Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?


 Science > Abortion > Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 11 of 24

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 
Topic: Science > Abortion
User: "Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam"
Date: 18 Aug 2004 02:41:39 PM
Object: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?
If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-***** liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
.

User: "GreyCloud"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 01:17:57 PM
Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.

So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?
Just my 2 cents.
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
.
User: "Mayor of Rlyeh"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 03:50:09 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.

If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human? Is the cancer genetically distinct from its host
and therefore a distinct being in its own right?
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
.
User: "Edwin"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 05:03:15 PM
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

[snip]

If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human? Is the cancer genetically distinct from its host
and therefore a distinct being in its own right?

Somebody get this man some science fiction!
--
Edwin
.

User: "Snuggles"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 04:55:41 PM
In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?

Just because something has the potential to be something else does not
give it the same rights. George Bush had the potential to be president
when he was two but that didn't give the 2 year old Bush the right to
act as president.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snuggles, not Shuggie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
User: "Edwin"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 06:19:43 PM
"Snuggles" <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff-CE3220.17554021082004@corp.supernews.com...

In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


Just because something has the potential to be something else does not
give it the same rights. George Bush had the potential to be president
when he was two but that didn't give the 2 year old Bush the right to
act as president.

Ah, no. The 2 year old George Bush had the potential to grow up to be
someone who could be president, but he didn't have the potential to be
president while he was 2.
Being president isn't a right, either.
--
Edwin
.

User: "Mayor of Rlyeh"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 06:34:06 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:55:41 -0400, Snuggles
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


Just because something has the potential to be something else does not
give it the same rights.

It has more than potential. It is the first stages of a new human. If
its not murdered it will grow into another human. This silliness about
cancer being the same as a baby overlooks that fact.

George Bush had the potential to be president
when he was two

Are we really supposed to take you seriusly when you spew nonsense
like this? No two year old has the potential to be president. Two year
olds simply lack any hint of the abilities needed to guide a nation.

but that didn't give the 2 year old Bush the right to act as president.

Your analogy is fatally flawed in that if left to its natural outcome
a normal two year old will not become president.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
.
User: "Darwin Fish"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 07:17:20 PM
In article <6kmfi0tts7pi78e2a34sh4neoo3i9qihi4@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:55:41 -0400, Snuggles
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


Just because something has the potential to be something else does not
give it the same rights.


It has more than potential. It is the first stages of a new human. If
its not murdered it will grow into another human. This silliness about
cancer being the same as a baby overlooks that fact.

George Bush had the potential to be president
when he was two


Are we really supposed to take you seriusly when you spew nonsense
like this? No two year old has the potential to be president. Two year
olds simply lack any hint of the abilities needed to guide a nation.

I think Snuggles meant to say that he had the potential to become the
president when he was two.... as do most 2 year olds. However that does
not mean we need to treat the 2 year old George Bush as president just
because he the the potential to be president. In a similar vein, just
because something has the potential to become human does not mean we
must treat it as if was already human.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Darwin Fishes swim!
www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
User: "Mayor of Rlyeh"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 09:28:18 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:17:20 -0400, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <6kmfi0tts7pi78e2a34sh4neoo3i9qihi4@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:55:41 -0400, Snuggles
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


Just because something has the potential to be something else does not
give it the same rights.


It has more than potential. It is the first stages of a new human. If
its not murdered it will grow into another human. This silliness about
cancer being the same as a baby overlooks that fact.

George Bush had the potential to be president
when he was two


Are we really supposed to take you seriusly when you spew nonsense
like this? No two year old has the potential to be president. Two year
olds simply lack any hint of the abilities needed to guide a nation.


I think Snuggles meant to say that he had the potential to become the
president when he was two.... as do most 2 year olds. However that does
not mean we need to treat the 2 year old George Bush as president just
because he the the potential to be president. In a similar vein, just
because something has the potential to become human does not mean we
must treat it as if was already human.

The trouble with your theory is that the thing in question is already
human, not potentially human.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
.
User: "Darwin Fish"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 09:45:29 PM
In article <t51gi0tk49l0rsgoihvlbgoqegpuuut93j@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:17:20 -0400, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <6kmfi0tts7pi78e2a34sh4neoo3i9qihi4@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:55:41 -0400, Snuggles
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


Just because something has the potential to be something else does not
give it the same rights.


It has more than potential. It is the first stages of a new human. If
its not murdered it will grow into another human. This silliness about
cancer being the same as a baby overlooks that fact.

George Bush had the potential to be president
when he was two


Are we really supposed to take you seriusly when you spew nonsense
like this? No two year old has the potential to be president. Two year
olds simply lack any hint of the abilities needed to guide a nation.


I think Snuggles meant to say that he had the potential to become the
president when he was two.... as do most 2 year olds. However that does
not mean we need to treat the 2 year old George Bush as president just
because he the the potential to be president. In a similar vein, just
because something has the potential to become human does not mean we
must treat it as if was already human.


The trouble with your theory is that the thing in question is already
human, not potentially human.

That goes top the heart of the question. Do all humans have a right to
life and what do we consider human in the first place? Personally.... I
think simple biology is not enough since chimps share almost all the
same genes as a human being and we don't consider them human. In a
similar vein there are a number of genetic disorders were the person has
many more chromosomes than normal humans yet we still consider them
human even though they are genetically quite different. Plus.... I could
imagine a number of critters....aliens... self-aware computers....
ghost....etc...etc... that I think would have a right to life (if they
existed) that are not genetically human.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Darwin Fishes swim!
www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
User: "Mayor of Rlyeh"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 10:02:51 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:45:29 -0400, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <t51gi0tk49l0rsgoihvlbgoqegpuuut93j@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:17:20 -0400, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <6kmfi0tts7pi78e2a34sh4neoo3i9qihi4@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:55:41 -0400, Snuggles
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


Just because something has the potential to be something else does not
give it the same rights.


It has more than potential. It is the first stages of a new human. If
its not murdered it will grow into another human. This silliness about
cancer being the same as a baby overlooks that fact.

George Bush had the potential to be president
when he was two


Are we really supposed to take you seriusly when you spew nonsense
like this? No two year old has the potential to be president. Two year
olds simply lack any hint of the abilities needed to guide a nation.


I think Snuggles meant to say that he had the potential to become the
president when he was two.... as do most 2 year olds. However that does
not mean we need to treat the 2 year old George Bush as president just
because he the the potential to be president. In a similar vein, just
because something has the potential to become human does not mean we
must treat it as if was already human.


The trouble with your theory is that the thing in question is already
human, not potentially human.


That goes top the heart of the question. Do all humans have a right to
life and what do we consider human in the first place?

You're flirting with eugenics.

Personally.... I think simple biology is not enough since chimps share almost all the
same genes as a human being and we don't consider them human.

Who is human and what is not is not a hard question. There are very
few unable to distinguish between humans and chimps.

In a
similar vein there are a number of genetic disorders were the person has
many more chromosomes than normal humans yet we still consider them
human even though they are genetically quite different.

'Many more'? At most one. many are caused by one being out of order
not extra ones.

Plus.... I could
imagine a number of critters....aliens... self-aware computers....
ghost....etc...etc... that I think would have a right to life (if they
existed) that are not genetically human.

Now you're just getting stupid.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
.






User: "Steve Carroll"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 06:56:08 PM
In article <2adfi09h2vdf4r7irjo5ses4p2j2l0joi1@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.


If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?

This sounds like it would make a pretty wild horror flick:) Revenge of
the C monster, anyone?

Is the cancer genetically distinct from its host
and therefore a distinct being in its own right?

--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
.

User: "GreyCloud"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 10:17:41 PM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:


Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.



If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?

:-) Not likely in this case.

Is the cancer genetically distinct from its host
and therefore a distinct being in its own right?

Don't know about that part.
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
.
User: "David Fritzinger"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 22 Aug 2004 06:24:05 PM
In article <XKCdnXKcmNd9krXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:


Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.



If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


:-) Not likely in this case.

Is the cancer genetically distinct from its host
and therefore a distinct being in its own right?


Don't know about that part.

Actually, some may be. It has been found that part of the pathway that
leads to some cancers is a series of mutations that knock out some of
the tumor supresser genes, thus allowing for unchecked growth of the
cancer cell.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
User: "GreyCloud"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 22 Aug 2004 11:01:17 PM
David Fritzinger wrote:

In article <XKCdnXKcmNd9krXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:


Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:


On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:



Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.



If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


:-) Not likely in this case.


Is the cancer genetically distinct from its host
and therefore a distinct being in its own right?


Don't know about that part.



Actually, some may be. It has been found that part of the pathway that
leads to some cancers is a series of mutations that knock out some of
the tumor supresser genes, thus allowing for unchecked growth of the
cancer cell.

Shows some promise then for a cancer cure. If medical researchers can
do this, then the door should be open to other cures.
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
.
User: "TB-Taylor Anythinganytime@com"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 23 Aug 2004 03:42:23 PM
Because the smart ones know he isn't!
.

User: "David Fritzinger"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 23 Aug 2004 12:04:20 AM
In article <vOidnZN007UL9rTcRVn-tg@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

David Fritzinger wrote:

In article <XKCdnXKcmNd9krXcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:


Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:


On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:17:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:



Sneechres wrote:



Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your
favorite
term...


Unborn human.


Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.



How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.


So is cancer, in technical terms genetically human. When you have to
amputate the leg off to save your life... is it any different under
similar conditions for a woman?

Just my 2 cents.



If left to its natural process would the cancer have grown into an
independent human?


:-) Not likely in this case.


Is the cancer genetically distinct from its host
and therefore a distinct being in its own right?


Don't know about that part.



Actually, some may be. It has been found that part of the pathway that
leads to some cancers is a series of mutations that knock out some of
the tumor supresser genes, thus allowing for unchecked growth of the
cancer cell.


Shows some promise then for a cancer cure. If medical researchers can
do this, then the door should be open to other cures.

Problem is that natural selection selects those cancer cells that keep
growing. The loss of control of cell growth is not a good thing.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.






User: "David Fritzinger"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 20 Aug 2004 12:52:29 PM
In article <1414fd53.0408200843.35f09688@posting.google.com>,
(Sneechres) wrote:

Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<BD49924C.5D737%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...

"Sneechres" <

> wrote in
1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com on 8/18/04 10:56 PM:

C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:<clund-B7DF27.22542518082004@amstwist00.chello.com>...

In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5EE.13142618082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.


Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.


Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.

At what point do they become human? Hell, I would like to see as few
abortions as possible, but there are circumstances where an abortion is
the best thing.


as am equal to the mother.


What other living human being is not considered equal to other human
beings?

Can the aborted fetus live outside of the mother's womb? Perhaps that
should be the dividing line.


It is not about killing babies, no

matter how many times idiots repeat that claim.


Then what IS it about?

The rights of the mother, for one.


Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.


Nor is the wealthfare the right wing supports.


What is "wealthfare?"

Supporting the rich, by lowering taxes on those most able to pay taxes.
Lowering taxes on corporations. Removing taxes on unearned income.


What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.


What would solve the problem in your view?


Since it's not my problem, I don't care if it ever gets solved, and it
won't. The government has no chance of solving the personal problems
that contribute to people living on the street. Throw them in prison.

Aren't you a sweetheart? Remember what Rush said about druggies. What
does he say now?


What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.


Condoms help to prevent AIDs.


Then why haven't they? Condoms have been around longer than AIDS, so
you'd think that AIDS would have gone away in twenty years. But it's
worse now.

What a stupid statement. Perhaps because even the best condom is not
100% effective. Perhaps because even the most effective condom can't do
a thing if it isn't used. You really aren't very bright, are you?


I have no idea what political ideology the
good folks who are working on cures hold. Do you?


It's safe to guess that they still believe in the free market.

Why?


How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.


Why stop at guns?


I dunno, maybe because they're in the Constitution???

Umm, no. Militias are in the Constitution. Whether unrestricted gun
rights are there is still a matter of very large controversy.


Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.


Where did you get that idea?


Media coverage of the anti-war protests was fairly thorough.

Wrong again. We liberals are against the war in Iraq, which, if
anything, increased the danger of terrorism.


Many Liberals do not like the way Bush is

acting.


How is he acting that you have to protest a war that the military is
fighting for your benefit?

Because, we don't believe the war is being fought for our benefit, you
fool.


That does not imply they do not want to minimize the risk of

terrorism.


This does:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8744

You are talking about a lunatic fringe, you fool


Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.


Sure, they should be allowed to live. Or die. As they wish.


So it's live and let die, like I said. Everything the left believes
is about dying.

Wrong again. We don't believe in fighting wars for no good reason, which
kills soldiers and civilians, for no good reason. Many of us don't
believe in the death penalty, which has a good chance of killing
innocent people. Guess you are wrong again. You are probably used to
that by now.


I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.


Only if your examples were accurate...


They are. Your spins just aren't all that compelling.

It looks like you have been convincingly shown to be wrong. Nice try
though.


--S

--
Dave Fritzinger
.
User: "Snit"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 20 Aug 2004 03:52:58 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in
dfritzinnospam-25E525.07523020082004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com on 8/20/04
10:52 AM:

In article <1414fd53.0408200843.35f09688@posting.google.com>,
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:

Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<BD49924C.5D737%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in
1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com on 8/18/04 10:56 PM:

C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:<clund-B7DF27.22542518082004@amstwist00.chello.com>...

In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5EE.13142618082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.


Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.


Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.


At what point do they become human? Hell, I would like to see as few
abortions as possible, but there are circumstances where an abortion is
the best thing.

Yeah, but Steve Carroll is entertaining.


as am equal to the mother.


What other living human being is not considered equal to other human
beings?


Can the aborted fetus live outside of the mother's womb? Perhaps that
should be the dividing line.

Would change based on technology... and the ideology and skills of the
doctor


It is not about killing babies, no

matter how many times idiots repeat that claim.


Then what IS it about?


The rights of the mother, for one.


Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.


Nor is the wealthfare the right wing supports.


What is "wealthfare?"


Supporting the rich, by lowering taxes on those most able to pay taxes.
Lowering taxes on corporations. Removing taxes on unearned income.

and just handing the wealthy money... do not forget that.


What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.


What would solve the problem in your view?


Since it's not my problem, I don't care if it ever gets solved, and it
won't. The government has no chance of solving the personal problems
that contribute to people living on the street. Throw them in prison.


Aren't you a sweetheart? Remember what Rush said about druggies. What
does he say now?


What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.


Condoms help to prevent AIDs.


Then why haven't they? Condoms have been around longer than AIDS, so
you'd think that AIDS would have gone away in twenty years. But it's
worse now.


What a stupid statement. Perhaps because even the best condom is not
100% effective. Perhaps because even the most effective condom can't do
a thing if it isn't used. You really aren't very bright, are you?

Just think: the ability to abstain has been around longer than condoms.
Clearly, based on the "logic" that condoms do not work... well, you figure
it out.


I have no idea what political ideology the
good folks who are working on cures hold. Do you?


It's safe to guess that they still believe in the free market.


Why?


How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.


Why stop at guns?


I dunno, maybe because they're in the Constitution???


Umm, no. Militias are in the Constitution. Whether unrestricted gun
rights are there is still a matter of very large controversy.


Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.


Where did you get that idea?


Media coverage of the anti-war protests was fairly thorough.


Wrong again. We liberals are against the war in Iraq, which, if
anything, increased the danger of terrorism.


Many Liberals do not like the way Bush is

acting.


How is he acting that you have to protest a war that the military is
fighting for your benefit?


Because, we don't believe the war is being fought for our benefit, you
fool.


That does not imply they do not want to minimize the risk of

terrorism.


This does:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8744


You are talking about a lunatic fringe, you fool


Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.


Sure, they should be allowed to live. Or die. As they wish.


So it's live and let die, like I said. Everything the left believes
is about dying.


Wrong again. We don't believe in fighting wars for no good reason, which
kills soldiers and civilians, for no good reason. Many of us don't
believe in the death penalty, which has a good chance of killing
innocent people. Guess you are wrong again. You are probably used to
that by now.


I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.


Only if your examples were accurate...


They are. Your spins just aren't all that compelling.


It looks like you have been convincingly shown to be wrong. Nice try
though.

Convincing to who? Many do not understand logic, and therefore logic is
not convincing to them.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.

User: "Elizabot"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 20 Aug 2004 01:12:06 PM
David Fritzinger wrote:

In article <1414fd53.0408200843.35f09688@posting.google.com>,
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:


Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<BD49924C.5D737%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in
1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com on 8/18/04 10:56 PM:


C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:<clund-B7DF27.22542518082004@amstwist00.chello.com>...

In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5EE.13142618082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:


I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.


Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.


Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.



At what point do they become human? Hell, I would like to see as few
abortions as possible, but there are circumstances where an abortion is
the best thing.

as am equal to the mother.


What other living human being is not considered equal to other human
beings?



Can the aborted fetus live outside of the mother's womb? Perhaps that
should be the dividing line.

So you believe that our technological and medical advances should be the
determining factor in deciding when someone is "human"?
--
"You see, my invisible green dragon tells me that God is real, and is
even a pretty nice guy, but can not hold his liquor well."
- Snit (aka §¼¡Ý) on 4/27/04
.
User: "David Fritzinger"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 20 Aug 2004 01:16:43 PM
In article <41263ef3$0$99774$75868355@news.frii.net>,
Elizabot <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote:

David Fritzinger wrote:

In article <1414fd53.0408200843.35f09688@posting.google.com>,
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:


Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<BD49924C.5D737%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in
1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com on 8/18/04 10:56 PM:


C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:<clund-B7DF27.22542518082004@amstwist00.chello.com>...

In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5EE.13142618082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:


I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.


Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.


Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.



At what point do they become human? Hell, I would like to see as few
abortions as possible, but there are circumstances where an abortion is
the best thing.

as am equal to the mother.


What other living human being is not considered equal to other human
beings?



Can the aborted fetus live outside of the mother's womb? Perhaps that
should be the dividing line.


So you believe that our technological and medical advances should be the
determining factor in deciding when someone is "human"?

That was a question, more than anything else. I don't know when someone
should be called human. I believe it is somewhere past the fertilized
egg stage, but somewhere before the baby is born stage. That is the best
I can do.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
User: "Snit"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 20 Aug 2004 03:53:43 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in
dfritzinnospam-D553EC.08164520082004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com on 8/20/04
11:16 AM:

Can the aborted fetus live outside of the mother's womb? Perhaps that
should be the dividing line.


So you believe that our technological and medical advances should be the
determining factor in deciding when someone is "human"?


That was a question, more than anything else. I don't know when someone
should be called human. I believe it is somewhere past the fertilized
egg stage, but somewhere before the baby is born stage. That is the best
I can do.

Whatever decision we make will be somewhat arbitrary... like voting age or
driving are...
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
.

User: "Elizabot"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 20 Aug 2004 01:51:40 PM
David Fritzinger wrote:

In article <41263ef3$0$99774$75868355@news.frii.net>,
Elizabot <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote:


David Fritzinger wrote:


In article <1414fd53.0408200843.35f09688@posting.google.com>,
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:



Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<BD49924C.5D737%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...


"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in
1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com on 8/18/04 10:56 PM:



C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:<clund-B7DF27.22542518082004@amstwist00.chello.com>...


In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5EE.13142618082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:



I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.


Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.


Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...


Unborn human.



At what point do they become human? Hell, I would like to see as few
abortions as possible, but there are circumstances where an abortion is
the best thing.


as am equal to the mother.


What other living human being is not considered equal to other human
beings?



Can the aborted fetus live outside of the mother's womb? Perhaps that
should be the dividing line.


So you believe that our technological and medical advances should be the
determining factor in deciding when someone is "human"?



That was a question, more than anything else. I don't know when someone
should be called human. I believe it is somewhere past the fertilized
egg stage, but somewhere before the baby is born stage. That is the best
I can do.

I predict the day will come when abortion will be outlawed under all
circumstances, people (probably women) being on some type of fool-proof
contraception (which will be available by then) will be mandatory, and
in order to have a baby, you will have to fill out forms that the
government/insurance company will need to approve in order to get off
the contraception, and then they will take out your eggs and sperm (if
you get that choice), and grow a baby in a tank for you because the
government/insurance company doesn't want you to be able to accidentally
cause harm to the fetus/whatever, because if you miscarry, you'll be
accused of causing an abortion, and the government/insurance company
will already have a claim on it. "And everyone" will think this is
normal because half the population will have been grown by the
government/insurance company.
Either that or the world will blow up.
--
"You see, my invisible green dragon tells me that God is real, and is
even a pretty nice guy, but can not hold his liquor well."
- Snit (aka §¼¡Ý) on 4/27/04
.




User: "C Lund"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 19 Aug 2004 03:48:20 AM
In article <1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com>,
(Sneechres) wrote:

C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:<clund-B7DF27.22542518082004@amstwist00.chello.com>...

In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5EE.13142618082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.

Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?

Because the Republicans are even worse.

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.

The abortion is a lot more complicated than that.

Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.

Higher taxes is a socialist thing, not a liberal thing. Liberalism and
socialism are two unrelated things.

What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.

At least they've tried, unlike the Republicans who seem to enjoy
tossing *more* people on the streets.

What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.

That's because "liberals" can't cure AIDS. Doctors and researchers are
the ones to do that. All liberals can do is try to prevent the spread
of HIV by promoting education and safe sex - which involves condoms.

How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.

They (we - I should say) hate guns because they are frequently used to
kill people. This need for "self-defence" is probably unique to the US.

Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.

Liberals - and anybody else with a brain - know you can't win a "war
on terror" by going to war - especially by going to war on a country
that had nothing to do with terrorism (Iraq). If the US wants to
reduce international terror, the US should start by taking a long look
at it's own foreign politics over the past fifty years.

Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.

Liberals generally think the elderly should be allowed to choose for
themselves.

I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.

Your examples were worthless.

--S

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
.

User: "forge"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 19 Aug 2004 07:33:42 AM
In article <1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com>,
(Sneechres) wrote:

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.

Government has no business telling people what they can do with their
bodies. Live and let live.

Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.

Neither is our country being in debt to its figurative ears.

What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.

So we'll use the Conservative solution instead - "***** 'em."

What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.

Wow, that's a... massive nonsequitur. Where do I begin? If the
Conservatives had their way, there would be no condoms available
anywhere to anyone; sex education would consist of a gym coach saying
"don't do it, that's it, the end, good bye;" and as for "curing AIDS,"
see the Conservative solution above regarding the homeless - "***** 'em,
they deserve to die, it's God's will."

How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.

Which liberals would those be? Many of my liberal friends, even those
further to the left than I am, own guns and love them and want everyone
to be able to own them. Some agree with me that it's ridiculous for an
average citizen to own a full-auto rifle with a 50-round clip, but
that's as may be.

Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.

Who says? Cite? I want those psycho idiot Islamofascists made into hog
slop. A lot of my leftie friends agree. Aside from the killing-people
thing, terrorism is anithetical to democracy. As is a president who
rules by fear with a five-level color-coded warning chart.

Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.

People should be afforded as much dignity as is possible. A dead lump of
flesh on a hospital bed with hundreds of tubes and wires hooked up to it
is not dignified, it's a joke. If a person clearly expresses beforehand,
in writing if possible, that they do not wish to be kept alive by
extraordinary measures, they should be allowed to die as per their wish.
What, pray tell, is wrong with that?
The Florida woman that's being kept alive after more than 12 years in a
coma, by decree of Governor Bush? That's ludicrous, man, fucking
ludicrous.

I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.

No, please, do go on; I've debunked all these so surely there are more.
.
User: "George Graves"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 19 Aug 2004 01:16:23 PM
In article <forge-6D08D0.08334219082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:

In article <1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com>,
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.


Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


Government has no business telling people what they can do with their
bodies. Live and let live.

Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.


Neither is our country being in debt to its figurative ears.

What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.


So we'll use the Conservative solution instead - "***** 'em."

It works just as well and costs less. You can't help people who don't
want to be helped, you know.


What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.


Wow, that's a... massive nonsequitur. Where do I begin? If the
Conservatives had their way, there would be no condoms available
anywhere to anyone; sex education would consist of a gym coach saying
"don't do it, that's it, the end, good bye;" and as for "curing AIDS,"
see the Conservative solution above regarding the homeless - "***** 'em,
they deserve to die, it's God's will."

It's called not meddling. Kids got along without either available
condoms or sex education for eons. Sure, there were some teen
pregnancies, there still are. Guess what? You can make condoms
available, but you can't actually make the kids wear them.
Funding aids research is probably a good thing, but as for the rest, the
role of government is to STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. Sex education is up
to the school district and the parents in that district; nobody else.
The homeless problem is not really the kind of problem most people think
it is. Many homeless people are homeless because they WANT TO BE. Those
who don't usually seek help from state welfare and most get it.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
.

User: "Sneechres"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 21 Aug 2004 01:53:13 AM
forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote in message news:<forge-6D08D0.08334219082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...

In article <1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com>,
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.


Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.


Government has no business telling people what they can do with their
bodies.

Really, what is it telling people in prison?
I agree that if a woman wants to abort herself, more power to her. If
it's about her body, then why isn't it her body she wants to abort?

Live and let live.

Except fetuses.

Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.


Neither is our country being in debt to its figurative ears.

How has the national debt hindered your lifestyle?

What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.


So we'll use the Conservative solution instead - "***** 'em."

Jail them.

What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.


Wow, that's a... massive nonsequitur. Where do I begin?

By teaching abstinence?
If the

Conservatives had their way, there would be no condoms available
anywhere to anyone;

Really? Condoms have been around since the Egyptian empire. I've
never heard any conservative say anything about condoms.
sex education would consist of a gym coach saying

"don't do it, that's it, the end, good bye;"

Sex education would consist of two parents of the opposite sex
explaining it to their own children.
and as for "curing AIDS,"

see the Conservative solution above regarding the homeless - "***** 'em,
they deserve to die, it's God's will."

There will be no cure for AIDS. Rather than accepting reality,
leftists like to spend my money on someone else's disease--AFTER they
promoted the behavior that caused it.

How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.


Which liberals would those be?

The ones who passed the Brady bill and other myriad laws against
"assault weapons," "saturday night specials," laws for "waiting
periods" and "background checks at gun shows" etc. You know, laws
against guns that have no bearing on reality or crime prevention and
serve to hinder law-abiding citizens.
Many of my liberal friends, even those

further to the left than I am, own guns and love them and want everyone
to be able to own them.

Yea shure.

Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.


Who says? Cite?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8744

Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.


People should be afforded as much dignity as is possible.

Sure, if their dignity is paid for by dying.
A dead lump of

flesh on a hospital bed with hundreds of tubes and wires hooked up to it
is not dignified, it's a joke.

How is that?
If a person clearly expresses beforehand,

in writing if possible, that they do not wish to be kept alive by
extraordinary measures, they should be allowed to die as per their wish.
What, pray tell, is wrong with that?

It's all about death. It's passive aggressive; making others
responsible for your death. It's inconsiderate.

The Florida woman that's being kept alive after more than 12 years in a
coma, by decree of Governor Bush? That's ludicrous, man, fucking
ludicrous.

Why? Are you talking about Terri Schiavo? Let's do talk about her.

I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.


No, please, do go on; I've debunked all these so surely there are more.

All you've done is tell me about your mythical friends.
--S
.
User: "forge"

Title: Re: Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush? 24 Aug 2004 10:55:04 PM

Government has no business telling people what they can do with their
bodies.


Really, what is it telling people in prison?

People in prison have broken a law and therefore forfeited their rights
as citizens. Duh?

Live and let live.


Except fetuses.

You seem to be under the impression that the Left wishes to REQUIRE
people to have abortions. You don't like abortions? Don't have one!

Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.


Neither is our country being in debt to its figurative ears.


How has the national debt hindered your lifestyle?

Hasn't much, but call me later when the dollar is worth a fricking plug
nickel compared to the Euro because of all the money we owe other
countries.

What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.


So we'll use the Conservative solution instead - "***** 'em."


Jail them.

Sure, why not? There's PLENTY of room in t