I don't have issues with Democrats or Liberals per say. I have friends and co-workers of all shapes and sizes of which I don't usually mess around with when it comes to politics. But I do have issues with the Democrat/Liberal ideology and I have to say that in a way, KFC is righ about who they are.

I will use our Lord Obama as an example of what I mean. From the beginning Obama has chanted the idea of change as part of his campaign strategy to win over those who feel the Gov't has let them down. According to Obama, he is (or was anyways) not like you average politician, he is different and with this difference he plans on briging what he calls change to Washington. But all it takes is a look at the Obama campaign and everything they have done since Sarah Palin was nominated for VP. Sure, I could go further back, but this short time frame will be enough to prove my point.

What has Obama and his campaign done since Palin was nominated? Smear, mud sling, insult, bash; hell Obama even used McCain's own words to take a jab at him and Palin when he spoke about pigs and lipstick. Go a little further back and Obama has been doing what could be referred to Obamism (like Bush, constantly saying things that either make no sense or make him look stupid. 57 states anyone? I think I win hands down?) Oh and his ad's? McCain not capable of emailing? And don't get me started on his flip flopping. No drilling then some drilling? The surge didn't work but now it did?

How exactly is any of this different? How exactly is any of this change? There is nothing different about Obama and his campaign except he is Black. For crying out loud he had the opportinity of a lifetime to promote real change in this country had he picked Hillary as his VP but because he feared the infimous Clinton legacy, he did not want to be upstaged by his own VP. Makes you wonder just how good is he really that he's afraid of Hillary. Even his own VP runningmate doubted his choice for VP claiming Hillary would have been a better choice.

What I take offense to mostly is the fact she was so quick to call me a hypocrite because I believe Palin's pregnancy is a family matter.  At first I didn't get why she was calling me this but now after she's explained what she means by the Roe v. Wade and my not wanting it legal I can see where she's coming from although I think she doesn't understand completely why pro-lifers can't just sit by and say a girl getting an abortion is just a family matter. 

Pregnancy is a family matter.  Murder should always be our business.  We should always rush to the defense of the helpless....always no matter who they are.  We should never find ourselves indifferent to the wounding and murdering of another human life.  Any decent person would step up when they see another being hurt especially when they have no voice to express this on their own. 

When the liklihood of murder enters the picture it's no longer just a family matter.   Just like we can't sit by and watch someone kill another without interferring, we also can't sit by and not get involved in these cases of abortion. 

I would hope to God someone would stop me if I held a gun to my three month old grandson's head.  Some have thanked God for sending another who stopped them from taking the life of their unborn before it was too late.   

Kurtin

From what I understand it comes down to this.  There is a theoretical benefit to using embryonic cells but this whole issue is a little bit of putting the cart in front of the horse since a lot of what people do with stem cells right now is a little bit of a shot in the dark.

My son sent me this email and I thought it was quite timely so I'll share it with you.  In case you didn't know he's a Scientific Researcher doing Post Grad work spending most of his awake time in the Science Labs.  He got this memo today and is going so maybe I'll ask what he learned from this and report back. 

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:37 AM
To: Physiology-All
Subject: Biology Seminar-18Sept08 (Sent on behalf of Dr. Mike)


Thursday at 4 p.m., the Dept of Biology is sponsoring a lecture on
hormonal control of stem cell regulation by Lorraine Gudas, a visiting
professor from Cornell (see below).  Knowing our department's interest in
stem cell biology, they kindly extended a special invitation to
Physiology investigators, staff, and trainees to attend.  It's only a 3-min
walk from our building and should be an excellent talk.  - Mike

That is just plain wrong on so many levels.  1) there are many schools that teach abstinence-only sex ed.  2) The idea that teaching kids about birth control is a "green light" to have sex is just plain wrong.  Comprehensize sex ed doesn't tell kids to go out and have sex.  It merely gives them information about available birth control methods as well as all of the consequences from having sex.  Comprehensive sex ed teaches kids that the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is absitenence.

Case and point, I received comprehensive sex ed in school and I didn't have sex until I was in a committed relationship.  Yes I had sex before marriage, but I ended up marrying the woman that I had sex with.

I'm glad that your son was smart enough to go to the local drug store and buy condoms so that he was at least somewhat protected when he had sex, unfortunately some of the abstinence-only sex ed programs out there teach the kids that condoms don't work so the kids don't bother to buy them.  Or they buy into the myth that condoms take away from the experience (something that could have been contradicted in a comprehensive program).

This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  So you are actually saying that a kid who has sex outside of wedlock and/or against their parents wishes deserves to get an STD or get pregnant when simply educating them a little could have potentially prevented either from happening?  That's like advocating not to teach your kids to look both ways before they cross the street until you are ready to allow them to walk across the street by themselves.  I mean if they decide to violate your rule of not crossing the street they deserve to get hit by the cars right?  Come on that's just insane.

Again this is a case of bad information getting out, something that could be prevented with comprehensive sex education.  The pill doesn't protect anyone from STDs and a comprehensive sex education class would be more likely to inform the kids of that than an abstinence-only class that ignores the topic of birth control pills altogether.  In your case if the girl had been told that the pill didn't do squat to protect her from VD she might have used a condom when she had sex and the problem would have been averted.  So yes I still think that comprehensive sex education is better than abstinence-only.

No, I said something and you said it must be true that liberals have no core ethics.  I am not all liberals -- in fact, I don't even consider myself a liberal.

I think that abortion should be decided between the people invovled and their God (s) -- not the courts or the legislature.  That doesn't mean that I believe in murder -- not everyone believes that murder and abortion are the same and you are purposely enflaming the conversation by saying that I believe that all murders are a family issue.  This is the reason that I purpose avoid your threads and try to avoid interaction with you.  You twist words and meanings to try to suit you despite them having nothing to do with the underlying conversation.

Please show me where I have turned either nasty or hateful.  I don't believe stating that I think you are a hypocrite on this issue is either.  I also find it very amusing that one who prides herself on her condescention would be concerned about how I say things to her.

There are no hidden reasons and you flatter yourself to think that there are.  I simply hold a differing opinion, but you seem to think that is not okay and that I'm doing it to spite you.  I assure you I'm not.

just go back and read almost ANY contact you have had with me. 

and this is the attitude from which I speak.  It's this type of fighting words you bring to the table constantly Shades.  I pride myself?  I sincerely hope not nor do I wish to come across that way.  If I have I  apologize. 

well this doesn't help matters now does it?  You came out of the gun shouting hyprocrite at me without even discussing this issue.  Have I done that to you? 

She is apparently too obtuse to see the trap she fell into.

Where?  Not on this thread.  And out of context?  So can I quote that you said, and I quote "it must be true that liberals have no core ethics"?

You still dont see the trap even after KFC explained it in english, and you fell right into.  Yes, you would have KFC accept murder as a family value because of your say so, and nothing else.  So if she has to accept it, what exempts you?  Some "Noblesse oblige" that is bestowed on all liberals due solely to their beliefs and self righteousness?  Your superiority to the mere mud dwellers and common rabble who are not "intelligent" enough to accept the religion of liberalism?

I never said you thought abortion was murder, but you are so wrapped up in your own righteousness, that you failed to see how mean and spiteful you were to another - just because you do not agree with her (but cannot prove her wrong either).  You are so intent on browbeating KFC to accept your views, which are no better than hers, that you would so insult her and tell her that she must make murder a family value instead of the crime that most people believe it to be. Why?

twist words?  Show me a twisted word.  You accuse a lot, but you always fail to produce. I quoted you - you make airy accusations not backed up with quotes.

And you accuse me of assuming about you?

I agree parents should not teach abstinence and safe sex practices, it sends a conflicting message. The parents should teach abstinence and the schools should teach sex ed. That's what school's all about, preparing our kids for the future, they don't need algebra or sex ed to be a kid, they need need them for adulthood. Parents can remain consistent in their teaching of abstinence while the schools can teach what they'll need for the future. 

The problem with not teaching sex ed is that leaves the subject all up to the parents and most won't bring the subject up at all until they see signs that their kid is having sex. Either because it's embarrassing for them or they think if they forbid it they'll run out and do it. Either way it leaves many kids completely unprepared for a very important, potentially deadly part of their future.

Stem cell research shouldn't be classified as a "shot in the dark", KFC.  They have goals in mind with research.  If they don't, then I am against support of the practice.  There needs to be a structure even though we don't always know what we're searching for.  Sure we don't know exactly what the potential benefits can be to medical advances and genetics research, but that's why we are doing the research and experimentation. 

Recall the differences between the different types of stem cells and that there is a reason for extracting embryonic stem cells since you are more likely to get a useable pluripotent cell line.  There are the branches of research that will need that specific culture of stem cells to make any progress on their ends.

If you have time, this report really does a great job summarizing the potentials for research and the ethical/moral concerns of the general public with these investigations.  Stem Cell Research and Applications.  Most of the article covers the ethical concerns and how scientists and research groups will be held accountable, but there is also a section about the benefits of those pluripotent cell lines I mentioned and the possible advances or understandings hoped to be made by the scientific community.  In a sense, the embryonic stem cells are more maliable than adult stem cells and can lead the way to other types of breakthroughs.

Great discussion going here, KFC.

ANNAHIEL POSTS: #32

Check out what a member of Poland’s presidential cabinet, Ryszard Legutko, said of liberalism at work in the world.  Legutko suggests the following formula for identifying a liberal which is quite different from JFK!

A liberal is someone who takes a rather thin view of man, society, morality, religion, history, and philosophy, believing this to be the safest approach to organizing human cooperation. He does not deny that thicker, non-procedural principles and norms are possible, but believes these to be particular preferences which possess validity only within particular groups and communities. For this reason he refuses to attribute to such principles and norms any universal value and he protests whenever someone attempts to impose his profound beliefs, however true they may seem to him, on the entire social body. Liberals might have divergent opinions on economic freedoms and the role of government, but they are united in their conviction that thinness of anthropological, moral, and metaphysical assumptions is the prerequisite for freedom and peace.

Dr. Guy and KFC -- both of you are accusing me of being mean, spiteful, nasty and hateful -- but neither of you have shown proof other than the fact that I called KFC a hypocrite.  My intent is not to be either -- so if you can show me where I am, I will gladly apologize.  That said, I do find it strange that you can forcefully have your opinions, but I may not forcefully have mine.

I'm going to let this thread lie now because it is clear that we are never going to reach agreement on this issue and there is no point in banging our heads against the wall.  And since it is clear, KFC, that you think I am out to get you, I will refrain from commenting on your threads in the future.

I probably should have read every response, but my time is limited these days, and I'm admitting up front that I didn't.

That said, my contribution to this thread goes thusly:  When it comes to the liberal/conservative debate, certain things always take the spotlight.  Pro-life vs. pro-choice is the prime example, but there are others.  And while I know these points are important to the people they are important to, they aren't the be all end all of the liberal conservative debate.

The key issues, as I see them (and note there is some crossover here), are what is the government's business to control and what is not?  To give an example, conservatives *usually* believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating people's lives, but they'll gladly do so when it comes to abortion because the vast amount of supporters for conservatives WANT them to regulate this choice.  Right, KFC? 

And on the other hand, the vast amount of liberals want their choices to be their own...except when it comes to things like tax where they want the government to control who pays what according to *their* standards of who should pay what.

From this I extrapolate that most of you are conservative or liberal because you were indoctrinated to be that way.  You aren't noticing that you're both just a bunch of control freaks.  The only difference is what you think it's ok for the government to control.

Is this really the best way to go about things?  I can tell you, the media is really happy about it.  It makes them billions every year playing you against one another.

As I see it, the ultimate goal of liberals is to have the government take care of the people because "we the people" are too stupid to take care of ourselves.  The conservatives, on the other hand, want government to back off.  Of course, this makes the liberals believe that the conservatives just want the government to back off so they can keep taking a larger slice of the whole pie.

What would solve this dilemna?  If everyone that could take care of themselves DID take care of themselves, and if government only supported those that actually could NOT take care of themselves, the problem would be solved.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.  That leaves the issue with what?

Dishonesty.  People don't want to admit that their bad situation is their own fault (when it is) and so we end up with the group the government needs to take care of being NEEDLESSLY huge.  This pisses off the ones that rise above their tribulations and take care of themselves regardless of adversity.

I know I'm rambling.  Sorry...that's just me.  Bottom line is, what's way more important than the pro-life/pro-choice debate is the discussion of how involved the government should be in generating programs of support that the lazy then abuse.  Liberals turn their heads.  Conservatives cry bullshit.  I guess it all depends on whether you want us Americans to be endlessly dependent on the government or not.  I do not.

If the lazy were allowed to suffer the fruits of their own lack of labor, guess what we'd have?  Wheeee...darwinism.

Make no mistake, republicans and democrats both want us to be dependant on them, they just go about it in different ways. You have the democrats up front nanny state or the republicans give us your devotion so that we may protect you from the evils, real, imagined or of our own making, of the world. The end result is the same our dependence.

I showed you with the very first statement I quoted of yours.  You are not that obtuse, and your playing the victim does not become you.  Apparently you dont like looking in the mirror and seeing yourself.  I cant blame you there.  I would not like what I see if I saw what you saw either.

No, apparently you do not allow others theirs if they do not agree with yours.  You have to frame everything in your paradigm without allowing for other's opinions.  For then you would have to actually debate on the merits of them, instead of trying to drag the discussion back to your self righteous world where everything is tidy and orderly.  Next time you decide to make murder a family value, be prepared to take the heat for your own hypocracy. Either that, or stop forcing your world view on those that do not agree with you - and then debating them on your own erroneous views.