Good debate

[DrewKaree]

The graph isn't exactly scientific.

Dude, you're KILLING ME here!  I like the addition of "exactly"....that's just friggen classic!  

And to think, I was just about to ask you to post your source for that graph

Do you need me to draw another picture, but with crayons this time?

STOP!  Man, it's like you're stealing a comedy bit from me or something!

I'm gonna need duct tape to keep my sides from splitting!

edit:  BTW, Mosely-Braun and Dean are both more liberal than Kerry.

next time you'll have to include a legend with your graphs so we can decipher them

[TA Pilot]

Because he will begin additional talks directly with N. Korea and will speed up the plan to account for the old U.S.S.R.'s weapons.

Bilaleral talks w/ NK is a poor idea.  Its a far better idea to introduce pressure from NKs neighbors as well as from us- China and Russia are big players in NKs world, and their opinion cannot be ignored.

Talking with NK bilaterally undermines the power of multilateral pressure.

We've all heard him -say- he will "speed up" destruction of the Russian nukes.  No one know how, however, he will do this.


Bush wants to extend the portions of (the patriot act) set to expire and add more to it.

This doesnt change the fact that Kerry voted for it.

Your complaint was with the Patriot act; now it has shifted to something related, but different.  If you oppose Bush because of its creation, thgen you must also oppose the people that helped create it.


Because he will allow more countries to do more work rather than throw a flaming bag of... on their doorstep.  

Whats this supposed to mean?  When has Bush ever denied anyone an opportunity to help out in Iraq?


I've never heard or seen anything where Kerry plans to do "More of the same".  That's Bush talking.

Kerry has a plan for Iraq - 4 points.
All 4 of them are things Bush is already doing.
So, if Kerry plans to do what Bush is already doing, and Kerry describes what Bush is doing as "more of the same", then by necessity, Kerry plans on "more of the same" as well.


"Kerry believes human life begins at conception."

Yes, he does.  And so do I.  However, I think that women should have the right to choose.  So does he.

Interesting.
A mother has the right to choose to kill a human life before birth, but not after?   How does that make sense?


Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.

Why?  We all know that the rights of children are nowhere near as strong as the right of adults.  You're specifying a single, unusual instance where such a thing might be a bad idea - does that outweight all of the ways its s GOOD idea?


Go to his site and browse.  It doesn't bite.  Send an email to them if you need more info.

How about you just tell me how Kerry plans to pay for that $1,000,000,000,000 spending increase.

While you're at it, tell me how he plans to save SocSEc w/o reducing benefits, rasiing the retirement age, allowing any sort of privatization, or raising FICA deductions.


Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?


Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."
Does the end justify the means?  How many rights are you willing to give up?  What if Bush wanted to take away the 2nd amendment?

How is this relevant to my response?


"No oneis preventing anyone from researching stem cells."
Yes, they most certainly are!

No.  They arent.
Bush said there would be limited federal spending on certain stem cells.
Nowhere is there a ban on private research - or even research done by the states.


"How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights?"
TA, you know very well how many people don't like guns.  Bush is already trying to take away some of your rights with "Patriot" Act II.

I don't see an answer to my question.

 
"(Note:   Flash suppressors are not, and never were, banned)"
IMO, they should be.  No reason for them.

No reason for a car that can go above 70.
No reason for a TV.   No reason for a microwave.
No reason for a lot of things.  Does that mean they all get banned?


"Kerry is a self-described and self-admitted war criminal."
Homework TA:

That's nice... but it doesnt really address the issue.

Here's what Kerry said, 18 APR 1971, Meet the Press:
Note the bold.

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Please tell me how this direct answer to adirect question is not an open admission to having comitted war crimes, and thus, being a war criminal?

[saint]

I just can't resist...

Bush wants to extend the portions of (the patriot act) set to expire and add more to it.

This doesnt change the fact that Kerry voted for it.

Your complaint was with the Patriot act; now it has shifted to something related, but different.  If you oppose Bush because of its creation, thgen you must also oppose the people that helped create it.

Not so. It is possible to decide that the Patriot Act was a bad decision, regardless of who voted for it to begin with. If someone believes it was a bad decision, and you have two candidates - 1 who will attempt to strengthen the act, and another who will not attempt to strengthen it, then logic dictates you vote for the candidate who will take the course of action more in line with your beliefs. If a candidate was not in line with your way of thinking previously, but now is while the other candidate remains contrary to your position, then it is illogical to follow the line that "you must also oppose the people that helped create it."

-----------------

Because he will allow more countries to do more work rather than throw a flaming bag of... on their doorstep.  

Whats this supposed to mean?  When has Bush ever denied anyone an opportunity to help out in Iraq?

and (slightly out of order but from your same post) . . .

Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?

Aren't these two essentially contradictory statements of yours? On the first hand you ask when Bush has ever denied anyone the opportunity to help out in Iraq (implying that he has not denied anyone that opportunity), then you ask why a country should be allowed to profit from the war which implies that Bush is within his rights to deny someone the opportunity to help out in Iraq (apparently as justification for having done just that). Perhaps I misunderstand your perspective here. You certainly could squeak by on this one with semantics, but the spirit of what you said certainly seems contradictory here.

---------------

"Kerry believes human life begins at conception."

Yes, he does.  And so do I.  However, I think that women should have the right to choose.  So does he.

Interesting.
A mother has the right to choose to kill a human life before birth, but not after?   How does that make sense?

This sure is a tough moral decision, but it is a consistent belief set. The thinking goes something like this:
a. I believe abortion is murder.
b. I believe that belief is my own personal set of moral values (shared by some, not by others).
c. I believe it is not my place to impose my own moral values upon another. Persuade, counsel, inform... sure. To impose? No.
d. Therefore, though I believe abortion is murder, I do not believe my country should outlaw abortion, as it is not my decision to make for another person.

There's lots of points of view to discuss about this, and I'll segue briefly about them, but they are not the main point here. The main point here is that it is entirely a consistent set of beliefs and moral code to believe that abortion is murder while also believing that it is not something anyone should dictate to another.

RE: Abortion. Did you know that the Jewish faith believes a fetus is not a person until it is born (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm)?  It is potential for life until then. Don't forget that Christ was a Jew who stated (I am not a biblical scholar, take my quote with a grain of salt) "think not that I've come to destroy the law and the prophets - I've come not to destroy them but to fulfill them." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/matthew.html). Does that mean traditional Christian views on abortion are misguided? I don't know, that's something for more spiritually minded scholars than I to debate.

Another perspective is that if I believe that abortion is murder, then I should do everything I can to prevent abortions, including voting to outlaw them. Certainly a valid perspective, if one I do not agree with. To those who believe that though, one must ask: If you believe in outlawing abortion because it is murder, then why are you not (assuming you're not which is a fairly safe assumption based on public trends but obviously not a guarantee because I don't know you as an individual) demanding of our government, with the same fervor that you are demanding the outlawing of abortion, that our government step in immediately to stop genocide and atrocities in the many places around the country in which it is taking place? I often hear that America needs to be responsible for taking care of it's own issues and cannot be the world police. How can stand before God and declare that one child is worth saving because that child lives in your country, while a child in another country wasn't worth your efforts? What kind of moral belief system is that?

I personally admit to being very torn over abortion. I do believe abortion is murder. I believe a fetus becomes a life sometime around when the brain and nervous system begin to operate. I don't know when that is, I don't know when the soul enters the body. If I can't come to grips with where I stand, who the hell am I to dictate to another?

Abortion is an issue where I can truly get a feel for what each side believes, and really wasn't the point of this response. The point of this response, and the above background material, is to state (restate?) this: The fact that John Kerry believes life begins at conception, and the fact that he is pro-choice, are not mutually exclusive. They are the same or very similar to the beliefs that I hold today. That would be a valid reason for me to consider voting for John Kerry versus George Bush. It does not have to be a vote against George Bush's point of view, it can be a vote for John Kerry's point of view.

-----------------

Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.

Why?  We all know that the rights of children are nowhere near as strong as the right of adults.  You're specifying a single, unusual instance where such a thing might be a bad idea - does that outweight all of the ways its s GOOD idea?

This has to be one of the most dishonest and disingenuous forms of campaigning and opponent smearing that is ever used (I mean in general, not necessarily this instance specifically). A candidate will vote against a particular bill because of a single or small group of line items or clauses in a bill. The candidate can be an outspoken proponent of the rest of the bill, but strongly opposed to the final results of the bill after the various committees and amendments are finished with it. Then the candidate's opponents use that vote to state that the candidate is either lying about their belief on an issue or to state that they are against something that they are in fact for. This is one of the lowest form of politicking around (is that a word?) and I repeat what I've said before, people should be ashamed of themselves for engaging in it. That's not a slam at you, that's a slam at campaigns who use such tactics.

A bill that is widely supported in general, but voted down because of specific phrasing or clauses, stands a good chance of being reintroduced in a slightly different form. The overall intent is passed while the specific objections are defeated. This is the way our legislative system works. I personally think presidents should have line item veto power, and that amendments should not be possible if they don't pertain to the bill at hand (adding for instance funding for a weapons program as a rider to a social welfare bill, to give a fictitious but plausible example). That's another issue however (who decides what is and isn't pertinent?.  

In this specific case, I agree whole heartedly that this was a flawed bill based on what has been presented here. There should be a clause in the bill that allows for the court to step in in place of the notification of the parents. This is something for which we have plenty of precedence. The legal system frequently takes parental rights away and assigns them to the court or to a court appointed guardian. I'm all for adult supervision of some kind over a child facing the decision to abort or not to abort. However, it should be possible for the child to seek out, through the help of a doctor or social worker or other legislated process, assistance from the court in granting permission for an abortion that does not require parental consent or notification. I would hope that it would rarely be used, and that the courts would have the wisdom to distinguish between a child who is ashamed or illogically afraid of telling a parent (in which case they would require parental notification) and the case in which a child is genuinely in a position where going to the parent is a bad idea (rape/incest, absentee parent, etc...). You indicate that this is a single, unusual instance... God I hope that's so, but I fear it's not nearly as unusual as you believe.

It wouldn't have been difficult to meet the spirit of the bill (parental oversight and rights) while still protecting the rights of the child. Children do have rights, and when a parent is abusing their own rights, that child should have the right to have society step in and help, superseding the rights of the abusive parent.

The fact that John Kerry voted against this bill does not necessarily make him a bad person or unwise leader. Sometimes voting for something that's "close enough" is not good enough, when you intend to hold out for a better version of the bill. Now, I don't know whether he did or didn't have in mind a better version of this bill. Knowing what I know of John Kerry I suspect he did, but I don't know the specifics of this particular bill and vote. I can however state that George Bush using this vote as a weapon against John Kerry, without describing the context of the vote, is mudslinging politics as usual. NOTE: I believe the Kerry campaign is capable of the same tactics and probably has used them -- two wrongs don't make a right, shame on them both and anyone who uses this kind of political double-speak and lying by omission.

---------------------

Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."

Maybe, maybe not. Backing out of the Kyoto treaty had nothing to do with national security though. We went from mandating a 33% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to offering financial incentives to US companies to reach a goal of 4.5% reduction instead (CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/globalwarming/. Fox News with much different numbers but essentially same story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26665,00.html). Bush believes the goal was too hard (so why even try? I really don't understand that) and damaging to the US economy. I understand the concern about the damage to the US economy, but don't believe that fear was sufficient to back out of the treaty that 37 other industrialized nations are committing to. I believe in a strong defense including our right to pre-emptive action when warranted (without voting one way or another on whether or not it was time for pre-emptive action in Iraq), but this is a global economy and a global ecosystem. America is one of, if not the, biggest forces in the world politically, militarily, economically, environmentally, etc... With that kind of influence comes an enormous responsibility to be responsible stewards of that kind of power. We damned well better learn to become responsible members of the world, and frankly moves like backing out of the Kyoto treaty and restarting nuclear weapons development is the exact opposite of responsibility. The consequences of not being good global citizens can and probably will be further declining of the environment (possibly to life-threatening levels), continuing decline of support for America globally, economic sanctions on America (the EU has already made overtures in that regard), and possibly even military and further terror actions against the U.S.  If someone is causing you harm or demonstrating the potential and likelihood to cause you harm, and cannot be reasoned with to a level that you find acceptable, then forcing them to modify their behavior is the next logical step through one of the means just listed. That's essentially the reasoning we used for invading Iraq. It scares me that more people, particularly political leaders, don't seem to understand or believe this.

---------------------

--- saint

[Crazy Cooter]

On Nukes
"Its a far better idea to introduce pressure from NKs neighbors as well as from us-"  That's Kerry's thought too.
I don't have Kerry's step-by-step plan for securing those materials.  What I do have though is a couple interesting points:
1- Less material was secured in the 2 years after 9/11 than the 2 years before.
2- The last summit between Russia & the US (Sept. 2003) didn't even address this issue.
So if Kerry simply brings it up at the next summit, how can it not be sped up?  Now consider he sees it an issue.  It will be brought up and something will be worked out.  If Bush really was so concerned, wouldn't he have brought it up?

On "Patriot" Act
"thgen you must also oppose the people that helped create it."
Haha, I don't agree with everyone, all the time, on every issue.  Never have, never will.  That doesn't mean I have to "oppose" them.  Until I run for office, there will never be a candidate that values everything the way I do.
Parts of the "Patriot" Act had expiration dates.  Bush will extend those dates and add more to it.  The draft that is currently available makes it even worse.  Kerry wants to plug the holes where the "Patriot" Act I is being abused while changing some things to preserve our rights.  Not invade them like Bush wants to.

On stem cells:
Prevent def: To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike.
To keep (someone) from doing something; impede: prevented us from winning.
To present an obstacle:
Archaic. To anticipate or counter in advance.
Archaic. To come before; precede.
Does banning the use of federal funds impede the embryonic stem cell research?  Yes.  Does it present an obstacle?  Yes.  So is Bush preventing the research?  Yes.

"Whats this supposed to mean?  When has Bush ever denied anyone an opportunity to help out in Iraq?"
What?  Where are you?  Where have you been?  Let me catch you up to speed.  To be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq as a prime contractor you must say "Bush is great, he is right" 3 times in the UN.  Otherwise get lost.  He'll still take the money if you give it, but you have to do the UN chant or else you're still out.  Hence the flaming bag.  Just ask the Canadians if you don't believe me.  So I would say Bush is almost "preventing" (see definition above) others from helping.

"Kerry has a plan for Iraq - 4 points.
All 4 of them are things Bush is already doing."
Post the link, I'll show you what's up.

"A mother has the right to choose to kill a human life before birth, but not after?  How does that make sense?"
It makes sense because it's not my decision.  I don't think people should buy Saturns, I don't think people should do drugs, I don't think someones daughter should have to prove to me she was raped to have an abortion or be forced to give birth to her Grandpa's kid or some ridiculous thing.  If she got pregnant because she made a "mistake" and chooses to abort, that's a decision she lives with, not me.  But anyhow, this is my justification, not either candidates so we'll save it for another thread, another time.

Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.
"Why?  We all know that the rights of children are nowhere near as strong as the right of adults.  You're specifying a single, unusual instance where such a thing might be a bad idea - does that outweight all of the ways its s GOOD idea?"
Hell yes it does.  I don't know how "singular" something like this is, and it shouldn't matter.  Kerry said if the law had put this exception in it he would have voted for it.  We should be asking why Bush didn't want it included.

"How about you just tell me..."
How about you just go and get it straight from the source?  Really, his site won't bite you.

"And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?"
And so I say again Canada wasn't a bystander, they did participate.  And what is with this "Profit talk" I keep hearing.  Was this a business venture?

I straightened up the loose text from my last post:
Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."
Does the end justify the means?  Meaning: Bush is breaking the Geneva Convention.  That makes Bush a war criminal.  Inargueable fact.  And we all know how you feel about war criminals.

"How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights?"
TA, you know very well how many people don't like guns.  Bush is already trying to take away some of your rights with "Patriot" Act II.  How many rights are you willing to give up?  What if Bush wanted to take away the 2nd amendment?  Kerry wants to restore those rights that the "Patriot" Act has made... well... "confusing" to some government types.  Long story short:  Kerry wants you to keep your rights, Bush does not.  I want someone in office that will let us keep the rights our soldiers are fighting to give others.

Back to the topic of war criminals.
You stopped your bolding too soon regarding Kerry's "admission".  here's what you missed:  "...and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."  Guess what?  Looks like things haven't changed one bit now that Bush is in charge.  Kerry said he was following orders that violated the Geneva Convention, Bush is giving them.

Ouch huh?

[DrewKaree]

saint, ...darnit, I was gonna say something, but now I can't remember....friggen senior moments  

Something about Cuba, I think.....and a Hertz truck  


Clear points, those.

[GGKoul]

Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

And so I ask again:
Why should a country that did not participate in the war bve allowed to profit from it?

Unofficially, Canadian Special Forces were on the ground when US attacked and are stilll there.  They assist in policing the various areas and maintain a position in Afganistan.  

The only people that are going to profit from the war in Iraq is GW's friends and the companies they represent.  

[DrewKaree]

This thread is moving all over the place!

What I'm responding to:

On stem cells:
Prevent def: To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike.
To keep (someone) from doing something; impede: prevented us from winning.
To present an obstacle:
Archaic. To anticipate or counter in advance.
Archaic. To come before; precede.
Does banning the use of federal funds impede the embryonic stem cell research?  Yes.  Does it present an obstacle?  Yes.  So is Bush preventing the research?  Yes.

Oh for the love of Pete....BUSH IS NOT PREVENTING THE RESEARCH!  -->CLICK HERE<-- to see the NIH's official resource page to see for yourself.

An excerpt to help in case you can't be bothered to check the link:  
     "On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines"  

Can you, for the love of Rudy, PLEASE explain how the fact that Bush allows Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell ines means that "So is Bush preventing the research?  Yes."  

Does banning the use of federal funds impede the embryonic stem cell research?

THIS STATEMENT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!  I know it seems to be an argument over a little word, but JUST BECAUSE he limited using Federal funds to EXISTING embryonic stem cells DOES NOT mean he has banned embryonic stem cell research

EXISTING lines.....what is it that Bush is allowing federal funds to be used on?  embryonic stem cells.  If they are existing lines, THEY EXIST, they ARE!  What ARE they?  Embryonic stem cells.

I could care less anymore who does or does not receive credit for supporting or funding or saying "mebbe we should give it a whack" or WHATEVER.  You simply MUST deal with the fact that he HAS allowed Federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research.

Do we SERIOUSLY need a dictionary lesson on what the word "BAN" means ?!?  Bush has NOT banned it, and, as a matter of public record, FACT, has indeed FUNDED it.  

[Mameotron]

Saint, YOU DA MAN!!!!

Finally, someone had the nerve to come right out and say, this is what I believe is morally right, and here's why.  I'll respond later, but I just had to salute you first!!

[DrewKaree]

Ok, here....a little "research" on my part from the NIH's website.  

1)  On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines

2)  Why do scientists want to use stem cell lines?
Once a stem cell line is established from a cell in the body, it is essentially immortal, no matter how it was derived. That is, the researcher using the line will not have to go through the rigorous procedure necessary to isolate stem cells again. Once established, a cell line can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and cells may be frozen for storage or distribution to other researchers.

3)  Federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on Federal funding for hESC research

4)  As of September 1, 2003, there are 12 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers can purchase.

5)  As of September 1, 2003, there are 12 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers may purchase. This number is up from only one or two lines in Spring 2002. The increased availability of the lines is a direct consequence of NIH

[Mameotron]

This sure is a tough moral decision, but it is a consistent belief set. The thinking goes something like this:
a. I believe abortion is murder.
b. I believe that belief is my own personal set of moral values (shared by some, not by others).
c. I believe it is not my place to impose my own moral values upon another. Persuade, counsel, inform... sure. To impose? No.
d. Therefore, though I believe abortion is murder, I do not believe my country should outlaw abortion, as it is not my decision to make for another person.

I can't accept that argument.  Basically, you are saying that while you have personal moral beliefs concerning murder, you don't think murder should be outlawed.  So you don't think it's right to arrest people for murder?  Forget about abortion, apply that argument to plain old manslaughter.  How can you say it is right to arrest people for one type of murder (manslaughter) but not for another (abortion)?  I'm assuming that you do believe murder is a crime that should be punished.

The main point here is that it is entirely a consistent set of beliefs and moral code to believe that abortion is murder while also believing that it is not something anyone should dictate to another.

That is your position, and I respect that.  I cannot tell you that it is wrong, because I believe that morality is a question we each have to answer for ourselves.  However, it is my moral position that to accept abortion as murder DOES exclude allowing it on any basis whatsoever.

RE: Abortion. Did you know that the Jewish faith believes a fetus is not a person until it is born (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm)?  It is potential for life until then. Don't forget that Christ was a Jew who stated (I am not a biblical scholar, take my quote with a grain of salt) "think not that I've come to destroy the law and the prophets - I've come not to destroy them but to fulfill them." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/matthew.html). Does that mean traditional Christian views on abortion are misguided? I don't know, that's something for more spiritually minded scholars than I to debate.

Yes, Jesus was Jewish, and I'm glad you realize that.  It is a fact that most people seem to miss.  However, you must also realize that the Jewish Rabbis (back then, and still now) do not accept that Jesus was who he claimed to be.  They do not accept the validity of the New Testament.
The Jewish faith still believes in living by the rules set up in the old testament (sort of-  they have no central temple, and do not offer animal sacrifices.  This is absolutely the core of their relationship with God under the old testament).  The ten commandments came from the old testament, but so does the old adage, an eye for an eye...  Jesus endorsed the ten commandments, but never the old and outdated eye for an eye type of morality.  Jesus also said that the greatest commandment (aside from having no other God) was to love your neighbor (fellow man).  Through his actions and his teachings it is clear that murder is not condoned.  And, yes, most anti-abortionists point to the scripture reference that says "I knew you even while you were in the womb", which contradicts the old Jewish belief that life starts at birth.
So, if there seems to be a contradiction between the old testament and the new testament, remember that the reason Jesus came to earth in the first place is because God felt sorry for all the people and wanted to establish a new way of doing things.  You can use the terms "old deal" and "new deal", or "old legal contract" and "new legal contract" in place of the terms "old testament" and "new testament".  Clearly the example is to follow what Jesus said, since he was the broker of the "new deal" between God and humanity.

Another perspective is that if I believe that abortion is murder, then I should do everything I can to prevent abortions, including voting to outlaw them. Certainly a valid perspective, if one I do not agree with. To those who believe that though, one must ask: If you believe in outlawing abortion because it is murder, then why are you not (assuming you're not which is a fairly safe assumption based on public trends but obviously not a guarantee because I don't know you as an individual) demanding of our government, with the same fervor that you are demanding the outlawing of abortion, that our government step in immediately to stop genocide and atrocities in the many places around the country in which it is taking place? I often hear that America needs to be responsible for taking care of it's own issues and cannot be the world police. How can stand before God and declare that one child is worth saving because that child lives in your country, while a child in another country wasn't worth your efforts? What kind of moral belief system is that?

I know of no one who can take his moral stance to such an extreme as you suggest.  I don't care what your particular stance is, it is impossible to try and make the entire world comply.  But I can do all that is in my power to do.  By voting for my senators, house members, and president, I can put people in place who are aligned with my moral stance and are capable of bringing sanctions and pressures to those countries who are not.

I personally admit to being very torn over abortion. I do believe abortion is murder. I believe a fetus becomes a life sometime around when the brain and nervous system begin to operate. I don't know when that is, I don't know when the soul enters the body. If I can't come to grips with where I stand, who the hell am I to dictate to another?

Abortion is an issue where I can truly get a feel for what each side believes, and really wasn't the point of this response. The point of this response, and the above background material, is to state (restate?) this: The fact that John Kerry believes life begins at conception, and the fact that he is pro-choice, are not mutually exclusive. They are the same or very similar to the beliefs that I hold today. That would be a valid reason for me to consider voting for John Kerry versus George Bush. It does not have to be a vote against George Bush's point of view, it can be a vote for John Kerry's point of view.

All your points are well stated and valid.  I can not say you are wrong, just that what you believe is different from what I believe.  I applaud you for for saying what you feel, and having the nerve to say that you don't have all the answers.

[TA Pilot]

Not so. It is possible to decide that the Patriot Act was a bad decision, regardless of who voted for it to begin with.

Thats true.
But if you oppose someone because of their support for the act, then this opposition must logically follow to all that support the act.  Kerry voted for the act.

Bush said "The PA is a good idea".  Kerry said "Yes!"  You cannot criticize one without the criticising the other.

Strengthening the act is another step, and thus, a seperate issue.


 
Aren't these two essentially contradictory statements of yours?

No.
"Helping out" in Iraq in terms of sending troops, funds, etc.  Bush has never denied anyone the opportunity to do this, nor would he.
This is different that awarding contracts for reconstruction.

Canada (et al) did not "help out" in the war; there isnt any reason that Canada should profit from the war.



The main point here is that it is entirely a consistent set of beliefs and moral code to believe that abortion is murder while also believing that it is not something anyone should dictate to another.

This can only be true if you beleive that you do not have a right to dictate to someone that they cannot commit murder.  Clearly, this isnt the case in our society, and I do not think you'll argue otherwise.  So, if you agree that  you CAN dictate to someone that they cannot commit murder, and you believe that abortion IS murder, then it muct follow that you CAN dictate to someone that they cannot have an abortion.



If you believe in outlawing abortion because it is murder, then why are you not  demanding of our government, with the same fervor that you are demanding the outlawing of abortion, that our government step in immediately to stop genocide and atrocities in the many places around the country in which it is taking place?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Why am I not demanding that the government effectively enforces our laws?  I -do- expect the government to do this.

Or do you mean around the world?

Thats easy.   The government of the United States (and the 50 states that its made of) exist to protect the rights of the people of the United States.  It does not exist to (among other things) exist to protect the rights of anyone else - thats what their governments are for.  I do not believe in the intervention in the affairs of another country unless it involves some issue of national security (and then I expect that intervention to be appropriately aggressive).

 

I personally admit to being very torn over abortion. I do believe abortion is murder... If I can't come to grips with where I stand, who the hell am I to dictate to another?

You dont have a problem with dictating to someone that they cannot commit a murder of a newborn.  Why do you have a problem with dictating to someone that they cannot commit a murder of a preborn?



A candidate will vote against a particular bill because of a single or small group of line items or clauses in a bill.

All true.

But the issue here is the same as arguing that you should not have a mandatory seatbelt law because there's people who will be trapped underwater by a seatbelt they cant get off.

You weigh the good and bad created by a law.  Does the bad outweigh the good?  If not, then does the bad create an argument sufficient to upend the law?



Maybe, maybe not. Backing out of the Kyoto treaty had nothing to do with national security though.

This is a little disingenuous.
The Senate never ratified Kyoto -- IIRC, it was 97 votes against.  So...we were never a part of it.  You cant "back out" of a treaty you were never party to.

Sure, you could argue that we could still abide by the terms - but clearly the American People, as expressed through the senate vote, did not want to do that.

You can't really blame Bush for that.



Sorry to be so short - its hard to do all this typin when the boss is around.

[TA Pilot]

"Its a far better idea to introduce pressure from NKs neighbors as well as from us-"  That's Kerry's thought too.

Kerry is the one criticising Bush for -not- wanting to go to bilateral talks.  WHY talk bilaterally if it only undermines the multilateral effort?


I don't have Kerry's step-by-step plan for securing those materials.

Ah.
Seems to me you've convinced yourself that Kerry will do something, with no real idea how he will do it.


Haha, I don't agree with everyone, all the time, on every issue.  Never have, never will.  That doesn't mean I have to "oppose" them.  Until I run for office, there will never be a candidate that values everything the way I do.

OK....   but how can you oppose Bush because of the creation of the Patriot Act and then not also oppose Kerry because of the same?  Kerry supported it and voted for it, and therefore had a role in creating it.


Parts of the "Patriot" Act had expiration dates.  Bush will extend those dates and add more to it.  

As said before, this is a seperate issue than the creation of the PA.   Of course, one has to wonder:
if you supported the PA act to begin with, why dont you support continuing it?


Does banning the use of federal funds impede the embryonic stem cell research?  Yes.  Does it present an obstacle?  Yes.  So is Bush preventing the research?  Yes.

This is lame.  Your application of the defintion of "prevent" to the issue is intellectually disonest.  

First, Bush is the FIRST President to spend federal money on stem cell research.  By your use of the defintion, you;d thnk that no research ever took place before August 2001.  

Second, there is NOTHING the Fed gvmnt has done to keep --anyone--  from spending their OWN money on research.

IF the fed gvmt had issued a general ban on research, you'd have a leg to stand on.  The ONLY thing the Fed Gvmt has done it to limit the spending of federal money to certain kinds of stem cells.

You're arguing that because I didnt give you lunch money, I've prevented you from eating lunch.


"Whats this supposed to mean?  When has Bush ever denied anyone an opportunity to help out in Iraq?"

What?  Where are you?  Where have you been?  Let me catch you up to speed.  To be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq as a prime contractor....

Oh.   You mean "participate in reconstruction, and thus make money off the war".  This isnt "helping out", this is "war profiteering".

"Helping out" is to send troops, money, supplies, equipment, etc.  Bush hasnt told anyone theyt cannot "help out".


All 4 of them are things Bush is already doing."
Post the link, I'll show you what's up.

-Internationalize, because others must share the burden;
-Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;
-Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and
-Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

These are 4 things Bush is already doing.
Thus:  "More of the same."

Oh, Kerry says "he'll do a better job" - but then do you expect him to say anything different?  The question is - why would you beleive that he'll do better at doing the same thing Bush is doing?


"A mother has the right to choose to kill a human life before birth, but not after?  How does that make sense?"
It makes sense because it's not my decision.

This doesnt really address the issue - lots of things arent your decision, and yet you take positions on them.

If you think life begins and conception, and that abortion is murder, then there isnt any argument that you cant treat is as such.


"Why?  We all know that the rights of children are nowhere near as strong as the right of adults.  You're specifying a single, unusual instance where such a thing might be a bad idea - does that outweight all of the ways its s GOOD idea?"
Hell yes it does.  I don't know how "singular" something like this is, and it shouldn't matter.

Why not?
Every law creates some "bad" effect for someone.  Does that make every law a bad idea?  Does it make it invalid?


Kerry said if the law had put this exception in it he would have voted for it.  We should be asking why Bush didn't want it included.

If thats why Kerry voted against it, we shoud lbe asking why his exception is valid enough to vote against the bill.


"How about you just tell me..."
How about you just go and get it straight from the source?  Really, his site won't bite you.

Look, if you cant supprt your assertion, just say so.  I dont have to research your claims, do you.


Does the end justify the means?  Meaning: Bush is breaking the Geneva Convention.  That makes Bush a war criminal.  Inargueable fact.  And we all know how you feel about war criminals.

If thats an argument against Bush, then why isnt it an argument against Kerry?  

Recall that Kerry described himself as a war criminal; YOU describe Bush as a war criminal.  The "inarguable fact" you claim isnt inarguable - its your opinion.   But it IS inarguable that Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal.


TA, you know very well how many people don't like guns.  Bush is already trying to take away some of your rights with "Patriot" Act II....  

I still dont see anything here that shows Bush more of a threat to gun rights that Kerry.

Kerry has proposed, supported, and voted for all kinds of federal gun control.  Bush has not.  How does your argument hold water?

Oh wait...  it doesnt.


Back to the topic of war criminals.
You stopped your bolding too soon regarding Kerry's "admission".  here's what you missed

I didnt miss anything.  This is a seperate issue and does nothing to dretract from Kerry's admission of guilt.  In fact, it increases his guilt, as  Kerry, in giving orders to commit war crimes, is just as guilty as his superoirs for doing the same.

AND... that "following orders" isnt a defense - orders to commit war crimes are illegal; illegal orders are illegal to follow (and give).

Ouch huh?  

[Crazy Cooter]

Heheh, TA you can be the most frustrating SOB ever.  We could never ride in the same car together.

Saint, where did you learn to type so fast?  Jeez...  it took me at least 15 minutes (looking at post times) longer to type my post than it took you.

securing materials:
Bush didn't even bring the topic up last time he talked with Russia.  If he's so concerned, why did he ignore the topic?  You can't do less than nothing.  Just knowing Kerry will bring it up makes his plan better.

N. Korea talks
Can you give examples where talking directly with a Nation undermined the group effort talks?  This situation is getting worse each day, their weapon plants are working full-time at this moment.  Shouldn't we try everything we can that might help?

"Patriot" Act
Kerry even wants to keep 95% of PA-1.  But he wants to address the parts of it are being abused and infringing peoples basic liberties.  Bush wants to keep ALL of PA-1 and expand it.  Read the draft of PA-2 TA.  PA-2 infringes on even more of our rights.

Canada
""Helping out" is to send troops, money, supplies, equipment, etc.  Bush hasnt told anyone theyt cannot "help out"."
He'll gladly take their money.  But if you do "help out" to the tune of $190 million to Iraq and standing alongside of us in Afganistan, you still can't "help out" rebuilding Iraq.  Why?  Because they won't stand in the UN and proclaim "Bush is great".  That is a flaming bag on the doorstep of the Canadians.

The 4 Goals for Iraq.
You were almost there... you need to stay a little longer and actually read the page you linked to: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html
While the goals are the same for both candidates, the methods of getting there are not.  Kerry's methods are on that page and are different than the methods of the Bush administration.

"If you think life begins and conception, and that abortion is murder, then there isnt any argument that you cant treat is as such."
And yet we rationalize it during a war.  We justify the loss of civilians that were standing too close to where the fighting took place.  We insist certain criminals are put to death.  Is it all murder?  By definition, yes, it is.  Yet we have different terms for each: Casualties, Friendly Fire, Acceptable Losses, Capital Punishment, Abortion.  To take the arguement that we must outlaw all abortions, must we not also outlaw all war efforts in civilian areas?  Or outlaw war outright?  We would also have to eliminate death row... Unless you come to the conclusion that there are situations where these acts are somehow justifiable.  That's where I sit, however I'm not about to force my ideas on justification down everyones throat.  (FWIW, I've never said "abortion is murder".)

War Criminals
TA, go to your local VFW and ask those that were there what happened.  Then tell them "that "following orders" isnt a defense" (your words, not mine).  I'm "lucky" enough to not have to go very far.  I can ask my Uncle (although not 3 of his brothers), I could ask my Dads friends from High School except none of them came back (tunnel rats, my Dad's #'s were pushed back because my Mom was pregnant).  It's easy to find info about what happened there.  Kerry is right.  Things happened that shouldn't have.  He "admitted" to following orders.
Bush... now that's a different story.  He is currently giving orders that violate Geneva Conventions.  This is not an opinion, this is a fact.  He is a current & continuing war criminal.  We can't change the past, we can change the future.
If you think that it isn't a big deal, realize this:  Bush will not produce some of the prisoners for ANYONE, including to help convict terrorists.  Check it out: "An appeals court last month threw out el Motassadeq

[Crazy Cooter]

BTW, does Bush really want to put Social Security into the stock market?  I saw something on CNN (I think it was there) that said he did...

[Dartful Dodger]

BTW, does Bush really want to put Social Security into the stock market?  I saw something on CNN (I think it was there) that said he did...

No matter who's in the white house, social security will be useless to you when you retire.  So start getting use to the wonderful flavors of Alpo.

[Crazy Cooter]

Heheh, I know.  The first great pyramid scheme...

It doesn't make much sense to put it in the stock market though.  First rule of thumb I was taught was "don't buy stocks with money you can't afford to lose".  But I don't know if it's true or not, haven't checked into it yet.

[TA Pilot]

Bush didn't even bring the topic up last time he talked with Russia.  If he's so concerned, why did he ignore the topic?  You can't do less than nothing.  Just knowing Kerry will bring it up makes his plan better.

As I said:   You dont have any idea what he'll do - him just saying he'll do something is enough for you.  Thanks for confirming it.



Can you give examples where talking directly with a Nation undermined the group effort talks?  This situation is getting worse each day, their weapon plants are working full-time at this moment.  Shouldn't we try everything we can that might help?

How will our mulktilateral partners ever believe we're duscussing terms in good faith when we have private talks behind their back?  China alrady doesnt really trust us and the Russians really arent that removed from their Soviet predecessors.  We have -nothing- to gain from bilateral talks and everything to lose.



Kerry even wants to keep 95% of PA-1.  But he wants to address the parts of it are being abused and infringing peoples basic liberties.  Bush wants to keep ALL of PA-1 and expand it.  Read the draft of PA-2 TA.  PA-2 infringes on even more of our rights.

OK...  but you deribe Bush for the Patriot act, period -- an act that Kerry voted for and, as you say, agrees with 19 parts in 20.  If you dont like Bush because of the PA, then you can't like Kerry.  Kerry helped create it...

   

He'll gladly take their money.

HE isnt taking anyone's money.   Neither is the US.

But if you do "help out" to the tune of $190 million to Iraq and standing alongside of us in Afganistan, you still can't "help out" rebuilding Iraq.

Because, as we have been told, Iraq has nothing to do with Afghanistan or the war on terror.

You didnt help in the war, you dont get to profit from the war.  Thats a perfectly legitimate position - and its not exactly new.



While the goals are the same for both candidates, the methods of getting there are not.  Kerry's methods are on that page and are different than the methods of the Bush administration.

I think you better read those "methods" again.  They are, in all but a few details, whats going on already.   Oh, yeah, Kerry says "we have the ability to train Iraqis outside Iraq" - wooohoooo!   Why is that significant?

More of the same.  His words.



And yet we rationalize it during a war.

No... because killing in the course of war isnt murder.  There is a distinct moral and legal difference.  Murder is a crime; killing in the course of war is not.

Is it all murder?  By definition, yes, it is.

I suggest you look up the definition of "murder" and see how it differs from "homocide".   All killing is homocide, not all killing is murder.

To take the arguement that we must outlaw all abortions, must we not also outlaw all war efforts in civilian areas?  Or outlaw war outright?  We would also have to eliminate death row...

No.... because, again, these things are not murder.  Murder has a completely different moral and legal connotation.



TA, go to your local VFW and ask those that were there what happened.  Then tell them "that "following orders" isnt a defense"

It didnt work for the Germans - and in fact, it hasnt worked for anyone.

Kerry is right.  Things happened that shouldn't have.  He "admitted" to following orders.

And to giving orders and to comitting the acts himself.
HE described them as "war crimes", HE admitted to comitting the acts and to giving the orders to comitt those acts.  There isnt any way you can argue that Kerry -isnt- a war criminal by his very own admission.

And to argue that Bush is while Kerry isnt?  Completely inane.



TA, I think you meant to say effective, not aggressive.  Unless you think we should lead by intimidation...

There's more to "agressive" than "violent action".  Aggressive diplomacy, aggressive economic pressure, aggressibe military action.  All are facets of an "aggressive" defense of the US.



What if lunch was so expensive that you funding my lunch was virtually the only way to get it?

But thats not the case here.
In fact, its can't be the case here, because if it were, no research would have been done beofre August 2001.  ALL of the research up to that point was privately funded; none of the funding came from the Fed Gvmnt.  If you were right and the only way it could be done was through funding from the Fed gvmnt, then there would have been no prior research; that there was prior research necessitates that you dont need funding from the Fed gvmnt to do research.

I think we should do everything possible to encourage the effort.

Then start talking to the rich liberals who agree with you.

Stem cells weren't "introduced" to the world until November 1998.

Interesting.  Congress banned federal funding on their research in 1993.

 Simply put, an institution could purchase whatever stem cell they wanted to start their research.

And... they still can.

What Bush decided (follow Drews link) is that federal funds could only be used for existing stem cell lines....

With no restrictions on state or private funding.

This prevents educational facilities from doing work outside the 12 stem cell lines...

With federal, not state or private funds.

He also took away the ability for educational facilities to be on the leading edge and moved things into the private sector.

He did not.... but even if he had, thats exactly where it needs to be.

The only way you can argue that he prevented research is to shoe that the only source of revenue or materal is from the fed Gvmnt.  Else you're blaming your going hungry on me not giving you lunch money.

[TA Pilot]

BTW, does Bush really want to put Social Security into the stock market?  I saw something on CNN (I think it was there) that said he did...

Bush wants to give people the option to take some of theor SocSec money and invest it however they might choose.

Since its their money, they shuold have that right.

[Mameotron]

War Criminals
TA, go to your local VFW and ask those that were there what happened.  Then tell them "that "following orders" isnt a defense" (your words, not mine).  I'm "lucky" enough to not have to go very far.  I can ask my Uncle (although not 3 of his brothers), I could ask my Dads friends from High School except none of them came back (tunnel rats, my Dad's #'s were pushed back because my Mom was pregnant).  It's easy to find info about what happened there.  Kerry is right.  Things happened that shouldn't have.  He "admitted" to following orders.

Apparently you've never heard of Lt. Calley, or the massacre at My Lai.  Since we are talking about Vietnam war criminals who "only followed orders", here is the most publicized example of that.  Lt. Calley was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison for "following orders".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html

Edit:  Notice that this happened in 1969.  When Kerry made his remarks in 1971, he was well aware of what had happened to Lt. Calley.

It may also interest you to know that today, in all boot camps in all branches of the military, new recruits are taught that you do not have to obey an unlawful order, and that you have an obligation to report anyone who gives an unlawful order.  If you do not, you are considered just as guilty as the one giving the unlawful order.  They also play little games with the recruits, ordering them to break established rules to see if they really will resist an unlawful order.

It was not an excuse then, and absolutely is not an excuse today.

[DrewKaree]

What if my eating lunch could make the paralyzed walk again?  Or allow diabetics to produce there own insulin?  I think we should do everything possible to encourage the effort.

You're using an emotional response to paint the President in an uncaring/unfeeling light, instead of dealing with the facts.  When stating we should do everything possible, would it be fair if the President gave some rich guy a tax break if he funds a research program?

Stem cells weren't "introduced" to the world until November 1998.  The Clinton Administration published guidelines governing the use of human embryonic stem cells in the Federal Register on August 23, 2000.  It issued guidelines allowing some federal funding of stem cell research to proceed; it said that research could only be carried out on stem cells already obtained by non-government-funded entities.  Simply put, an institution could purchase whatever stem cell they wanted to start their research

So Clinton prevented research also, through limiting the use of hESC and only allowing some federal funding?

What Bush decided (follow Drews link) is that federal funds could only be used for existing stem cell lines.

so Bush established "guidelines" like Clinton prevented research, right?


You're wrong about Bush, and you continue to misrepresent the truth.  I'll again quote from the site.  

On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research

The "lines" (your emphasis) are what research is being done ON.  So again, he is not preventing or banning the research, and in fact, is funding hESC research

These "lines" are cells derived from the original stem cell samples.  There are 60 existing stem cell lines.  Some are "owned" by companies, some can't be used because they have mutated from the original cell samples, etc.  With these and other "obstacles" to researchers, there are 12 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers can purchase.  Even after purchase however, the stem cell lines remain the property of the individual stem cell providers.

not just companies.  ALL stem cell lines remain the property of the individual stem cell providers.  No point in stating "some are "owned" by companies".  They are all "owned".

You are wrong to state "some can't be used because they have mutated form the original cell samples, etc.".  They CAN be used.  They simply are not eligible for federal funding.  

Also, you state there are 12 lines.  True enough, as of September 2003.  Don't know how many are NOW, but there is reason to believe there will be more, as there were only "one or two lines in Spring 2002"

So how do I say that Bush "prevents" research?

Here's a story for you.  How could they do this if a ban was in place?  The hESC lines can be used for research, so your assertion that Bush is "preventing" research from happening is wrong  They developed hESC cells to be made available for little or no cost.

No federal funds may be used, either directly or indirectly, to support research on human embryonic stem cell lines that do not meet the criteria established by President Bush on August 9, 2001.  This includes obtaining new samples to create a new line or restore an existing mutated line.

if you didn't already, go back up a paragraph and read the story.  They created new hESC lines.   They also completed this task without federal funding.

This prevents educational facilities from doing work outside the 12 stem cell lines because federal funds were used to build facilities and purchase equipment.  Ask M.I.T. about their abandoned (on hold) work.

Again, your claims are untrue.  It does not prevent them from doing work outside the 12 lines.  They just can't do it in that building.  Although I'm not the braniac those guys are, I've got a solution/idea you can pass along to the eggheads at M.I.T.  Use the building for another research purpose OR use that building for research on the federally funded lines ONLY.  Build another facility if they wish to work within the federal funding guidelines.  If you haven't already, go read the story a few paragraphs above...they created hESC lines to be used at little or NO cost.  The money just needs to be raised to build the building.  Can't raise that money?  That's not the government's problem.  Schools manage to somehow raise money for pet projects in other areas.  Get those go-getters to hop on this "vital" project.  Should be done in no time.

So did Bush ban research?  Not directly, but he halted work currently being done.

tell that to the guy in the story who created 17 new lines.

He also took away the ability for educational facilities to be on the leading edge and moved things into the private sector.

Did you happen to read the story I am continually pointing you back to?  Did you happen to read who helped to fund the guy who created 17 new lines of hESC, despite your claims of a ban and Bush "preventing" the research?  Now, I'm no Albert Edison or Thomas Einstein , but I'm smart enough to know that Harvard is a school, and a pretty well respected one at that.  How, exactly, does them funding someone who created 17 new lines of hESC equate to Bush "taking away" ANYTHING?  It simply doesn't.

You keep giving me opinion, I keep giving you facts, facts you have even read, quote from, and use in arguing your opinion.  The facts show you are wrong.  

This isn't a "guns are bad, mmmkay?" topic.  The position is simple:
1) Bush has funded Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
2) Bush has NOT banned or prevented research on hESC.  

To state or try to paint it otherwise is simply wrong.

One last thing, from the NIH website, as TA brought up a good point

Individual states have the authority to pass laws to permit human embryonic stem cell research using state funds. Unless Congress passes a law that bans it, states may pay for research using human embryonic stem cell lines that are not eligible for Federal funding.

Maybe M.I.T. isn't smart enough to realize this applies to them, too, and this statement STILL doesn't show a ban or prevent the research or the funding for it from private sources.

[Crazy Cooter]

TA, You seriously need to take a logic class.  When you are wrong, you try to argue the logic behind the person who is right.  I give up.  Maybe Annie Sullivan could spell it out better for you (if she was still alive).

Russia
"You dont have any idea what he'll do"
As I said before, if all he does is mention it, it's more than Bush did.  That makes him a better candidate for that topic.  If you need more information to satisfy yourself, ask at his website.  I am not him and can't speak for every detail of every point.  What has Bush done?  Oh wait, i know the answer.  NOTHING, he didn't even bring it up at the last summit.

N. Korea
(in my TA voice)  You didn't answer my question.  Can you give examples where talking directly with a Nation undermined the group effort talks?

"Patriot" Act
"If you dont like Bush because of the PA, then you can't like Kerry.  Kerry helped create it..."
Poor logic.  Think of it as a train off track.  Kerry wants to put it back on track (restore rights), Bush wants to move the track (take more rights away).

"Oh Canada!"
"You didnt help in the war, you dont get to profit from the war."
$190 million to IRAQ.  I said IRAQ.  Yes... IRAQ.  That's I-R-A-Q.  How is that not "help in the war"?  And Bush dissed 'em.

4-Goals
"More of the same.  His words."
Show me where he said that.  Also, I think you need to read those methods again.
difference #1- Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
difference #2- Recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq.
difference #3- Fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.
difference #4- Recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force, and train Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened so that U.S forces do not have to bear that burden alone.
I took only one topic from each of the four goals.  Now TA, since this is all "more of the same", find me and post up here where Bush has said each of these.

The definition of murder - Refer to def: 2.
murder
\Mur"der\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Murdered; p. pr. & vb. n. Murdering.] [OE. mortheren, murtheren, AS. myr?rian; akin to OHG. murdiren, Goth. ma['u]r?rjan. See Murder, n.] 1. To kill with premediated malice; to kill (a human being) willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully. See Murder, n.
2. To destroy; to put an end to.
[Canst thou] murder thy breath in middle of a word? --Shak.
3. To mutilate, spoil, or deform, as if with malice or cruelty; to mangle; as, to murder the king's English.
Syn: To kill; assassinate; slay. See Kill.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,

[Mameotron]

Cooter, you are the one that needs to take a logic class.  I can't decide if you are trying to make us believe you can spin something to such an extreme degree, or you simply don't understand some of the things you are saying.

The definition of murder - Refer to def: 2.
murder
\Mur"der\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Murdered; p. pr. & vb. n. Murdering.] [OE. mortheren, murtheren, AS. myr?rian; akin to OHG. murdiren, Goth. ma['u]r?rjan. See Murder, n.] 1. To kill with premediated malice; to kill (a human being) willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully. See Murder, n.
2. To destroy; to put an end to.
[Canst thou] murder thy breath in middle of a word? --Shak.
3. To mutilate, spoil, or deform, as if with malice or cruelty; to mangle; as, to murder the king's English.
Syn: To kill; assassinate; slay. See Kill.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,

[DrewKaree]

Nobody gives a crap that you can quote the dictionary.  Whether an act is called murder or killing depends solely on your personal moral perspective.

Mameotron, in Cooter's defense, words do have meaning, and it sometimes IS useful to investigate their definitions....it's useful in court cases as well.  

Your personal moral perspective is what causes you not to do something even if the "definition" would seem to allow you to do that thing.  I'll give an example.

Let's say at the store, you are given your change after purchasing something, you don't pay attention or bother to count it right there, but as you are walking out to your car, you now are checking your change.  The cashier has given you a $100 bill mistakenly instead of a $1 bill.  

Now, in my mind, and probably yours and a good chunk of people's, going back in and giving the money back, notifying them of the cashier's error is the morally right thing to do, and you would probably consider it stealing to not do such a thing.

Others would not see it as such a thing, it was the cashier's fault, she is the one responsible, and you in no way are obligated to notify them of the error, and for once, things are "going your way"  Those people do not morally look upon the situation as stealing.

The definition of stealing SHOULD make it clear.  Webster's online defines it as follows

Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stE(&)l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto

[Crazy Cooter]

"Whether an act is called murder or killing depends solely on your personal moral perspective."
Exactly my point.  TA says killing during a war isn't murder.  I say that the definition of the word murder says it is (Definition #2:To destroy; to put an end to).  But we rationalize murder and put it in different categories or definitions depending on our own personal morals.  I used definition #2 because I think it is the broadest definition with the least influence of morality.

"My moral stance says that any abortion is murder.  Period."
And my moral stance is that not performing an abortion when it would have saved the mother is also murder.  I think there is no "Period" and that there needs to be flexibility.  On this point we agree to disagree.

"Why do you insist that only educational facilities can do stem cell research?"
I insist that this would be the best facility and IMO, the most useful to us as a society.  Look at Harvard giving their stuff away.  I don't think for one minute a company would do that.  They have to recoup their costs.  Universities wouldn't have to if it were funded by the feds.  It could be a Good Faith gesture towards the betterment of mankind.

"So we may, in fact, be funding all kinds of stem cell research out in area 51 that we don't know about right now."
That's where the mutated ones came from heheh.

"I take your statement about reporting the president as a lighthearted jab"
It's neither light hearted or a simple jab.  It's a fact.  Bush will not produce prisoners when requested by the Red Cross or the Human Rights Watch.  He will not even produce them at the request of the Germans when they needed one to keep a terrorist involved with 9/11 in prison.  That guy was released on appeal.  This refusal is against Geneva Conventions.  Not following Geneva Conventions = War Crime.  Hence, George Bush is a war criminal.  Dig?

"*shudders*  if that is your understanding of the stock market"
That's not an understanding, that's how it works.  It's a simplistic view, but what part is wrong?  Do you have a way of selling stocks without somebody buying them?  I'd love to hear it.  And if you want stocks at a high price, I've got some for sale.

"There are mutual funds, bonds, commodities, and even the good old fashioned banks with CDs and savings accounts.  I can stuff the money under my pillow if I want, I can rest easy knowing that some future President can't take that money from me to fund other things."
Look at how many people lost half of their retirement funds when the tech stocks fell out.  The general public lost billions.  Most CD's/all Savings I've seen/EVERY stuffed pillow will lose purchasing power due to inflation.  The truth of the matter is 95% of people don't even realize they are not diversified in there 401k.  They figure since they contribute to 3 or 4 funds they are diversified.  That is not true.  (You'll have to pay me or send me arcade buttons/joysticks to find out why, I don't give out my financial knowledge for free).  If people knew how to invest properly, they would be wealthy when they retire.  But they don't, so they're not, so they need some type of safety net.  *BAM!* Social Security.

"(I know his grasp of the words "BAN", "FUNDING", "PREVENT" and "RESEARCH" defy logic, so I sympathize, brutha!   ) "
Hahaha, I'll give one more run at my brain block.  It goes like this (in my head):  Bush is "preventing" "research" from being done by "banning" federal "funding" to programs that were eligible for federal "funding" under Clintons guidelines.  This has put some research on hold i.e. M.I.T.
Holy crap.  I *think* I got it out.

[Tilzs]

The debate would have been better if there would have been someone else besides those two bozos there. I guess they are just afraid

[DrewKaree]

The debate would have been better if there would have been someone else besides those two bozos there. I guess they are just afraid

You'll have to do some research as to why those two were the only ones there before you state someone's "afraid".  It may make you feel good to state that, but it's a baseless claim.  Some homework would help clear it up.

It would also help you either solidify or change your opinion.

[DrewKaree]

Hahaha, I'll give one more run at my brain block.  It goes like this (in my head):  Bush is "preventing" "research" from being done by "banning" federal "funding" to programs that were eligible for federal "funding" under Clintons guidelines.  This has put some research on hold i.e. M.I.T.
Holy crap.  I *think* I got it out.

I know.  It goes like that in your head.  Unfortunately, in the real world, the words have meaning, and that meaning isn't in your head.  You'll have to get those in there.  The facts are clearly there, but they don't have a definition in your head, therefore you aren't understanding the facts.  

The research you claim is being "prevented" can be done.  It must be funded through methods other than federal funding.  The "ban" you view is a simple application of guidelines by the federal government.  The research at M.I.T. that you continue to point to as your smoking gun can still be done.  It has not been prevented, it has not been banned, it can be state funded, it can be privately funded.  The only limitation on that program is that it cannot be FEDERALLY funded.

I assume that you feel the only way to get results from this research is through federal funding.   Is that a fair assessment?

Also, I find it ironic that you find TA Pilot so obstinant.

[Mameotron]

The debate would have been better if there would have been someone else besides those two bozos there. I guess they are just afraid

Tilzs, it's always a good thing to have more opinions in on a debate.  Why don't you post your opinions?

It's easy to complain, it's hard to do something about it.

[Mameotron]

OK, Cooter & Drew, I see your point as to why the definitions were posted.  I agree that words do have meaning, but to a degree.  It's also how we individually associate different meanings to the same word that sometimes makes all the difference in the world.

I won't launch into a soliloquie (sp? danny_galaga has my dictionary) about that, because truly, nobody gives a crap about that.  

[DrewKaree]

OK, Cooter & Drew, I see your point as to why the definitions were posted.  I agree that words do have meaning, but to a degree.  It's also how we individually associate different meanings to the same word that sometimes makes all the difference in the world.

exactly.  That's why he was invoking the "here's what it means".

I won't launch into a soliloquie (sp? danny_galaga has my dictionary) about that, because truly, nobody gives a crap about that.  

that never stopped me    Just ask shmokes...I've TRIED to tire him out, but he's like a friggen Timex!  Launch away.  I'll read it if no one else does  

[Tilzs]

The debate would have been better if there would have been someone else besides those two bozos there. I guess they are just afraid

You'll have to do some research as to why those two were the only ones there before you state someone's "afraid".  It may make you feel good to state that, but it's a baseless claim.  Some homework would help clear it up.

It would also help you either solidify or change your opinion.

Of course they are afraid. They were afraid of nader in the last election. The commission on presidental debates is a bi-partisan  organization run by both the repubs and dems. Although you don't want every crackpot in the debate that decides to run, a debate should include any canidate that is on enough ballots to gain the required number of electoral votes.

Really whats the harm in letting these guys in. In 92 Perot forced both canidates to look at the budget and debt as an issue. Perot could have won that election too if he wouldn't have gotten cold feet once he realized this himself and dropped out.