The dirty is the most important part (though they are both big government guys). It keeps any real dalog from happening. I nearly fell asleep at the presidential debate, the only thing keeping me up was the depression that one of these jokers is going to be running the nation.
I think something is up with that purpoted "bush education spending increase" though. I have several friends in education in different areas of the country and all their schools are looking at cutbacks. Not scientific of course, just my gut feeling.
I dont know when a republican candidate gets Ted Kennedy, maybe the only man more liberal than Kerry, to vote for an education spending measure it has to pass the mustard. I can not think of a single point in my life when teachers and school boards were not complaining about budget problems (During HS 1992-1995 my teachers went on strike *twice* because of 'poor resources'). I have long become jaded by teachers who cry poor and yet live in the suburbs. That and the fact hour by hour a starting teacher makes more than an Engineer makes me realize that no amount of money will stop schools from wasting it.
During the Clinton administration 450 Million dollars was basicall lost by the department of education (they failed three straight audits).
In the conservative mind, anything that might possibly benefit the Left is evil and hateful and anti-American, whereas any of the well-documented dirty tricks of the Right (e.g., Republicans financing the efforts of Nader, whose beliefs they obviously do not share, to get ballot access in states where he failed to collect enough signatures) are legitimate politics. Hope that clears things up.
Dnot confuse conservatives and republicans, I think both the Republican push for Nader and the Democratic push to remove him from ballots are both disgusting examples of how the two parties are *identical*
I see and Kerry has proposed decreasing the number of troops in Iraq? I seem to remember him saying that he thinks we need to send more troops. I am sure somewhere he has said both...
As for wasteful spending at home, I think the bush 40%+ increase in education spending qualifies as does the boondogle of the perscription drug discount card.
Face it the two major party's are *Identical* the last time I remember any difference was Regan / Mondale.
I would not at all include polling, so long as you qualiy in enough state to win the election (270 EV's) you should be allowed in the debates. I also think that membership of *any* party should also not be a requirement.
Its too bad that it wont be covered live, I saw a special on PBS about the thrid party's which was very interesting. The Libertarian convention was by far the greates thing I ever saw. They had debates, at the convention and based on those the delegates voted.
Imagine going to a convention and not knowing in advance the whole ticket...
And this is how the Army advertises to get people to sign up? Most people do NOT join the military thinking they will get the chance to go be shot at or kill someone. Most join because they couldn't afford to go to college, weren't smart enough, or some other reason.
I am not saying most people join for that reason, I am saying that those who do are perhaps too stupid to be given explosives. We average a war about every 15 years, hell Im not even 30 and we have had Two wars (Iraq/Afg 2003, and Iraq 1991) A bush of military actions (Panama, Graneda, Libya,...) in my lifetime.
$35,000 or whatever it is now, along with a marketable skill, is why people join, right or wrong.
And they get that (I dont think a private makes 35k), but there is an obligation they have to meet.
Ill start by saying I think the war was a mistake.
War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money. It should be painful for everyone in the country that decided war - especially a preemptive war! - was necessary.
This is plain wrong, the military is not around to teach skills and provide scholership, the military is around to fight wars! You should not join the military for money, skills or anyother reason unless you are willing to fight a war. Its not a training program.
So youre saying that the average democratic voter does not consider the economy, Iraq/WOT, healthcare, social security and the environment more important in determining their votes than the amount of disgressionary spenging aimed at R&D?
From
Time
Most important issues: When asked what they consider are the most important issues, 25% of registered voters cited the economy as the top issue, followed by 24% who cited the war on terrorism as the top issue. The situation in Iraq was rated the top issue by 17% of registered voters, moral values issues such as gay marriage and abortion were the top issue for 16% of respondents, and health care was the most important issue for 11% of respondents.
so thats *at least* 93% of people who consider every thing from homsexual marrage to Iraq, to the economy more important than science spending. I dont think the parents post was out of the mainstream though you may disagree with it...
Oh wait I see this was just a great chance to dismiss someone...
I think that they spent about 25 Million, given that they won ten and got a contract for over twenty in virgin I think they will more than make their money back..
I think this should be worked in. But they are considering that they are making over all altitude a part of the equation I think they are covering that. Keep in mind it took these teams years to acheive what they have which is a fraction of the altitude needed for orbital flight.
What they should do is run the "x-cup" for five years (maybe raise the ceiling for qualification every year) and start another prize for orbital flight now (x-prize2). I dont know how this would affect the draw of one (x-cup) or the other (X-prize2).
If it can't live on its own, it ain't alive. Period. There you go -- stated by a thinking individual who disputes what you wrote.
Does this include the severly mentally retarded? Does this include the elderly? So if you need an oxygen tank to live your not really a person?
So let me get this straight, if medical science could save a baby at say 10 Weeks, that is not a human being but 9 weeks is not? Twenty-one and twenty-two week premature babies are now supported routinely (where in the fifites and early 60's 30 weeks was the bar), and have a good chance of survival. By twenty-four weeks after conception, premature babies have a 40% chance of reaching adulthood without any major complications. By twenty-eight weeks, the chance is 90%. By twenty-nine weeks, survival is almost definite.
So as medical science pushes forward and we can save bebies at 10, 9 weeks now are they human? what of the babies in the 80's at 14 weeks? they were not human?
Your opinion is not thoughtful, at least MH was intellictually honest and not puking up something which is purly propiganda, and dangerous propiganda at that.
Depending on your source, someplace between 12% and 21% of abortions could be avoided simply by making birth and motherhood have the same econimic impact as abortion and career upon the family.
A huge part of the problem here is the over taxing of the American family. I am somewhere around the 80th percentile of income earners in the US, my nicome would easily support my family if I did not have to pay so much of it in taxes. Even with that I make due and with my wife pregnant and thinking of leaving her job I know we will get by but it will be hard.
In 1948, a Democratic First Lady stepped forward in the United Nations to dare suggest that pregnancy and motherhood be granted equal economic protection to work- and it got written into the Declaration of Human Rights.
How do you grant a mother economic protection?
I want to see a pro-life candidate who is willing to make that a reality- to give up some corporate profits to reduce abortion. Until I see that, I will never again vote on pro-life issues alone.
So you want to see us pay people *not* to have abortions? And this will greatly increase the tax burden, thus making it more impossible for a family to be single earner.
Well put, its not just farmers. If yoour father bought a service station in an area and the value skyrockets, he dies you dont have the money to pay the taxes and you lose the business.
Someone buys something, works it makes it profitable (paying taxes the whole time), and when he dies the government decides to take another chunk..
You are absolutly right, this is why I am voting 3rd party. I would like to point out that many people are voting for bush because the see Kerry as so much worse, just as most voting for Kerry are voting against Bush..
(merely making it illegal will only return us to the 1960s, which had exactly the same abortion rate as today but a far higher death toll from the procedure for the mothers).
Im sorry this is just a plain stupid statement on both a logical and factual basis.
There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US, I would like to see some statisitc that in 1960 there were that many abortions a day (1.5 Million a year)
On to the "theyll do it anyway", people steal cars and die in high speed chases so why keep car theft illegal... people will do it anyway.
Abortion is 100% about when human life begins, there can be debate on that issue, anything else is a smokescreen.
But you are 100% right about Bush being ineffectual when it comes to abortion. The republican and the democrats both abuse this and other issues for no other reasns than getting votes..
abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress
Slavery was more written into the constitution than abortion could ever been believed to be. So I guess all those silly abolitionist in the 1840's should have shut up and accepted it as for all times legal..
When you were an embryo, did you feel anything?
I dont know I dont remember
Do you remember anything?
No and I dont remember the doctor smacking my rear but Im pretty sure I was a preson when he did it
What's your reaction to all the naturally unconcieved babies due to miscariages?
The same as still born babies
Why do you value embryos and fetuses as much as a living human being able to make choices, who is also hopefully a productive member of society?
For the same reason I value babies and toddlers as much as I value already producing adults. When I was a baby I could not make choices, and was not a productive member of society (hell I know adults who are not productive) does that make them less worthy than joe cubicle?
Normally I agere, I would have to see the specifics on what they want. I don think there is a place for pure science and depenging on the proposed budget worthwile..
The "state of the person" is not at issue. What is at issue is the morality of abortion and government prohibition of it.
And how can we determine the morality of abortion wihout addressing the staote of what you are aborting?
You are not a fetus.
Im not a baby, todler, of girl either therfore babies, todlers and girls are not people. Language does *not* determine what is or is not a person.
If you implant a person in my body, or a person enters my body by any means (sex or otherwise), and I do not want that person in my body, and they will not remove themself peacefully, I have a right to remove that person from my body by force.
So your right to convenience trumps another persons right to live?
But just to be clear, you would rather prevent 10 people from being born, just to save 1 unborn fetus? Why? And if the mother wanted to make that choice, why would you deny her that option?
No thats not my decision to make and this is by far one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard, what if the woman would have 10 kids *if* she has this one, and no kids if she does not. I dont deny her the right to have as many or as few kids as she wants, what I deny her is the right to kill a kid once the porcess has started.
You are intelligent enough to know the difference between "choice" and government imposed abortion.
Hey your the one who brought out the "wont somebody think of society".
No but it does force unborn children to die.
Unless you resort to a religious argument, the pro-choice position is more moral than the anti-abortion position.
Nothing you have said is anything other than word definitions. The *whole* issues is when does human life begin. My argument is that from conception to death nothing significant changes from one monet to the next (and you agre with that). Your argument boiles down to the dictionary, and the fact you have never had dinner with an unborn baby.
Republicans are generally a fair way into the Right/Authoritarian area of the political compass while Democrats will normally be a little bit South-West of them.
yea but is all depends on where you live, in MN iam am uber conservative man, but I sit just to the right of center on PC...
Slashdot Mirror
The dirty is the most important part (though they are both big government guys). It keeps any real dalog from happening. I nearly fell asleep at the presidential debate, the only thing keeping me up was the depression that one of these jokers is going to be running the nation.
I dont know when a republican candidate gets Ted Kennedy, maybe the only man more liberal than Kerry, to vote for an education spending measure it has to pass the mustard. I can not think of a single point in my life when teachers and school boards were not complaining about budget problems (During HS 1992-1995 my teachers went on strike *twice* because of 'poor resources'). I have long become jaded by teachers who cry poor and yet live in the suburbs. That and the fact hour by hour a starting teacher makes more than an Engineer makes me realize that no amount of money will stop schools from wasting it.
During the Clinton administration 450 Million dollars was basicall lost by the department of education (they failed three straight audits).
http://www.educationleaders.org/elc/issues/update/ update010407.html
I am not sure how things are any better now..
Dnot confuse conservatives and republicans, I think both the Republican push for Nader and the Democratic push to remove him from ballots are both disgusting examples of how the two parties are *identical*
As for wasteful spending at home, I think the bush 40%+ increase in education spending qualifies as does the boondogle of the perscription drug discount card.
Face it the two major party's are *Identical* the last time I remember any difference was Regan / Mondale.
I would not at all include polling, so long as you qualiy in enough state to win the election (270 EV's) you should be allowed in the debates. I also think that membership of *any* party should also not be a requirement.
Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist
Imagine going to a convention and not knowing in advance the whole ticket...
I am not saying most people join for that reason, I am saying that those who do are perhaps too stupid to be given explosives. We average a war about every 15 years, hell Im not even 30 and we have had Two wars (Iraq /Afg 2003, and Iraq 1991) A bush of military actions (Panama, Graneda, Libya, ...) in my lifetime.
$35,000 or whatever it is now, along with a marketable skill, is why people join, right or wrong.
And they get that (I dont think a private makes 35k), but there is an obligation they have to meet.
War should be painful. Not for those that volunteered for the armed forces because they wanted to learn a skill and maybe earn some scholarship money. It should be painful for everyone in the country that decided war - especially a preemptive war! - was necessary.
This is plain wrong, the military is not around to teach skills and provide scholership, the military is around to fight wars! You should not join the military for money, skills or anyother reason unless you are willing to fight a war. Its not a training program.
From Time
Most important issues: When asked what they consider are the most important issues, 25% of registered voters cited the economy as the top issue, followed by 24% who cited the war on terrorism as the top issue. The situation in Iraq was rated the top issue by 17% of registered voters, moral values issues such as gay marriage and abortion were the top issue for 16% of respondents, and health care was the most important issue for 11% of respondents.
so thats *at least* 93% of people who consider every thing from homsexual marrage to Iraq, to the economy more important than science spending. I dont think the parents post was out of the mainstream though you may disagree with it... Oh wait I see this was just a great chance to dismiss someone...
I think that they spent about 25 Million, given that they won ten and got a contract for over twenty in virgin I think they will more than make their money back..
What they should do is run the "x-cup" for five years (maybe raise the ceiling for qualification every year) and start another prize for orbital flight now (x-prize2). I dont know how this would affect the draw of one (x-cup) or the other (X-prize2).
Does this include the severly mentally retarded? Does this include the elderly? So if you need an oxygen tank to live your not really a person?
So let me get this straight, if medical science could save a baby at say 10 Weeks, that is not a human being but 9 weeks is not? Twenty-one and twenty-two week premature babies are now supported routinely (where in the fifites and early 60's 30 weeks was the bar), and have a good chance of survival. By twenty-four weeks after conception, premature babies have a 40% chance of reaching adulthood without any major complications. By twenty-eight weeks, the chance is 90%. By twenty-nine weeks, survival is almost definite.
So as medical science pushes forward and we can save bebies at 10, 9 weeks now are they human? what of the babies in the 80's at 14 weeks? they were not human?
Your opinion is not thoughtful, at least MH was intellictually honest and not puking up something which is purly propiganda, and dangerous propiganda at that.
A huge part of the problem here is the over taxing of the American family. I am somewhere around the 80th percentile of income earners in the US, my nicome would easily support my family if I did not have to pay so much of it in taxes. Even with that I make due and with my wife pregnant and thinking of leaving her job I know we will get by but it will be hard.
In 1948, a Democratic First Lady stepped forward in the United Nations to dare suggest that pregnancy and motherhood be granted equal economic protection to work- and it got written into the Declaration of Human Rights.
How do you grant a mother economic protection?
I want to see a pro-life candidate who is willing to make that a reality- to give up some corporate profits to reduce abortion. Until I see that, I will never again vote on pro-life issues alone.
So you want to see us pay people *not* to have abortions? And this will greatly increase the tax burden, thus making it more impossible for a family to be single earner.
Yes..
Someone buys something, works it makes it profitable (paying taxes the whole time), and when he dies the government decides to take another chunk..
You are absolutly right, this is why I am voting 3rd party. I would like to point out that many people are voting for bush because the see Kerry as so much worse, just as most voting for Kerry are voting against Bush..
Im sorry this is just a plain stupid statement on both a logical and factual basis.
There are 4,000 abortions a day in the US, I would like to see some statisitc that in 1960 there were that many abortions a day (1.5 Million a year)
On to the "theyll do it anyway", people steal cars and die in high speed chases so why keep car theft illegal... people will do it anyway.
Abortion is 100% about when human life begins, there can be debate on that issue, anything else is a smokescreen.
But you are 100% right about Bush being ineffectual when it comes to abortion. The republican and the democrats both abuse this and other issues for no other reasns than getting votes..
Slavery was more written into the constitution than abortion could ever been believed to be. So I guess all those silly abolitionist in the 1840's should have shut up and accepted it as for all times legal..
Do you remember anything?
No and I dont remember the doctor smacking my rear but Im pretty sure I was a preson when he did it
What's your reaction to all the naturally unconcieved babies due to miscariages?
The same as still born babies
Why do you value embryos and fetuses as much as a living human being able to make choices, who is also hopefully a productive member of society?
For the same reason I value babies and toddlers as much as I value already producing adults. When I was a baby I could not make choices, and was not a productive member of society (hell I know adults who are not productive) does that make them less worthy than joe cubicle?
N3WBI3 -- RedSox fan from NY
As ironic as gor losing his home state of Tenesee and Bill Clintons home state of Arkansas in 2000?
Normally I agere, I would have to see the specifics on what they want. I don think there is a place for pure science and depenging on the proposed budget worthwile..
And how can we determine the morality of abortion wihout addressing the staote of what you are aborting?
You are not a fetus.
Im not a baby, todler, of girl either therfore babies, todlers and girls are not people. Language does *not* determine what is or is not a person.
If you implant a person in my body, or a person enters my body by any means (sex or otherwise), and I do not want that person in my body, and they will not remove themself peacefully, I have a right to remove that person from my body by force.
So your right to convenience trumps another persons right to live?
But just to be clear, you would rather prevent 10 people from being born, just to save 1 unborn fetus? Why? And if the mother wanted to make that choice, why would you deny her that option?
No thats not my decision to make and this is by far one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard, what if the woman would have 10 kids *if* she has this one, and no kids if she does not. I dont deny her the right to have as many or as few kids as she wants, what I deny her is the right to kill a kid once the porcess has started.
You are intelligent enough to know the difference between "choice" and government imposed abortion.
Hey your the one who brought out the "wont somebody think of society".
No but it does force unborn children to die.
Unless you resort to a religious argument, the pro-choice position is more moral than the anti-abortion position.
Nothing you have said is anything other than word definitions. The *whole* issues is when does human life begin. My argument is that from conception to death nothing significant changes from one monet to the next (and you agre with that). Your argument boiles down to the dictionary, and the fact you have never had dinner with an unborn baby.
yea but is all depends on where you live, in MN iam am uber conservative man, but I sit just to the right of center on PC...