It's coming...

[Armando]

When was the last time a politician did anything for you?

keeping my friends safe in iraq, that's one thing. that's why i support Jim Webb for senate in virginia. his own son is a marine fighting in iraq, and he himself is an extremely highly decorated combat marine from vietnam, who saw some of the bloodiest fighting of the war. men like him, not politicians, should decide when war should be used, truly as a last option. there is actually not a single veteran in our admin. no one served. not a single one of the top brass, has served. is it any wonder why our commander in chief can dismiss almost 3,000 dead, with 3,000 families left behind, and nearly 20,000 injured, with thousands upon thousands of amputees, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis as "just a comma" in history?

bush has yet to attend a single military funeral. he was ready to take all the glory when they thought iraq would be a cakewalk, when they failed to adequately plan (intentionally or not) the post-war occupation, when he declared "Mission Accomplished" , but for the democrats to dare let our country see just one tiny aspect of the truly tremdous consequences of our republican admin's tragic lie, then they are bending reality?

syduck:

 

[Jun]

and yes, a democrat should tear down a republican for being a republican. that's the reality of the two party system. furthermore, republicans are notoriously disciplined in how they vote and caucus. for this reason, there is no such thing as a "pro choice" republican or an "anti war" republican, because when it comes down to the vote, they vote with their party. just the political reality.

Being a "political reality" doesnt justify how stupid it is. Also, there are certainly pro-choice / anti-war Republicans, that is a rediculous and biased statement. I didn't read the rest of your post because I was sufficiently convinced it would be shit.

 

[Armando]

back it up.

who's the anti-war republican, and how does his stance effect the war issue? i want to see substance, not empty political rhetoric.

show me the pro-choice republican that did not support alito to the SCOTUS and i'll consider your argument.

a rediculous and biased statement? what does that even mean? what's my bias? reality bias? yes, it is a fact that our current winner-take-all system only allows for two viable parties (more appropriately named as coalitions). and when they govern, they govern as a party. sorry you don't like it, but calling my post "shit" is pretty juvenile.

personally, i would prefer Instant Run-off Voting, a very simple way to eliminate third party spoilers, more effectively representing the will of the voters as you vote for who you want, not just who you don't want. in that system, a third party could be viable, but serious election reform must overcome entrenched interests in both parties that seek to maintain the current system (naturally so, as it keeps them in power).

Instant Runoff voting for those too lazy to click the link : You can choose 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. Bush would not be President if this were the case in 2000, as the 100,000 who voted for nader who have overwhelming chose gore as their 2nd choice. In our current system, a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, a perfect illustration of the 2party reality you call stupid.

so why is it that i am the only one backing up what i say? let me link you, google

 

[Armando]

let me clarify:

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"

 

[Bone]

ilu Nader.

 

[Mori]

Using google to find news stories that fit your argument does not back up anything, it just shows you can find some member of the media that shares your point of view. I read your post, and I'm sorry unless you can find something more solid than a few articles on cnn.com its just as good as giving your opinion without any links to web pages. Seriously, do you think that the democrats are less corrupt than the republicans? I think it is pretty obvious that both sides are pretty equal on that front - you even highlighted the reason it appears republicans are perceived as more corrupt, they have been in power. Being in power has no correlation with how corrupt the party is. The party that is in the limelight is going to be more criticized than the other, fact of life.

Furthermore, while I do agree that the current administration has made mistakes, I really do not think they get blamed more than they deserve. It has become the 'thing to do' to hate Bush because the democrats tell us so. Why do all the blind sheep follow? Has it occurred to you that this war has had one of the least (possibly the least I do not remember) casualty rates out of any we have ever been in (that lasted more than 5 days)? At the same time perhaps it was not spun thus, because it would not have gained as much support post 9/11, but we managed to rid Iraq of a man who was killing his own people; take a second and think about that, his own people. Don't believe all the anti-war propaganda that says they don’t want us there. I know plenty of people who came from Iraq, my best friend's father was born there, and they are ALL thankful that Saddam is out.

So Armando, next time you decide to make a post about something try to look at it more objectively rather than making it obvious your bias is coming through in your argument k?

 

[Armando]

Using google to find news stories that fit your argument does not back up anything, it just shows you can find some member of the media that shares your point of view.

did you read the news stories? they were quoted "generals on the ground" as they are referred to in the media.

i am at a loss for words. the NIE is not the opinion of the New York Times, it is the opinion of the combined intelligence community of the United States.

Yes, it is natural for politicians to abuse their positions in power, and the democrats have been and have done very corrupt things, but my point is that they have been shut out of power for over a decade. There is something called K Street, and it is basically a republican creation. The lobbyists are not banging down the doors of democrats cause they can't get shit done as a minority in every branch of the government. I am not stating opinion, just obvious reality to anyone who follows politics.

Bush lied. He lied us into this war. Hundreds of thousands of people have died over this. We have lost hundreds of billions of dollars of OUR money. Do you understand there are strong passions behind politics when lives are lost?

And my bias? Yeaah i'm voting democrat. I thought that was pretty clear.

And because I am voting democrat, I have a political, democractic bias. So my information cannot be trusted. It doesn't matter if I am just the messenger, showing the way to other sources. It doesn't matter if the things I say are words paraphrased from official government reports. If a democrat says it, it has a political bias, therefore worthless. And if a person opposes our republican admin, they are a democrat.

stop. i'm dizzy.

speaking of bad men, what about the dictators we prop up? everyone knows (oh dear lord, do not make me link this i hope to god everyone knows this for real by now) that saddam was one of our boys.

our current sec of defense. so what about it? let's go after those terrible dictarors, like the ones in saudi arabia! so who's next?



can't let these poor people die right? how about the 2.5 million displaced by the Sudanese gov't Janjaweed militia in Sudan. Sure, estimates range between 200,000 and 400,000 dead since the conflict began in 03, an act that is being called Genocide by groups such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

See, I could link more reports on Iraq. Less Electricity, Less Stability, Less clean water, Unemployment rates in excess of 50%. But wait, that'd just be biased news. Because I am not providing a fake counter argument that does not reflect reality, I am guilty of being biased (the bias of having a point of view!)

so how is iraq these days?

 

[iaeolan]

I agree that central Africa is a crying shame, but it seems nobody wants to do anything about it at all, and I have a problem with that.

Bush did it for oil. I'm not buying into the conspiracy theories, but it's the same reason we went to kuwait. We need the oil because our domestic reserves dont cut it.

Strategic move with a reason of justification behind it that speaks to the layman.

It would be nice if we were at a stage of development where we had such independance of resources and and such surplus that we could focus our efforts to saving places which offer no gain for us in return, but at this point saving our own asses comes first with a little dabbling into having a heart for those in need.


I suppose I'm just in a mood atm, and may disagree with myself in a few hours or days, but whatever.

 

[Armando]

it's nice to hear such a frank reply, since we aren't supposed to talk about oil. or OIL as Ray McGovern (27 year career CIA officer under seven presidents) calls it ..

Oil
Israel
Logistics

the three reasons we care about the middle east, even though that third one is a rehash of the first. is it a coincidence that iran is sandwiched between iraq and afghanistan? if so, a very helpful one had we been planning on attacking iran. which is very helpful if you want oil, since Iran + Iraq + Saudi Arabia = a huge bulk of the 2/3 of all known oil reserves in the world that the middle east represents.

if anyone doubts how oil influences America's foreign policy decisions, let's consider three major players on the international stage.

One is the democratically elected leader of a country that is of no military threat to our nation. makes the news all the time, has called our leader the devil and our foreign policy neoimperialism.

One is a democratically elected leader of a country that is of little military threat to our nation. nuclear amibitions, yes, but experts put it at a decade before capability is reached, and even then without a delivery system.

The last is a horrible despot who literally starves his people in order to seek the bomb. he has the bomb (actually several) and also the current head of the CIA, George Tenet, in 2003 said they potentially have ballistic missiles that could hit the west coast, or at the very least they have the technology. they also are notorious for selling nuclear and ballistic missile technology to unfriendly nations such as pakistan, libya and iran.

know the answers?

Hugo Chavez (Venuzuela) - no threat, 77.2 billion barrels of proven conventional oil reserves, the largest of any country in the Western Hemisphere

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran) - mild threat, has the world's third largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 133 gigabarrels

Kim Sung Il (DKP, or North Korea) - huge threat, ballistic missles, no oil.

Which two of the above three were getting talked up all year, that is prior to NK setting off the bomb? and while iran does pose a threat to our security, the main reasons are self-inflicted. 140,000 troops in iraq and our dependence on foreign oil give iran the opportunity to do serious damage, but they are far from being able to cause the mass casualties that NK could, or will be able to soon. as if there weren't enough reasons to get away from the west coast ...

 

[Mori]

True, NK is probably the biggest threat to the rest of the world right now, but do not underestimate Iran. Launching a bomb is not the only way to destroy a nation. If Iran cut off oil supplies and nobody was willing or able to take military action the economy would crash. If that happened people would be starving to death rather then being blown up. I do not think one is any better than the other. Furthermore though NK is talking up their weapons capabilities a whole lot lately, the chances of them starting a war are much lower. It is a regional thing. Iran is currently in a position of causing a regional conflict that will likely escalate to something resembling world war three due to the clashing of different Muslim factions in the Mid East and the ties the whole world has in the area (mainly due to oil). North Korea on the other hand has China watching their every move, and they are still very afraid of China nukes or no nukes. So while NK might have more potential to directly effect us Iran is feasibly a bigger threat to the US in the long run. I agree Chavez is no threat to us at all really, though it would be nice if the South American nations would begin to settle down with all the domestic strife some of the experience.

So while NK does have nukes, nuclear weapons are not the only thing we should be fearing right now. Also, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to shift to a source of fuel that is not oil, and can be produced domestically - we need to stop depending on foreign sources. The only thing some people fail to realize is that this shift cannot be immediate simply because of the economic changes that must take place. Oil is currently a huge part of our economy and if a shift to an alternate fuel source is done improperly we could enter a serious recession; bad news seeing as our economy has been increasing steadily in the past few years and I for one would like to keep it that way.

 

[iaeolan]

To go back on topic, MSNBC is actually running a special later today (i think) about "nasty" political ads and if they are actually fufilling what they intend on fufilling.

One of the recent ones is the stem cell research/michael j fox ad which is actually quite mild, but still guilty of provoking an emotional response in the uninformed.

 

[Daelius]

I live in New York State and all i see are attack ads. It's terrible.

 

[rab]

Attack ads are more memorable. Just like how when you read the forums it's all bitching.

 

[Armando]

i like it better to read bitching about bitching. it makes me lightheaded.

 

[Armando]

"One of the recent ones is the stem cell research/michael j fox ad which is actually quite mild, but still guilty of provoking an emotional response in the uninformed."

Guy, he suffers from a terrible disease. He is advocating for stem cell research which promises a cure. i think i can give the man a pass just this once. This is not about democrats or republicans, it's about a) understanding how science R & D works in this country and b) making sure america is a world leader in this breakthrough medical technology.

it *should* be an emotional issue, as the people who are affected by these terrible diseases are very emotional : and that emotion is suffering.

to call fox a partisan or a phoney or a liar is not in line with reality.

did you know he campaigned with republican arlen spector in PA? did you know that the symptoms displayed by fox are typical of parkinsons? did you know that the scientific community agrees that embryonic stem cells are more viable than their adult counterparts?

if someone wants to call me on this, i'll be happy to dig and find reputable sources to back it up, so you don't have to take my word for it. you know i will.

but that ad, a perfect example of the so-called "attack ad"

here's the thing : attack ads are ok. they are natural. attack ads amount to criticism. criticism alone may or may not be appropriate.

here's what is appropriate : criticizing (aka "attacking" ) lawmakers on their votes and their record. when bush lies us into war, yes it is ok to criticize him on that. yes, it is ok to use his own words to expose his hypocrisy.

here's what is not appropriate : outrageous claims to invoke base emotions to get out the vote by using factors like race, sexual orientation, fear of death (i.e., if you vote democrat, the terrorists will kill you) and flat out lies.

guess which side uses racism and hatred of gays to turn out votes?

guess which side threatens american lives and uses fear to drive voters to the polls?

you have one chance.

from the Washington Post, The Year of Playing Dirtier :

Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!

Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face.

It turns out that Kind -- along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House -- opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies. According to Nelson's ads, the Democrat also wants to "let illegal aliens burn the American flag" and "allow convicted child molesters to enter this country."

here's another point to consider. the republicans have committed crimes. some have gone to jail. if they lose power now, more will certainly go to jail. very powerful people are playing a very high stakes game. you can't even put a price figure on it. control over the largest economy, the most powerful military and the largest budget .. when you get into the trillions, those numbers just stop fitting inside a person's head.

so yeah, one side has more to lose than the other. the democrats, individualy, don't lose if they don't win control. the incumbents stay in congress and keep bringing in the $$ and keep living the life. being a perpetual minority party is not sucha nightmare. being bubba's lovedoll is a whole nother story.

edit: i was looking through some clips (for my other post) and ran across this RNC ad. Perfect example. And seriously, I wasn't even looking for a spooky republican ad. they are everywhere!



(turn on speakers for spooky sound effects!!!)

 

[Allielyn]

"One of the recent ones is the stem cell research/michael j fox ad which is actually quite mild, but still guilty of provoking an emotional response in the uninformed."

Guy, he suffers from a terrible disease. He is advocating for stem cell research which promises a cure. i think i can give the man a pass just this once. This is not about democrats or republicans, it's about a) understanding how science R & D works in this country and b) making sure america is a world leader in this breakthrough medical technology.

it *should* be an emotional issue, as the people who are affected by these terrible diseases are very emotional : and that emotion is suffering.

to call fox a partisan or a phoney or a liar is not in line with reality.

did you know he campaigned with republican arlen spector in PA? did you know that the symptoms displayed by fox are typical of parkinsons? did you know that the scientific community agrees that embryonic stem cells are more viable than their adult counterparts?

if someone wants to call me on this, i'll be happy to dig and find reputable sources to back it up, so you don't have to take my word for it. you know i will.

Not to turn this thread into a huge debate, but I feel like you're a little uninformed yourself. It provokes an emotional response in the uninformed - and yes, that's bad. It is just these "uninformed" people who will now make decisions - not based on either "understanding of cience R&D" OR "breakthrough medical technology" but based solely on the image that's given them, which does not educate or inform. Your assertion that stem cell research "promises a cure" for anything is plain wrong.

Should the public be informed? Absolubtely! But there's a lot more to the issue than the "Bush is denying people the medical care they need!" argument that is flat out incorrect.

 

[rab]

One of my grandfathers has Parkinson's and I guess he doesn't take his medication, because he certainly can't speak clearly enough to understand, and his shaking is not that violent -- just constant.

 

[Armando]

Promise, noun - indication of what may be expected

don't make this statement : "Your assertion that stem cell research "promises a cure" for anything is plain wrong." and expect for it to stand on it's own. back it up? i gave you links, i feel you owe me the same courtesy.

and don't put words in my mouth.

you know what quotation marks are for? yeah, quoting people (how genius!) so don't imply i said a phrase with quotation marks that i did not say.

the stem cell issue for the bush white house is the same as the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue : pandering to the right. and pandering to the right is the same as lying about iraq, lying about tax cuts and lying about the deficit : politics. so if you want to reply to something i say, let's stick to the actual words i use instead of just making some up.

but yes, as a direct result of the actions of the bush whitehouse, by limiting federal funding on stem cell research to existing stem cell lines (the number of which that are scientifically viable is in the single digits), they are impeding medical science and our country is falling behind.

the result is no medical progress. the result is our top scientists are going over seas to do research because of the "moral argument" of the stem cell "debate"

i don't claim to be a scientist or a specialist in this field but all Fox is advocating for is federal funding for research, as he clearly states. the ad is not misleading in the least. it is an accurate portrayal of the disease. to say that if an ad provokes emotions, it is automatically misleading or out of bounds is absurd.

and what was your complaint again? that the 30 second spot does not sufficiently educate or inform? sorry, but that is the responsibility of the voters in a democracy. fox is merely advocating a position he believes in, which is his right and which is not "bad"

so what's the big deal about stem cell research? if i am wrong and it offers no hope for any cures then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

so should i listen to internet_msgboard_warrior_Allielyn or should i listen to the President of Harvard?

The Harvard Stem Cell Institute is an important effort to help unlock one of the fundamental mysteries of life, and could lead to important new medical treatments.

or how about Scientific American.com

Early tests of human adult stem cells in treating cardiovascular disease are encouraging and will certainly lead to more extensive trials in the near future. Given much promising experimental evidence in animals, therapeutic trials of human ES cell derivatives in neurodegenerative disease are probably imminent.

as for the moral argument, the stem cells scientist want to use come from fertility clinics that are going to be thrown away anyways. where's the outrage about all these "people" being tossed in the garbage? personally, if i am dying and i am suffering (and these people are dying, they are suffering) then i would pick science over religion anytime, and tell them to save the lesson on morality for someone who needs it, like the boneheads who support the iraq war and the murder of hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians.

 

[Allielyn]

Promise, noun - something that has the effect of an express assurance; indication of what may be expected

^Fixed.

I didn't realize that you needed me to quote your own specific words so that you know what you wrote.

For your information, I was mostly responding to an assertion of yours that I found misrepresented the research and oversimplified the issue. For reference:

Guy, he suffers from a terrible disease. He is advocating for stem cell research which promises a cure. i think i can give the man a pass just this once. This is not about democrats or republicans, it's about a) understanding how science R & D works in this country and b) making sure america is a world leader in this breakthrough medical technology.

(emphasis mine)

Now, it's entirely possible that you just made a mistake in your writing, and didn't mean to write anything so blatantly optimistic, but the rest of your post seemed to me to advocate stem cell research strongly, so I figured that it wasn't just a fluke. I still stand by my original words:

Your assertion that stem cell research "promises a cure" for anything is plain wrong.

I'm not saying that Stem Cell research isn't promising, nor did I ever even state a position on the matter, unlike yourself. I'm merely trying to clarify the issue on a point that I felt you misrepresented in your post - inform the public if you will, rather than evoking a purely emotional response. Please remember, before you argue the issue, that I have never in this thread disagreed or agreed with stem cell research or its moral ramifications. It is not my intent to do so. I have message boards that I go to when I feel in the mood to debate, and this is not one of them.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Armando]

what are you even doing besides rehashing this thread?

i'm aware of what "promise" means - i gave you the definition for your own info.

second, yes, fox is advocating for stem cell research. do you object to that claim?

third, what claim of mine misrepresented the research? all i said, in so many words, was that stem cell science offered hope for future cures to desvastating diseases. i supported that claim with reputable scientific research bodies. so how did you support your claim?

I'm not saying that Stem Cell research isn't promising, nor did I ever even state a position on the matter, unlike yourself.

ya, i said it is promising new field in medicine. isn't by contradicting what i said stating a position?

let's revisit what you said :

Your assertion that stem cell research "promises a cure" for anything is plain wrong.

you should at least edit your former post so it isn't so blatantly self-contradictory.

edit: it's funny how you try to end your post gracefully. but in the last sentence, a thinly veiled insult:

I have message boards that I go to when I feel in the mood to debate, and this is not one of them.

ok, so alright you prefer other message boards. that's relevant how? if you want to jump in, then jump in, by all means. but when you get embarassed, don't say you are taking your ball and going home because this message board isn't worthy of your expressions. it's because you are talking nonsense and it's plain to see. i don't care what message boards you debate on. this is here and now, if you want to call me out then feel free to do so, but don't pretend to be surprised by a response.

edit 2: here's the bottomline - do you think Fox's ad was an unfair attack ad (for whatever reason) and do you think that both parties are equally guilty of running unfair or dirty attack ads?