Are you suffering?

No, but I care about other people.

Is that a radical concept to you?

Think about if this girl could have purchased emergency contraception over the counter for example:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=180648

Her life is probably ruined now, and no I don't blame Bush for her not having access to that pill at the present time - it was too late for her.

But there will be MANY more people like her...

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ No, but I care about other people. Is that a radical concept to you? Think about if this girl could have purchased emergency contraception over the counter for example: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=180648 Her life is probably ruined now, and no I don't blame Bush for her not having access to that pill at the present time - it was too late for her. But there will be MANY more people like her...

Although you could easily rebut by saying it takes two to tango. If she was raped that was another story, but two consenting adults having sex has consequences, and those should be taken into consideration. As you know I am for Plan B, but I'm also for personal responsibility. Yes I believe it should be legal, but just because it isn't doesn't push accidental preganancies into the fault of the government.

I may have felt some sympathy for her if it was her first child, but hell, she already had an abortion. This would be her second abortion at 15!

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ "We'll truly see how bad things can get, and elect a progressive candidate the next time." What a deluded fool. By that logic, Nader should just endorse W - a man who believes that it's his job to bring on the rapture through war. I take back anything positive I've said about Nader in the past. He wants all hell to break loose first, so that maybe he'll win someday. He doesn't care about all the people who are suffering.

Do you have a source for that quote? From my experiences with creationists, I've seen how easy it is to find an out of context quote that really doesn't reflect what the person was saying at all. I'm not suggesting that you've done that - I know you're not the kind of person who does that kind of stuff, but rather that someone else may have cut it and posted it before you came across it.

Now, assuming that the quote is indeed correct, and not out of context - I don't see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that you have. To me, it looks like he's predicting that Bush will win the election - and that he will screw up so badly that people will invariably elect a progressive president the next time around. Maybe we're just reading it differently, but to me, it looks like you're jumping to conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Are you suffering?

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of ethical egoism, and of altruism? Do you believe that altruism exists, and if so, what do you think of it?

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ No, but I care about other people. Is that a radical concept to you?

Sometimes I think the world would be a better place if people stopped caring for one another

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Do you have a source for that quote? From my experiences with creationists, I've seen how easy it is to find an out of context quote that really doesn't reflect what the person was saying at all. I'm not suggesting that you've done that - I know you're not the kind of person who does that kind of stuff, but rather that someone else may have cut it and posted it before you came across it. Now, assuming that the quote is indeed correct, and not out of context - I don't see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that you have. To me, it looks like he's predicting that Bush will win the election - and that he will screw up so badly that people will invariably elect a progressive president the next time around. Maybe we're just reading it differently, but to me, it looks like you're jumping to conclusions. Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of ethical egoism, and of altruism? Do you believe that altruism exists, and if so, what do you think of it?

I cut and pasted it from a left-wing blog, and indeed it may be taken out of context. I'll try to find the speech where he said that, so we can evaluate the context. Kerry is pretty much a centrist (though to the left of Clinton, Dean and Gore), but I support him because I recognize the need to get the Fundies out of office to save America. I'm actually registered as an independent.


Anyways, Kerry still seems to be doing reasonably well:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html


The guy who runs that site wants Bush to win, but he keeps it updated with polls and stuff.

Last edited by DaveSZ on May-09-2004 at 19:07

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Anyways, Kerry still seems to be doing reasonably well: http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html The guy who runs that site wants Bush to win, but he keeps it updated with polls and stuff.

did you see his state by state analysis????
has bush winning 449 electoral votes. kind of reminds me of my NCAA bracket with UNC winning it all. i thought it was a sound theory, but the reality of the situation was a bitch.

i really don't understand Nader's aganda this time around. he seems like a respectful man, but do we really need four more years of f**king ourselves to realize we've made a mistake?

i'll try to see where that quote came from as well, out of context or not, can anyone post a theory on why he would be running this time around

Some Republicans are already planning to rig it though:

quote:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.ph...ts050804#169954 The disadvantage that our president has is that challengers usually get the bulk of the undecideds. Iraq is not going to go away, even after the handover, and most people trust democrats on the economy, even with the changing numbers on unemployment. Another advantage the Democrats have is that they really, really despise Bush -- partly because of his policies, but also because of the way in which he came to power. With that in mind, I am really in despair -- UNLESS, and this is my great hope -- that the elctronic voting machines in key states, which are run ny Republican companies, have already been programmed to tilt the election to Bush in key states, like Florida. Also, there's hope that purging of the voting roles will eliminate many eligible Democrats from voting in tight states, such as Florida and also Ohio. Yes, this goes against "fairness" and all that, but who cares about democracy when freedom is at stake? lucy kreuger | Email | 05.09.04 - 2:14 pm | #

Morality and family values my ass. That just makes me sick to my stomach.

Last edited by DaveSZ on May-09-2004 at 19:13

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/01/cf.00.html

here's a little excerpt from a july interview with nader. it doesn't have the quote in question, but it does almost bring the quote to a potential existance.

quote:

NOVAK: I'm going to try once again why is it that you don't think that Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, they're saying exactly what you're saying. Well, why do you have to run again when you've got people on the left and the Democratic Party saying the same thing you are? NADER: Well, you raise an interesting point. If Dennis Kucinich gets the nomination, it'll be less reason to have a third-party challenge. He's a very progressive Democrat and his views actually are closer to Jim Carville's than many of the nominees, potential nominees, not to mention Gore and Lieberman.

i'll keep searching

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say, "to save America." If even Nancy Reagan thinks the Bush Administration policies that subvert science are radical and indefensible, that really says something.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...l=la-home-local

quote:

Stem Cell Funding Is Put in Spotlight Nancy Reagan makes a rare speech urging more research, which is limited by U.S. policy. By Stephanie Chavez, Times Staff Writer In rare remarks aimed at influencing national public policy, former First Lady Nancy Reagan told a star-studded crowd Saturday night that stem cell research must be pursued "to save families from the pain" of debilitating illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, which afflicts her husband, former President Reagan. "I am determined to do whatever I can," she said after receiving a standing ovation at a gala fundraiser in her honor at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. She told the crowd, which included Michael J. Fox, Harrison Ford and James Taylor, that Alzheimer's had taken her husband "to a distant place where I can no longer reach him." She added that stem cell research held hope for a cure. "I don't see how we can turn our backs on this," she said. "We have lost so much time. I just can't bear to lose any more." In the past, she has discreetly made known her views in support of stem cell research. But Saturday's event marked the first time that she had spoken publicly in favor of the research, for which President Bush limited federal funding in 2001, following a politically charged debate. Before Saturday's event, Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, said the former first lady's strong support of stem cell research would be a "tremendous boon." "She's so revered by the entire cross-section of the country, they trust her judgment when she says, 'This is about helping people who we love,' " said Fox, who has a foundation that supports stem cell research "She's looked at it, thought about it and prayed, and realized it is the right thing to do," he said. Actor Ford read letters from former Presidents Clinton, Carter and Ford. President Ford's letter said: "We are so proud of your strength over the last challenging years." In his letter, Clinton said: "She has demonstrated a deep and abiding commitment to supporting a field of research that could save countless lives." After a video tribute to the Reagans, Fox presented the former first lady with a Caregiver's Award, a tribute to her commitment in caring for her ailing husband, 93, who revealed 10 years ago that he had Alzheimer's disease. The former president no longer makes public appearances and is cared for by his wife in their Bel-Air home. Reagan was escorted to the event by longtime family friend and entertainer Merv Griffin. She approached the podium in tears and told Fox, "I have such admiration for you. Your children must be so proud." The event included speeches from people who suffer from diabetes, as well as a leading scientist in the field, Larry Goldstein of UC San Diego. The $500-a-plate dinner was expected to raise about $2 million, the first time the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has held an event specifically aimed at funding stem cell research. Scientists believe embryonic stem cells hold the key to curing a range of diseases that afflict nearly 100 million Americans as researchers learn how to mold the cells into pancreas cells for diabetics, replacement brain cells for people with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease or heart cells for cardiac patients. Stem cell research holds promise for those with spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis and other afflictions. The Bush policy limits the use of taxpayer money, which funds most U.S. medical research, to experiments on a narrow set of stem cells that had been taken from human embryos before August 2001. A broader policy would be immoral, he said, because it would cause more human embryos to be destroyed for their stem cells. Bush's decision was a relief to many abortion opponents and religious conservatives, politically potent Bush allies. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, however, said it was unacceptable, and that research that began with the destruction of human embryos was tantamount to murder. Prominent scientists and disease advocacy groups criticized the decision, saying that it would prevent them from jump-starting one of the most promising fields of medical research. As a respected Republican figure, the former first lady is expected to give a high-profile boost to a renewed effort to reopen the debate on stem cell research. "When the wife of one of the most popular presidents, a strong conservative, makes a public statement that this research must go forward with all haste … it further demonstrates in a dramatic and vivid way that the yearning for cures trump politics and trump ideologies," said Daniel Perry, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. Just last week, more than 200 members of Congress, including conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) and other abortion opponents, signed a letter to Bush urging him to change his policy to allow funding of research on embryonic stem cells derived from excess in vitro fertilized embryos developed to help infertile couples have children. An estimated 400,000 such embryos are held in frozen storage, and they are likely to be destroyed if not donated to research with the couples' consent. The letter urges the changes because the researchers have found that only 19 of the original 78 embryonic cell lines authorized for federal research funding are still available — and they are contaminated, making their use for humans uncertain. Also, more and more research is moving overseas, the letter states. Trent Duffy, a Bush spokesman, said Saturday that the president's policy remained the same, "which is we remain committed to the promise of research on existing stem cell lines." He said that though "we respect those with different views, we can't allow for federal funding that would encourage the destruction of human embryos." Federal law, however, does not prohibit private sector or state funding for stem cell research. California has emerged at the forefront of this biomedical field with the passage in the last two years of several laws that encourage stem cell research. The laws authorize the use of human embryos and establish ethical and legal standards for their use. California voters could be propelled into the debate if a statewide initiative qualifies for the November ballot. The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative proposes a $3-billion general-obligation bond measure that would fund stem cell research over a 10-year period, and would represent the largest state public funding source in the nation. A $350-million annual spending cap would be established, and principal and interest payments would be deferred for five years, said Fiona Hutton, a spokeswoman for the measure. Supporters of the measure, which include more than 25 disease advocacy groups, 10 Nobel laureates and other scientists, have submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office, which will decide whether it qualifies for the ballot. Campaign finance disclosure statements show that the measure received $1.8 million in contributions from Jan. 1 to March 31, including a $500,000 donation from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund.

Last edited by DaveSZ on May-09-2004 at 20:39