Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I say we start rapidly cloning our predators and call THAT progress.
Or maybe we just eliminate that silly 'you must be 21 years old to buy cigarettes' mandate. Imagine how many more people would've avoided retirement age if they'd just started smoking at 5!!!
Now you're talking. Let's get rid of the subsidies. ??? Oh wait, survival of the fittest is what's gotten us in this rat race !!!!!!
Post by spookymonster on Dec 21, 2007 12:46:50 GMT -5
troo said:
As I said, there's no commodity if there's no money. Make it so stem cells can only be donated. There's plenty for that.
Even then, it's still a business; there's money to be made collecting, storing, and selling the cells to researchers. What happens when demand rises and donations drop? How long before someone figures a way to use China's high infanticide rate to their advantage? Is anyone really going to double-check their donors paperwork when there's a booming economy on the line?
To be honest, I think these kinds of arguments are premature... let's see what the technology can really do before we worry about the ethical implications of a consumer market. Even if they figure out how to build high-speed organ replacements tomorrow, it'll take years for the technology to become mainstream. Trust me - every government in the world is going to want a piece of that action. It's highly doubtful we'll see a 'wild west' biotech market spring up faster than the accompanying legislation (and taxation).
It only became healthcare for profit when Nixon changed the law and allowed profit. Until then the no money model worked.
Once again there are THOUSANDS of fetilized eggs are disposed of every year. No one gets paid for those. I think most women would sign a release after they got impregnated if the choice was "We'll throw them away or you can donate." Kind of like organ donation. Even the right wing wants donation, but only for adoption.
That provides more than an adequate supply for research needs.
One can always worry about future abuse (and probably should) but we cannot stop medical advances because of worries of abuse. We'd never cure anything again. We must be vigilant and take problems as they arise or sit still. We in America have chosen to stand still while the world advances (at the loss of jobs, technology and health.)
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 12:49:14 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Dennis Kucinich - 50 I agreed with him on everything but Iraq. I voted for him in the 04 primaries, but these days I'm not as idealistic with my votes as I once was...
By "not as idealistic" with your vote, I take it to mean that you are willing to support a candidate who is more likely to win, but less likely to represent you ?!!
I don't necessarily support a candidate who is going to win, but at least has a chance. Can we just admit that Kucinich is a message candidate with a set ceiling of support he's not going to break through? I have to consider not only what a candidate is saying, but also how that candidate will perform in office. I can't heavily weigh my voting decision towards what a candidate says, because that might not be best in the long run. Can you imagine a Kucinich presidency? There would not only be virtually no GOP support for his agenda, but a considerable amount of resistance from the Democratic center. Though I'd support Kucinich's agenda, he would not be in a position to effectively implement it.
Let's say I choose a candidate whose ideals I agree with 75-85% AND the ability to effectively implement that agenda through dealing with the legislature and other initiatives. I would not entirely agree with EVERYTHING that candidate wants to do. However, that candidate would have a better chance of implementing the issues I do agree with them on than an ineffective president I can agree with 100%.
I could probably get more of what I want voting for a more effective candidate who shares a lot - though not 100% - of my goals.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I vote for Bill Richardson. We'll say he's 60% effective, and I agree with him on 80% of the issues. Let's say I vote for Kucinich, who I agree with 100% but will be 30% effective. Richardson could get things done 60% of the time and I agree with him 80% of the time, which could plausibly implement 64% of what I want done. Kucinich, who would be 30% effective on the 100% agenda agreement, could plausibly implement about 30% of what I want done. 64% > 30%
Do I want to vote strictly on the basis of ideology if it means having LESS of a chance of seeing what I want done, done? I say no. Experience/ability is a factor in play because voting for what you believe is only effective if that candidate can actually fulfill your common goals. I am willing to compromise on the areas of disagreement if more action can be taken on areas of agreement. That 20% of the time I would disagree with Richardson would be more than offset by the 34% of the time he'd fulfill shared goals over the less-effective Kucinich.
Granted, I pulled those numbers out of my rear end. They are not set in stone, but do point to a generality. (we political science majors deal with a lot of them) And that generality says: A more effective candidate I agree with most of the time will get more of what I want done than a less-effective candidate I can agree with completely.
So, that is why I can't vote Kucinich based mainly on common views. Common views do not necessarily translate into fulfillment of common goals.
I can think of at least 10 women off of the top of my head who I know personally and would want to be paid for them. I'd have no problem with them being "donation only" but a lot of women would.
I am not one of those women - if I could donate - I would - but then again I am a funny woman - apparently - as I don't think life begins at conception but at birth - until a fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb - it is not a child - it is a fetus
Post by canexplain on Dec 21, 2007 13:13:20 GMT -5
bos1969 said:
wooz said:
I can think of at least 10 women off of the top of my head who I know personally and would want to be paid for them. I'd have no problem with them being "donation only" but a lot of women would.
I am not one of those women - if I could donate - I would - but then again I am a funny woman - apparently - as I don't think life begins at conception but at birth - until a fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb - it is not a child - it is a fetus
ditto ...... cr**** well i am not one of those women but you know what i mean
I can't get behind ANY candidate who says something only for the effect it has politically. That's why i am behind Dennis in the primaries.
We're not gonna make any change by consumating this broken system. That's why I'll vote third party in the election.
We'll make far more difference overall(i'll spare you bogus percentages) if we stand for change in numbers. In that, I'm saying I don't care which lackey we elect, as long as a message gets sent that things are in motion to stop this charade.
I don't believe that Dennis Kucinich can change anything... for many of the reasons you stated, as president. I believe that voting on our principles will make a far greater change in the long run. When corporations get the message that we are awake and will not play their game for the crumbs. When they recognize that we recognize a difference between action and words.
Until, then, it's just a giant handjob. There is no answer within the system. The system ensures that. And we know what we get at the end of a handjob if we've been good little minions. TRICKLE DOWN
I graduated with a 3.2 in Political Science in '93. Been fighting this bull$hit ever since. Using the tools they offer me(Kucinich in the primaries) and some they don't. But I don't expect to make ANY kind of change by playing a game THEY make the rules to. (Like not allowing Nader to debate in 2000-that was an old boy club move by a committee from both parties. Since when does democracy mean 2 ?)
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 13:24:41 GMT -5 by snoochie2 - Back to Top
Change in numbers is just more idealism. We've seen Nader pull in 3% as a third party candidate and Kucinich not doing much better than 10% vs Kerry in the late 04 primaries after everyone dropped out. The numbers just aren't there.
Considering that, I'll take incremental change over no change at all.
Not getting numbers is a reason to take away numbers ?sounds like if ya can't beat 'em join 'em to me.
So called "incremental" change has gotten us a bunch of sell out double speaking centrist democrats who stand for nothing at the risk of being held to that which they might've stood for. Just like Pelosi started playing nice once becoming Speaker. What has she effectively done with that increment ? Answer: built a hell of a war chest for re-election.
Suspended habeus corpus under a democratic congress. that's a nice increment. Sherrod Brown, one of the most liberal(by record) members of congress voted in favor of suspending it. Why ? He was up for re-election and thought he could do more 'good' elected under false pretenses. Paul Wellstone is rolling in his grave at the nutlessness of these lackeys.
Change in numbers is just more idealism. We've seen Nader pull in 3% as a third party candidate and Kucinich not doing much better than 10% vs Kerry in the late 04 primaries after everyone dropped out. The numbers just aren't there.
Considering that, I'll take incremental change over no change at all.
Baby steps...
Tyranny of the majority, there Polisci. Read some Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill...
and then tell me about why I must abide the fearful sheep for crumbs of increment
Post by spookymonster on Dec 21, 2007 13:53:14 GMT -5
Snoochie, I think it's more a matter of strategic vs. tactical thinking. I believe our (yours, mine, kdogg, Troo, etc.) strategic goals are relatively similar: small government, doing for the the people what the people can't do for themselves, ensuring personal freedoms, etc. It's just our tactics that vary, and I don't necessarily believe that to be a bad thing. We need moderates to generate enough momentum to get this country rolling in the right proper direction, just like we need idealists willing to stand on principle and be the lone voice in the desert, reminding us that this is just the beginning.
Without vision, the masses are merely sheep. Without the masses, the vision is just a dream.
Post by spookymonster on Dec 21, 2007 13:54:22 GMT -5
snoochie2 said:
kdogg said:
Change in numbers is just more idealism. We've seen Nader pull in 3% as a third party candidate and Kucinich not doing much better than 10% vs Kerry in the late 04 primaries after everyone dropped out. The numbers just aren't there.
Considering that, I'll take incremental change over no change at all.
Baby steps...
Tyranny of the majority, there Polisci. Read some Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill...
and then tell me about why I must abide the fearful sheep for crumbs of increment
Or just read I am Legend (not the movie, the original book) .
I will agree that the masses are asses. However, it will take a long time to turn that around. Until we've got a political climate that would seriously consider a Kucinich-style candidate for the office, I'll take what I can get. You're not going to get to that climate with one big leap. That can be more realistically accomplished through incremental steps. I mean, would you rather invest your money and see some kind of return? Or would you prefer to put that money into lottery tickets and cross your fingers?
Compromising slightly on your candidate choice can get you a seat at the table and a piece of the pie. It might not be as big as you want, but it's something. Sticking to the purely ideological path without getting any results? That's how you wind up without a seat at the table, hoping for crumbs.
Snoochie, I think it's more a matter of strategic vs. tactical thinking. I believe our (yours, mine, kdogg, Troo, etc.) strategic goals are relatively similar: small government, doing for the the people what the people can't do for themselves, ensuring personal freedoms, etc. It's just our tactics that vary, and I don't necessarily believe that to be a bad thing. We need moderates to generate enough momentum to get this country rolling in the right proper direction, just like we need idealists willing to stand on principle and be the lone voice in the desert, reminding us that this is just the beginning.
Without vision, the masses are merely sheep. Without the masses, the vision is just a dream.
That's a nice way to put it Spook. And I agree to a large extent. I did the lesser of two evils thing by voting Kerry in 2004. And I'll never do it again. If we were offered real choice and not soundbytes, things would be different. But we'll never get real choice by accepting words instead of actions, especially by people who have had a chance to let their actions speak louder. And with sheep who ARE the numbers that everyone says we must cater to. These people do not want bigger gov't. They do not want their sons dying in an unjust war. They don't want no-bid contracts going to the same companies riddled with conflicts of interest.
But that's what they get. Because they are afraid to vote for someone they are told over and over again is unelectable. Even if that person has done nothing but work for change his/her whole life. Wouldn't wanna "waste" yer vote boy !
Everyone wants to tell me baby steps, when That's what I"M saying. Vote for who represents you, regardless of their "electability". Then maybe when Dennis's numbers go up, more will jump on board. But instead I'm to believe that it was more important to get MY candidate elected for president-right now, regardless of what they have said v. done.
Vote for integrity and it will come. Vote for the status quo, and surely that's what you will get.
What kind of sad holey platform do we expect from ANY nominee if we keep looking the other way from accountability ?
All of these #'s will be quoted back to us when we go to elect the NEXT one. Will you be the one who made someone with integrity more accessible over time ? Or will you have denigrated the whole process by using YOUR vote on who they TELL you to.
ala swiftboat ala willie horton ala Jerry governor "MoonBeam" Brown
Compromising slightly on your candidate choice can get you a seat at the table and a piece of the pie. It might not be as big as you want, but it's something. Sticking to the purely ideological path without getting any results? That's how you wind up without a seat at the table, hoping for crumbs.
Sherrod Brown squandered his seat at the table during the Habeus Corpus vote in order to get re-elected.
Tell someone denied due process about electability. And that will continue to happen as long as the democrats think their base will not support basic principles. And they will continue to think that until people like you see that you are creating the problem while standing for electability. This whole one party system is a result of said masses catering to the center for the sake of electability.
I will agree that the masses are asses. However, it will take a long time to turn that around. Until we've got a political climate that would seriously consider a Kucinich-style candidate for the office, I'll take what I can get.
So we should sit around and wait for it while voting to keep it squashed ?
How does that climate come about while in the grips of the masses ?
Doesn't "taking what you can get" amount to voting for the same bs that keeps the climate what it is rather than contributing to rising polling numbers for candidates who actually vote for what they represent so that maybe by 2012 we get a slew of candidates who are held to having SOME integrity ??
But you get to tell me about baby steps and wasted votes ?
woah-triple post. Really time to stop now.
Thanks for the debate. I love going rounds with those in the quoir !!! ok-not really. But I do believe it has been worthwhile.....
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 14:42:38 GMT -5 by snoochie2 - Back to Top
If I were using my vote on who "they" tell me to, as a Democrat I would be either in the Clinton, Obama or Edwards camps. I don't see how "they" are telling me to support Richardson.
Spooky's got a great point. We're all working towards the same ends, but disagree as to the best means of achieving those ends.
I don't think voting for an ideological candidate on the fringes is the best way to accomplish those ends.
It's like what Einstein said. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. I have voted for the Nader and Kucinich in the past and wound up with W both times. I've come around to realizing that continuing that pattern isn't getting my desired results.
Voting for a candidate I don't agree with 100% isn't going to harm the chances of acting on my agenda. It may actually help my chances of seeing that agenda through.
I actually like half of the Democratic field. My problem is, they're all languishing near the bottom. I would be fine with Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Kucinich winning the Dem nomination. Out of those four, I think Richardson has the best chance of actually winning it.
If I were using my vote on who "they" tell me to, as a Democrat I would be either in the Clinton, Obama or Edwards camps. I don't see how "they" are telling me to support Richardson.
Spooky's got a great point. We're all working towards the same ends, but disagree as to the best means of achieving those ends.
I don't think voting for an ideological candidate on the fringes is the best way to accomplish those ends.
It's like what Einstein said. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. I have voted for the Nader and Kucinich in the past and wound up with W both times. I've come around to realizing that continuing that pattern isn't getting my desired results.
Voting for a candidate I don't agree with 100% isn't going to harm the chances of acting on my agenda. It may actually help my chances of seeing that agenda through.
I actually like half of the Democratic field. My problem is, they're all languishing near the bottom. I would be fine with Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Kucinich winning the Dem nomination. Out of those four, I think Richardson has the best chance of actually winning it.
Kucinich is the only aforementioned who voted his pledge. The rest were all afraid to piss off their base. And you are their base.
The only thing ideological is their ability to keep the wool over your eyes. Why would you expect them to act any differently as president than they did in congress ? Just so they can be re-elected ? wtf
billions upon billions to the war they are against but voted for. habeus corpus obliterated torture mandated
This and much more were sanctioned under their "watch" of W.
Kucinich is the only aforementioned who voted his pledge. The rest were all afraid to piss off their base. And you are their base.
The only thing ideological is their ability to keep the wool over your eyes. Why would you expect them to act any differently as president than they did in congress ? Just so they can be re-elected ? wtf
billions upon billions to the war they are against but voted for. habeus corpus obliterated torture mandated
This and much more were sanctioned under their "watch" of W.
At least HE DID what he said he would.
Have I mentioned that I support Bill Richardson, who hasn't been in Congress for a decade? Tell me how he got blood on his hands voting for war funding, habeas corpus, torture etc while he was governing New Mexico.