Please login to post a response.

• Don't be a DUMB VOTER
• Posted: 2008-02-29 10:57:38 By andrew b
• I've seen a lot of posts where people write about one politician's views on stem cells and espouse that to be a reason to vote for said politician. While a position on stem cells is a good reason to influence a vote, if it's the only reason you vote, then YOU ARE A DUMB VOTER.
  
  I'm not here to say anyone is right or wrong (unless you're a single issue voter), just that you need to weigh risk rewards of a wide variety of positions and come to an educated conclusion about who to vote for. I have a thought and know the position of Huckabee, Obama, Clinton, and McCain on all of these issues. You should too.
  
  Good issues to consider.
  How soon leave Iraq?
  Leave soon, save trillions, but Iraq COULD (maybe not) become another religious state w/ anti-american sentiments with no one to regulate shiia v sunni killings.
  
  Universal Insurance?
  Can the government do a better job insuring everyone then a coordinated plan of regulating/mandating private companies to do it.
  
  Stem Cells?
  Should the government give grants to research around embryonic stem cells?
  
  Environment?
  Do we tax oil more, tax alternative fuel less, what is plan for energy independence (nuclear, wind, solar, etc)?
  
  Illegal Immigration?
  Do we give Amnesty to illegals? Do we make it easier to enter US legally? Do we deport? Do we fine employers of illegals?
  
  Abortion?
  Not really raised as an issue in debates, but as some candidate have a PRO-ABORTION (more than pro-choice) [look at voting records - one candidate voted to allow 14 yr olds to abort w/ no parental involvement]
  
  Education?
  Do you like no child left behind? Should we scrap it? Should we further it?
  
  Economy?
  Should we raise taxes? Should we limit earmarks? Should we penalize companies who hire overseas? What would happen if we penalize companies overseas? Should we bail out homeowners who over-bought?
  
  There are tons of other issues, but these are the big ones I think we should all consider. Read up, be educated, and come to a conclusion.

• Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-02-29 19:04:20 By Jonathan R
• I don't really see how stem cells can be an issue, really.
  
  Countries all over the world are researching stem cells, regardless of what we do. And when they develop a new treatment based on their findings, will any of the stem cell opponents refuse this treatment out of principal?
  
  I seriously doubt it.
  
  As far a considerations for a presidential candidate, you left out an important thing: honesty and individual character.
  
  Unfortunately, I think a lot of people were eager to overlook the, in my opinion, obviously deceptive and dishonest character of Bush because he was "on their side", assuming that "you" are a Republican.
  
  At least this time, Republican supporters weeded out all the crazies in the primaries.
  
  Even though I'm strongly democratic, I wouldn't feel completely let down if McCain gets the throne. The comparison of individual character between McCain and Bush kind of makes it hard to believe that they are "on the same team".

• Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-06 12:35:37 By andrew b
• Good points. Bush's budget explicitly prohibited funding of embryonic stem cell research (due to pro-life arguments). It didn't prohibit grants from NIH for other types of stem cell research. Interestingly, there hasn't been any achievements to date involving embryonic stem cells.
  
  I'm not a Bush fan by any stretch, but there's a lot of falsehoods out there about what his administration has and hasn't approved. Bear in mind Congress votes on the budget, Bush just puts in what he wants.
  
  Finally, I think that many people don't understand how embryonic stem cells are created. Essentially scientists are pairing sperm cells with egg cells in a petri dish in a fertile solution. They allow the embry to develop for a few days, then they extract the stem cells that the zygote yields.This process destroys the embryo. If you believe that life begins the moment sperm and egg belief, then this process would constitute the destruction of life. If you believe in 2nd trimester, or 3rd trimester conversion to being life, then you may have less issues with this process.
  
  Adult stem cells are extracted from living human beings. Big difference.

• Actually...
• Posted: 2008-03-06 12:47:45 By Jonathan R
• -"Adult stem cells are extracted from living human beings. Big difference."-
  
  Actually, I just wondered how that might play into the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, since accepting harvested stem cells for some kind of therapy might fall under their prohibition of accepting blood from others.
  
  But, of course, Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote, so I don't guess they really "count" when it come to political discussions. :)

• Re: Actually...
• Posted: 2008-03-07 10:09:07 By andrew b
• hehe, if it weren't for them I could keep my blinds open at the house.

• Re: Re: Actually...
• Posted: 2008-03-07 11:00:23 By Jonathan R
• My dad said he answered the door one day in his underwear. He scratched himself, belched, and asked them what they wanted. They said "Sorry to bother you" and left.
  
  He says they've never been back since then. lol

• Re: Re: Re: Actually...
• Posted: 2008-03-09 21:21:39 By Kim V
• just tell them you are catholic...works for us...and the picture I have in my head now of your father...well it just makes me giggle!!! Kim

• Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-09 23:47:14 By Carol C
• Just a political note: McCain and Bush are not on the same team- Mc Cain in on Mc Cain's team only, and will always do what benefits John Mc Cain. It does not surprise me that a self-described liberal would have less against Mc Cain as Mc Cain is not a consevative Republican, and often crosses the isle to vote with liberals.Mc Cain is apparently not aware that embryonic stem cell research has gone nowhere, and has vebalized supporting this failed avenue ( support means using your tax dollars and mine because private money, which demands results, will no longer waste their rime there). Of course, when he's no longer just a mouthy senator looking for face time in the media so he can run for President, and actually is President, the tune may play differently( assuming even conservatives will hold their noses and vote for him anyway, to beat the Democrat).

• Re: Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-10 14:15:08 By Jonathan R
• --"It does not surprise me that a self-described liberal would have less against Mc Cain as Mc Cain is not a consevative Republican..."--
  
  Are you referring to me as the "self-described liberal" just because I said that I'm "strongly democratic"?
  
  You know, not everyone who votes Republican is a "conservative", and not everyone who votes Democrat is "liberal".
  
  The world isn't always as "black and white" as some people get into a habit of thinking that it is. Although, I do understand that looking at the world that way tends to bestow a certain sense of comfort and simplicity upon those who seek it.
  
  There are many different people out there who vote within "the only two parties" for many various reasons.
  
  Personally, I would prefer to see a certain third party candidate take office. But, taking current conditions into consideration, it would seem too much like a wasted vote.

• Re: Re: Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-10 15:00:02 By Carol C
• Sorry! I guess I assumed that a "strongly Democratic" voter would be liberal as the Democratic party leadership has been strongly liberal for some time now ( not so in the past). If one is not liberal, I don't see why one one would remain "strongly Democratic", but instead call one's self Independent.

• Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-10 15:52:07 By Jonathan R
• "Independent" would be a more accurate term to describe myself, but it's a bit undescriptive, conversationally.
  
  Although, I would say that I have been consistently "strongly democratic" when it comes to recent comparisons of red and blue issues in general.
  
  There are many ideas that one may consider to be "liberal". But, it seems that what many people automatically refer to as being "liberal" are strictly the modern, changing social issues. But, there are many other issues that are also accurately called liberal which are not considered to be "social" in nature.
  
  Some "liberal" ideas I find to be worthwhile, while other "liberal" ideas seem to be wholly unrealistic.
  
  Take economics for example. Some liberal ways of thought believe that businesses should be left completely unregulated because they feel that regulation violates the the rights of business owners to do as they please.
  
  I certainly don't agree with that position. I think that if you let the "free hand of the market" do as it pleases, then the people of the world will end up being dominated by all-powerful, imperialistic mega-corporations that dumps every bit of its toxic wastes into the nearest water body because "its the most financially advantageous thing to do at the time", as opposed to having to pay money to dispose of it properly.
  
  I know there are a LOT of people out there that like to throw around the word "liberal" as if it's
  some kind of simple insult that immediately dismisses the intellectual importance of whomever the label falls upon, but the reality of it all is a bit more complex than that.

• Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-18 14:51:36 By andrew b
• I usually take liberal to mean welfare state, tree-hugger, protect the one dissenter instead of the millions who view differently (ie prayer in schools), anti-guns, pro-abortion, anti-church, and mega high taxes to pay for it all. So, I'm guessing if you fit that bill, you're a liberal.

• Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-18 15:18:14 By Jonathan R
• Many of those positions are the exact opposite of what I hear from most true liberals.
  
  Most liberals that I have heard speak on issues support uninfringed firearm ownership, and ultra-small government, which usually means no welfare programs at all.
  
  As far as freedom of speech, freedom to abort pregnancies, and freedom from domination by any particular religion, many liberal supporters seem to simply want the freedom to choose for themselves what they want to do with their own lives.
  
  Your usage of term "liberal" is quite inaccurate when it comes to summarizing the entirety of a person's political views. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there that are using this grossly oversimplified term in order to refer to a person's modern social views, which is but a small piece to politics as a whole.

• Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-18 23:03:32 By Carol C
• Yeah, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck,it's a duck!!!

• Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK
• Posted: 2008-03-20 18:17:40 By Jonathan R
• But what if it walks like a duck, moos like a cow, and looks like a gerbil?
  
  Is it then still a duck?
  
  Or would your resulting confusion cause you to speculate that it was actually a different animal altogether?