|
United States22883 Posts
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1847053,00.html?cnn=yes
I usually shy away from religion bashing, but Pentecostal Prosperity theorists are fucking morons.
With the bubble burst, Walton and Butler assume that prosperity congregants have taken a disproportionate hit, and are curious as to how their churches will respond. Butler thinks that some of the flashier ministries will shrink along with their congregants' fortunes. Says Walton, "You would think that the current economic conditions would undercut their theology." But he predicts they will perservere, since God's earthly largesse is just as attractive when one is behind the economic eight ball.
People like the man at the end of the article make me hate democracy.
|
On October 04 2008 05:45 wswordsmen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2008 05:24 Savio wrote:On October 04 2008 04:10 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 10:02 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 06:26 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 04:46 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote:
Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body. I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond. As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo. Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people. So the baby is not "the mother's body". The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down. The baby is part of the mother's body. Entirely, no the baby does not represent "the mother's body." But you wouldn't exclusively refer to your external anal sphincter either as your body would you? No of course not you would say it's a part. Just like a tumor is a part of your body. If you don't want it you cut it off. OK, this is my post on Abortion. I have a few thoughts that I wanted to share regarding the argument "My body, my choice" and your assertion that the baby's body is simply part of the mothers body. Here are some facts: 1. The human body has a built in way to discriminate between "self" and "non-self". Part of this is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a protein embedded in every cells that is "self" and tells you what is you and what isn't. If something is not "you" then your body will attack it (I'm cutting out a lot of technical science so this is readable). So here is the kicker. The mother's body does not recognize the baby's cells as "self". This is because not a singe cell fo the baby was created by the mother. The baby began as a single cell with a unique genetic makeup from a mix of its father and mother. That cell divides a bagillion times until the baby is ready to be born. The cells created by the mother were never "welded" onto the baby. That baby made it by itself. So why call the baby part of the mother, when the mother's body identifies it as "non-self" and would attack it and destroy it if it could? This is partly why the mother's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy. 2. The baby made his own blood. NONE of it came from his mother, and they never mix. The blood made by the babys body and other accessory parts of what the BABY has made including the yolk sac. Many babies don't even have the same blood type as their mother and if their blood mixed, it would result in an sensitivity reaction. 3. The baby HAS ITS OWN CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. The mother cannot "flex" her baby's muscles. Even her autonomic nervous system cannot act on the baby. No ganglia from the mother extend to and innervate effectors within the baby. The baby kicks and swims and swallows all from its own neural impulses and not the mother's. 4. The mother's role during the pregnancy is to provide nutrients and sugar to the baby (same thing breast milk does). Also, she does the work of the baby's kidneys. And most importantly, her blood delivers oxygen to the baby's blood. She also provides a good and stable environment for the baby to grow in. Her roles after the baby is born are to: provide nutrients and sugar by way of breast milk and provide a safe and stable environment for the baby to grow. The primary difference between what a mother does for her baby during pregnancy as opposed to after is that she is no longer doing the work of the baby's kidneys and lungs. If this is what you think makes the baby not human, then patients on a ventilator and dialysis are not human either, but just part of the "machine" they are connected to. 5. DNA defines who we are. You see a crime scene with DNA evidence, you can look at the DNA and say, this is the DNA of so-and-so. The baby has a unique DNA sequence. It is NOT the mother's. The baby has its own brain, its own MHC complex defining "self", its own blood, its own DNA, and its own autonomy (it decides when it moves). That the unborn baby is totally dependent on its mother for the continuation of its life is irrelevant because the baby that is BORN is also completely dependent on her for the continuation of its life. Dependence on its mother does not make it un-human or un-alive. So you agree a baby is a parasite, until it is born. And on a different point, generally speaking isn't a system fully contained within a system normally considered part of that system (outer system). Edit: grammar
NO and NO. You are wrong on both.
1. On point one, the point I actually made was that the relationship between mother and baby are almost identical after birth and before. So whatever it is before it also is after. You can call it a parasite if you want but either way the baby gets sustenance from its mother.
2. On point 2, there are lots of things in our body that are not "self" including bacteria, yeast, and your precious parasite. None of these are self because they are also unique and not recognized as "self" by the body.
Read your last sentence and ask if baby kangaroo is its mothers pouch or another animal in its mother's mouth or a person in a building is considered as one and the same.
|
United States22883 Posts
The relationships between mother and baby before and after are not identical, because she is not the sole care giver once the baby is born. That is a significant distinction.
|
On October 04 2008 05:24 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2008 04:10 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 10:02 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 06:26 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 04:46 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote:
Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body. I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond. As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo. Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people. So the baby is not "the mother's body". The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down. The baby is part of the mother's body. Entirely, no the baby does not represent "the mother's body." But you wouldn't exclusively refer to your external anal sphincter either as your body would you? No of course not you would say it's a part. Just like a tumor is a part of your body. If you don't want it you cut it off. Here are some facts: 1. The human body has a built in way to discriminate between "self" and "non-self". Part of this is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a protein embedded in every cells that is "self" and tells you what is you and what isn't. If something is not "you" then your body will attack it (I'm cutting out a lot of technical science so this is readable). So here is the kicker. The mother's body does not recognize the baby's cells as "self". This is because not a singe cell fo the baby was created by the mother. The baby began as a single cell with a unique genetic makeup from a mix of its father and mother. That cell divides a bagillion times until the baby is ready to be born. The cells created by the mother were never "welded" onto the baby. That baby made it by itself. So why call the baby part of the mother, when the mother's body identifies it as "non-self" and would attack it and destroy it if it could? This is partly why the mother's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy.
this i agree with, but all it does is support what aRod is saying. just like cancer, the baby started out as one cell, generated in part by the mother. just like the baby, the growing tumor suppresses the immune system. and just like cancer, the cells created by the baby were "made" by itself.
5. DNA defines who we are. You see a crime scene with DNA evidence, you can look at the DNA and say, this is the DNA of so-and-so. The baby has a unique DNA sequence. It is NOT the mother's.
even the DNA of individual cells in one person's body are going to have differences.
The baby has its own brain, its own MHC complex defining "self", its own blood, its own DNA, and its own autonomy (it decides when it moves). That the unborn baby is totally dependent on its mother for the continuation of its life is irrelevant because the baby that is BORN is also completely dependent on her for the continuation of its life. Dependence on its mother does not make it un-human or un-alive.
while i agree with most of your scientific points, consider this hypothetical:
a mother dies while pregant, can the baby survive?
a mother dies after birth, can the baby survive?
|
On October 04 2008 05:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2008 05:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
dick moris is a lying sack of shit and a fucking idiot. don't kid yourself. he's proved himself more than enough to prove that he's a fucking retard. He's crafty like Rove is but he's a much more disgusting individual, and that's saying a lot. He's in the Rush Limbaugh class of human beings. People that need to hire a hooker with AIDS (and Morris has a habit of hiring hookers.)
Dick Morris was an advisor to Trent Lott - a Grade A piece of human garbage himself. Makes sense for a guy with a toe-sucking fetish to first off find the most homophobic and racist guy in the senate to work for, and then to go and share screen-time with Sean Hannity. It's a natural progression.
This guy didn't think Kerry would win the nomination in '04, didn't think Hillary could win a senate race, predicted Hillary to win this year's nomination, and figured Bush's second term would be defined positively though a speedy and thorough response to hurricane Katrina.
So now we're supposed to listen to his opinion on the debate because he insulted Alan Colmes?
|
Savio, what do you have against gay marriage? Right, the bible said you'll go to hell for it, they say that for a lot of other things too. Remember a time when all left handed people were considered to be devils? and that they should be punished for it? In some extreme cases people were actually killed for it, how ridiculous does that sound? Until they found out being born left handed was in their genes not because they were witches did the whole thing die down. Same goes for being gay, I used to hate gays as well until one day I asked myself, what have they done to me that I have to bash them every chance I get? think about it. I Don't even wanna bother with researching if people are born with it or suddenly change into a gay, there are all types of people out there I'm not surprise if it's both, but who cares, that's not the main point anyway, Keep in mind that there are homosexuality in ANIMALS as well, so stop hating. I used to be a strong christian as well, but it seems to me there are logical fallacies in the bible which tend to say if you're not a true christian you're going to hell what about all the other religions that say the same freakin thing? isn't the safest way then to believe in every god? this makes it a a lot harder for people who grew up in tribes without getting a chance to "know" the one real god, i suppose they go to hell too right? it just doesn't seem fair.
|
United States22883 Posts
ATTENTION
The Larry Flynt produced porno about Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has found it's leading lady. The movie is now in pre-production under the name "Nailin' Paylin" and has been fast-tracked to arrive before the election in one month. TMZ says…
The faux Sarah is Lisa Ann, who "will be nailing the Russians who come knocking on her back-door." In another scene -- a flashback -- "young Paylin's creationist college professor will explain a 'big bang' theory even she can't deny!"
There's also a threeway with Hillary and Condoleezza look-alikes. The video is in pre-production.
Scene1: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/10/sarah-palin-porn-film.php#more
PALIN: God almighty! You are hung like a moose. Now I have to eat ya!
|
Larry Flynt is a classy guy.
|
O.O
...wow
Edit: you should've included at least the next 4 lines after that
PALIN: God almighty! You are hung like a moose. Now I have to eat ya!
JOE: I'm bigger than a moose. Do you have any contraceptives?
PALIN: It's okay. I already took a morning-after pill.
JOE: Um, are you sure it works that way?
PALIN: Are you asking me if I know what a morning-after pill is? Because I totally do! I'll get back to ya with specifics. omg this script is fucking gold
Oh God, Oh God, OH MY GOD! MAKE ME SEE RUSSIA FROM HERE!
|
okay, political pornography is made of win
|
On October 04 2008 04:21 Clutch3 wrote:
(I know, the McCain campaign thinks everyone from Newsweek to NBC to the NY Times news division is a left-wing shill, but that's absurd)
That's right, when an interview with Barack Obama has a question including holding a picture of him on the cover of Newsweek and asking what his grandmother would think, obviously they are asking others that same question.
And when NBC anchor says "It's hard to be biased when you have someone like Barack Obama," they aren't being biased.
When MSNBC hears that McCain annouces his VP pick it is subtitled not with who the VP pick is, but "How many houses does this add to the ticket?"
If you care I'll even pull up the articles from Newsweek stating they gave Barack Obama more print, and then I'll pull up the NYT choosing who will be front page worthy based only on their political party.
|
In the face of a 13 inch cock, Palin didn't blink.
She DIDN'T blink
|
On October 04 2008 05:24 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2008 04:10 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 10:02 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 06:26 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 04:46 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote:
Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body. I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond. As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo. Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people. So the baby is not "the mother's body". The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down. The baby is part of the mother's body. Entirely, no the baby does not represent "the mother's body." But you wouldn't exclusively refer to your external anal sphincter either as your body would you? No of course not you would say it's a part. Just like a tumor is a part of your body. If you don't want it you cut it off. OK, this is my post on Abortion. I have a few thoughts that I wanted to share regarding the argument "My body, my choice" and your assertion that the baby's body is simply part of the mothers body. Here are some facts: 1. The human body has a built in way to discriminate between "self" and "non-self". Part of this is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a protein embedded in every cells that is "self" and tells you what is you and what isn't. If something is not "you" then your body will attack it (I'm cutting out a lot of technical science so this is readable). So here is the kicker. The mother's body does not recognize the baby's cells as "self". This is because not a singe cell fo the baby was created by the mother. The baby began as a single cell with a unique genetic makeup from a mix of its father and mother. That cell divides a bagillion times until the baby is ready to be born. The cells created by the mother were never "welded" onto the baby. That baby made it by itself. So why call the baby part of the mother, when the mother's body identifies it as "non-self" and would attack it and destroy it if it could? This is partly why the mother's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy. 2. The baby made his own blood. NONE of it came from his mother, and they never mix. The blood made by the babys body and other accessory parts of what the BABY has made including the yolk sac. Many babies don't even have the same blood type as their mother and if their blood mixed, it would result in an sensitivity reaction. 3. The baby HAS ITS OWN CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. The mother cannot "flex" her baby's muscles. Even her autonomic nervous system cannot act on the baby. No ganglia from the mother extend to and innervate effectors within the baby. The baby kicks and swims and swallows all from its own neural impulses and not the mother's. 4. The mother's role during the pregnancy is to provide nutrients and sugar to the baby (same thing breast milk does). Also, she does the work of the baby's kidneys. And most importantly, her blood delivers oxygen to the baby's blood. She also provides a good and stable environment for the baby to grow in. Her roles after the baby is born are to: provide nutrients and sugar by way of breast milk and provide a safe and stable environment for the baby to grow. The primary difference between what a mother does for her baby during pregnancy as opposed to after is that she is no longer doing the work of the baby's kidneys and lungs. If this is what you think makes the baby not human, then patients on a ventilator and dialysis are not human either, but just part of the "machine" they are connected to. 5. DNA defines who we are. You see a crime scene with DNA evidence, you can look at the DNA and say, this is the DNA of so-and-so. The baby has a unique DNA sequence. It is NOT the mother's. The baby has its own brain, its own MHC complex defining "self", its own blood, its own DNA, and its own autonomy (it decides when it moves). That the unborn baby is totally dependent on its mother for the continuation of its life is irrelevant because the baby that is BORN is also completely dependent on her for the continuation of its life. Dependence on its mother does not make it un-human or un-alive. So....this post was ONLY to cover the science behind the claim that the baby is "the mother's body". There is a lot more that could be said about abortion, but this post only addresses that issue. For those who want to ask, these are my views on abortion (I can tell that some of these are going to be asked anyway so I will answer them now): 1. Right now there is nothing in the constitution about abortion so it should be decided by the states. If one side wants to make it a national issue, they should push for an amendment to the constitution. 2. Abortion is complicated with many things to consider. I don't think that convenience is sufficient reason to kill the baby. If the mother can't handle raising the baby, there are LOTS of people willing to adopt. This can be handled in ways that don't involve killing the baby. 3. If I were making the law (or constitutional amendment), I would allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger (I disagree with Sarah Palin on this). I would NOT support ANY law banning abortion if it did not include these exceptions. 4. If I were deciding things (with an amendment) partial birth abortion would not be allowed under any circumstance except to save the mother's life (although I can't think of any way in which this would be possible but you never know). BUT I repeat, the main purpose of this post was not so share these last 4 beliefs but to mention the scientific reasons why the baby is NOT the mother's body. Focus your responses on these.
Savio, you claim not a single cell of the baby came from the mother. So... the EGG didn't come from the mother? After all the egg is a cell. This is why the baby and the mother share the same mitochondrial DNA, because yes the embryo is formed from the mother's egg when joined with sperm DNA. Another thing, you claim the mothers body doesn't recognize the baby as "self." Like any false hypothesis, you are right! The mother doesn't recognize the embryo's cells at all due to the immunosuppresive nature of the syncitiotrophoblast.
The baby has blood, a CNS, and unique DNA. So do most mammals. You may think these things are a godsent like I believe they're great evolutionary achievents, but these characteristics don't entitle any organism life.
You talk about the constitution like it represents the perfect, 100% garunteed, god sent, beautiful and true, document that we should all live by. Anyone who has this much respect for a set of principles laid out hundreds of years ago needs to ask themself is this really a good idea?
What I'm saying is that strict adherence to an old dogmatic mentality doesn't necessarily address modern day problems. I think we should keep guns, but not because "it's in the constitution." You can write something wherever you want and it isn't necesarily true, much less a good idea. Abortion doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the constitution for us to make national laws about it.
|
I think that the district court that heard Roe v. Wade made the right decision. The Supreme Court really fucked that one up by completely ignoring the fucking ninth amendment and talking about some sort of "penumbra" which has no basis in the constitution.
|
On October 04 2008 06:00 tiffany wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2008 05:24 Savio wrote:On October 04 2008 04:10 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 10:02 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 06:26 aRod wrote:On October 03 2008 04:46 Savio wrote:On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote:
Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body. I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond. As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo. Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people. So the baby is not "the mother's body". The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down. The baby is part of the mother's body. Entirely, no the baby does not represent "the mother's body." But you wouldn't exclusively refer to your external anal sphincter either as your body would you? No of course not you would say it's a part. Just like a tumor is a part of your body. If you don't want it you cut it off. Here are some facts: 1. The human body has a built in way to discriminate between "self" and "non-self". Part of this is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a protein embedded in every cells that is "self" and tells you what is you and what isn't. If something is not "you" then your body will attack it (I'm cutting out a lot of technical science so this is readable). So here is the kicker. The mother's body does not recognize the baby's cells as "self". This is because not a singe cell fo the baby was created by the mother. The baby began as a single cell with a unique genetic makeup from a mix of its father and mother. That cell divides a bagillion times until the baby is ready to be born. The cells created by the mother were never "welded" onto the baby. That baby made it by itself. So why call the baby part of the mother, when the mother's body identifies it as "non-self" and would attack it and destroy it if it could? This is partly why the mother's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy. this i agree with, but all it does is support what aRod is saying. just like cancer, the baby started out as one cell, generated in part by the mother. just like the baby, the growing tumor suppresses the immune system. and just like cancer, the cells created by the baby were "made" by itself. Show nested quote +
5. DNA defines who we are. You see a crime scene with DNA evidence, you can look at the DNA and say, this is the DNA of so-and-so. The baby has a unique DNA sequence. It is NOT the mother's.
even the DNA of individual cells in one person's body are going to have differences. Show nested quote +
The baby has its own brain, its own MHC complex defining "self", its own blood, its own DNA, and its own autonomy (it decides when it moves). That the unborn baby is totally dependent on its mother for the continuation of its life is irrelevant because the baby that is BORN is also completely dependent on her for the continuation of its life. Dependence on its mother does not make it un-human or un-alive.
while i agree with most of your scientific points, consider this hypothetical: a mother dies while pregant, can the baby survive? a mother dies after birth, can the baby survive?
Under many circumstances the answer to both questions is yes. Under other circumstances, the answer is no in both cases.
If it is late enough in gestation and the baby is removed within a few minutes, it can survive.
On the other hand, a mother isolated from other people who dies would result in her baby dying as well.
So it can be yes to both or no to both or any mix of answers.
|
On October 04 2008 06:33 BalliSLife wrote:
Savio, what do you have against gay marriage? Right, the bible said you'll go to hell for it, they say that for a lot of other things too. Remember a time when all left handed people were considered to be devils? and that they should be punished for it? In some extreme cases people were actually killed for it, how ridiculous does that sound? Until they found out being born left handed was in their genes not because they were witches did the whole thing die down. Same goes for being gay, I used to hate gays as well until one day I asked myself, what have they done to me that I have to bash them every chance I get? think about it. I Don't even wanna bother with researching if people are born with it or suddenly change into a gay, there are all types of people out there I'm not surprise if it's both, but who cares, that's not the main point anyway, Keep in mind that there are homosexuality in ANIMALS as well, so stop hating. I used to be a strong christian as well, but it seems to me there are logical fallacies in the bible which tend to say if you're not a true christian you're going to hell what about all the other religions that say the same freakin thing? isn't the safest way then to believe in every god? this makes it a a lot harder for people who grew up in tribes without getting a chance to "know" the one real god, i suppose they go to hell too right? it just doesn't seem fair.
Whoa man, I just wrote a LONG post on abortion and I am still going to school all day. I wanted to do both today, but I can't. Tomorrow I will write about gay marriage.
Sorry for making you wait.
|
I know I'm making an ass out of myself a bit by posting one liners in here, but seriously guys -- abortion and gay marriage? Is that really the best discussion TL can have? I have stances on both these, but they're not ever going to outweigh macroeconomic policy and foreign policy in deciding who to vote for as president. Can we just agree that people have different stances on these positions and that regardless of who becomes president, they will have little impact on how these policies change? And even if it did, it will have a very small impact on very few people. I am not advocating relativism. But I don't think it's easy to persuade anybody to change their positions on morality through reasoning alone... so what's the point?)
|
United States22883 Posts
No, what Savio is saying is that the 50+ million aborted fetii + loss of guns + loss of sanctity of marriage is a bigger factor for him than foreign relations/economics/etc. That's what I've been going off about. That's the only reason we're talking about these.
|
that's pretty retarded
you're right
|
United States22883 Posts
Just fyi, after 4 days of coaching, Palin remembered she disagreed with the Kennedy vs. Louisiana decision and that she reads the NY Times and the Economist.
I'm glad that's all cleared up now! She really knows her stuff! We no longer have to worry that she's a fucking moron.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1008/What_Palin_reads_NY_Times_Economist.html?showall
BTW, since she reads the Economist, hopefully she'll see their unscientific poll of 683 research associates of the National Bureau of Economic Research and see what some economists think.
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/images/20081004/CUS955.gif)
Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject.
...
“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”
On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
