On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Sam wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:39 AM, denstar wrote: > >> Offshore drilling -- putting more holes in the ground will not solve >> our energy problems. > > It will ease our dependence on foriegn oil until another solution comes along.
That's illogical. We don't need "easing" we need ASAP. Why dedicate more resources, and destroy more of the environment, for not much gain? I'd *far* rather have that effort put into the "new" the tech(s). >> The environment, and having undeveloped land for "the children" (and >> my own sorry ass) is really important to me. Has something to do with >> "Desert Solitaire". :-) >> The republicans are really pushing for more drilling. They push >> through lower EPA standards, using arguments like, it's too expensive >> to retro-fit our factories. >> Meanwhile, we're building nice new factories for people in far away >> lands, that will (hopefully) eventually be competing with us, because >> it's a "good cause", or an "investment in the future". > > > Isn't something like 90% of the US unused? The rest of that sentence > is all over the place. Maybe you don't understand the concept of a "limited resource"? Sorry about the rest of the sentence, was something along the lines of rebuilding Japan to where they "almost" crushed us. >> with it. The Abstinence Only philosophy, for instance, which we've >> talked about recently. That is pure religion-- there is plenty of >> data now that shows what works (multi-pronged approach), there is no >> excuse for pushing one angle alone. It might even be criminal. > > Are you referring to the federal program that started in 1996? I never > heard Clinton accused of adding religion to government. No, I'm talking about this type of stuff: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/frcp08_adv1?qp_source=frcp08pporg >> Pushing creationism as an "alternative" to evolution, which may >> resonate with a certain swath of Americans (as evidenced by how it >> keeps coming up), is pure religion. And apparently a single religion >> at that! They aren't pushing for the "In the beginning there were >> only two: Tawa, the Sun God, and Spider Woman, the Earth Goddess." >> creation theory (story). > > Maybe some local politicians in Kansas, but not the federal government. Ha! You keep telling yourself that. And that the President's views don't have much effect on the rest of the system. Maybe it will come true! >> The real impact that having religion in power has had-- planned >> parenthood getting less funding, and restrictions on what they can do >> with it, hoops to jump through added, etc. > > Why do you want to fund abortion education but not abstinence? I am > pro choice but am against Planned Parenthood. They're like peta. They are not at all like PETA. That's pretty lame, dude, the PP clinics help a lot of people. Maybe you've never lived on the street? They use the pronged approach, not "abortion education". These are not baby-killers, you ass. :-) >> Abortion -- Rather related to the religious/Christian aspect, but more >> general, as many religions hold life sacred. Again though, pure >> religion. There is plenty of data that shows what happens as >> abortions become harder to get. It's a health issue, plain and >> simple, same as sexual education. > > I haven't been keeping up on abortion but didn't realize it was > getting harder to get one. I thought it was easier. Isn't it true you > don't even have to tell your parents anymore? Unless you're talking > about late term abortion. Like when the aborted baby survives you have > to throw it in the trash alive. Babies should be like cell phones, you > have 30 days to try them out and still have the option of aborting > them. You should brush up on it then, your comments belie your lack of information, and a lack of caring. >> We can work out the details, as far as I'm concerned, but a good >> portion of the Republican party doesn't even want abortion on the >> table-- feelings over facts. I can see why, but it's not cool in the >> government. That is not the governments place. And the two main >> republicans, both have strong anti-pro-choice leanings. I'm tired of >> religious fanatics messing around with everybody else. > > Adoptions are way up and abortions are way down. That has a good sound to it. Maybe. Statistics are the devil's play thing. I don't think any lack of freedom is a "good thing". But you want a nanny state, so we're a little different. >> Health-care and Education -- The Republican party has never been a >> very strong proponent of health-care or education. > > I think Bush crossed the isle and worked with Kennedy on No Child Left > Behind. And you all hate him for it. Can win can he. He also tried > very hard to fix SS and the dems said it didn't need fixing. NoChild is a mixed bag, but implemented pretty bad no matter what. We can fund a war, but not our children. SS-- one man's solution is another man's problem-- anyways, tho: What, is he too much of a pussy to get the Dems to do what he needs? Clinton got the Repubs to do what he wanted, didn't he? >> There was an excellent show on PBS the other night, about a dude that >> went all over the world checking out health care systems... it was >> pretty enlightening, and it's pretty crazy that we're actually >> spending more money on our system, for less service, and less quality, >> than many other nations. > > Don't believe everything you see on PBS. Oh, yeah, thanks. That thought hadn't crossed my mind. Sheesh dude, this ain't rocket science. >> Plus, if we can throw ourselves, (already the country with the most >> debt in the world) into further debt without blinking, for "War", why >> the fuck can't we do that for some other shit? We're putting it all >> on credit anyway. >> Why not invest in ourselves? > > That's what the war was for. Investing in our future survival. Remind me not to let you handle my investments. >> And finally, things like Intellectual Property and Privacy -- A huge >> area for me, but not much for either party. Of the two party system, >> it's pretty clear to me that the Democrats are the lesser of the two >> evils there. Not by much tho. > > I don't trust Google either. But you trust the Government, which is even better! >> And finally, it really seems to me that the Republican party is the >> *I* party, sorta in the crazy Ayn Rand sense. I love and dig the >> general idea, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really work like >> that. > > I think it does. Good luck with that, on your island in the sun. >> money anyways), personally), but I'm not a war-monger. I prefer >> peace, and communication with words over bullets. > > Words didn't work. Better one word that brings peace, than a thousand empty... >> someone like Ron Paul in the office. That's what we really need, a >> huge shake-up, > > He's too dangerous. Heh. It *would* be quite a shake up. A needed one, too, but useless without more general support. We don't need schism. >> Thus, Obama. Awesome as it is, he seems like a great fit (in >> practical terms-- I'd love some crazy reformer), which is just a >> bonus. > > Explain how he'll reform. Oh, I'm thinking the same way Clinton did (as in, not really) at least we'll be prosperous and whatnot again, with a party that thinks (just a tiny bit more) than "the other one" at the helm. But mostly I think he sounds smart, capable, and has the energy we need to tap into. Did I mention young? I like that *a lot*. New blood. >> And to be fair, if McCain (or Palin) was more along the lines I am >> (friendly to the Gays, pro-choice, pro-education, etc.) I wouldn't > > You mean gay marriage? > What is your idea of pro-education? supporting the students or the > bureaucracy? Supporting education, vs. haggling about it, while spending billions+ without blinking on other crap. And yes, gay marriage sounds fine to me. Let those poor bastards suffer like the rest of us. (just kidding, honey!) You saying the Republican party supports gay marriage? Or "alternate lifestyles"? I think they like to legislate lifestyle. And morality. While not being any better than the rest of us. >> fight so hard for Obama. I'll still be happy to have Bush2 out, but >> it really doesn't seem like we've learned what we should have from the >> experience. And that's the scary part. > > Only if one agrees with the lesson plan. Well, you've got me there. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think-- or something like that. The proof is in the pudding, Sam. You really think things are the best they've been? That we're better off now than we were 8 years ago? That the future is as bright as it could have been? >> We're quickly becoming the bad type of "socialism" -- i.e., not. Lame >> media, no personal rights/privacy, no freedom to travel, etc.. Money >> buying power, what have you. > > The media is biased for Obama and yes they are lame. But we have talk > radio and the internet. > How did you lose your personal rights? I've noted several examples, but you don't seem to think they're rights, so what's the point? > When was your travel restricted? About a year ago, but many times since DUM DUM DUM "NINE ELEVEN" (one attack, and we're suddenly pussified-- weak. weak. weak.) Oh, we "won" the war on terror. Sure. "They" didn't win. Nope. We're just "safer" now, a fair trade for freedom. >> Heh, guess them commies are still doing fine tho. If you can't beat >> 'em, join em. > > I thought so :) You're making it so. We're screwed, if people don't wake up and get a clue. http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy (in case clicking on the link on the home page was too much effort) -- Everything that has ever been called folk art has always reflected domination. Theodor Adorno ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268640 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
