible waste of time & money.




How much do you think something like that will cost?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

Chain Link said:
			
		

> Sarcasm? Im all for biological research, and genetic engineering; its the future despite religious groups. But if the cells as you're refering to are made in a lab and become a living being(From a human to a chicken) I believe they have the same rights as any other being. Otherwise we would have scientists creating lab-humans only to conduct what would normally be considered unethical research on. Now, if you made a complete human, minus the active memory/conciousness- IOW, a vegtable human, that would be another story.


The lines you and I draw Busy with respect to when an embryo should be allowed to mature with protected rights are not the same. You would appear to feel that at the very moment that the sperm hits the ovum that it is a human being protected by the laws of man and God. Most people would argue that you are on the extreme right on this issue. Although I am not THAT far behind you I argue that the 31st day (a number that I have come to by my OWN long and heart felt considerations) is the last day that anyone should be allowed to stop the fetus from maturing. In cases of rape the mother should be allowed a little time over the 31 days (not much) to consider her position. In cases where severe medical problems arise all bets are off and the rights of the mother take priority. Because of the extreme hardships placed on EVERYONE involved when any fetus is found to be severely defective he/she should be aborted (I know you want to kick my ass on that one Busy). Any one who kills a fetus for the single reason that it is of the wrong sex should be charged with premeditated 1st degree murder and given the antiseptic wipe before lethal injection. I feel the morning after pill is a great invention and should be given to all females over the age of 11 with their corn flakes at breakfast (OK maybe I'm over the top on that one but it should at least be in their purse right next to their tampons just in case it is needed [maybe the tampon co's could manufacture a tampon/next-day-after shrinked-wraped combo kit for the better sex to make these things more handy]). 

Adoption rocks. Want to see a grown man cry? Watch him as he sees his newly adopted baby for the first time. I helped a drug addicted mother give her newborn baby (this baby was around 4 months old) to a financially secure (really secure ... damn!) happy couple. The 240 lb new dad bawled like a baby.

Stem cell research is needed. Period. Like it or not we have medical horrors that need this research to be corrected. If you are going to debate this topic than you should imagine your loved one in need of the medical help this research can provide. I see it as a hard balance between the needs of your nine-year-old daughter and the needs of a seven-day-old embryo. My religious beliefs do not take first place over your right to a quality of life, or the ability to even be alive. My ex-wife (I still love the woman with all my heart ??? I just can???t live with her) is going through her second round of chemo in four years. If you've ever watched someone you love get hit by cancer (1st colon then breast) than you understand how I feel. To allow a religious doctrine to decide law and prevent scientific research is un-American. God says that tho shall not conduct stem cell research is not a factor in my mind when deciding the basis for a moral decision. If stem cell research will provide solutions for what ails us then we need to get off of the religious high ground, strike a balance on moral grounds, then get these solutions found. 

Separation between church and state is the corner-stone of our countries??? governmental structure. There are too many religious people out there right now trying to force those beliefs into our constitution where they do not belong. A Buddhist, a Mormon, a Baptist, and an atheist are ALL provided for under our constitution equally as individual American citizens and although a person may want very much to hold their bible up and say that God says ===NOOOO=== that person has no right to force the Buddhist or the athiest (I attend a Baptist church) to watch his wife die as a result. 

Bottom line? Religion and law MUST be separated and if your ability to make a decision based on the rights of ALL Americans is soooo clouded by your religious beliefs then you are not fit to lead this country.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 13, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Geez, Stickboy, is there ANY Republican policy that you ever disagree with? I'm beginning to think you are on the Administration's payroll.



Of course there are republican policies that I disagree with.  

Having said that, there are not many democratic policies that I agree with, if any.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 13, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> The lines you and I draw Busy with respect to when an embryo should be allowed to mature with protected rights are not the same.



Did you quote the wrong person?? You have me quoted up there, but then started talking to busy.. I wrote out an enitre response thinking you were talking to me before I reread your post, LOL 



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Bottom line? Religion and law MUST be separated and if your ability to make a decision based on the rights of ALL Americans is soooo clouded by your religious beliefs then you are not fit to lead this country.


 BoneCrusher for President! Its sad; Our forefathers set up an incredible constitution; all these ammendments and defined basic rights and freedom; and all people have done since is condem and block them ever sense. Americans want THEIR freedoms, but there are things that each person deems,"Wrong" By religion, morals, or whatever other problem they have.. Which isnt a problem; nobody says you have to like the things you were brought up to hate; but that doesnt give anybody the right to stop other people from doing it; in the cases that it causes no harm to others. But every day special interest groups get together and say they want this and this banned; eventually they finally get statistics that slant the truth so badly twards their arguement that they publicize them and grow more. Over time more and more propaganda is released, and the sheep gather at the white house door. By the end this little group of extremist morons is a huge group and one party or the other will begin to sponsor their belifes for their vote. Soon enough said party gets elected; and to keep that vote they go on a sharade propaganda campaign to gain other American's support; so they dont lose their vote, and to raise numbers so senators ect become intimidated and vote for the law when its brought before them. In the end its widely accepted as,"right" and,"Theres no reason for any person to do that anyways" and the 25% or so of Americans who didnt buy the crap are now the exremist.  

Of course; (IMO) Americas largest problem is that we're dominated By Christian/Catholic type religions; which has caused a MASSIVE overflow on the border of church and state. If you have enough people you can get anything done; you dont need a reason; just popularity.
As far as Im concerned anyone who imposes law on any freedom which does not cause/allow harm to others is guilty of treason.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

Sorry.  I did qoute you but I was also directing my post to Busy as well ...


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 13, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Sorry.  I did qoute you but I was also directing my post to Busy as well ...


oic. I just found it odd since me and busy have two completely differant views on abortion


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

Yeah but you were hacking at stem cell research so i was on ya for it ... my bad bro


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 13, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Ok, where to begin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

ahh.. lunch break.

ok...



			
				Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> How much do you think something like that will cost?


I'm not sure.. I was reading an article in TIME. The number was ridiculous. A lot more can be done for a lot less.

Bonecrusher:  I respect what you said, and I'm sorry to hear about your ex.  

regarding the mental/physical defects, I feel that when people decide to be parents, they take that risk.  we shouldn't be able to kill off the ones with problems.

Rape... as terrible as it is, I can't justify killing a baby because of something the father did.

Religion... I'd be lying if I said my views were not influenced by my religion.  But if you look at it from the religious pov... If you believe in a God, then you probably believe this life is temporary & in the end, you've got to answer to the big man upstairs.... I'm not looking for a religion debate, this is just a fact.  

The separation of church & state, though necessary in government, I PERSONALLY cannot do.  I can't be a John Kerry... call myself a Catholic & govern contrary to all doctrines it has put forth.  If he believes what he says, then he knows he has the task of telling God that he was just doing his job.  

----> I know everyone does not agree with me & there are many other religions/beliefs...<b>let me stress that I know this is just my opinion.</b> 

As I said before, I say all this as an outsider.  I would personally not accept fetal stem cells to help myself.  My family can make their own decisions.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 13, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Stem cells.  Here's a quote about embryonic stem cells.
> 
> ??????We???re not against stem-cell research of any kind,??? said [Tulane University research professor Brian] Butcher. ???But we think there are advantages to using adult stem cells. For example, with embryonic stem cells, a significant number become cancer cells, so the cure could be worse than the disease. And they can be very difficult to grow, while adult stem cells are easy to grow.??????
> 
> ...




As far as NASA goes, I would never say the space program was worthless, hell, I worked for NASA Ames for a year.  I see no point in going to Mars, however.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> So.....is it worth it?



NASA is worth it...  I'll drive a crew through the desert & save the country billions on a Mars mission.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

Stickboy as normal we are split down the center.  I am thinking that ANY kind of stem cell research is good.  

Mars and Nasa ... very worth it.  Go to Mars? Hell yeah I'll even drive.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> NASA is worth it... I'll drive a crew through the desert & save the country billions on a Mars mission.


 You're not thinking of that lunar hoax theory when you mention that are you?


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> You're not thinking of that lunar hoax theory when you mention that are you?



never heard of it 

i'm all for sending probes... but sending a manned mission?  I think we have more important problems to deal with on our own planet!!! I guess I just don't see the point


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> never heard of it


Good ... but do a google on it cuz it is a wierd theory that will amuse. The people that put it together were politically motivated and got all scientific.  



> i'm all for sending probes... but sending a manned mission? I think we have more important problems to deal with on our own planet!!! I guess I just don't see the point


Have you not watched any of the Star Trek series?  Man some people.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

Have you not watched any of the Star Trek series?  Man some people.   [/QUOTE]

 My bad!


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)




----------



## Stickboy (Aug 13, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Stickboy as normal we are split down the center.  I am thinking that ANY kind of stem cell research is good.



I hear you.  I don't believe in abortion because I believe it kills a life.  In the same sense, because of what I believe, I cannot support embryonic stem cell research.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 13, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> As far as NASA goes, I would never say the space program was worthless, hell, I worked for NASA Ames for a year.  I see no point in going to Mars, however.



Just think of all the cool stuff that's going to arrive on the market (someday) based on NASA pursuing this mission.  Think of how great the American people are going to feel if we pull it off.  Remember the Moon landings?

I think the idea of a space elevator is cool.  The first country to get one working is going to OWN space.  (This assumes, of course, it is actually do-able).


----------



## tomas101 (Aug 13, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> And I ask you...Is Kerry a credible person?  Truth is, you don't know.  I look  at his past track record and come the conclusion that he is not.  I have no idea what the man stands for.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



as i said, i dont like kerry or bush but would pick anyone over bush...but if there was a better candidate who was the incumbent i would pick the other and not kerry..

en embryo is not a human.

sick fukers may be lame but i mean murders, the same pple bush doesnt mind putting to death.

will find the percentages for you..i know this for a fact, b/c i had to debate this in class least yr.

yes stem cells can cure Alzheimer's...where did u hear otherwise? i'm  curious...
 yes sex is cool..i love it...and dont plan to marry any time soon

god has given us the technology and science...so how can u say we are playing god...if god didnt want it he wouldnt have made it possible....can u just imagine the shit that will come out within the next 20 yrs...and we have the possiblitity to discover these new 'things' b/c we are given the intelligence...to a degree, i'm even for cloning..

and i could care less who marries who...as long as u dont bother me, then go marry your fuking dog for all i care...its not like its gonne affect me in any way whats so ever...so why would u care..mind your own bussines...(this is a general answer not to you)


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

But dude if you whack off you kill millions.  I know ... it only counts when you're an hermaphrodite.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> if god didnt want it he wouldnt have made it possible


that's illogical. murder is possible.



			
				tomas101 said:
			
		

> en embryo is not a human.
> 
> will find the percentages for you..i know this for a fact, b/c i had to debate this in class least yr.



I never said it was. An embryo <b>will</b> be a human

Percentages mean nothing.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> \An embryo <b>will</b> be a human




Actually it is a human embryo to be exact but Tom ??? Busy sees his point from a religious perspective and _will not_ *ever concede* his point because he would then be failing God in his beliefs.  You nor I will not get to do that.


Busy you will see the benefits of this research help you as you age. You just will not know when it happens. There will be flu serums, cancer cures, and repaired memory loss as a result of this research.  



The R&D on the things you take now is completely unknown to you Busy. I doubt that you find out what is in the drugs you take to get well. As you age are then going to research each and every new drug you take? 



Making this kind of research hard to do will not stop it because the true scientist does not have your religious conviction Busy and only seeks to achieve and improve. I thank God for that as all through history the research done was considered to be against the laws of God yet the deed got done.



When we vote ... we should do it from the perspective of an American Christian not a Christian American. It is hard ... but I do it every time I cast a ballot. That is our duty to our country.

I have a question for you Busy ... would you ask my _wife_ to die for *your* religious beliefs?  You have a good heart Busy and treat people with respect here so I ask you to not be offended, just opened minded.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

Hey, no hard feelings.  A debate is a debate.  

First let me say, I'm not a religious fanatic, or anything.  My religion may influence me, but I make my own decisions.  

Good question..maybe a little unfair though.  I would never ask your wife to do anything.  Everyone should make their own decision. I can't possibly imagine being in her position, or yours for that matter, as I've said.  All I can say is what I think/hope I would do.

I have no doubt that stem cell research will take off.  I just hope, like stickboy said, they find another avenue to get them.  Either way, there's nothing I can do about it.. it's going to happen.

I'm all for research!
Did you ever see the movie Extreme Measures?  Gene Hackman plays a doctor who is working on research for (if I remember correctly) repairing damaged spinal cords.  To do so, he illegally uses human research subjects who end up disfigured, terribly sick & dying.  He uses Homeless people & then puts them back on the street when he gets the data he needs.  When he is eventually confronted on it, he goes on about the greater good.  Think of how many people he can save....

As the movie ends, basically it's said that he had a great idea, but he went about it in the wrong way... That's basically all I'm saying!  

I want a cure for these disease as much as the next guy.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 13, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Hey, no hard feelings. A debate is a debate.
> 
> First let me say, I'm not a religious fanatic, or anything. My religion may influence me, but I make my own decisions.
> 
> Good question..maybe a little unfair though. I would never ask your wife to do anything. Everyone should make their own decision. I can't possibly imagine being in her position, or yours for that matter, as I've said. All I can say is what I think/hope I would do.


I only ask that question to underscore the fact that when a person makes a decision of that magnitude it is made for more than his or her self.  

Again, Busy you have shown yourself to be a respectful and "nice" guy.  No unfairness intended toward you.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 13, 2004)

tomas101 said:
			
		

> as i said, i dont like kerry or bush but would pick anyone over bush...but if there was a better candidate who was the incumbent i would pick the other and not kerry..



Vote for whoever you want.  That's your decision.



> en embryo is not a human.



It's not?  Just what is it, then?  

What will it grow into?



> sick fukers may be lame but i mean murders, the same pple bush doesnt mind putting to death.



Um, you know Texas has a death penalty right? 

What are you suggesting?  We just say, oh, you killed that guy?  Ok, go back home and try not to do it again.

BTW - I am against the death penalty.



> will find the percentages for you..i know this for a fact, b/c i had to debate this in class least yr.



Do that.  Include sorces and facts.  Leave out opinons.



> yes stem cells can cure Alzheimer's...where did u hear otherwise? i'm  curious...



Oh, Ok.  Others disagree.  This guy disagrees, and I'd bet he knows just a bit more about it than you.  (This article appeared in the Washington Post).  Note:  Do a search on Alzheimer's and stem cells, you'll see almost everyone has a similar posistion.

"But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit. 

"I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small," said stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, echoing many other experts. "I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner." 




> yes sex is cool..i love it...and dont plan to marry any time soon



I never said it wasn't cool.  I engage in it often.



> god has given us the technology and science...so how can u say we are playing god...if god didnt want it he wouldnt have made it possible....can u just imagine the shit that will come out within the next 20 yrs...and we have the possiblitity to discover these new 'things' b/c we are given the intelligence...to a degree, i'm even for cloning..



There is a thing called "Free Will".  Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.  You'd obviously feel differently if you were a clone, eh?  I think that sums this paragraph up.



> and i could care less who marries who...as long as u dont bother me, then go marry your fuking dog for all i care...its not like its gonne affect me in any way whats so ever...so why would u care..mind your own bussines...(this is a general answer not to you)



Think about it.  Seriously, THINK about what you just said.  You don't see a problem in that manner of thinking?


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 13, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Yeah but you were hacking at stem cell research so i was on ya for it ... my bad bro



Gotcha. I have no problem with stem cell research, it was the way you said:



			
				BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> if the cells were made in a lab and not the direct result of a union between man and woman for the express purposes of conception then it's all good.



I was thinking.. if we can create an embryo in a lab, then we could also have that embryo mature, into a fetus, then a baby, the a young child and so on.

Naturally, I think you can see where I would be worried; The last thing Id want is a 7 yo,"Artificial Human" becoming a guinea pig to science.

However, if we were to take such technology, and alter the being so they would mature from an embryo on without the conciousness of a being- A vegtable; similar to somebody whos undergone a lobotomy. Then I can see no harm; as the being would not feel pain because they simply do not exist.

I think such an issue is not going to come up any time soon, as we arent that advanced in the field of biological research, and genetic engineering.

As for the rest of the posts.. I didnt see my name when I browsed though and this thread is movng to fast for me, so Im outtie


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 13, 2004)

Why do people keep saying "feel no pain" in regards to this?  I don't understand it.

We clone a human, then kill it.  What matters if "IT" feels pain?  Is it not a human, or isn't it?  WTF does pain have to do with it?

In that mindset, we'd be killing all vegetables in the hospitals to harvest organs.  After all, they won't feel it.

Sorry folks, not buying into this mindset.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 13, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> In that mindset, we'd be killing all vegetables in the hospitals to harvest organs.  After all, they won't feel it.


good point


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 13, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Why do people keep saying "feel no pain" in regards to this?  I don't understand it.
> 
> We clone a human, then kill it.  What matters if "IT" feels pain?  Is it not a human, or isn't it?  WTF does pain have to do with it?
> 
> ...



Eh, I may have a response for this, Ill finish it tomarrow, its almost 2 am and I have to be up at 530. Reguardless; its no simple awnser. The only way to truely understand such a thing is to find the awnser for yourself, and that will take time. Assuming you're not religious; in which case it would be hard or impossible to understand, because your feet would not be planted in reality. And to understand such a thing you must understand the very basic blocks which make it before you build a castle.. Oh, and the sarcastic question about the hospitals I can awnser in 5 minutes of wording and typing; that was really a stupid question.(I cant believe somebody called it a,"Good point")


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 14, 2004)

Bring it on.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 14, 2004)

Chain Link said:
			
		

> However, if we were to take such technology, and alter the being so they would mature from an embryo on without the conciousness of a being- A vegtable; similar to somebody whos undergone a lobotomy. Then I can see no harm; as the being would not feel pain because they simply do not exist.


I can't grasp your method of thinking.   They would exist.. the same way vegetables in the hospitals exist.  Consciousness does not constitute existence. Something either exists, or doesn't. 



			
				Chain Link said:
			
		

> Assuming you're not religious; in which case it would be hard or impossible to understand, because your feet would not be planted in reality.


That's an arrogant statement.



			
				Chain Link said:
			
		

> Oh, and the sarcastic question about the hospitals I can awnser in 5 minutes of wording and typing; that was really a stupid question.(I cant believe somebody called it a,"Good point")


I see a direct correlation between your "idea" and stickboy's vegetable example.  You plainly said "like someone who had a lobotomy," implying that a lack of consciousness demotes them from being a person.. paving the way for the organ harvest.  What's the difference?


----------



## maniclion (Aug 14, 2004)

The decision is black and green for me.

Bush = OIL
Kerry = Alternative Energy

I work in the alternative energy field so growth here means more money for me 

Help me get Bush out and I will give 1% of any pay increase.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 14, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Why do people keep saying "feel no pain" in regards to this? I don't understand it.


Well the sensation of pain would be technically impossible to describe, But one whos has felt it(As I assume we all have) can certainly emphasize with others they see in pain. Thats why we have a natural tendency to be defensive of those in pain. But honestly,"They dont feel pain" isnt a reason to consider a human,"not a person" Because they could still very well be a,"person" who just has a flaw in their nervous system. I would never support any project which intended to conduct research on humans (Lab or procreated) just because they didnt feel pain.



			
				Stickboy said:
			
		

> We clone a human, then kill it. What matters if "IT" feels pain? Is it not a human, or isn't it? WTF does pain have to do with it?


The thing Im talking about would require us to be a little more technologically advanced than just being able to clone humans. Cloning humans and ignorantly messing with their DNA in a trial and error attempt to get the result you want would be a nightmare.
Im referring to a point in time where we understand how each little thing in DNA, cells, and organs work. And we could specifically create humans without the.. Uh,"Interface" of the brain. The subconscious that controls bodily functions such as breathing, sweating, regulates heart rate ect would have to remain in tact(obviously) But with the complete lack of a node where information is gathered and processed; or as Ive called it, A consciousness.
And yes, I say a human body with no form of consciousness is not a,"person." If they do not have memories, can not *gather*, and compile information gathered by the body(via the main senses, for example), can not process said information; then all they are is an accumulation of cells which have formed interdependent roles as organs, blood cells, ect. In this case this body would inevitably die without life support as it lacks the most important part; a pilot, a person.



			
				busyLivin said:
			
		

> They would exist.. the same way vegetables in the hospitals exist. Consciousness does not constitute existence. Something either exists, or doesn't.


Well if you want to call it a,"They" Then sure. You could also call the body an,"Individual". Even name it if you like. But no matter how much it looks like one, it is not a,"person". Naturally, we do perceive it that way since whenever we meet a person, you see a body. You think of yourself, and you think of your body. But if the body was a person, then you would lose a part of yourself  ,when your arm is cut off. Needless to say, you dont; you just lose your arm. Trees exist too. They're made of organic matter as well, yet they dont have a consciousness.. Yet have you ever found yourself in a moral dilemma when you cut down the 3 foot tree that started growing in your yard?
Think of it this way, If the tree knew you(After walking past him for three years I would think he would.) He knew the cars that went by; he acted differently in different weather; he found he doesnt like growing leaves to the west because of the way the sun burns them.. so he leans slightly and has no leaves on that side. Then would you think twice before murdering the tree? You slide your blade through the bark, and pulp; and you have sap all over your blade. The tree leans desperately(And slowly.. lol, its a tree) away from you hoping to avoid another cut; nervous cells in the bark send a shocking sensation up to the main bulb, and the leaves start to shake feverishly from the constant sensation of pain zipping up the bark due to an open would. You take another slash, as the tree is slowly removing its roots from the ground in a final attempt to deroot itself and flee; the shaking now, more violent than ever. You take one final swipe and the roots stop cold, the upper half of the tree falls to the ground with a thud, bending and bowing back in forth as it writhes in pain.. You know it will take hours for it to die, so out of mercy you take your machete for one last swing and cut the main bulb in half; and the tree slowly comes to a stop. Having removed the nuisance from blocking the view of your house from the street, you smile happily, turn around and begin to head back inside.
Just then you hear a giant cracking sound as an enormous Branch snaps from the tree above. You realize the tree was its mother, and despite her efforts to save her seedling, her physiology simply made her too slow to stop you..
The branch falls, clobbers you, and you die.   



			
				Stickboy said:
			
		

> In that mindset, we'd be killing all vegetables in the hospitals to harvest organs. After all, they won't feel it.


There are reasons we dont,"Harvest" our vegetables.
1. In many cases; such as a coma, the lack of a consciousness could be merely temporary.. Kind of like when you got to sleep every night. If theres a chance the ,"Person" could wake up then by all means, it should be treated as a person.
2. Its symbolic. Sometimes(often) when a family loses someone to such a state, its too painful just to let them go. Every part of them wishes that some miracle will come and this person will return.. But inevitably, it doesnt happen. The costs of full time life support also has a tendency to overwhelm the average family. So they do end up,"murdering" the person by allowing life support to cease. And its completely legal! I dont see the state sponsoring vegetables because,"They're people too" Not to mention by law, all you have to do is prove that the person does not have a given chance to come out of their vegetable state. Granted, law means nothing, That was just for note 



			
				busyLivin said:
			
		

> That's an arrogant statement.


Only because Im an atheist. Lets say Im wrong, and in fact, god DOES exist.. except,"God" has a name, and its,"Allah." How could any person then, who does not know the teachings of Islam, possibly understand the rules that govern the world? If a god was real, then reality is not always something to be seen. You could not figure out the world using knowledge and logic, because your knowledge would be flawed, and incomplete.
The same could be said if Christians were right, and their god is real(Which, by definition means all other religions are wrong. Im not making a scenario where both Allah and god will be real because they would fight IMO) Then anyone who is a non-christian, and/or does not know the teachings of the bible could not possibly understand the fundamental basics of the universe. And if you dont know the very basics, then you dont know anything.

In retrospect, perhaps I should have stated that it would have been hard or impossible to understand because your feet are not planted in *MY* reality. Which is true, the view of "life","Humans", and,"people" from the perspective of a non-moralist(I may have to define this..) atheist is going to be far different than a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. 



			
				busyLivin said:
			
		

> I see a direct correlation between your "idea" and stickboy's vegetable example. You plainly said "like someone who had a lobotomy," implying that a lack of consciousness demotes them from being a person.. paving the way for the organ harvest. What's the difference?


No, Im saying the lack of a consciousness is the lack of HAVING a person. A body is not a person. The brain contains the ability to create and contain a person(thats not the best wording..) So under normal circumstances(And by current definition of,"brain") One could say that to be a person, one must have a brain. But to have a brain, is not to be a person.
As for the organ harvest.. It would be incredibly inefficient to create humans just to harvest organs, esp considering the organ needs of hospitals are different per organ, so we would be trashing alot of extra organs.
By the time we could create humans without a person/consciousness, we could also create each individual organ on its own.. kind of like how we make replacement ears and noses using mice(Now THATS an organ harvest!) except we wouldnt need to use mice, lol. So the organ harvest theory is out.
As far as,"harvesting" organs from the veggies in our hospitals, it does happen if/when they turn off life support. Granted that requires permission from the person who became the vegetable, such as signing up as an organ donor if you die on your drivers license. As for someone who was born a vegetable, its the parents decision.


As for my word,"Moralist."
A moralist is generally somebody who shares the same,"Moral" beliefs as a religion, but does not share the spiritual beliefs. A Christian moralist for instance, would be somebody who has the values of a Christian, yet does not believe in god(Or believes in another god..) Moralists are merely a reflection of the community they grew up in; you wouldnt find too many Christian moralists in Afghanistan for instance.

Busy, despite how it may sound, I did find something I agreed with you on-


			
				busyLivin said:
			
		

> Hey, no hard feelings. A debate is a debate.


If any of my posts come off a little harsh, its just how I get in a debate thread; Ive got nothing but respect for you guys. 



			
				Stickboy said:
			
		

> Bring it on.


I hate you. Even if by some miracle this makes sense and you say,"OMG, You're right!" Then I STILL wasted 3+ hours writing this, so you win anyways  LOL  This post is almost 10kb in size


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 14, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> The decision is black and green for me.
> Bush = OIL
> Kerry = Alternative Energy



Thats a good point.. Im pro alternative energy, so +2 for dems.. I think Id still vote republican between the two main parties; reps have points in the mid 20s, and dems are still in the negatives, LOL


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 14, 2004)

Chainlink... Though I don't agree with you, I see what you're saying. You do make a good argument.

Neither one of us are going to convince the other of anything...  

We'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 14, 2004)

Yeah, it's pretty cut and dry for me as well.

Bush = lower taxes, strong military, family values

Kerry = HIGH taxes, weak military, NO values whatsoever

I guess we all vote for what we think is right.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 14, 2004)

> I hate you. Even if by some miracle this makes sense and you say,"OMG, You're right!" Then I STILL wasted 3+ hours writing this, so you win anyways  LOL  This post is almost 10kb in size



If you haven't noticed, I like debating people.  That was a good post, but I disagree with some of your points.  Having said that, I won't post a long reply, simply because I don't have the time to counter all your points.

So....let's move on to some other topic that we can debate about.

Oh, I hate you too.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 14, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's pretty cut and dry for me as well.
> 
> Bush = lower taxes, strong military, family values
> 
> Kerry = HIGH taxes, weak military, NO values whatsoever




You know absolutely nothing about politics and public policy.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 14, 2004)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> You know absolutely nothing about politics and public policy.



Haha.  Look who's talking.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 15, 2004)

I would suspect that Kerry does have some good planks in his platform Stick.  I'd be willing to bet you can even name some ...


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 15, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I would suspect that Kerry does have some good planks in his platform Stick.  I'd be willing to bet you can even name some ...



If you mean raising my taxes, killing my job, and insulting my religion, then Nope, can't think of any good or sturdy planks in his platform.

What was his appeal to the people supposed be again?  Oh yeah, he's NOT G.W. Bush.

I personally believe alot of folks who say they are voting for Kerry are simply doing so because they simply hate Bush.  This 'anyone but Bush' bullshit is just plain stupid (In ***MY*** opinion).


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 15, 2004)

Stickboy I totally agree with you.  I also am going to be one of those people.  The harm that would be coming our way from Bush if he gets re-elected is much worse than that which Kerry represents.  He is a Democrat, which means higher taxes, lots of bullshit and doubletalk, and no way to know what he really intends to do untill he does it.

I was hoping you might actually know what he is about is the only reason I posted that.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 15, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I was hoping you might actually know what he is about is the only reason I posted that.



Does anyone know 'what he is about?'     He seems to change his mind so often it's hard to tell.

Honestly, I don't like Kerry.  I've looked at his voting record and it appears to me that he says one thing, and votes another.


----------



## busyLivin (Aug 15, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> I personally believe alot of folks who say they are voting for Kerry are simply doing so because they simply hate Bush.



I definitely agree with this statement.  If Kerry is elected, I feel it's more of a Bush loss than a Kerry win.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 15, 2004)

Totally


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 16, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> If you mean raising my taxes, killing my job, and insulting my religion, then Nope, can't think of any good or sturdy planks in his platform.
> 
> What was his appeal to the people supposed be again?  Oh yeah, he's NOT G.W. Bush.
> 
> I personally believe alot of folks who say they are voting for Kerry are simply doing so because they simply hate Bush.  This 'anyone but Bush' bullshit is just plain stupid (In ***MY*** opinion).




See that, is the problem with Bush, IMO.  YOUR taxes would be raised, YOUR religion would be insulted, etc.  The problem is that there are more types of people in this country than rich white christians.  I don't have a religion, and I grew up in the middle class.  Why should I have to obey laws based on 1 person's religious beliefs?  That is all the GOP is to me, 1 person.  Actually, the GOP is many people who share one set of beliefs that is not necessarily representative of what the "common" man believes.  You would be lying to yourselves if you said the GOPs abortion and stem cell research policy are not based on religious beliefs.

I don't understand how "Anybody But Bush" is a bad thing.  The guy has fucked up this country for 4 years, it's someone else's time to fuck up.

One more note on the "Stem Cell research hasn't cured a thing" debate.  Apparently, the manager for the Mets beat bone marrow cancer through a cure found thru embryonic stem cell research.  It was in the paper today for anyone looking for a source on it's use, so there is NO reason why we should proceed with researching it.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 16, 2004)

It's amazing how much of this board is comprised of politics.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 16, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> It's amazing how much of this board is comprised of politics.


Not really, considering that one of our "Icons"(Arnold) has become the Governer of Cali, it just goes to show that Bodybuilders aren't all meatheads.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 16, 2004)

That's an excellent point.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 16, 2004)

Hey Stick ... What do you do for a living?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 16, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> See that, is the problem with Bush, IMO.  YOUR taxes would be raised, YOUR religion would be insulted, etc.  The problem is that there are more types of people in this country than rich white christians.  I don't have a religion, and I grew up in the middle class.  Why should I have to obey laws based on 1 person's religious beliefs?  That is all the GOP is to me, 1 person.  Actually, the GOP is many people who share one set of beliefs that is not necessarily representative of what the "common" man believes.  You would be lying to yourselves if you said the GOPs abortion and stem cell research policy are not based on religious beliefs.



This country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs.



> I don't understand how "Anybody But Bush" is a bad thing.  The guy has fucked up this country for 4 years, it's someone else's time to fuck up.



If Kerry wins, you'll be saying the same thing.



> One more note on the "Stem Cell research hasn't cured a thing" debate.  Apparently, the manager for the Mets beat bone marrow cancer through a cure found thru embryonic stem cell research.  It was in the paper today for anyone looking for a source on it's use, so there is NO reason why we should proceed with researching it.



I never stem cells haven't cured anything.  I said EMBRYONIC stem cells haven't cured anything [FACT].  There are, you know, other types to get them.  You don't have to kill embryo's to do it.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 16, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Hey Stick ... What do you do for a living?



If you're thinking I'm some rich guy, you'd be wrong.  I am in the US Military and work in the ATC field.


----------



## topolo (Aug 16, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Bush-wacker is gonna lose



keep dreaming Rob............. 4 more years of "W" coming your way


----------



## Monolith (Aug 16, 2004)

Bush is taking a nice lead.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 16, 2004)

it's going to be very close, either way.... we lose.


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 16, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Chainlink... Though I don't agree with you, I see what you're saying. You do make a good argument.
> 
> Neither one of us are going to convince the other of anything...
> 
> We'll agree to disagree.


 I disagree 



			
				Stickboy said:
			
		

> If you haven't noticed, I like debating people.  That was a good post, but I disagree with some of your points.  Having said that, I won't post a long reply, simply because I don't have the time to counter all your points.
> 
> So....let's move on to some other topic that we can debate about.
> 
> Oh, I hate you too.


  I dont have the time either, so Im keeping my nose out of debates for now. I have the tendancy to.. well..



			
				Chain Link said:
			
		

>





			
				Luke9583 said:
			
		

> it's going to be very close, either way.... we lose.


   Sometimes I wish I were a stern Democrat or Republican so I wouldnt feel this way


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 16, 2004)

Chain Link said:
			
		

> Sometimes I wish I were a stern Democrat or Republican so I wouldnt feel this way


Amen.


----------



## pu239 (Aug 16, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> See that, is the problem with Bush, IMO.  YOUR taxes would be raised, YOUR religion would be insulted, etc.  The problem is that there are more types of people in this country than rich white christians.  I don't have a religion, and I grew up in the middle class.  Why should I have to obey laws based on 1 person's religious beliefs?  That is all the GOP is to me, 1 person.  Actually, the GOP is many people who share one set of beliefs that is not necessarily representative of what the "common" man believes.  You would be lying to yourselves if you said the GOPs abortion and stem cell research policy are not based on religious beliefs.



I assume if Kerry were to raise taxes then he wouldn't raise yours? When the "rich" get tax cuts why is that a bad thing? They pay most of the taxes, why shouldn't they get a cut when the cuts are being handed out? How exactly is Kerry a "common" man? He owns more homes and has more money than damn near everyone, but apparently he and the dems represent the common man. Amazing. What's your take on social security? 

Since you're stereotyping I'm surprised you didn't throw in that conservatives are homophobes and racists too. That's always something I seem to hear. Although I have to say that the most racist people I know are dems. They even elected Robert "KKK" Byrd.

The most telling tale for me is that my grandmother, who has never in her life (77 yrs) voted for a Republican, is voting for Bush this year.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 16, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Bush is taking a nice lead.



Can you provide a link?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 16, 2004)

He was referring to the poll above, I belive.

However, here's a link:

13 Aug Gallop Poll 

Not a big lead, but a lead nonetheless.

Nationwide, it's still tight (if you trust polls).


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

The precedent has been set to get around the pop vote and place a person into office. Now the back-ally tactics will come into play as people in the key positions, such as that held by Kathleen Harris in 2000, will decide who gets the oval office. Kerry may come close in the pop vote, or even win the pop vote. However, he does not have the legacy that Bush has behind him to win the back-ally brawl that the election process has become. Voter fraud, decisions by political appointees, and the Electoral College will be the ???Effective and Fair Representation of The American Voter??? in determining the next president. The republicans will cite all the unfair practices pulled by the democrats and visa-versa while honing their respective skills.


In the end we will be denied a fair election, and the next President will be appointed not elected.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 17, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> I never stem cells haven't cured anything.  I said EMBRYONIC stem cells haven't cured anything [FACT].  There are, you know, other types to get them.  You don't have to kill embryo's to do it.




Uhhh, my post states embryonic stem cell research is where the cure is found.


Sure, this country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs, but we also used to burn women who were considered witches too.  Time to think to the future, not the past.  Religion is the past, science and stem cells are the future.  Someone was quick to point out all that we learned and attained from going to the moon.  I look at stem cells in the same way.


To answer PU239s question, "Why is a tax cut on the rich a bad thing?"  The answer is simple, I am not rich.  My personal finances are of more interest to me than a rich guy's.  As far as Kerry, he is definitely not the common man, but I feel he has more of the common man's interest in mind than Bush does.

Social Security?  I think of social security in the same way I look at welfare, it is utter garbage and a waste.  But again, I am not on either.  For welfare, I think people get in a rut, are given a free ride, and then take advantage of that free ride for all they can get, all while I get to pay for it.  As far as social security goes, it will go under and all the money I have had to pay into it will be lost to me.

In terms of defense and my money, I am very much a Republican, but as far as stem cell research, abortion, free speech, etc, are concened, I am a dem.  Hence I straddle the fence.  I voted for Bush Jr last time.  Luckily for me I tend to learn from my mistakes and won't be repeating that one.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

Stick vs Dale        ​​


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

I wanna watch ...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 17, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> I wanna watch ...



Perv.  

In all truthfulness, as i said, I follow stickboy on everything that is not religion based, ie war and taxes.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

I'll tell you a secret Dale but you gotta promise not to tell anyone ...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 17, 2004)

I promise not to tell anyone.  but I also promise to break that promise.


----------



## Arnold (Aug 17, 2004)

wow!

Kerry is killing Bush in this poll!


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

Well as long as you promised Dale. I am not crying about social sec since I                    
But shhhh ... you promised. 

I am also gonna erase this post in an hour too ...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> wow!
> 
> Kerry is killing Bush in this poll!


Can you do the same thing at the Electoral College?


----------



## Arnold (Aug 17, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Can you do the same thing at the Electoral College?



no, but I am sure the government can, they manipulate things to be whatever way they want.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> no, but I am sure the government can, they manipulate things to be whatever way they want.


This will be the bigest factor in the recounts after the election ... who is best at rigging it.  The morality of our leaders is in the farking toilet.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 17, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> This will be the bigest factor in the recounts after the election ... who is best at rigging it. The morality of our leaders is in the farking toilet.


Come now, Bush won fair and square. 

???The vote total was certified by Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, head of the Bush campaign in Florida, on behalf of Gov. Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.??? _Mark Zoller Seitz, ???Bush Team Conveyed an Air of Legitimacy,??? San Diego Union-Tribune, December 16, 2000._ 
The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint).  They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state???s database, but mistakes were rampant. ???At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors.??? _St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003. _
Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, ???was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida???s voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election.  Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida. _Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, ???Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners,??? The Guardian, May 5, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html.  See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001. _
In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. _Melanie Eversley, ???Atlanta-Based Company Says Errors in Felon Purge Not Its Fault,??? Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.  _Frank Borman of Database Technologies Inc. has donated extensively to New Mexico Republicans, as well as to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush. _Opensecrets.org, ???Frank Borman.???_


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 17, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Uhhh, my post states embryonic stem cell research is where the cure is found.



What are you basing that on?  How do you know that is where the cure is found?  The researchers sure as hell can't find it.

Embryonic stem cells have never cured anything.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 17, 2004)

Maniclion,

You can't spell KERRY without the KY


----------



## Chain Link (Aug 17, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> wow!
> 
> Kerry is killing Bush in this poll!


Hey.. We all know IM doesnt have 144 users!


----------



## maniclion (Aug 17, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Maniclion,
> 
> You can't spell KERRY without the KY


Take the BS out of BUSH what do you have 
UH?  Exactly!


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 17, 2004)

Yeah, I was gonna post the whole thing like that too, then decided against it.

If you spell KerrY without the KY, you are left with err.

err    ( P )  
intr.v. erred, err·ing, errs 
To make an error or a mistake. 
To violate accepted moral standards; sin. 
Archaic. To stray. 

Hmm, seems to fit eh?     


If you spell BusH without the BS, you are left with us.

See?  One is an error, the other is just "us".


 Jeez, I crack myself up  


Edit:  LOL, sometimes things just don't go to plan      I'll leave it up.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Come now, Bush won fair and square.
> 
> ???The vote total was certified by Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, head of the Bush campaign in Florida, on behalf of Gov. Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.??? _Mark Zoller Seitz, ???Bush Team Conveyed an Air of Legitimacy,??? San Diego Union-Tribune, December 16, 2000._
> The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint). They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state???s database, but mistakes were rampant. ???At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors.??? _St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003. _
> ...


 
After all, his daddy did much the same the same thing in the original October Surprise.  At the same time he was prolonging the release of the American hostages, he also held back the indictment of his son Neil Bush for his part in the Silverado Savings & Loan scandal untill after Ronnie's inaugural address.  It all comes down to ally fighting.  Kerry does not have the background to get it done ... but Bush?  It is almost a genetically enhanced skill-set.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 17, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> If you spell BusH without the BS, you are left with us.



Dude, I'm on your side and even I can see your spelling error.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 17, 2004)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm on your side and even I can see your spelling error.



Damn, I hate it when that happens


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

It's OK Stick ... we know you do the best you can with what you have.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 17, 2004)

Ok, Now it's on BC


----------



## maniclion (Aug 17, 2004)




----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)




----------



## Crono1000 (Aug 17, 2004)

I haven't been to this thread in a while... but how did kerry get so many votes?  Not that I'm against it or anything (I'm not) but last I checked it was neck to neck, slightly favoring Bush


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

Bush is  practicing his voting fraud tactics for the election.  He just messed up and pumped up the wrong person.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 17, 2004)

I think someone cheated    LOL


----------



## kbm8795 (Aug 17, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> This country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs.




Somebody needs to tell the native Americans that. And then we need to ask the question. . ."whose judeo-christian beliefs?" After all, there are sure a lot of denominations crowing this line that weren't around back then - and quite a few who broke away from the established "judeo-christian beliefs" that the original denominations brought over out of disagreement over those beliefs. Quakers had a rather large influence during the formative years of our country's history. . .and they strongly disagree with much of the "religious" right. Is this the point where the right wing self-proclaimed "christians" start listing the denominations that don't agree with them as NOT being judeo-christian? 

And how about some of those beliefs that we've cast aside. . .particularly the idea that women are basically property and cannot hold property on their own, nor should they vote because their emotional makeup wasn't created to make decisions. Or the racial belief that anyone other than those of selective European heritage were created to be slaves or to dwell on a different continent. I always find that generalized argument about "judeo-christian" beliefs curious, since they assume churches are the definition of morality and this nation usually made a distinction between morality and religion for obvious reasons. 

For a right wing supporter, this "values" system makes some sense. After all, religion is usually exempt from every non-discrimination law in housing, employment, or accommodation, and yet is protected more than anyone else in this country, even though it is not an implicit characteristic. No one is born a member of a denomination, or naturally "righteous."  When they right hides behind those vague beliefs, it only reinforces the idea that they advocate theocracy and persecution.

As for "family values," whose family are you talking about imposing this vague notion of values on? It seems like the Party constantly fails to make a distinction between innate characteristics of people and harmful social behavior. That's part of the persecution complex.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 17, 2004)

_




_


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

Luke.  Notice how bush is leaning towards Kerry like Bush is Kerry's bitch?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 17, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Somebody needs to tell the native Americans that. And then we need to ask the question. . ."whose judeo-christian beliefs?" After all, there are sure a lot of denominations crowing this line that weren't around back then - and quite a few who broke away from the established "judeo-christian beliefs" that the original denominations brought over out of disagreement over those beliefs. Quakers had a rather large influence during the formative years of our country's history. . .and they strongly disagree with much of the "religious" right. Is this the point where the right wing self-proclaimed "christians" start listing the denominations that don't agree with them as NOT being judeo-christian?



First, nice post.

I think it depends on the member of the religious right.  While I may not like a particular church or individuals religious view on something, it doesn't necessarily mean they are not christian.  (Believe it or not, I am not as far right as some of you seem to think.)



> And how about some of those beliefs that we've cast aside. . .particularly the idea that women are basically property and cannot hold property on their own, nor should they vote because their emotional makeup wasn't created to make decisions. Or the racial belief that anyone other than those of selective European heritage were created to be slaves or to dwell on a different continent. I always find that generalized argument about "judeo-christian" beliefs curious, since they assume churches are the definition of morality and this nation usually made a distinction between morality and religion for obvious reasons.



Beliefs we've cast aside?  As far a religious views go, I don't think they've been cast aside.  The execution of those beliefs may have changed, but everything eventually changes (social aspects).  Churches do NOT define morality.  God did that when he gave us the 10 commandments.

Think about it.  If everyone followed those 10 simple rules (and most of us do, religious or not) we wouldn't need police, lawyers, the military, etc.



> For a right wing supporter, this "values" system makes some sense. After all, religion is usually exempt from every non-discrimination law in housing, employment, or accommodation, and yet is protected more than anyone else in this country, even though it is not an implicit characteristic. No one is born a member of a denomination, or naturally "righteous."  When they right hides behind those vague beliefs, it only reinforces the idea that they advocate theocracy and persecution.



Values are good, in most cases.  Without them, it would be chaos.  Everyone values something, be it religious or not (could be love, money, sex, etc.).  Human nature is what it is.  People generally look out for #1. 

I always tell my wife that perceptions can be a dangerous thing.  If you are percieved as (fill in blank) by someone, then that is generally going to change the relationship you have with them.  Sometimes in the positive, sometimes in the negative.  Perceptions are how others see you, and how you see them.
Doesn't mean those perceptions are correct.



> As for "family values," whose family are you talking about imposing this vague notion of values on? It seems like the Party constantly fails to make a distinction between innate characteristics of people and harmful social behavior. That's part of the persecution complex.



When I say "family values", I mean mine, and mine only.  One can only speak for himself/herself.  When a politician says "family values", you have to have a read on his background and past behaviours to see what they truly mean.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 17, 2004)

What he said ...


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 18, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Luke. Notice how bush is leaning towards Kerry like Bush is Kerry's bitch?


Yea, I did notice that.  But I guess they both look like bitches to me   This is what the girls look like up at Engineering Schools around detroit.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 18, 2004)

No wonder people drive so fast there ... flight syndrome.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 18, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> What are you basing that on?  How do you know that is where the cure is found?  The researchers sure as hell can't find it.
> 
> Embryonic stem cells have never cured anything.




The embryonic stem cells haven't cured anything because they are not being allowed in research by psuedo-religious kooks.   

What part of this don't you understand?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 18, 2004)

Um, Snafu, maybe you should be informed about the subject before you post.  

People are doing research into embryonic stem cells, and the goverment is supplying limited funds for that research.

Here's a quote from CNN.com:

*TOPLINE: U.S. President George W. Bush has endorsed limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.* 

What part of that didn't you understand?


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 18, 2004)

'limited'  Sounds like some serious stipulation going on?


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 18, 2004)

Yeah, there are some restrictions.   Are there any research projects that the government funds that have an unlimited amount of money?  Short answer:  NO. 

Fact:

Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 limiting federal research funding for stem cell research to 78 embryonic stem cell lines then in existence.

So, the goverment still funds embryonic stem cell research, but has placed limits on it.   You guys are acting like there is no funding for it, and no research money for it and that is simply false.  ALL research has funding caps and whatnot.  

Note that private companies can continue doing what they want to.  These "limits" apply only to federal funded research projects.

The sky isn't falling folks, despite some interpetations that it is.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 18, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Um, Snafu, maybe you should be informed about the subject before you post.
> 
> People are doing research into embryonic stem cells, and the goverment is supplying limited funds for that research.
> 
> ...



I understand all of it.  Because the term "limited" refers to the current stem cells that were already in existence and frozen in labs.

And fortunately, the American public is beginning to understand also.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 18, 2004)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> The embryonic stem cells haven't cured anything because they are not being allowed in research by psuedo-religious kooks.





			
				Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> I understand all of it. Because the term "limited" refers to the current stem cells that were already in existence and frozen in labs.



Um, Am I the only one that sees a contradiction in these two post?

1) It's not allowed.
2) It is.

I've already stated there's limits, that doesn't mean "they are not being allowed in research", as YOU claimed.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 19, 2004)

Nah Stick ... Bush will not allow _anymore_ research on _newly harvested cells._  No contradiction in his posts.  When the ones we have are used up then the research is done.  Here.  In the USA.  Not the rest of the world.  Only here.  In the land of the used to be free till a religious fanatic imposed his religious beliefs on the congress.  Someone reach under Bush's skirt and pull his head out of his ass please.  I swear the guy did good as a Gov ... It is when he got into the oval office that he lost 30 IQ points and went balistic.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 19, 2004)

Stem cell research is allowed. It is allowed with public funding on existing cells. It is allowed on newly harvested cells just without public funding.

The claims the Dems are making here border on LIES. (Surprising, I know)


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 19, 2004)

^^^ Stickboy is using semantics.

He understand my two posts.  They are NOT contradictive.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 19, 2004)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Stem cell research is allowed. It is allowed with public funding on existing cells. It is allowed on newly harvested cells just without public funding.
> 
> The claims the Dems are making here border on LIES. (Surprising, I know)



We just had a seminar on stem cell research here at University of PENN.  Not just embryonic stem cell research, all stem cell research.  It is impossible, based on the sanctions imposed on it, to do ANY research on ANY type of stem cell, embryonic or adult, in Pennsylvania based on federal and state law.  You CANNOT harvest ANYMORE embryonic stem cells and funding is minute for the existing cells.  The only way you could make doing embryonic stem cell research any more difficult/illegal to do in the States is to have GW with a gun pointed at researchers' head telling them if they do it they die.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 19, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Yeah, there are some restrictions. Are there any research projects that the government funds that have an unlimited amount of money? Short answer: NO.


 
War


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 19, 2004)

Yeah but Luke a good war is great for the econ' man.  That is what the republican party is all about really ... helping to get the $$$ rolling through.  The dem's wanna spend it on dumbshit like art that depicts guys doin guys.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 19, 2004)

*Karl Roves' Lost PowerPoint Presentation from June 2002*
http://www.politicspa.com/mehlman-rove_files/v3_document.htm
See slide 20

*Republican Strategy*





































???*Focus on War and Economy*
???Promote Compassion Agenda -- Education,
Welfare, Faith
???Highlight Democrats??? Obstructionism on
Judges, Agenda
???**Mobilize GOP Base*, Reach Out to Hispanics,
Unions, African-Americans
???Strong Teamwork between White House,
Political Committees and Members
???Maximize Outside Resources and Create
New Forums



**See my SIG*


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 19, 2004)

Manic,

I think your link is messed up.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 19, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> War



I wouldn't really consider "war" a research project.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 19, 2004)

Stickboy said:
			
		

> Manic,
> 
> I think your link is messed up.


Fixed


----------



## Pepper (Aug 19, 2004)

The anti-Bush people get more and more ridiculous every day.


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 19, 2004)

Nah, everyone is riduculous.  The liberals are just more so.

*On a sidenote, Just found out that I'm going to have to move to Kalifornia.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 20, 2004)

This "liberal" vs. "conservative" debate is for the simpletons.

Why can't we throw these ideological labels aside and look at the 10 most important policy topics we personally care about and discuss them, and why a certain candidate supports our views more as a whole, and why others don't?

These bland over-generatlization don't do any good.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 20, 2004)

Snafu ... stop making sense. You are making it hard to disagree with you!


----------



## Stickboy (Aug 20, 2004)

Snafu is right, maybe someone should list their 10 first and everyone discuss those then move on from there.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 20, 2004)

I don't know how to start a poll thread yet or I would.  It would be a very interesting thing to see what the IM populace would prioritize and choose sides with.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 20, 2004)

I'll start one


----------



## BoneCrusher (Aug 20, 2004)

Your'e a good man Dale ... but don't let it take you away from our other conversation about Hitlery.


----------

