"willfully ignorant"

[amicus]

Joh Galt

Pure....surely it was not a quote, and my intention was not to plagarize...it has been 30 years since I read Atlas Shrugged, but how kind of you to make the association...

regards...amicus...

 

[Guest]

It's a tough time to be liberal, moderate, poor, middle-class, environmentally aware, a teenager in need of birth control, a school teacher, a police officer or fireman whose benefits have been slashed at the local level to help subsidize the federal tax cut, an athiest, an agnostic, a member of any non-Christian religion, a citizen of any country in the Middle East, a woman in Iraq, or anyone in Afghanistan. It's not a good time to be unemployed or about to be; it's the worst time since the Depression to be unemployed for a length of time that surpassews the duration of your unemployment benefits (don't hold your breath waiting for an extension).

Iwill admit the it probably a hard time to be liberal, but I think your wrong on some of your other points.
I'm middle class and I like it right now especially the money that's staying in my paycheck and that I get back each year from the IRS. School teachers are actullay in great demand right now, and it's not because they're getting other jobs instead. In most states they've recently lowered the testing standards for teachers. And we've actullay had an increase in the federal educational funding that's higher than any time in the last decade. Why would it be bad to be a citizen in the middle east two of those countries now actually have food, water and electricity. And as far as women in Iraq, they can actually vote now, and show themselves in public without having to have men escort them everywhere. Similar with Afghani women. The unemployed can actually fell good about now. Last month the economy created over 300,000 new jobs, and currently there are more jobs in this country then were four years ago. As far as there benefits go They've been extended quite a few times.

It's an uncomfortable time to be a CIA agent whose career has been ruined and whose associates and informants have been placed at risk by a White House vendetta. It's a particularly bad time to be in the military and of low rank, because your benefits and your family's are being cut at the same time your term of service is becoming open-ended (we'll make up for it by Supporting Our Troops in a moral sense if not a financial one.)

The CIA "agent" you referencing was never a field operative, but only a intelligence analyst, I seriously doubt that she had many sources other than the photos, and faxes that she received from operatives over seas, and as for her being placed at risk by a White House vendetta, her identity was known to the press long before the leak, and many reporters admitted it.
All military personnel and their families receive full medical and dental benefits on the base that the soldiers were deployed from, even the reservist families. Their term of service is never open ended. In the last few paragraphs of military contracts, and yes all services use the same contracts, it states that during time of war or national crisis a persons contract may be extended for not less than 6 months and not more than 24 months. And this President is the only one that gave our troops a pay raise since his father.

It's an excellent time to be a fetus, a religious extremist (Christian protestant), a paid White House religious consultant (aka "Faith-Based Initiatives"), a duck-hunting buddy of a Supreme Court Justice, a member of John Ashcroft's all-volunteer employee prayer group, a member of the board of Halliburton Industries or its subsidiaries, or of a company in the pharmaceuticals or energy industry.

You really think it's a great time to be a fetus when you can be executed at your mothers will, or to think that your about to be born and then have a metal tube shoved into your skull, and your brains sucked out by a vacuum just as your head crests. Yea that would be a excellent time.

It's also a good time to be a terrorist in the middle east. You've just been given carte blance to operate anywhere in Iraq, which was off limits until recently.

Terrorists have operated in Iraq since the early ninties, if not sooner, now they have to worry about their house being blown up back.

It's an amusing time to be Osama Bin Laden, too, I should imagine. The most powerful head of state in the world is behaving as predictably as you had hoped.

Yea I'm sure Bin Laden is smiling in which ever cave is hunkered down in, It probably takes his mind of the dialysis treatments that he can't get that often and the fact that the CIA, or SOP troops maybe be stopping by to kill his ass.

 

[Guest]

You won't find a single Bush/Cheney fan here who question their motive for having been reluctant to appoint a 9/ll commission, for having initially refused Condoleeza Rice's testimony in public and under oath,SR

It's called the separation of powers act maybe you should read that. They also don't want her answers getting to the press, especially since some of the question will most likely have to deal with our intelligence gathering techniques before the attack.

You won't find a single Republican or independent Bush voter here who thinks the no-bid awarding of Iraq contracts to Halliburton Industries may have been motivated by anything less than what was best for America; or any outrage over the overcharges by Halliburton to the tune of $60 million and counting. You won't see any suspicion about the Vice President's refusal to reveal the names of those he invited to participate in a taxpayer-funded "Energy Policy Taskforce" after he took office. You'll find lots of talk in favor of energy independence for the U.S., but very little concern about what happens after the U.S. and the world run out of fossil fuels.

To have all the companies that would have bid for those contract do so and then select one woul have takens YEARS. All the bush administration did was extend Haliburton's contract that Clinton awarded them. Which was also awarded without accepting other bids. The overcharging by Haliburton was in fact caused by one of their sub-contractors who admitted to the problem, before the press found out about it, and has since refunded the money in the form of a check instead of a credit for future services as originally planned. The government won't have anything to do with the next generation of engine or fuel, the free market will take of that when an alternative fuel is found that's effective.

If there's a Republican or Bush voter in this forum who is aware that the IRS under the Bush administration now audits a smaller percentage of upper-income tax returns and nearly three times as many returns of taxpayers in the lowest taxable bracket as in the previous 8 years - you won't hear it from them. (The poor can be sneaky, and if exposing the small-time tax frauds of families earning under $25,000 a year helps pay for Cheney's half-million-a-year tax break and also funds the War on Terror, it's the right thing to do.).

Most audits before were ccondusted at random, and the auditees were mostly selected by computer. A person could be selected then for something as little as spelling their street wrong. No all computer selected audits are required to be reviewd manully for red flags before an audit is done. And quite a few people in that bracket do try to cheat too. Also if someone could I'd like to see a reputable source about the amount of Cheney's tax break.

Most astonishingly, you won't find any Bush voters here who will admit that he's done a less than stellar job of fighting terrorism - nor will you find anyone who can explain by what standard they find him to be doing an even adequate job..).

He's done a hell of a lot more than anyone else in recent memory. Hell Clinton admitted that he was offered Bin Laden three times by Sudan and truned down the offer. Even after the bombings of the embassyies in Africa. Number of terrorist caught or kill by our forces, their weapons seized/destroyed. Thier camps, and hideouts gone. The country where Al-Qaeda was mostly concentrated is now in a friendly governments hands.

Nobody will seem concerned that maybe, if the orange alerts over the holidays were based on misleading internet "chatter" as Homeland Security now admits, it might mean that when we're not on high alert we should be. Everyone knows that if Al Gore had been elected, there would be more terrorism than there is now...Don't ask how they know, they just do.

I don't beleive that "misleading" was actually in their statement, but putting that aside how did our putting out more security effect your life. Would you rather have had them not put out the forces and have somebody walk on board a 747 with bomb or gun. Al Gore stated that the threats to out envirmennt were a "Greater threat than that posed by terrorists." And that is a quote from his book.

 

[Guest]

I think Pure and I are both wondering the same thing: by what standard do some of you think that Bush has been effective in fighting terrorism? He talks about it a lot and has allowed substantial reductions in our civil liberties, but so far we've had at least one admission by Homeland Security that a weeks-long period of orange alerts may have been inspired by deliberately misleading internet "chatter."

So if the criterion is not the number of terrorist attacks around the world against Americans and our allies, what evidence is there of any success?

could you please tell me which civil liberties have been revoked or intruded upon

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

Yes, surely there is a subjective element in guaging the 'success' of a foreign policy. And knowing to what to attribute it. In the 1918 -1990 period, the West warred against 'communism' as instantiated in the Soviet Union. And the Berlin Wall came down under Reagan. Was it due to Reagan? or was it due to the efforts of the presidents and leaders from Truman to Carter? or was it going to happen anyway?

Remember the old maps that would should the parts of the world that were 'red' literally and figuratively, and it looked pretty scary around 1960. (Cuba had just turned 'red').


By analogy--

But would you not concede this point: Limiting ourselves to Islamic groups and countries, one *large segment of the 'war on terrorism, I'm sure you'll agree. If say, in 5-10 years time, there are Islamic fundamentalist regimes in say, 3 new countries,
(Morocco, Algeria, and Jordan), and several other regimes now friendly to the US, like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines face even greater challenges (i.e., are more unstable) from Islamic militant groups, would you not concede that the 'war on terrorism' in Islamic areas [by whatever method X, and Presidents A,B,C] would NOT be going very well? (Ftsoa, lets assume the US 'terror' situation, domestically, does not change greatly).

Now, I suppose if it's 'USA far right regime' and President Ashcroft reigns, one might not be able to state the negative answer, but for now, what say you? Isn't it an objective question?

I realize there are always excuses: one can always say, 'But for our method X, things would be far worse.' But surely there are objective criteria for this 'war', esp if we limit consideration to Islamist fundamentalism and linked terrorism (I.e., setting aside the Basque, Peruvian, and Colombian situations, for example).

 

[Guest]

A thought for Cloudy, Smartnsassy, etc

From a Frank Rich column in the NY Times, 4-04-04


Last Sunday on "60 Minutes" Ed Bradley dipped a toe into it[9-11 controversy] by noting that there were fewer attacks in the 30-month period leading up to 9/11 than there have been in "the 30 months afterward when you had this war against it."

Ms. Rice was dismissive of his logic. "Ed, I think that's the wrong way to look at it," she said.

How should we look at it?

Well were fighting terrorist and any attacks they commit, even against our troops, is going to be considered a terrorist attack.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

could you please tell me which civil liberties have been revoked or intruded upon

Try Privacy. Your medical records can be seized and your doctor forced to not inform you.

Try protection from illegal search and seizure. The federal goernment no longer has to get judicial oversight or a searwarrant to search your home.

If you are a woman try your reproductive freedoms.

And coming soon attacks on what you can read, see onthe internet and think.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Try Privacy. Your medical records can be seized and your doctor forced to not inform you.

Try protection from illegal search and seizure. The federal goernment no longer has to get judicial oversight or a searwarrant to search your home.

If you are a woman try your reproductive freedoms.

And coming soon attacks on what you can read, see onthe internet and think.

-Colly

Medical can be seized by a court order if there is cause to so, not at will, as you imply. Look at the Rush Limbaugh case in Florida. His were open and then resealed in the same day.

The patriot act did not eliminate judicial oversight, all search warrants, phone taps, e-mails taps, and other forms of eavesdropping still require a judges approval, and his review to continue.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that abortion was illegal now.

Do you have proof of your last statement? I didn't think so. Maybe you should base your posts on research, and not your hatred of Bush

 

[rgraham666]

Sweetnpetite? Will you marry me? That was a fucking brilliant post. I wish I had your depth of knowledge and ability to express it.

The metaphor (or is it simile?) that I came up with to compare the extremists of all sides was that of comparing a water moccasin and a coral snake. The esthetics are different, but the important part is they are both venomous snakes and if you're bitten by either of them, you're fucked.

Amicus? How wealthy would you be if there was no government to guarantee the money that represents it? Would you have it in gold and silver? With no police how would you protect it? Would you have to band together with others to share the burden? Wouldn't this be a society? How then would you organise it to make sure that this society carries out it's duties? Wouldn't this require a government of some sort? And if you're living in this new society, do you owe no duties and responsibilities to it?

I was reading my favourite book before going to bed last night. This little passage jumped out at me.

HUMANISM An exaltation of freedom, but one limited by our need to exercise it as an integral part of nature and society.
We are capable of freedom because we are capable of seeking the balance which integrates us into the world. And this equilibrium in society depends upon our acceptance of doubt as a positive force. The dignity of man is thus an expression of modesty, not of superior preening and vain assertions.
These simple notions are central to the Western idea of civilisation. They are clearly opposed to the narrow and mechanistic certainties of ideology; those assertions of certainty intended to hide the fear of doubt.

I don't know everything. Many times I feel I don't know anything at all.

As far as the current kerfuffle is concerned, my own observation is that there is a gap between what is said to be done and what appears to be done. And rather than try to lessen this distance, the reaction of those with power is "Shut up and don't ask questions. We know what we're doing."

This is, of course, the standard reaction of all people with power, regardless of their standing on the political spectrum. But it doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Medical can be seized by a court order if there is cause to so, not at will, as you imply. Look at the Rush Limbaugh case in Florida. His were open and then resealed in the same day.

The patriot act did not eliminate judicial oversight, all search warrants, phone taps, e-mails taps, and other forms of eavesdropping still require a judges approval, and his review to continue.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that abortion was illegal now.

Do you have proof of your last statement? I didn't think so. Maybe you should base your posts on research, and not your hatred of Bush

I don't happen to hate Bush. I do occasionally do a little research. Just occasionally I look around. Ya know, kinda to keep up with the world.

In case it slipped your mind, a law was just passed that grants the rights of a person to a fetus. It's hidden in a crime bill. Also a law was passed, thankfully blocked by the judicary outlawing later term abortions. Attacks on my reproductive freedom and my right to privacy.

Read patriot act. If you can. I know you are a busy man, with lots on your mind. Judicial oversight is removed. They don't have to get a warrant. But you are a very interesting fellow. Most NEO-Boobs just say "if ya ain't doing nothing wrong you ain't got nuttin to worry about." Which is scary. I far perfer your approach. Just deny it's in there. Highly original.

Edited to remove some inapproriate language and venom.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Here ya go Seaknight. If you have any problems with the big words feel free to ask what they mean. Ill help you our right now.

Expanded: That means more, lareger

Surrvellance: That means spying on folks

With: Hope ya know that one

Reduced: That means fewer

Checks & Balances: It's a complicated term. Basically it deals with things like judicial oversight of things like wire taps & personal private information. The oversight being a balance, against the right of the executive to seize sch informatin as is needed in a criminal investigation.


Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:
Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.
Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court.
ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211.
New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) § 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, §§ 803, 805).
Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:
Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.
Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of "any crime of violence." Sec. 503. The provision adds collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also adds collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of "any crime of violence."
Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.
Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allows aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhance punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) include damage to foreign computers involved in US interstate commerce; 6) include state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expand definition of loss to expressly include time spent investigating, responding, for damage assessment and for restoration.
Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by US Foreign Intelligence Agencies. Just as the domestic law enforcement surveillance powers have expanded, the corollary powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have also been greatly expanded, including:
General Expansion of FISA Authority. FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where the suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is "the" purpose of the surveillance to anytime that this is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.
Increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. This is a partial repeal of the wall put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including the pervasive surveillance of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. It allows wiretap results and grand jury information and other information collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, the latter being a broad new category created by this law.
FISA detour around federal domestic surveillance limitations; domestic detour around FISA limitations. Domestic surveillance limits can be skirted by the Attorney General, for instance, by obtaining a FISA wiretap against a US person where "probable cause" does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI. The reverse is also true.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Humanism

rfgraham....your definition of Humanism is close enough, however, as you well know...modern 'humanists' are of a different ilk..instead of glorifying the 'freedom' of man, they concentrate on the 'needs' of man...

secondly, your previous comments indicate that you do not hold human freedom in high respect. It is only in the United States that those "...rights are innate and held by all..."(paraphrase) and you display little respect for this nation and it's values.

Please do not misunderstand, there is a continuing decline in even awareness of the basic values of this nation and I do not support much of what remains. Yet...if individual freedom is to survive...it will be from here.

Abortion...the conscious choice to take an innocent life is considered to be part of your reproductive rights? A convenience because you chose to have unprotected sex? For this you can justify taking life? Who else but a rabid feminist, blind to reality would advocate such a heinous act?

I do not wish to engage in the abortion debate, but the 1973 Roe v Wade decision will go down in history as one of the darkest moments in not just American history, but Human history. Future students will ask, '..how could they claim 'life' as a value and then destroy it on a whim?" To which, there is no answer....

...and if I ever heard an oxymoron....."...the only absolute is that there are no absolutes..." is surely the funniest one ever, you meant that as a joke....right?


amicus

 

[Guest]

I won't repost Colleen's post, mainly because it was quite long.

However I have read all of the patriot act, and related section in the USC. It does not remove judical oversight. If people were to take the time to read the actual bill instead of reading blurbs from websites that offer analysis of the bill they would realize that.

 

[Guest]

And in reference to your earlier post about the rights of a person be given to a fetus.

1. A fetus is a person

2.When did it become your reproductive right to assault a pregnant woman and injusre or kill the unborn person inside her.

 

[Pure]

hi amicus,

yours is at least a coherent position, and, if you really respect civil liberties--e.g. I get to read, look at, or smoke what I want, given lack of harm to others--I respect you.

Let's look at your basic statement:

an advocate of human liberty...modern man...is not faith based, is educated, logical and focused....accepts that the free exchange of ideas and commodities between people is normal human behavior, and grants government the obligation to protect the ennumerated rights by the use of force in terms of courts, law enforcement and a military to defend sovreign interests at home and abroad.

Beyond that...in terms of heath care, the myriad of social issues liberals cherish...those issues remain the perview of society, not government.

No public schools...no national health care, no social security..as these are all programs funded by mandatory taxation that do not benefit all and are not approved of my [by] all...


======

OK, you want a minimal government. There's courts, law enforcement (cops) and a military for 'sovreign' interests at home and abroad (does Iraq count, btw?).

Presumably you might was, as rg graham argues, a monetary system? (but no liberal monkeying with 'money supply', interest rates, etc.)

Which raises a question. Would there be regulation of banks? Or can I just set up one (the theory being, if it's crooked, and the one across the street isn't, then I'll go out of business)?

How do you decide what's on your 'minimum' list? (proper gov functions). Something like, prevention of harm to the life and limb of others? Would improving the federal highway system not be for that end? Is a federal highway system on your list, or should all roads be private, like some toll roads?

Surely 'approved by all' is not a good criterion. Do you reallly mean every single person? Or just 90% or maybe 2/3 majority?

There was a time when public schools had very wide support. In some socialist countries, the medical insurance scheme also has very wide, almost universal support.

Now, your philosophy is that the burden is on the 'innovator' to say why the gov should get its sticky fingers into something, right? I.e., the burden of proof is on the lawmaker to show why the law is going to benefit all, and is approved by all.

Well, then, I propose that, like Canada, there be no law on the books about abortion. That leaves it a medical decision--between women and the doctors they freely access and hire.

Ah, but a fetus is a person you say! Well let's put it to a vote. It's well known that a substantial minority do NOT think a 6 wk embryo is a person. AND your criterion is nearly universal acceptance. Pro life cannot get that for very young embryos, hence there would be no law about them.

If you truly favor minimal gov., they you must favor keeping its nasty fingers outta women's pussies and womb, and my package.
Contraception must be freely available, and you'd favor, as in some places, a 'walk in' approach to obtaining the morning after pill from the pharmacist (free trade, in your terms).

So I put it to you that if you're truly so logical, rational, and NOT faith based, like Ms Rand, your hero, you will favor the government NOT trying to regulate abortion and contraception. Indeed, probably NOT trying to regulate voluntary euthanasia, as in Holland.

Best,
J.

PS. Would your ideal gov regulate or oversee or provide security regulations for airlines? (Or do we assume the 'market' will put the bad[insecure] ones out of business?)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And in reference to your earlier post about the rights of a person be given to a fetus.

1. A fetus is a person

2.When did it become your reproductive right to assault a pregnant woman and injusre or kill the unborn person inside her.

Hmm, I've quoted a blurb which quotes sections of the bill, you have quoted...Nothing. You just run your mouth. Put up or shut up. Show me where judical oversight is mantained in that bill. Show me that it even makes an attempt to protect my civil rights in the face of an offical investigation. Explain to me why my medical records can be seized and my phisiscian not allowed to inform me. Explain to me how wiretapping can now be done without a court order.

I worked for the telephone company. I taped a couple of lines. The police depatment had to present my boss with the court order for it. He had to present me a phtocopy of said court order and I kept those copies in my personal file at home. That was to protect myself. But here is the catch, if a person asked us, we had to admit their line was tapped. We were required by law to remove said tap if they requested it, even if it was placed there by us in the first place WITH a court order. That's protection of your right to privacy and it is that very protection this set of laws assaults.

And while I am at just when did a fetus become a person? Last I saw there was a raging debate over when life begins. Apparently you have a direct line to God and he told you. You sure present it that way. When do you think the almighty is going to speak to the rest of us?

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Laissez faire

Thanks for the slight compliment, Pure...although I sense it was tendered with the caveat of "idealistic at best, most likely naive, no one really thinks a free society has a snowball's chance in hell..."

Am I correct?

Even so..for you to at least give a tongue in cheek observation to the concept of "let them alone" laissez faire method of governing, is a hopeful sign.

Since there has never existed on the earth a form of government more free than the young United States, there is very little factual basis to refer to.

Although I have studied economics and the monetary system of every nation, I do not claim to fully understand the nature of a 'monetary system' it seems like the gold standard, or the precious metal base was a safe and secure foundation, but rather limited for speculation.

Bank regulation and security need not be performed by Government...nor does a road system and if you knew of the corruption in gas tax uses, state and county road crews, you might advocate a pay as you go system, would be both cheaper and better...

There were no public schools until somewhat after 1850, as I recall...and while the rich might get the best...they do any way, and as in cars...some drive Porsche's some drive Fords...I see nothing wrong with that...

Fetus...not being religious..there is no God factor here, but I regard a sexual relationship between a man and a woman as a very serious and intimate encounter. I think it should remain so, recreational sex tends to lessen the value, I think...insofar as whether an embryo or fetus is life....what else is it? It is human, it does live and has the potential to become an independent human being...it can be nothing else but life....and if we regard 'life' as the ultimate and founding value for all other ethical and moral considerations, life, all human life, must be respected and protected....

minimum list.....? I do not have a good answer for you...I do know that a certain percentage of births will be malformed and unable to function independently in later life...I also know that many families could not support full time institutional care...so yes, I have many questions about the minimum involvement of government in human affairs...but I maintain doggedly...the least possible...is the best...

regards....amicus

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Political Science...

For sweetnpetite...et al...



At any rate...sweets...I appreciated the scope of your post and thought to say so.....regards....amicus

To be honest, I didn't understand most of what you said, but I got this part so- thanks

 

[sweetnpetite]

Sweetnpetite? Will you marry me? That was a fucking brilliant post. I wish I had your depth of knowledge and ability to express it.

Yes, but only if you have a lot of money And we need to be able to vacation someplace warm in the winters.

Thanks for the kind words. Flattery (and a few million bucks) will get you everywhere.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Humanism

I do not wish to engage in the abortion debate, but the 1973 Roe v Wade decision will go down in history as one of the darkest moments in not just American history, but Human history. Future students will ask, '..how could they claim 'life' as a value and then destroy it on a whim?" To which, there is no answer....

********

Fetus...not being religious..there is no God factor here, [...]I think...insofar as whether an embryo or fetus is life....what else is it? It is human, it does live and has the potential to become an independent human being...it can be nothing else but life....and if we regard 'life' as the ultimate and founding value for all other ethical and moral considerations, life, all human life, must be respected and protected....



amicus

Wow, sometimes when you stop rambling, you really make sence. (Not always- just sometimes)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Originally posted by amicus
I do not wish to engage in the abortion debate, but the 1973 Roe v Wade decision will go down in history as one of the darkest moments in not just American history, but Human history. Future students will ask, '..how could they claim 'life' as a value and then destroy it on a whim?" To which, there is no answer....

********

Fetus...not being religious..there is no God factor here, [...]I think...insofar as whether an embryo or fetus is life....what else is it? It is human, it does live and has the potential to become an independent human being...it can be nothing else but life....and if we regard 'life' as the ultimate and founding value for all other ethical and moral considerations, life, all human life, must be respected and protected....


Yes, it will go down as a black day in history. At least it will for men who wish to keep women in a subservient position. For the religious right who wish to see us all in dresses to our ankles and holding our tongues in church. For those who prefer to see women dying using coat hangers and subjecting themselves to back alley abortionists. A black day indeed.

A tumor has life. An operable brain tumor and an embryo meet the same definition of life. They are both a group of as yet uniferentiated cells multiplying at an accelerated rate. I suppose to you tumors should be left too as they are life. The only definition of life an embryo meets is that of life at the cellular level, that is, the individual cells are under going cellular respiration and therefore they are alive.

Your argument of potential to become a human life is juat as a facetious. Every individual egg & sperm has the Potentlial to become a human being. If cloning works out the way it might every individual cell has the potential to become and independent life form. Are you against jerking off? By your own logic you should be. All of those millions of poetential human beings being shot out on the key board. Horrible. Guess you are also agains blow jobs. Not likely they will find an egg that way. And anal sex as well.

Are you sure you aren't religious? Hmmm, lets see. No masturbating, no hand jobs, no blowjobs, and no Anal sex. If you aren't religious might I suggest you take a trip to ye olden Fundamentalist Church? With your outlook you will fit right in and you can be on the winning side of Pascal's wager too. I's a win/win situation for you. Don't forget your bible, they frown on that.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yes, it will go down as a black day in history. At least it will for men who wish to keep women in a subservient position. For the religious right who wish to see us all in dresses to our ankles and holding our tongues in church. For those who prefer to see women dying using coat hangers and subjecting themselves to back alley abortionists. A black day indeed.

Gee that's funny. MY b/f's pro-life and he loves it when I get all tarted up. (He thinks my ankles are way sexy...) He even let's me talk once in a while. (Even though I disagree with 90% of everything he sais)

A tumor has life. An operable brain tumor and an embryo meet the same definition of life. They are both a group of as yet uniferentiated cells multiplying at an accelerated rate. I suppose to you tumors should be left too as they are life. The only definition of life an embryo meets is that of life at the cellular level, that is, the individual cells are under going cellular respiration and therefore they are alive.

An embryo is an organism in its early stages of development, while a tumor is an *abnormal growth* of tissue serving no physiological function. An embreo *has* a function, to develop into maturity- and it is not an abnormal growth. Tumors never reach maturity, never become independant and are never born. Not all tumors need to be removed either- and simply remain in the body for the duration of the person's life. Embryo's don't do that- they remove themselves quite naturally- it's called birth.

Your argument of potential to become a human life is juat as a facetious. Every individual egg & sperm has the Potentlial to become a human being. If cloning works out the way it might every individual cell has the potential to become and independent life form. Are you against jerking off? By your own logic you should be. All of those millions of poetential human beings being shot out on the key board. Horrible. Guess you are also agains blow jobs. Not likely they will find an egg that way. And anal sex as well.

He didn't say that it had *potential* to become human life- he said it *was* human life and had the potential to become *an independant human being* not the potentail to become a human being but to eventually function independantly (first physiologically and then socially) No tumor will ever do that. Which pretty much invalidates your next point as well, which is meaninglylessly venomous. *Must* you assume that everyone who is not prochoice is a fundamentalist cave man?

Are you sure you aren't religious? Hmmm, lets see. No masturbating, no hand jobs, no blowjobs, and no Anal sex. If you aren't religious might I suggest you take a trip to ye olden Fundamentalist Church? With your outlook you will fit right in and you can be on the winning side of Pascal's wager too. I's a win/win situation for you. Don't forget your bible, they frown on that.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Gee that's funny. MY b/f's pro-life and he loves it when I get all tarted up. (He thinks my ankles are way sexy...) He even let's me talk once in a while. (Even though I disagree with 90% of everything he sais)




An embryo is an organism in its early stages of development, while a tumor is an *abnormal growth* of tissue serving no physiological function. An embreo *has* a function, to develop into maturity- and it is not an abnormal growth. Tumors never reach maturity, never become independant and are never born. Not all tumors need to be removed either- and simply remain in the body for the duration of the person's life. Embryo's don't do that- they remove themselves quite naturally- it's called birth.

An embryo has no function. It dosen't. It can become a human being, it can miscarry naturally, it can be removed. It dose not however serve a function neccessary to the body. Not all embryos mature, are born or become independent. They remove themselves thorugh methods other than birth too and can be removed through medical proceedures. Your pancreas serves a function, an embryo does not.

[/B][/QUOTE]
He didn't say that it had *potential* to become human life- he said it *was* human life and had the potential to become *an independant human being* not the potentail to become a human being but to eventually function independantly (first physiologically and then socially) No tumor will ever do that. Which pretty much invalidates your next point as well, which is meaninglylessly venomous. *Must* you assume that everyone who is not prochoice is a fundamentalist cave man? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, if he said it was human life then he is either religious or has delusions of omnipotence. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. No, my point isn't ivalidated. Well, in your mind it is because you cannot objectively make an evaluation, you already "know" it's life although there isn't a shred of proof that it is, beyond life at the cellualar level. Since you "know" it's life then any point I make is invalidated because my precept here is that no one, save perhaps God, knows for certain when life begins.

Being slightly less sure of my position than you are I accept the possibility it is life, but before I turn every pregnant woman in the country into a brood mare, I want some concrete proof. I do equate pro life people with religious fanatics. That is based upon the precept above. You "know" it's life, but you can't prove it's life beyond any reasonable doubt. You simply accept it is. That acceptance amounts to faith. And faith in something that is unkowable, untestable, unempirical in any way and unproveable is a religious tenent. You may not subscribe to any organized religin, but your position is religious in nature.

There is venon in my responses to this question, because it is a question, but to prolifers it isn't. And that's infuriating. Making the ASSUMPTION that life begins at conception and then treating anyone who makes a different assumption as if we are not intelligent is the height of pomposity and arrogance. Pompous, arrogant, holier than thou, and filled with faith in a concept that can't be tested, much less proved. Sounds a lot like religion to me. But you go a step further. You aren't only willing to castigate people who don't subscribe to your faith, you are willing to and have called them murders. Now we are talking about persecution of "dissenters" with criminal accusations. And if you have your way, criminal charges.

I am just a small town southern girl, but that gives a little home grown wisdom for you. If it looks like a horse, and it acts like a horse, then it probably is one. It looks like religion, it has all the worst qualitites of religion, it probably is one.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

An embryo has no function. It dosen't. It can become a human being, it can miscarry naturally, it can be removed. It dose not however serve a function neccessary to the body. Not all embryos mature, are born or become independent. They remove themselves thorugh methods other than birth too and can be removed through medical proceedures. Your pancreas serves a function, an embryo does not.

As I said, the embryo removes itself naturally (thorough birth, or miscariage then if you will) It doesn't require a medical procedure to be removed (in most circomstances) -- neither does a tumor for that matter, in many instances(many are benign). But still, a tumor is not a stage of development. there is a clear difference between the two 'masses of cells' A embryo/fetus differes from a tumor or other life form in key ways. A tumor does not have what it takes to develop into the human animal. It is not programed with the genetic code to form complex biological systems, such as repetory and skelatal systems. It is not and will never be a human life.

Maybe an embryo serves no necessary function (which is somewhat debateble as pregnancy/childbirth and breastfeeding do offer certain benefits for a woman's body in addition to the strain that they exact), but a uterous does. It's function is to hold a growing lifeform. As far as I know, there is no speacial organ designed for the housing of tumors.

Life...is provable. Scientist have criteron to decide what is alive and what is not- as well as what is plant and what is animal. [The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.] It may be faith or religion that tells me what or who has a soul, but science not religion or oppinion can and does define life. There are criteria, they are testable,and they are present.

NOw, first you say that no one can say when it is life and that you believe it is not, but then you say it is life, but not human life. Life begins when life begins. The begining is the joining of two specific cells. All of us begin that way. No one popped into there momma at 4months gestation. IF you can trace back to a time when life was not- it would be before the process begins, before the sperm and egg meet. This is science, not faith. Science is now being manipulated to be politically correct- to say things like 'product of conception' hell we're all products of conception.

Perhaps to you it is not *conclusive* evidence that a fetus is a human life- but it is certainly incorrect to say that there is not a *shred* of evidence.

I am just a small town southern girl, but that gives a little home grown wisdom for you. If it looks like a horse, and it acts like a horse, then it probably is one. It looks like religion, it has all the worst qualitites of religion, it probably is one.

-Colly

ANd yet you insist that if it looks like a baby (has eyelids) and acts like a baby (sucks thumb, heart beats) it is not.

Perhaps you belong to the religion of 'it's not a life if it can't be seen and it's existance is not convienient' because no matter what scientific or medical evidence is presented, you simply refuse to see it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

definition of conception

*the event that occured at the beginning of something*
(wordnet 1997 princton university)

It seems rather redundant to say that life *begins* at conception doesn't it?

Not to mention, self contradictory to say that it does not.

and from webster: 1996 (definition #1)

The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life.