The people Obama is beginning to choose for his administration plus what he said at today's first press conference show he's on the ball.
|
The people Obama is beginning to choose for his administration plus what he said at today's first press conference show he's on the ball.
Please provide factual data to prove your point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There are pictures of him NOT repeating the pledge of Allegiance,
There is proof that his political career started in the home of a terrorist. There is proof that he got a sweetheart deal on the purchase of his home from a known gangster, There is proof that he sat under the teachings of an inflamatory preacher who spouted hatred and biggotry. There is proof that he associates with the American mouthpiece for a terrorist organization. So please disprove my statements with facts!
There are Internet pictures of Bush grabbing at his pants during the Pledge. What was THAT all about?? Btw, McCain didn't wear a flag pin during the three presidential debates. There are NO pictures of Obama not saying the Pledge, because such a thing is impossible to prove by a photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
It has been disproved by independent sources, including the couple who sold their home to the Obamas, that there was no "sweetheart" deal. (ADDED: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/5)
How often did that minister spout hate and bigotry over the time the Obamas were members of the church? You know of only once. And of course, you are Rev. Wright's age and grew up black in the age before civil rights? (I'm white and grew up in the South during that time and even as a child was horrified at the goings on. There are still race incidents that defy the notion that we are all created equal and have equal rights. Here is one of many: James Byrd, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
Obama's political career began in a Chicago hotel (ADDED -- at the Ramada Inn, Lake Shore Drive in the Hyde Park neighborhood), not in Ayers' living room. That information is researchable and can be found in many locations.
Obama does not associate with "an American mouthpiece." In fact, that mouthpiece voted on Tuesday and told exit poll takers he wished he knew Obama better. (And please post a reference that the two associate.) (ADDED: Ayers, when interviewed after he voted on Tuesday -- "Pal around together? What does that mean? Share a milkshake with two straws? I think my relationship with Obama was probably like thousands of others in Chicago. And, like millions and millions of others, I wish I knew him better.")
But What About The Children!!?!?!
(deadpan)
The children are leaning toward getting a golden-doodle from a shelter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
Quote:
The people Obama is beginning to choose for his administration plus what he said at today's first press conference show he's on the ball.
__________________
Imagine if Sarah Palin had made a SNAFU insult like Obama did with his Nancy Reagan off the cuff comment. She would be pilloried..
Quick... off the cuff without looking on the net... name all 23 nations in North America (no there aren't only 3)
YESS! Congrats to Borack Obama! I hope he can get us out of this great depression we are about to get into! I do believe that this day was one of the greatest days in history since I have been on this earth, it is a BIg deal considering the fact that it was ONLY 50 years ago that a black person couldn't even sit on the front of the bus and now we have one in office. He isn't even all the way black. But he made it and that I believe is a very big accomplishment for our african americans today. God bless Borack and I hope he can pull through for us! All we can do now is wait.
Me myself, I am very much against abortion it is wrong. But don't you think we should have a choice? What if a little 15 yr old girl gets raped and ends up pregnant. Now you know she don't want this baby, and who is to say that this baby don't want to be put into a foster home and then years later he finds his mom and finds out he is a rapist child.what if it was your 15 yr old child that this happened to would you want her to keep it?? And who is to say that what if abortion does get banned that we won't have more and more babies ending up in dumpsters each year. Getting rid of an embryo is way different then finding an air breathing living child in the dumpster in your back yard... wouldnt you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
I'm glad that he seems to want to address this issue right away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Right now it is all talk - which he is very good at.
I remain skeptical but hope that in 6- 9 months we will be economically better.
I hope so, too. But it took us a while to get into this mess, so I think it may take time to get out. Overall, we have let our infrastructure and education fall behind that of other developed nations, so we don't have the competitive advantages we had a few decades ago. We have a lot of catching up to do. And that means rolling up our shirt sleeves.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Kitten, you should really rethink the "what if" approach to deciding right and wrong. You need to be able to present your beliefs without so many hypothetical stories. True right and wrong has a backbone and can face your hypothetical situations with a mindset that isn't selfish, it's just right... or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitten420
Without hypothetical stories, I can state to a certainty my belief that "No person should have to forfeit their life to ease the discomfort of another person, especially not without their permission". Once you can state your beliefs that straightforwardly, throw some hypothetical thought at it THEN and I bet your answers are not so simple anymore.
The rape thing is a common fallback, and it doesn't hold up unless you believe one person should be made to forfeit their life to ease the life of another person... without their permission. Do you really think that, in those terms?
Getting rid of an embryo IS different from finding a baby in a dumpster. They're both wrong (in my worldview), but the first one let's us ignore how wrong it TRULY is because we don't see the person we're killing. Yeah, that's different.
The reality is that most people make adjustments in their values according to the specifics of a situation.
Here's one example:
The Cloudy Ethics of Utilitarianism | Wired Science from Wired.com
But regardless of what you think the "right" answer is, it's normal and healthy to take many factors into account when making decisions about right and wrong. People who never do this are ideologues and tend to be rigid and unmerciful. JB, You don't sound like that in most of your posts, so I suspect you make more adjustments than you may realize.
As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
I do not think you have a little mind! But I do think he makes a point.
Most people (including me) use hypothetical situations to "prove" their point. The problem is that these situations are tailor-made to force someone to choose what you want or they look bad.
Movies like Saw do the hypothetical much better. Here, you have to choose intense pain right now, or die. YOU die. Not someone else. Or... wait. Some of those Saw situations WERE between one person dying or another. And again, you had to do something horrible to yourself FIRST to get the right to choose someone else's death.
My point is this, hypothetical always assume one fact I do not ascribe to - what's best for me = what's best.
Here's a hypothetical for you, one I KNOW many, many people would choose wrongly.
This stuff is impossible. We decide for ourselves as primary importance (else the Saw movies wouldn't be very interesting).Quote:
You're in a room with two buttons.
One button is marked "lose your eyes and go free".
The other button is marked "some stranger you don't know dies and you go free unharmed and with $10,000 for your trouble".
Which button do you push?
We forget that WE could be the "stranger" that has to die because someone else pushed a button.
My point exactly. This is the right thing to do when you are making choices that affect yourself. This freedom to adjust your thinking HAS to be short-checked when you're talking about doing something to others without their willing participation. You HAVE to change your thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I do.
I agree, I probably do. Just not on this issue.Quote:
People who never do this are ideologues and tend to be rigid and unmerciful. JB, You don't sound like that in most of your posts, so I suspect you make more adjustments than you may realize.
It was the heart of mercy that has already let my family face this issue and choose properly, choose for the unborn to have life even though those of us here already could opt differently.
You intimate that telling someone to put others ahead of themselves is unmerciful in the case of abortion. I correct that thought that it is mercy to the unborn that needs the most attention.
No, I don't. Yes, he does make a point. And it's a point I hope everyone who so easily and unmercifully place their own comfort/convenience/mental stress/life options above the life of unborns takes to heart.Quote:
As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
I do not think you have a little mind! But I do think he makes a point.
I do not think that an early embryo with no brain or functioning nervous system is a person or a child or even a "baby." I do not accept the catholic teaching that God adds a soul at the moment of conception. Given that, I think it's acceptable to abort an early embryo. I do not consider it murder in any sense of that word.
A fertilized egg cells is not more alive than an unfertilized egg cell. Dividing a few times likewise makes it neither more alive nor more human. An unfertilized egg cell or sperm cell is already fully human and fully alive. What they are not are persons. Mashing them together doesn't give them personhood. They are cells.
As the embryo develops and forms a fetus (that has the outlines of all the organs) and the fetus becomes more babylike, abortion becomes less acceptable to me. I think this is the case for most Americans. As it happens, this is exactly what Roe v Wade says: that first trimesters abortions are legal, mid term abortions may be regulated, and late terms ones are banned except in extraordinary circumstances like the trolley car example I posted. Many women have died so that infants could live. Many infants have died so that the mother could live. Doctors would nearly always seek to save both. These are awful, awful situations and I don't see how there can be any right answer.
Either way, you are sacrificing one person to save another and violating your principle. JB, Are you saying that the baby is ALWAYS the more valuable person in such a situation? How would you justify such a position? (And of course these situations are extremely rare. The vast majority of abortions involve early embryos that are not babies.)
This is probably why we don't have funerals for miscarriages which are actually the body's way to abort. Yes, there will be personal and private mourning for the potential human person that will never be, but there is no public outcry or upset.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
The question remains: When does a fetus become human?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
YOU and other people may like to believe with the right and wrongs but don't you have to think about situations like these to think about the right or the wrong? Isn't it that every time you come up to solution to do something there are also consiquences that you have to think about. I know that in some cases abortion in not the right thing to do but I
Also believe that it should be the persons choice bc/ we don't know what kind of situation they are in. I personally rather hear about someone having an abortion then hear abut someone dropping their baby off in a dumpster and that is what I believe. Nobody has to agree with me I was just puttin my input in on the situation and maybe if someone read my input they would think about the other conquences that can occur when you make the decision.
No, sacrificing one person to save another should always be with intention and permission. When no permission is available (rare, but occurs), the most authoritative and connected person on site must choose. Harsh, and the choice should not be ridiculed afterward. It is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Even though I could posit most parents would say "save my child" if they were given the opportunity, that's no help when they can't actually answer and you have to choose. Still, the principle isn't broken simply because a real-life or hypothetical situation appears to make it so.
I don't have to justify it. I simply state the facts as I perceive them.Quote:
JB, Are you saying that the baby is ALWAYS the more valuable person in such a situation? How would you justify such a position? (And of course these situations are extremely rare. The vast majority of abortions involve early embryos that are not babies.)
My life is not more important than the baby's, so I have no right to end it out of hand. Minus one of those imminent, life-ending scenarios we like to paint (which you've already pointed out are truly rare), without that, abortion is a decision of saying the life of the unborn is completely irrelevant if it is unwanted.
I understand how people defend that mindset, 1,000,000 US abortions per year say it's doable. I just don't get it.
In most abortions, it is a case of lifestyle choice. I'm suggesting that as such, we should rethink it.
Is the baby ALWAYS more important? How about we settle on equality? How about it's JUST AS important as mine? If we accept that (and most pro-choice don't), if we accept that premise, then how do we justify ending their life if they have every right to their existence?
Remember, at its core, we're comparing pain and discomfort and stress and unhappiness of one person to the death of another.
Which button would you push?
And respectfully, I suggest they are the same thing. In a world where I'm not more important than others, it doesn't matter how they end up in the dumpster (mother's hand or a doctor's), it's the same result. Someone is dead because someone else wanted it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitten420
Thus, for me, they are the same thing.
I think I disagree. If I were raped and got pregnant because of it and carried the child to term, every second of every day of every month for nine months I would relive that rape. I'm guessing it would not go well for me emotionally and spiritually, even as pragmatically German as I am. If raped and pregnant and if I chose to abort during the first trimester, I would feel guilt about the potential human I would cause to not exist, but that guilt would dissipate with the knowledge that God saw what had happened to me and knows my heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
But then, I've never been raped and gotten pregnant from it and have never had to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy.
Too bad the rapist doesn't get pregnant instead and have to carry the child to term. That would cut down on rapes, methinks.
Should the fetus have to pay for the crime of rape?
Rape is about 1 % of all abortions - how about the other 99%?
See, arguing from hypothetical situations is pointless. Even you stumbled when you realized if you ACTUALLY lived the situation, you might not react the way you predict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Sure, God knows our heart. So do we, right now. The rape hypothetical feels extreme enough to support the idea that it would be OK to end the life of the unwanted baby, I just know that it doesn't.
Unlike you, our family has faced this situation. So we know. The baby still has every right to exist and we realized that.
I think maybe you understand when I say, "My mental stress/comfort/convenience/LIFE is not more important than the baby's life, so I have no right to end it out of hand."
It's actually less than that. The 1% covers abortions attributed to rape and incest, and incest is the more common occurrence resulting in pregnancy than rape due to repetition. So statistically, rape abortions are less than .5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
So, 99.5% of abortions are defended by a situation that doesn't apply to them. I agree, the other 99.5% are making the lifestyle choice and pushing the second button.
Obama does not believe this. Palin does and lives it.Quote:
"My mental stress/comfort/comfort is NOT more important than the baby's life, so I have NO right to end it out of hand."
Irrelevant. Obama and Palin are individuals. WE decide these things, that's why I'm here talking to YOU guys about it instead of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Obama will not govern in a bubble, any more than Bush did. We can't attribute our worldview right/wrong based on someone else's. Even someone who agrees with you. People are often elected on single-issue debates like this only to discover there's an entirely different job waiting for them. That's our fault for putting the debate on the political platform as if that's where it's going to get solved. It's not.
You have to figure this stuff out outside of hypotheticals and political debates, then live those choices, the hard ones. Ourselves.
I was asking if you can legitimately/morally make a law that always favors one over the other and I think you agreed that you cannot.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
But I didn't understand your argument about permission.
If you can only save one life and you take their moral equivalency as a given, if the baby is actually a baby--i.e. third trimester*--how does permission enter into it? Is your argument about permission that you can ask the mother's permission to kill her so the baby can live, and that she can and should say yes? Whereas the baby cannot give permission and therefore must be saved? I don't know how else to interpret what you are saying. How is permission relevant?
So, let's simplify and say the mother is unconscious. Then you say it is the most "authoritative and connected person on site." But that sounds like the head of the hospital. Why would that person have any special insights and why would you choose that person, who is probably primarily concerned with budget and personnel, most of the time?
Seriously, I am not clear why you are choosing one outsider to decide something like this. If it was your wife and your baby, wouldn't you want to make the decision with your wife and her doctor? For example, maybe the baby has some defects that will make it suffer terribly and die soon, and you and your wife have 5 other kids who need their mother. Or, on the other hand, you have no other children, and the mother has cancer which will kill her in three months anyway. Do you really want a stranger making those decisions for you?
Those are the particulars that, I think, make banning late term abortion decisions intrusive. Clearly, we want to limit and avoid late abortions, and Roe v Wade enables states to do that. But only the most extreme ideologue would argue with that the person saved always has to be the mother or, likewise, always the baby.
*I'd like to discuss early embryos separately, because that raises different issues. Only about 1% of abortions occur after 19 weeks.
After reading this entire thread I can't believe that abortions are being agrue. This agruement has already been done in many threads throughout the Family&Friends board.
I think it is the female right to choose whether to aboard or not. Maybe there would be fewer abortions if people were more educated about sex and it start from the teens. Parents should take the time out and explained to their kids the myths about sex instead of pretending like their child isn't doing it. They should be more active in their child life. I worked at an abortion clinics years ago and many of the patients were under 18, don't know the statics now, but it was due to their lack of knowledge about sex. If you read the teen board you would see things like "me and my boyfriend had unprotected sex last night but he did pull out, can I get pregnan?" Now my question is where is the parent while her daughter is out having sex?
Parents need to step up and be open with their kids and while you can't stop them they can at least educate them. If they feel uncomfortable then they can take them to a gyn doctor to explain things and getting their child birth control isn't a bad idea. It got so bad a sex education sticky was form so people can ask their questions about sex and hopefully that would help some people but more needs to be done and maybe then the number of abortions will drop. That's all I am saying about the matter because this isn't the topic.
I put in the "stumble" as you so lovingly called it (but I did it deliberately, so it was NOT a stumble).Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
I want to be able to make the choice. I don't want you to make the choice for me.
I still think you understand my point, though. (wink)
I totally understand your point, but you cannot decide for the rest of the world. You don't get that privilege. You can decide only for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
This is more hype. The Dems have stood in the way of more generating capicity for a long time now. They say we need solar and wind. Good, but you have to have reserve capicity for those times when the wind stills and the clouds are heavy.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Our power grid is nearly at capicity now and has been for some time, resulting in rolling black outs or brown outs.
Now, what do you think is going to happen when several million people buy those Chevy Volts? Unless we get more generation plants at the same time, there will not be enough electriticy to go around. Right now, we are being encouraged to cut back on air conditioning usage.
So unless the Dems now do what they have so far been unwilling to do, lots of luck with that Volt.
Don't you know how solar works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
As for doing anything, like Cass Elliott sang --
There's a new world comin'
And it's just around the bend
There's a brand new mornin'
That belongs to you and me
A new world comin'
The one we've had vision of
Comin' in peace
Comin' in joy
Comin' in love.
Yo, Mr. Gal Sourpuss, did you notice who's driving now?Quote:
Galveston1 disagrees: You like the Clinton retreads?
Hes' abusing the reddies tonight - what an angry little man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
President elect Obama had better change his mind (or at least convince investors that he has) on the subject of highert taxes on the wealthier people. He had BETTER do that BEFORE the end of the year, or we may all be sorry!
What do you think investors are going to do with their portfolios if they know they will pay substantially higher taxes in the coming year than they would now?
They will do what ANY sensible person would do. They will sell NOW. That should cause a really sharp drop in the stock market, and the domino effect will hit everyone.
It's okay. Obama's election's got me feelin' real real good. Even Gal can't mess my 'do. Thanks, NK, for watchin' my back.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I see who is driving. My feet are pushing the floor board!
Let's see if your euphoria lasts past the first 6 months of his administration.
Sell their investments and keep the cash in a 2% account? I don't think so. You seem to love selling doom and gloom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Selling doom and gloom?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I think not. The doom and gloom is a reality if Obama gets his way.
If I had anything in this market, I'd sure be selling NOW before
The cap gains tax MORE THAN DOUBLES! Perhaps as high as 20%
That has been predicted.
You really wouldn't have to be very intelligent to sell NOW.
You're missing the point - sell now and do what with your money?Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 AM. |