Why George W. Bush is an Outstanding President

[dirka dirka]

*edit* so dirka, am i complaing or "constructivly critizising" ?
Nothing good will come of this thread. Nobody pointed out how we could fix things. Nobody pointed out the good things Bush has done. Everybody is just saying Bush sucks. This entire thread is complaining in my eyes. Although, that could change.

[uniquinous]

You should be ashamed if you think complaing will change something. You should also be ashamed if you complain, because its a waste of time.
You are complaining about complaining. ha! Half your posts in this thread have been complaints. Why can't you just see these posts as opinion, fact-based ideas, realizations, and even truth. Calling a duck a duck doesn't change it, but that's what it is! Similarly, calling Bush a tard (or whatever else people have said) doesn't change his actions, but it just calls it like it is.

---------------------------------
I'd like to bring up a different issue. Bush put together a team of "experts" to report on stem cell research. The two real scientists on the committee who had extensive biological educations and who stated stem cell research was beneficial were suddenly let go. The remaining committee members were able to then release a rather biased account of the issue. Directly because of Bush's actions, politics is swaying scientific advancement. The scientific community of course backed the two scientists as seen in various Nature articles. Why oh why should faith-based politics affect these things?

[uniquinous]

Nobody pointed out the good things Bush has done.
Yeah... and there's a reason for that....

[Noda]

well, as ironic as this might sound.

i have to go to my politics class...the iraq war debate is today and im the captain hahaha

when i get back there will prolly be too many posts for me to jump back in.

but dirka dirka, i hope u have read my points and my reasoning as to what should be done and why, i have considered yours.

peace all, just for fun ill tell u how the debate went *wink*

[dirka dirka]

You are complaining about complaining. ha! Half your posts in this thread have been complaints. Why can't you just see these posts as opinion, fact-based ideas, realizations, and even truth. Calling a duck a duck doesn't change it, but that's what it is! Similarly, calling Bush a tard (or whatever else people have said) doesn't change his actions, but it just calls it like it is.
I am not complaining about complaining. I am saying complaining won't achieve anything. If I said complaining sucks, that would be complaining about complaining. I fail to see how pointing out something you feel is obvious, and people already have static opinions on, is beneficial? You're not providing new details, you're not backing anything with cold hard fact. You're saying Bush sucks.

Yeah... and there's a reason for that....
because the tone of this thread is negative.


Edit: btw, I can't rep anybody right now, its saying wait 24 hours. I'll get ya guys repped for a good debate asap.

Edit2: and in retrospect, I should have came in here with a better attitude originally. However, its hard for me when nameless people are being soo arrogant and idiotic.

[MokoToko]

Everybody already knows and has opinions on Bush. You might change those opinions by providing facts and what not. You won't change those opinions by saying Bush Sucks.


Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Its more or less one big document on how the British can lick America (complaining). Nothing ever got done by complaining. Now realize the difference between complaining and constructive criticism. Complaining ends with "Bush sucks." Constructive criticism ends with activism or something good being done.

I'm not sure, but are you saying the Declaration of Independence didn't get anything done?

[dirka dirka]

I'm not sure, but are you saying the Declaration of Independence didn't get anything done?
Well, thats debatable. Did it actually do anything real? kinda... it was the first document of a nation declaring their own independence. It also did establish our independence. However, the content of the document isn't really what did that, it was the essence. The Treaty if Paris is really what got everything done in the end (ending the war, and all that).

Edit: and it wasn't really all complaining. Just.. mostly.. and actually, it did establish what we wanted done for our colonies, and didn't end with British Sucks. However, it mostly was about how British sucks, it didn't come right out and say it though. It kinda set a standard of what they didn't want.

[uniquinous]

So you're saying the essence behind complaining can bring about "something real"? hmm...

[dirka dirka]

So you're saying the essence behind complaining can bring about "something real"? hmm...
Nono. Complaining never brings something good, because the moment it does bring something good, it becomes constructive criticism. However, the document was meant to establish a list of things they didn't want to happen here, that happen over there. It was never complaining, because from the start it was meant for a good reason. Now I'm a ltitle torn though. Alot of the lines in the declaration could be pointed out as complaining if "The British Suck" was put right next to them.

Example: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury. (Constructive)

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury, The British Suck. (complaining)


Edit: Alright guys, I'll be back in like.. 3 hours.

[Rogue_Wolf]

but heres the genocide, over 120,000 Iraqi citizins are dead.

True, but Iraqi citizens were already being killed and tortured by Hussein. I see your point though. If America hadn't gone into Iraq, all of these people might not have died. But, American troops weren't the ones who killed all these people. American soldiers stop to help civilians, and a car pulls up and explodes destroying half a block. Iraqi citizens go to a a voting center, and a man walks into a crowd with a bomb strapped to his chest. There are casualties of war, but not as many would have died if extremists wouldn't destroy innocent lives to have their point made.

I'd like to bring up a different issue. Bush put together a team of "experts" to report on stem cell research. The two real scientists on the committee who had extensive biological educations and who stated stem cell research was beneficial were suddenly let go. The remaining committee members were able to then release a rather biased account of the issue. Directly because of Bush's actions, politics is swaying scientific advancement. The scientific community of course backed the two scientists as seen in various Nature articles. Why oh why should faith-based politics affect these things?

Because religion affects everything today. If I've got my information correct, Bush approves of stem cell research, but not federally funded stem cell research. Many citizens don't want stem cell research because of their religious values. Bush isn't going to take money out of these people's taxes to fund something they find religiously wrong. About Bush forcing these people out of the committee, I can't comment about. I don't know about it, so I don't know what happened.

But yeah, in a nation who's citizens are predominately Christian, religion is going to affect everything. Which is why there is no gay marriage, no abortion, and no federally funded stem cell research.

-Rogue_Wolf

[MokoToko]

Example: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury. (Constructive)

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury, The British Suck. (complaining)


I see no real difference, and Mr. Dictionary agrees with me. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=complaining
:cool:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Its more or less one big document on how the British can lick America (complaining). Nothing ever got done by complaining.
Except, you know, the construction of one of the most powerful nations in the world in less than three hundred years.

[Gnosis]

Except, you know, the construction of one of the most powerful nations in the world in less than three hundred years.

Yea... even though the declaration was written after the war had started...
So techniquely the declaration achieved nothing but complaining. The only reason Jefferson wrote it was to bash the king and to justify americas actions. You might be thinking of the constitution there buddy.

[Office_Shredder]

But yeah, in a nation who's citizens are predominately Christian, religion is going to affect everything. Which is why there is no gay marriage, no abortion, and no federally funded stem cell research.

-Rogue_Wolf


No abortion?!?!??? :confused:

Are you sure about that?

[dirka dirka]

I see no real difference, and Mr. Dictionary agrees with me. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=complaining
:cool:
Nono. You fail to see what I'm trying to say here. I'm not trying to make a distinction between two words, really. I'm trying to say that complaining really never achieves anything. Usually achievements are usually found through activism. This thread is really just complaining, because everybody already has opinions, and nobody was trying to change anybodys opinion or get something done. Really, this thread was made saying "Bush Sucks."

Except, you know, the construction of one of the most powerful nations in the world in less than three hundred years.
What Gnosis said.. ->

Yea... even though the declaration was written after the war had started...
So techniquely the declaration achieved nothing but complaining. The only reason Jefferson wrote it was to bash the king and to justify americas actions. You might be thinking of the constitution there buddy.

[Noda]

and there is gay marriage where i live.

actually, sadly most of the iraqi casualties are not from car bombs or suicide bombers. There from our "smart" bombs going off course.

we also took the decision to bomb places that were known arms holds...even though it turned out the arms were in the basements of hospitals.

anywase, won that debate :) was kidna worried the moderator was this really conservative poly sci teacher, but even with the idiolagy's split down the middle me and my team won 6-1

[Office_Shredder]

dirka, if no one complains, then no one will ever realize that other people agree with them. By complaining, one sets the precedence that yes, there is something wrong with the current system, thus opening the door for constructive criticism afterwards. The act of incessant complaining is useless, but complaining in and of itself is a powerful tool for spreading a belief.

[dirka dirka]

dirka, if no one complains, then no one will ever realize that other people agree with them. By complaining, one sets the precedence that yes, there is something wrong with the current system, thus opening the door for constructive criticism afterwards. The act of incessant complaining is useless, but complaining in and of itself is a powerful tool for spreading a belief.
Not true.

I can say this, and it won't be complaining (note, this isn't my true opinion):
"President Bush did make a mistake going into Iraq. The only thing he can do now is to remove the current US troops asap."

or, I could say this, and it is complaining:
"President Bush did make a mistake going into Iraq. He is a shitty president, his life isn't worth shit, and he just needs to fall over and die."


The second one obviously gets nothing done, while the first establishes what we should do to fix it. You could also go border line and combine the two.

Also, just stating the problems isn't complaining:
"President Bush did make a mistake going into Iraq. Now what?"

[green97sierra]

dealing directly WITH the problem in iraq, it is my opinion that we now have to deal with a problem that arose from a wrong deciscion. let's list a few things we (america) has been able to acomplish in iraq:

1. overthrew a tyrranical goverment that was MUCH worse than our own.
2. instituted a state, fragile as it may be, of democracy in a country that has known nothing but monarchy for thousands of genorations.
3. as a result of that democracy, the people of iraq will be able to gain more civil rights and liberties never before given the main populace.

YAY!!! now, question. why in the hell are we still there? apparently, none of iraq's neighbors gives enough of a shit about them to step in with a little military/police help to maintain order. apparently, neither does ANY OTHER country in the world. i can understand america's need to be there to maintain peace and order, but for how long? and at what cost to us? monetary value seems rather miniscule compared to the lives being lost to a war and for a country that is not their own. I feel that the president needs to allow iraq to finally be it's own country and to force them to grow up. it might be a little pre-mature, but it's better than the alternative.

going back into my comment about the american soilders fighting a war for a country other than their own. if you ask any soilder about why they joined the military of their respective country, i bet you most of them would say, "to uphold and protect those people who are in my country and are unable to do so", at least i know thats why my brother did. how hypocritical is it that the prestident of ANY country forces his/her soilders into a war that was not theirs to fight? how does the fight in iraq protect the rights of americans?

i agreed with the war against al-quidea. once they started attacking americans on american soil, they compromised the rights, freedoms, and liberties to american citizens. i dis-agree with HOW it manifested and HOW it was actually fought, but i agree with the deciscion (personally, i say we should just nuke the middle east into pre-historic times and let them start over, but that's just my own humble opinion).

some of my main disagreements with the war on terror co-inside with my disagreements with the war on drugs. mainly, you cannot fight a war against an ideal or a religion.

drugs is not a country. it has no capital or leader. some people might say that you could call columbia the capital of cocaine, or jamaica the capital of pot, or even europe the capital of pharmicutical drugs, but there is no one thing that we can destroy to completely cripple the drug industry.

fighting a war against ideals pose the same problems. yes, bin-laden is the 'leader' of al-queida, the president if you will. but, if you kill him, who is going to be next? will he be even more crazy and militant than bin-laden? if you want to win a war against an ideal, whose main purpose is to destroy anybody and anything that stands for something other than said ideal, you have to completely wipe it from existance. but that's called genocide and that is wrong. :eek:

[green97sierra]

*edit*
*hangs head in shame*
i forgot about the whole kuwait thing, which is really bad considering that my brother was over there in the thick of it. i truly apologize for my forgetfulness and hope that peoples long-term opinion of me is not over-shadowed by this bit of stupidity.

[Office_Shredder]

for whatever bullshit reason, the first Bush invades iraq, the people of america scream bullshit, and we get pulled out

WTF?!??! What have you been smoking? Iraq invaded Kuwait for obvious bullshit reasons (some crap about Kuwait stealing Iraq's oil). The US then gathers a coalition of over ONE MILLION TROOPS (compare that to the 140,000 we have in Iraq right now.... obviously not just us invading) and full UN support and demands Iraq withdraws. Hussein says no, so we kick them out of Kuwait. We didn't even actually invade Iraq, we just let them retreat and left them alone, figuring Hussein would get overthrown

[Godmic18]

continueing on with what's happening in iraq:

it is my belief formed through observances and reading that the case of iraq is simply, "daddy couldn't do it, so i am gonna make him proud and do it myself."

for those who dont know, whether too young or foreign or any other reason, George Bush, not GW (the son and current president), has had problems with iraq long before GW was even in office. although i have no actual proof, the fact that Bush owns an oil company and iraq is a competitor in the oil industry seems a little too coincidental to ignore.

for whatever bullshit reason, the first Bush invades iraq, the people of america scream bullshit, and we get pulled out. we have eight years of peace and HUGE economic growth with president clinton. then, after bubba leaves office, GW steps in. unfortunately for him, the trade centers are attacked during his tenure in office. then the president, with the support of not only his advisors, but also of his nation, declairs war on terror. then he f**ks it all up, and here we are today.

it is my opinion that he used the 'war on terror' as a scapegoat to allow him to order us troops into iraq to begin with. the whole fact that investigators could not find a single weapon of mass destruction or piece of chemical warfare did not stop GW from going in and fighting his father's war. no, i do not think he allowed the attacks on the world trade center to happen solely to achieve this objective, hut he sure milked it for all it was worth.

does the B.S. dance

As for what was said earlier about it increasing numbers of terrorists, that's crap. It just made them more active and we're seeing them in the news more. If you would read the newspaper in that itty bitty world section pre-9/11 like I did you'd realize terrorrism isn't something new. It just makes front page news now that you all hate Bush and the media feeds on that. Also, about his father, Bush may of hated Hussein, but Bush wasn't the only one pushing for the war. Congress was behind him. There were many reasons for the war including the fact that Iraq was housing and funding terrorists all over the middle east. Also, don't forget, the majority voted for him.

[Jeffery]

I must say, the ignorance Green just showed about Desert Shield and Desert Storm is absolutely disgusting.
Seriously, if you are going to discuss an issue, at least have 1% of the knowledge needed to know what you are talking about.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Also, don't forget, the majority of those who voted voted for him.
*cough*

[Jehutyv.2.0]

What Gnosis said.. ->
Yeah, I was half asleep when I typed it, I just kind of felt like being annoying. :p

[Jeffery]

does the B.S. dance
There were many reasons for the war including the fact that Iraq was housing and funding terrorists all over the middle east.


There were 0 ties between Iraq and known terrorist organizations before the imnvasion of Iraq. In fact, the only ties to them came AFTER the invasion, when Iraq became mostly lawless, and Terrorists began moving into Iraq and training and executing bombings.
Al Qaida HATED Hussein, and Bin Laden had often called him an infidel who deserved to die for his actions against the Koran as Bin Laden saw it.

Iraq was too tightly contolled a country, and was despised by the countries that then and now has the most ties to terrorism, including Lybia, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[uniquinous]

Because religion affects everything today. If I've got my information correct, Bush approves of stem cell research, but not federally funded stem cell research. Many citizens don't want stem cell research because of their religious values. Bush isn't going to take money out of these people's taxes to fund something they find religiously wrong. About Bush forcing these people out of the committee, I can't comment about. I don't know about it, so I don't know what happened.

But yeah, in a nation who's citizens are predominately Christian, religion is going to affect everything. Which is why there is no gay marriage, no abortion, and no federally funded stem cell research.
You got your information very wrong, which goes to show how political power can sway the masses. Many citizens don't know what stem cell research is. The most the public has is the biased report put out by Bush's selected committee after they ejected the highly qualified scientists. That report was closer to the average american's fingertips then any copy of Nature or Science at the time.

I won't even touch the abortion issue, but at this very moment there are thousands (yes thousands) of frozen embryos in the US. However, no lab with federal funding is allowed to use these rich sources of information directly because of Bush. No new fetuses need be killed. No frozen fetuses would be mutilated (it's a simple "clean" procedure). The personhood is destroyed but there is the potential for SO much within the life of their cells. So they sit, completely wasted, while our established stem cell lines slowly fade. Meanwhile, other countries develope their science and medicine while we sit and wait for a better president.

[Office_Shredder]

An interesting development... I heard that a scientist was able to gather fetal stem cells without destroying the fetus

[dirka dirka]

An interesting development... I heard that a scientist was able to gather fetal stem cells without destroying the fetus
Isn't that... in theory, impossible? I thought there was... like, science, actual reasons, that couldn't be done..

[green97sierra]

ok, i edited the second post that i made commenting on pa-bush's camaign in the middle east. yeah, i was an idoit.

but, what is the reason we are there now? we went there to over-throw a tyrant. mission accomplished. we went there to help set up a democracy. mission accomplished. why the hell are we still there, protecting people we had no reason protecting in the first place?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Isn't that... in theory, impossible? I thought there was... like, science, actual reasons, that couldn't be done..
Behold, dirka dirka's most incoherent sentence ever.

[Jeffery]

Behold, dirka dirka's most incoherent sentence ever.
Sounds like everything else he's ever said.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Sounds like everything else he's ever said.
Exactly.

[nads]

I got my internet back at home finally, and since this topic has gone off to the usual place where topics go to die (someone being flamed with no reply from them) allow me to put us back on the subject.

actually, sadly most of the iraqi casualties are not from car bombs or suicide bombers. There from our "smart" bombs going off course.



I'm having an extremely hard time believing your number of 120,000 dead Iraqi civillians you presented as fact, can you please give us the source, and please tell me it's not from the same reporters who broke the story about George Bush's hurricane machine and John ROberts' TNT he used to blow up the levees...

Moving on...

In our little debate here, in between flames, I have been actually excited to see some people with an opposing viewpoint who actually have reasons to believe and feel the way they do. It's so nice to see someone present their own thoughts instead of quoting Katie Currick or the whack-job Faranheit 911 doofus.

[Rogue_Wolf]

I guess the abortion and gay marriage rights are state rights. Sorry, my misunderstanding.

You got your information very wrong, which goes to show how political power can sway the masses.

Can you tell me whats wrong? Not trying to be argumentative or anything, but when I asked a teacher at my school about the stem cell issue, that was how he explained it to me. Bush may not "approve" of stem cell research, but its allowed only as long as its funded by private organizations.

I won't even touch the abortion issue, but at this very moment there are thousands (yes thousands) of frozen embryos in the US. However, no lab with federal funding is allowed to use these rich sources of information directly because of Bush. No new fetuses need be killed. No frozen fetuses would be mutilated (it's a simple "clean" procedure). The personhood is destroyed but there is the potential for SO much within the life of their cells. So they sit, completely wasted, while our established stem cell lines slowly fade. Meanwhile, other countries develope their science and medicine while we sit and wait for a better president.

I support abortion, as long as its extremely restricted. So a 16 year old girl sleeps around, and gets pregnant. She doesn't want to have the baby, but just because the chick couldn't keep her legs together doesn't mean she's allowed to have an abortion. But, a 16 year old girl gets raped and is now pregnant and has contracted HIV from her offender. She should be elligable to have an abortion.

Now, I support stem cell research, but you'll be waiting for a "better president" for a while. Unless the majority of US citizens approve of stem cell research, a president won't federally fund it. Its not as much as what the president wants, but more about what the citizens want. Its why there was so much talk about how religious values would affect the recent presidential election.

Also, congrats on winning your debate Noda. :)

-Rogue_Wolf

[uniquinous]

Yes but again, the president is directly influencing the peoples wants by providing them with false information, and firing anyone who says otherwise. "Supporting" it yet banning federal funding is essentially not supporting it at all. Similarly, he doesn't support gay marriage. But again, if thousands of fetuses are frozen in government-aided facilities, and no one can touch them, how does it benefit America? So yeah, places like Harvard are still going strong with the research, but they need to rely fully on private funding. If all of science was placed in the same restraints, we'd be a hundred years behind outselves right now.

[dirka dirka]

Behold, dirka dirka's most incoherent sentence ever.
If you don't understand what I said, thats pathetic.

Isn't that... in theory, impossible? I thought there was... like, science, actual reasons, that couldn't be done..


Try reading it slower. Remember the rules of english.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

If you don't understand what I said, thats pathetic.

Isn't that... in theory, impossible? I thought there was... like, science, actual reasons, that couldn't be done..


Try reading it slower. Remember the rules of english.
Note: The sentence was understandable, but it was horribly put together.

EDIT: Rules of English, eh? How about clauses, "That couldn't be done"? What exactly couldn't be done? You are inspecific in your pronouns. The last noun you reference is "reasons". Thus, the reasons couldn't be done. But that is not the purpose reasons serve. You don't do a reason, a reason says what can and can't be done. Or perhaps science couldn't be done? That also make no sense. What you want to say is, "[A]ctual reasons that that couldn't be done." In that, the pronoun would not be able to confused with science or reason, and would relate to their original point.

Try learning 8th grade grammar.

[uniquinous]

If you don't understand what I said, thats pathetic.

Isn't that... in theory, impossible? I thought there was... like, science, actual reasons, that couldn't be done..
Yes, and No. As I said previously, American scientists are pretty far behind in this field. I believe it was a Korean scientist named Yung Moon who published an article in Nature showing the first signs of creating a single stem cell line without a fetus in cows. That is to say, he "tricked" a cow-egg into thinking it needed to become a stem cell, directly bypassing the embryo. However, the research, while true, wasn't easily reproduced by that lab, and wasn't even in a human model.

Basically, scientists are trying to make the fetal argument a moot point by avoiding it altogether. However, to do that, we need to fully understand *how* a fetus can bring about these pluripotent stem cells to begin with. Thus, we need to study (and ultimately destroy) a few embryos; but once we have the needed information we won't need to destroy embryos at all.

Also, it's important to note that "embryo" isn't refering to a small baby. It's not the thing inside an 8-month pregnant woman. The cells are a few days old. The nervous system doesn't exist. It's literally a lump of cells. (In)fertility clinics make many of these everytime a woman comes in for in vitro fertilization. We just can't use them now because of Bush.

[nads]

Yes but again, the president is directly influencing the peoples wants by providing them with false information, and firing anyone who says otherwise. "Supporting" it yet banning federal funding is essentially not supporting it at all. Similarly, he doesn't support gay marriage. But again, if thousands of fetuses are frozen in government-aided facilities, and no one can touch them, how does it benefit America? So yeah, places like Harvard are still going strong with the research, but they need to rely fully on private funding. If all of science was placed in the same restraints, we'd be a hundred years behind outselves right now.

I don't know where you're getting your facts from about, "the president is directly influencing the peoples wants by providing them with false information, and firing anyone who says otherwise." can you provide them please? And when you bring them I bet I can find 10 examples of the public media doing exactly the same thing for the opposite side of the issues for every 1 you find of Bush doing it. What the liberal media does in this country is morally wrong. They present their opinions under the guise of fact in places where the unsuspecting and less informed Americans turn for facts (newspapers, news magazines, network news, "documentaries", and the like. It is my firm belief the media is responsible for the majority of the people in this country who say they hate Bush, but have no clear logic as to why. They have simply had it shoved down their throats from CNN, CBS and Newsweek for so long they have come to take it as fact, since they trust these organizations to be unbiased. This is the main reason FOX has such a disproportionately large number of viewers for being a newer affiliate competing against the big 3 (ABC CBS and NBC). The majority of the educated public simply lost trust in the other networks for unbiased reporting.

The flaw I see in your logic here is if the majority of the people in the country wanted to see stem cell research proceed full speed ahead, they wouldn't have elected Bush again in '04. Everyone knew his position on the issue, and the majority of the people in this democracy made their opinions heard by sending Bush back to Washington for another term. So saying you're waiting for a better president on that issue is a bit off, I think a more accurate statement would be that you're waiting for the majority of public opinion to see stem cell research the way you see it.

A similar arguement can be used regarding the issue of gay marriage. I live in California, one of the most liberal states in the country. I believe it was back in 1999 (year may be wrong, but the facts aren't) California had a proposition on the ballot called prop. 22 which would ammend the state's constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The proposition passed roughly 60-40 in a state with San Francisco and a deep history of homosexuality. This again shows what real public opinion is, as the results of an election are much more reliable than any survey or research study. Our state assembly here recently pushed a bill through our house allowing gay marriage, but when it got to our Republican Governor's desk he quickly vetoed it and made a statement saying the will of the people have spoken in prop. 22 and he can't sign a bill into law that goes directly against the will of the people. I'm so thankful we recalled our piece of crap democrat governor and put the governator in the office, someone with the strength to actually make a decision based on what he felt was right and wrong, not on what the media says he should do. Wow, come to think of it, that's why I love Bush too, what a similarity!

So you see, uniquinous, we're not waiting for better political leaders, we're waiting for the public opinion to change. As long as the majority of public opinion stays where it is, we'll continue to have elected leaders such as Bush and The Governator in offices around the country. Such is the nature of a democracy.

[Office_Shredder]

nads... if they "pushed through" a bill supporting gay marriage, doesn't that mean the majority of the people elected representatives supporting gay marriage?

And on stem cell research: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/17/MNGRHF9FK31.DTL

[Northwind]

This is the main reason FOX has such a disproportionately large number of viewers for being a newer affiliate competing against the big 3 (ABC CBS and NBC). The majority of the educated public simply lost trust in the other networks for unbiased reporting.
I haven't been around much and don't have the time right now to wade into this thread. However, I'd like to address the Fox issue. As you know, I don't think there is objective support for the idea that the media is "liberal." There is objective support for the media generally going along with whatever the government says until circumstances force them to sit up and do some actual reporting. Thus, media = lazy is a more accurate equation than media = liberal.

Anyway, there is some objective information available regarding the innacuracy of Fox news. A study was conducted examining how well viewers of various networks were informed about facts surrounding the Iraq war. I quote: "Fox viewers were almost four times more likely than public broadcasting’s consumers to hold misperceptions about the war." Here's the link. (http://www.current.org/news/news0319study.shtml) Thus, Fox news is actually much more biased than those of the networks (and much, much more biased than PBS and NPR).

In short, the media (PBS and NPR) that is often misperceived as "most liberal" is simply "most accurate."

I would be interested in seeing any objective information that Fox viewers are either more educated or more well-informed than viewers of other networks.

[green97sierra]

I would be interested in seeing any objective information that Fox viewers are either more educated or more well-informed than viewers of other networks.

one phrase.... Reality TV!
apparently, there is an inverse relationship between watching other people live their lives and the amount of time you spend living your very own life. subsequently, this also reduces the amount of current events knowledge that same person has.

now, back to my friggin question. why the hell are we STILL in iraq?

[dirka dirka]

Note: The sentence was understandable, but it was horribly put together.

EDIT: Rules of English, eh? How about clauses, "That couldn't be done"? What exactly couldn't be done? You are inspecific in your pronouns.
Really? Last I checked, "that" was a demonstrative pronoun?

The last noun you reference is "reasons". Thus, the reasons couldn't be done. But that is not the purpose reasons serve. You don't do a reason, a reason says what can and can't be done. Or perhaps science couldn't be done? That also make no sense.
Science was in between two commas. Meaning it was extra information. It indicated I was refering to the rules of science.

What you want to say is, "[A]ctual reasons that that couldn't be done." In that, the pronoun would not be able to confused with science or reason, and would relate to their original point.
Nope... I said what I meant.

Try learning 8th grade grammar.
Jehuty's first?


Edit: This is what it looks like without all the extra information and pauses and unnecessary commas. "Isn't that, in theory, impossible? I thought there was actual scientific reasons that couldn't be done?"

[dirka dirka]

Yes, and No. As I said previously, American scientists are pretty far behind in this field. I believe it was a Korean scientist named Yung Moon who published an article in Nature showing the first signs of creating a single stem cell line without a fetus in cows. That is to say, he "tricked" a cow-egg into thinking it needed to become a stem cell, directly bypassing the embryo. However, the research, while true, wasn't easily reproduced by that lab, and wasn't even in a human model.

Basically, scientists are trying to make the fetal argument a moot point by avoiding it altogether. However, to do that, we need to fully understand *how* a fetus can bring about these pluripotent stem cells to begin with. Thus, we need to study (and ultimately destroy) a few embryos; but once we have the needed information we won't need to destroy embryos at all.

Also, it's important to note that "embryo" isn't refering to a small baby. It's not the thing inside an 8-month pregnant woman. The cells are a few days old. The nervous system doesn't exist. It's literally a lump of cells. (In)fertility clinics make many of these everytime a woman comes in for in vitro fertilization. We just can't use them now because of Bush.
Ahh, got ya. So its tricking the cells to develope into a certain part, instead of the whole. Uhm... hmm. Thats still seems impossible to me, but my knowledge on this subject is obviously very limited.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

stuff like,[unnecessary comma, don't say it's for a pause,] science, actual reasons, that couldn't be done. That should be reffering to the whole fetus living thing. Reasons becomes what the pronoun replaces, making it "reasons couldn't be done."

Don't get so worked up over it. You just failed to realize the subtle humor.

[dirka dirka]

stuff like,[unnecessary comma, don't say it's for a pause,] science, actual reasons, that couldn't be done. That should be reffering to the whole fetus living thing. Reasons becomes what the pronoun replaces, making it "reasons couldn't be done."

Don't get so worked up over it. You just failed to realize the subtle humor.
The unnecessary commas where for pauses... you knew this. I was trying to make it look like I was confused on the topic, and not sure what I was asking, cause in actualality thats all true. Science was extra information, showing I was talking about the rules of science making it so they couldn't do that. I never claimed it was perfect, but you tried to point out way to much that was wrong. The structure, word order and commas, were the only things wrong.


Anyway... on to Bush.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The unnecessary commas where for pauses... you knew this. I was trying to make it look like I was confused on the topic, and not sure what I was asking, cause in actualality thats all true. Science was extra information, showing I was talking about the rules of science making it so they couldn't do that. I never claimed it was perfect, but you tried to point out way to much that was wrong. The structure, word order and commas, were the only things wrong.
[Monty Python black knight]Alright, we'll call it a draw![/Monty Python black knight]

Anyway... on to Bush.
Roight!

[Office_Shredder]

Ahh, got ya. So its tricking the cells to develope into a certain part, instead of the whole. Uhm... hmm. Thats still seems impossible to me, but my knowledge on this subject is obviously very limited.

It's a lot more complicated than that. We aren't actually doing any tricking... stem cells come with the ability to turn into any other cell because they don't already know what type of cell is going to be needed. Thus, it's more a manipulation of the stem cell's ability to probe surrounding cells and determine what type of cell it should become

[Jehutyv.2.0]

It's a lot more complicated than that. We aren't actually doing any tricking... stem cells come with the ability to turn into any other cell because they don't already know what type of cell is going to be needed. Thus, it's more a manipulation of the stem cell's ability to probe surrounding cells and determine what type of cell it should become
Ah, cool, a sort of "controlling an instinct" type thing.

[uniquinous]

I don't know where you're getting your facts from about, "the president is directly influencing the peoples wants by providing them with false information, and firing anyone who says otherwise." can you provide them please? And when you bring them I bet I can find 10 examples of the public media doing exactly the same thing for the opposite side of the issues for every 1 you find of Bush doing it.
Oh NADS how your post saddens me!

April 1, 2004, Elizabeth Blackburn publishes the following article in the New England Journal of Medicine:
Bioethics and the Political Distortion of Biomedical Science
If you don't know this Journal, it is considered a bible in my medical school, where only the best of the best are published. Here's the overview:
Elizabeth Blackburn was the ONLY stem cell biologist who initially served on the President's Council on Bioethics. She is a tremendous leader in her field. The council is made of lawyers and Ph.Ds of various fields. Again, she was the only biologist who really was deeply rooted in the stem cell research scientific community. She and one specialized medical ethicist spoke very passionately about the great potential in stem cell research, using her expertise knowledge on the subject. Both of these highly qualified experts were fired. None of their replacements were biomedical scientists, and had all previously shown their rejection for stem cell research. This left the committee with mostly layers, theologens, and philosophers to debate about scientific issues.

The subsequent publication that came from this council regarding stem cell research did not in any way display the science at all, and wrongfully portrayed stem cell research as evil. The published report was sent to bookstores across the nation, despite the uproar from the scientific community. This is the result of Bush's Presidential Committee.


So please NADS, "find 10 examples of the public media doing exactly the same thing for the opposite side of the issues." Double doggy dare ya.


BioEthics Blog on this issue (http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/elizabeth-blackburn-fired-by-president.html)
NEJM Article (because most can't directly access NEJM) (http://www.jefallbright.net/node/2189)
Blackburn was awarded The Benjamin Franklin medal as a truly outstanding scientist for speaking out on these issues.

[Jeffery]

How about the case where the Department of Homeland Security put an exec from Claria (formerly Gator), one of the largest spyware companies in the world, onto the committee to define rules for privacy vs spyware on the net?
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3485631

[legacy67]

Our state assembly here recently pushed a bill through our house allowing gay marriage, but when it got to our Republican Governor's desk he quickly vetoed it and made a statement saying the will of the people have spoken in prop. 22 and he can't sign a bill into law that goes directly against the will of the people. I'm so thankful we recalled our piece of crap democrat governor and put the governator in the office, someone with the strength to actually make a decision based on what he felt was right and wrong, not on what the media says he should do. Wow, come to think of it, that's why I love Bush too, what a similarity!


First of all, the "Governator" is one of the worst things to ever happen to California politics and more importantly, the Republican party. The actions of this Governaor have all but garunteed a democratic governor in the next election. Both of the Democratic front runners for governor, Treasurer Phil Angelides and Contoller Steve Westly, have been polling more than 10 points above Schwarzenegger, and the Governor's approveval ratings dipped into the 30s during this summer. He has alienated all but the Chrisitian base of the Republican party, and he has ruined is pull with nearly all the public service groups. He went after teachers, hospitals, and the police forces (who were particualarly influential in getting him elected). Not to mention his major gaffe of vetoing a bill that would have stopped life threatening supplements fro being advertised and sold to minors in California, while at the same time receiving millions of dollars a year (approximately $5,000,000) from his ownership stake in "fitness" magazines that made most of their money off of advertising dollars from the very companies that would have lost the bulk of the money from the bill. The "Governator" didn't reject the bill on gay marriage because he respected the voice of the voters, he rejected it because he doesn't want to alienate the last few people in his party that still support him. I will garuntee that he will lose to the Demodcratic candidate in 206, and then republicans in California will be stuck with a Democratically controlled Assembly, Senate, and Executive office. Then all of the liberal ideals will make it into law, with no chance from the republican party to stop anythin because their governor ensured that no republican candidate would be a viable option for the 2006 election. If Richard Riordan had been elected, then the Republicans might have had a chance, but the voters in California elected a poor candidate in a circus election, and got exactly what they voted for; a Hollywood moviestar who thought "hey, it might be fun to be governor, I should run." Have you ever looked at his political team? They are al rejects from the real politicitians, not a serious first tier player amongst them. That's becuase all of the top memebrs of the Republican party work for real politicians, and the people hired by Schwarzenegger are the people who couldn't get high-level jobs elsewhere. Everyone who works in Sacramento knows this, which is why it is nearly impossible for the Governor to get anything done.

Any true Republican is depressed every time they think of the day that the "Governator" was elected, becuase they know that is the day that their party was thrown into the gutter.

[uniquinous]

Also, (and I'm clearly no poli scientist) isn't the role of our government to protect the minority? If the majority of some hick state wanted slavery back again do you feel it's the role of government to initiate that because some all-white majority wants it?

I just don't see how "the majority" should be deciding things for other groups.

[inked]

I posted a very very simular thing to that earlier in this thread. ^^

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=562149&postcount=52

:)

[Office_Shredder]

http://img146.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bushsmashscience5sy.jpg

I think this explains everything *nods*

[inked]

A few reasons gay marriage should be legal.

1) Equal Protection of the law.

2) Since when does the government base its ruling on websters definition of "marriage"?

3) Allowing same sex marriage is not a "slippery slope" arguement because all it allows is for two consenting adults to marry with recognition from the government.

4) Obviously, not allowing it is discrimination against a minority group.

5)" Judical Activism" and "legistrating from the bench" do not properly apply to this since a court, such as the Massachusetts court, are not ruling based on what they want, or to create a new right, but are taking a current law and mildly evolving it so that it applies to more groups of people. They are ruling to protect a right already there in the 9th (I believe it is) admendment, which says that there are certain fundamental rights not listed but are guarenteed by the constitution, one would be the right to marry someone you love.

[Sodamoeba]

-Sacrificed citizens rights for "homeland security"


If you are referring to the Patriot Act, it was voted on almost unanimously by both liberals AND conservatives. The thing is, everyone supports Bush at the beginning of something, and if it goes awry, they back off and say "Woah, buddy! What the hell were you thinking!?":dry:

[Forest_Archer]

http://img146.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bushsmashscience5sy.jpg

I think this explains everything *nods*

I owe you a positive rep.

[Office_Shredder]

Soda... that wouldn't be such a bad argument if Bush didn't reply with:
Freedom's on the march! Stay the path! Don't back down!

The Patriot Act II is a good example

[nads]

Looks like everyone wants a piece of me, this is going to take some time to write. I think I had 5 points directed this direction. *Goes off into research land*

The sign on this post reads "Gone researchin' back in 2 howors"

What would you like to do now?

Exits are (E)ast (W)est (S)outh

>

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Soda... that wouldn't be such a bad argument if Bush didn't reply with:
Freedom's on the march! Stay the path! Don't back down!

The Patriot Act II is a good example
Yeah, also The Patriot Act III: Revenge of the Republicans.

[green97sierra]

what about patriot act VI, return of the democrats?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

what about patriot act VI, return of the democrats?
No no, you're thinking of Patriot Act VI. Patriot Act IV is A New GOP.

[green97sierra]

No no, you're thinking of Patriot Act VI. Patriot Act IV is A New GOP.
... thats what i said. VI, return of the democrats.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

... thats what i said. VI, return of the democrats.
Did you? Whoops, I can't read.

[nads]

Let me start with the shorter responses first, incase I run out of time before I finish.


nads... if they "pushed through" a bill supporting gay marriage, doesn't that mean the majority of the people elected representatives supporting gay marriage?


Yes, which is troubling since the will of the people was 60-40% when they spoke regarding our proposition defining marriage. The reason they can do this without fear of retaliation from their constituents is the way districts are drawn in this state. In our last election exactly zero state assembly seats changed parties, and there is an initiative on our ballot this election to create a panel of retired judges to do all future redistricting. This initiative was placed on the ballot by our Governator, which introduces the next topic nicely...


First of all, the "Governator" is one of the worst things to ever happen to California politics and more importantly, the Republican party. The actions of this Governaor have all but garunteed a democratic governor in the next election...and then republicans in California will be stuck with a Democratically controlled Assembly, Senate, and Executive office. Then all of the liberal ideals will...Have you ever looked at his political team? They are al rejects from...Any true Republican is depressed every time they think of the day that the "Governator" was elected, becuase they know that is the day that their party was thrown into the gutter.


(Quote edited by "..." where things were removed for length)

Legacy, stay the course, don't let the big money of the public employee labor unions and their misleading campaign commercials influence your opinion. Arnold was quite popular until he went after the big money special interests that really control California. Here's how it works: In a private union labor negotiation, union leaders negotiate with management for wages, hours, benefits, conditions, etc. of their workers. The labor unions don't have the power to take the job away from the management they are working with. In a public employee union, the union representatives negotiate the same things with politicians from the state. If a politician goes against the union's wishes the union contributes large amounts of money to their opponent in the next campaign, jeopardizing the job of the person negotiating the contract. Likewise, if they roll over and give in to the union demands, they can expect nice campaign contributions in their next election. This is a clear cut case for conflict of interest, and restricting public employee unions from being able to take money from their members and donate it to political causes just makes good sense for the state. These labor unions also realize how deeply they altar the course of public policy in this state, and are spending literally millions of dollars fighting the propositions by claiming Arnold is "attacking" the police, firefighters and teachers. Don't be misled, this isn't an attack on them, but on their special interest union in the interest of the state and it's people.

As for having a democrat controlled everything in California, it's something we've gotten used to and are fighting against. The problem is when the voters on our side of the issues start believing the TV commercials sponsored by these unions and waver in their support of change.

Arnold is getting things done, the only way he can. He starts with issues at the legislature, where they are promptly defeated. He then turns to the voters in the form of ballot initiatives and special elections to circumvent the entrenched politicians we have there. His strategy is brilliant, and could work if we all educate ourselves on the real issues and don't believe the propaganda we're constantly bombarded with.

I must urge caution when referring to opinion polls as a source of fact to base your own political decisions upon. It is far too easy to manipulate a study, misinterpret the responses, and misreport the results. If you're hearing "results" of the latest opinion poll on issue/candidate X rest assured the numbers have already been pored over by the source telling you about it, and have been determined to support their opinion, and assist in pushing their agenda. Remember the last presidential election when opinion polls consistently showed Al Gore as the front-runner right up until the moment they colored the state of Ohio red on election night. The silent majority is often more silent than even we realize, until they get to the ballot box. ;)

As for sub par cabinet and aides, I'm not familiar with what you're talking about, so I can't really debate that issue. My instincts tell me it's more left wing propaganda though, so I'm not really concerned about it. For now, just rejoin the home team and visit http://www.joinarnold.com/





ok, i edited the second post that i made commenting on pa-bush's camaign in the middle east. yeah, i was an idoit.

but, what is the reason we are there now? we went there to over-throw a tyrant. mission accomplished. we went there to help set up a democracy. mission accomplished. why the hell are we still there, protecting people we had no reason protecting in the first place?


Please come with a thought, opinion, or idea that you've given some thought to, and not clichés. Think of this as if it were a class in school, make sure you've done the assigned work before you get here. Back to the real debaters...


A few reasons gay marriage should be legal...

(Quote shortened by ...)

The debate used in defending gay marriage can be very simply turned around. The government doesn't have the right to force me to recognize a homosexual union as a legitimate marriage.


I haven't been around much and don't have the time right now to wade into this thread. However, I'd like to address the Fox issue..."Fox viewers were almost four times more likely than public broadcasting’s consumers to hold misperceptions about the war."...In short, the media (PBS and NPR) that is often misperceived as "most liberal" is simply "most accurate."


OK, I went to the site you referenced and read it in its entirety. I have a couple problems with the study and it's objectiveness. The first, most obvious question I asked myself was, "Who determines what is the truth in Iraq and therefore determines who holds misconceptions"? Then I found this:

"The study found that two-thirds of about 3,000 respondents held at least one of three misperceptions:

Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or proven to be supporting al-Qaeda;
Weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq; and
International popular opinion favored the U.S. war against Iraq."

I would like to see a percent breakdown of who believed Iraq was involved in September 11th; I imagine it would be very miniscule. As for having connections to Al-Qaeda, I'm not so sure we can rule this out of the realm of possibilities. If I were asked to participate in the survey I would already be counted among the misinformed according to their criteria. Did Saddam ever funnel money to terrorist organizations? I don't know for certain, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This response would be ruled as misinformed by the researchers, but I would argue it is they who are misinformed.

Weapons of mass destruction: None found to date, but that doesn't mean they never existed. If you were coming to search my house and I had advance notice, do you think I would have any contraband here when you finally came? I imagine my response would probably again count as misinformed, and I again disagree with the format of the study.

International opinion: This may sound insulting to many people who live outside the US, but it's relevant here. I don't think a full 60% of the American public really care about international opinion. If you look at NATO's veto as International Opinion, I think you also need to look at the corruption of the oil for food program engaged in by France and Germany. I do remember when we first went into Iraq the media was reporting Bush had an approval rating of over 90%. From an American perspective, it would be easy to misinterpret the fierce American hurt and anger as international support. I believe the key to this question lies in the lack of interest in the part of the respondents.

I don't think the questions offered a true indication of the intended factor, and I also believe the questions were misleading. An interesting term is used in statistics classes to discuss surveys such as this, is Measurement or response bias. "Measurement or response bias occurs when the method of observation tends to produce values that systematically differ from the true value in some way. This might happen if an improperly calibrated scale is used to weigh items or if questions on a survey are worded in a way that tends to influence the response"(Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis, Peck, Olsen, and Devore, Thomson publishing, 2005, 2nd ed., pp. 29).

Uniquinos, you’re up next, I’m just out of time right now, be patient J

[uniquinous]

Uniquinos, you’re up next, I’m just out of time right now, be patient
oh I can't wait nads! Do me now! heh. There was one thing I said incorrectly in my post, but even finding that doesn't change the argument or severity of the underlying message. I think, at best, you can only point to other things, as this case is pretty solid and completely backed the scientific community.

The debate used in defending gay marriage can be very simply turned around. The government doesn't have the right to force me to recognize a homosexual union as a legitimate marriage.
The government isn't forcing you to recognize anything. We have the right to our own religeons, but the government is not forcing me to recognize any other religeon by doing so. So I don't quite think this argument holds.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The debate used in defending gay marriage can be very simply turned around. The government doesn't have the right to force me to recognize a homosexual union as a legitimate marriage.Okay, so you don't choose to recognize it... so what? What are you going to do? If the government says it's right, you can't do shit about it.

[cuckoo]

Hey, I think I'm going to jump back in this debate and make a point or two.


The debate used in defending gay marriage can be very simply turned around. The government doesn't have the right to force me to recognize a homosexual union as a legitimate marriage.

But what gives you the right to tell other "you can get married, but you can't"? Gay marriage isn't going to affect your lifestyle, why should you deprieve the ones it was meant for of this?

EDIT: Yeah, well, looks like several people beat me to the punch. Oh well.

[Northwind]

Nads,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’ve made a couple of comments below. In general, though, I’d like to say that the questions seemed pretty cut and dry. Yes, there is such as thing as response bias, but I don’t think you’ve made a case for the existence of this in this particular poll.
OK, I went to the site you referenced and read it in its entirety. I have a couple problems with the study and it's objectiveness. The first, most obvious question I asked myself was, "Who determines what is the truth in Iraq and therefore determines who holds misconceptions"? Then I found this:

"The study found that two-thirds of about 3,000 respondents held at least one of three misperceptions:

Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or proven to be supporting al-Qaeda;
Weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq; and
International popular opinion favored the U.S. war against Iraq."

I would like to see a percent breakdown of who believed Iraq was involved in September 11th; I imagine it would be very miniscule. As for having connections to Al-Qaeda, I'm not so sure we can rule this out of the realm of possibilities. If I were asked to participate in the survey I would already be counted among the misinformed according to their criteria. Did Saddam ever funnel money to terrorist organizations? I don't know for certain, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This response would be ruled as misinformed by the researchers, but I would argue it is they who are misinformed.

Good points. However, the question was whether Iraq had played a role in 9/11 (and I’m pretty sure the number of people who thought that was much larger than miniscule) or whether Iraq had been “PROVEN” to be supporting of al-Queda (and not whether it might or might not be “in the realm of possibility”). The fact is that neither of those is true. There has never been any connection shown between Iraq and 9/11 and there has not been any “proven” relationship between Iraq and al-Quaeda. People who endorsed this item simply had their facts wrong.
Weapons of mass destruction: None found to date, but that doesn't mean they never existed. If you were coming to search my house and I had advance notice, do you think I would have any contraband here when you finally came? I imagine my response would probably again count as misinformed, and I again disagree with the format of the study.
Again, the question was not “Do you think that weapons of mass destruction ever existed in Iraq?” The question was whether or not weapons of mass destruction HAD BEEN FOUND in Iraq. Anyone saying that they had were mistaken or (more likely) ill-informed.
International opinion: This may sound insulting to many people who live outside the US, but it's relevant here. I don't think a full 60% of the American public really care about international opinion. If you look at NATO's veto as International Opinion, I think you also need to look at the corruption of the oil for food program engaged in by France and Germany. I do remember when we first went into Iraq the media was reporting Bush had an approval rating of over 90%. From an American perspective, it would be easy to misinterpret the fierce American hurt and anger as international support. I believe the key to this question lies in the lack of interest in the part of the respondents.
I appreciate the effort, but I think you are once again reading too much into this. These questions did not assess whether or not Americans cared about international opinion; they were simply factual questions about American’s awareness of what is happening in the world around them. (If you want, we could argue the danger of an isolationist populace living in a global world, but that would take us off track.) Factually, international opinion either supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq. The fact is that international opinion was heavily against the invasion and anyone who answered otherwise was not correct.

Thus, I don’t think the responses to this survey were misleading at all. They were simply factual questions that people either knew or did not know. However, the really interesting part to me is the difference in knowledge between the people who received their news from different sources. I think the answers to the questions clearly established that viewers of Fox news were much more likely to be mistaken about these facts than viewers of other news sources (though, to be fair, it is unclear whether the difference between Fox viewers misperceptions and CBS viewers misperceptions were statistically significantly different.). At the end of the day, I would hope that we would ALL be disturbed by the idea that 80% of the viewers of _any_ network misunderstood some of these very basic facts that influenced whether or not to bring our country to war. All politics aside, I find this terrifying and I think it is important to figure out how to present unbiased information in a way that people can understand. It doesn’t look like Fox is doing this yet. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

[Walrus]

http://www.trimpe.org/jr/pictures/scaredkitty.jpg

[legacy67]

Legacy, stay the course, don't let the big money of the public employee labor unions and their misleading campaign commercials influence your opinion. Arnold was quite popular until he went after the big money special interests that really control California. Here's how it works: In a private union labor negotiation, union leaders negotiate with management for wages, hours, benefits, conditions, etc. of their workers. The labor unions don't have the power to take the job away from the management they are working with. In a public employee union, the union representatives negotiate the same things with politicians from the state. If a politician goes against the union's wishes the union contributes large amounts of money to their opponent in the next campaign, jeopardizing the job of the person negotiating the contract. Likewise, if they roll over and give in to the union demands, they can expect nice campaign contributions in their next election. This is a clear cut case for conflict of interest, and restricting public employee unions from being able to take money from their members and donate it to political causes just makes good sense for the state. These labor unions also realize how deeply they altar the course of public policy in this state, and are spending literally millions of dollars fighting the propositions by claiming Arnold is "attacking" the police, firefighters and teachers. Don't be misled, this isn't an attack on them, but on their special interest union in the interest of the state and it's people.
The basic, and honestly fairly logical arguement against Prop 75 is that it comletely silences pubic labor unions while allowing buisiness to continue making campaign contributions. There are numerous issue of conflict of intereest that arise before legislators every day, but the Governor is only going after public labor unions (which have coincidentally generally supported democrats in California). You don't need ot tell me how the legislature works in our fair state, I have worked there, and plan to again very soon.:cool: If you remove the ability of public labor unions to fend for themselves the balance of power will quickly be lost. How are they supposed to fight against Arnold's attempts at privatizing their pensions. According the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, corporations currently outspend unions by a margin of 24-1. Uhler told The Sacramento Bee Prop. 75, "will be a boon to our control over governmental activities in our state.'" [3/20/05] If you want to see a list of some of the contributors to the Yes on Prop 75 campaign, Click Here (http://www.millionairesforprop75.com/meet). It's funny that the coalition sponsoring the Yes adds calls itself "Teachers, Firefighters and Law Enforcement for Paycheck Protection" (which is the group's 3rd name change), while 97% of the money comes from the wealthy, corporations, or well known right-wing contributors. You talk about "big-money" labor unions when the corporate interests have a lot more money that they throw around.


Arnold is getting things done, the only way he can. He starts with issues at the legislature, where they are promptly defeated. He then turns to the voters in the form of ballot initiatives and special elections to circumvent the entrenched politicians we have there. His strategy is brilliant, and could work if we all educate ourselves on the real issues and don't believe the propaganda we're constantly bombarded with.

Arnold has not been able to get anythig done and that is the problem!! Even his own party is often remiss to work with him because he bungles nearly everything that comes to his desk. He talks so much about stoping exces spending and balanceing the budget, then he calls a special election that will cost nearly $80,000,000! This isn't a genious method, it's a suicide mission. There is a reason that governors before this one have not used this method (even minority party governors) and it's because it looks like an act of desperation. He can't get anything done in the legislature, so he circumvents the system in an attempt to use advertising campaigns on people who have not read the initiatives in their entirety and do not understand all of the nuances. Arnold has been diving in the polls ever since he took office and this is an attempt to regain some ground through advertising. I will tell you my main problem with Arnold. He spent his entire campaign talking about how important education is and how he is "for the children", and once he got into office he divebombed our education system. University dues rose 60% in one year due to Arnold's plans, and have continued to rise ever since. University in California is nearly 100% more expenive now than it was 4 years ago. And it is not just the 4 year institutions, he also raised costs at the community colleges, the place where people who don't have enough money for college go to at least get themselves on the right track. This would be bad enough if he wasn't also going after elementary and secondary school funding. Prop 76 will cut funding for public schools designated by Prop 98 by 4 Billion dollars a year. Arnold is for the children, just not for educating them.


I must urge caution when referring to opinion polls as a source of fact to base your own political decisions upon. It is far too easy to manipulate a study, misinterpret the responses, and misreport the results. If you're hearing "results" of the latest opinion poll on issue/candidate X rest assured the numbers have already been pored over by the source telling you about it, and have been determined to support their opinion, and assist in pushing their agenda. Remember the last presidential election when opinion polls consistently showed Al Gore as the front-runner right up until the moment they colored the state of Ohio red on election night. The silent majority is often more silent than even we realize, until they get to the ballot box. ;).
The polls also represent republican groups releases as well. I know how to read polls, and considering my line of work, probably a bit better than you do (unless you happen to be down the hall from me). Most opinion polls have a margin of error ranging from 2%-5%. When the difference between the candidates is more than 10 points, you know that is not margin of error. That means it could be even worse. An election decided by 5 points is a large margin, and currently this race has a much wider gap than 5 points.


As for sub par cabinet and aides, I'm not familiar with what you're talking about, so I can't really debate that issue. My instincts tell me it's more left wing propaganda though, so I'm not really concerned about it. For now, just rejoin the home team and visit http://www.joinarnold.com/

It's actually hallway chatter amongst staffers from both sides:p . Everyone who works in the capital knows that the guys working for Schwarzzie are one of two things.
a) the very very right wing memebers of the republican party who will do anything to fight democrats (and this is from a large contingency of Republican staffers in the building).
b) rejects from the republican party who weren't able to get that high of jobs with anyone else, as all the top level Republican staffers work for actual players as opposed to flash-in-the-pan wannabes.

Any smart democrat is fully against the Governator. Any smart republican will probably support him (unless a very viable candiate runs in a primary, but since the party will be so weak going into the gubinatorial elections anyway I doubt they will want to fragment the party), but they will wish every day that he had never been elected, as he has ensured that the next governor of California will be a Democrat.

[Office_Shredder]

Yes, which is troubling since the will of the people was 60-40% when they spoke regarding our proposition defining marriage

I believe it was back in 1999

So I suppose opinions can't change over the course of five years?


The debate used in defending gay marriage can be very simply turned around. The government doesn't have the right to force me to recognize a homosexual union as a legitimate marriage.

The government doesn't have the right to force me to recognize heterosexual unions as legitimate marriage. So should we get rid of those?

[The Seat]

Bush is the guy who always puts his wrong end on me

[Godmic18]

Bush is the guy who always puts his wrong end on me


This is by far the most retarded thread on these forums. Congratulations. :dry:

:mad:

[dirka dirka]

There is a good south park episode on this. Everyone is blaming everything on Bush... stuff like Global Warming.. lolz.

[inked]

The debate used in defending gay marriage can be very simply turned around. The government doesn't have the right to force me to recognize a homosexual union as a legitimate marriage.


The government would not be forcing you to recognize gay marriage, just as the civil rights acts do not force you to recognize blacks as equals, only so in legal matters.

[andalite]

I think that legalizing it wouldn't be forcing us to do anything about it. It'd just give gay people the right to choose, to choose whether or not they want to be married. Having laws against it would be like banning people from going to churches, or on the other side, banning people from walking around naked. But it's still a removal of a limit on rights, not a demand that all people get married.

[dirka dirka]

Its just like laws banning plants, like marijuana. Its natural for some.

[Popa Midnight]

I don't know why they ban marijuana when doctors use it as an anesthetic.

[dirka dirka]

I don't know why they ban marijuana when doctors use it as an anesthetic.
Yea, k.. its got the anesthetic use or w/e... not to mention its fun.

[inked]

Its just like laws banning plants, like marijuana. Its natural for some.

Being a homosexual is not harmful to your health.
Being a homosexual does not impair your judgement, nor change the way you act.
Being homosexual does not smell, nor can it be smoked.
Marijuana can't be married.
You can not be allegeric or have alleric reactions to homosexuality

[dirka dirka]

Being a homosexual is not harmful to your health.

Being a homosexual does not impair your judgement, nor change the way you act.

Being homosexual does not smell, nor can it be smoked.

Marijuana can't be married.

You can not be allegeric or have alleric reactions to homosexuality.
Marijuana is not harmful to your health.

Marijuana does not impair your judgement, nor chang the way you act.

Marijuana does smell good, and it can be smoked.

Marijuana can be married, male and female plants within 10 yards usually bond.

You can not be allergic to marijuana.

[inked]

I am not sure about how I feel about legalizing marijuana. The punishments for just use are minor and people use it as if it was legal.

Currently, without research, my morale opinion is that marijuana in small personal ammounts should be legal, while major growth and distributation should be heavily moderated and taxed [also distributors would need to provide a warning label on packaging]. A legal age of 21 to buy, sell, or be under the influence of marijuana, and punishments disobeying would be much like Alcohol laws.

I feel the need to provide equal protection of marriage to homosexuals is more important than marijuana though.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Marijuana is not harmful to your health.Except when you smoke it in vast quantities.

Marijuana does not impair your judgement, nor chang the way you act.Except when, you know, you're high.

Marijuana can be married, male and female plants within 10 yards usually bond.Two gay people could bond even if they're not married. Marriage has some sort of legal procedure. The plants could not say "I do".

[dirka dirka]

Except when you smoke it in vast quantities.

Except when, you know, you're high.
Yea yea...:bigsmile:

[uniquinous]

I don't know why they ban marijuana when doctors use it as an anesthetic.
Doctors also use morphine and a number of other REALLY strong drugs for various reasons. That doesn't mean those drugs should be in the public domain. Doctors are highly trained and specialized for a reason. You are not.

Marijuana is not harmful to your health.

Marijuana does not impair your judgement, nor chang the way you act.
Not harmful to health?! I'd ask what your smoking but I'm pretty sure I know at this point. It also clearly demonstrates how it can impair your judgement. Please, I encourage you to do a little research on the health issue. At best, marijuana-advocates will state a single joint is the equivalent to your body as a pack of cigaretts. Generally the anti-drug institutions claim a single joint is about 3-4 packs of cigaretts (the usual statement is two joints a week is like a pack a day).

So erm, despite what messed up angsty teen "damn the man" misinformation is going around in your area, you're not doing your body any good.

[serg]

http://fishki.net/podborka3/14/picn_05.jpg

Sorry for big picture...

[Warcow]

Hahahahahahah!

What the hell Sergiy!?

[serg]

Just I saw a name of the topic and decided to post one more proof :)

[green97sierra]

HAHA! sergiy, you havent been here in SO long, then you come up with monkey-bush? i love you!

[dirka dirka]

Not harmful to health?! I'd ask what your smoking but I'm pretty sure I know at this point. It also clearly demonstrates how it can impair your judgement. Please, I encourage you to do a little research on the health issue. At best, marijuana-advocates will state a single joint is the equivalent to your body as a pack of cigaretts. Generally the anti-drug institutions claim a single joint is about 3-4 packs of cigaretts (the usual statement is two joints a week is like a pack a day).

So erm, despite what messed up angsty teen "damn the man" misinformation is going around in your area, you're not doing your body any good.

See, people make general assumptions cause thats what they've been taught since they were kids. I've done my research, a Marijuana cig is equal, in tar and cancer causing agents, to 4 normal cigaretts. The average marijuana cig is 1/3rd of a gram in marijuana. Meaning its alot more expensive than cigarettes to actually harm you. Not to mention that there are safe ways to use THC, that are NOT harmful to your health.

Just cause THC isn't good, doesn't mean its bad.

[uniquinous]

So erm, despite what messed up angsty teen "damn the man" misinformation is going around in your area, you're not doing your body any good.
Just cause THC isn't good, doesn't mean its bad.
Perhaps I missed something, but it seems like you are arguing this point? They seem exactly the same to me. To reiterate, marijuana use can either be 1) neutral to the body in the idealized (tho never really happens) view, or 2) harmful.

Your choices are nothing, or bad. This goes back to my original Bush argument: whether you see him as neutral or bad, he's certainly not doing anything good for this country. If the very best you can do with your escape/president is "hopefully not fuck myself over", you might wanna consider other options.

(sorry for the curse)

hugs and smooches,
-uniquinous

[dirka dirka]

Perhaps I missed something, but it seems like you are arguing this point? They seem exactly the same to me. To reiterate, marijuana use can either be 1) neutral to the body in the idealized (tho never really happens) view, or 2) harmful.
Nono. Marijuana in itself isn't harmful. It doesn't attack you and inject cancer into your veins. This is my point in saying it isn't harmful. It can be harmful if used in varying ways. So can pizza.

Your choices are nothing, or bad. This goes back to my original Bush argument: whether you see him as neutral or bad, he's certainly not doing anything good for this country. If the very best you can do with your escape/president is "hopefully not fuck myself over", you might wanna consider other options.

(sorry for the curse)

hugs and smooches,
-uniquinous
You see it as neutral or bad. I see it as neutral, bad, or good. The experience to me is good, outweighing the bad.

[inked]

he's certainly not doing anything good for this country

http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aaea/e_article000174724.cfm

Bush does some "good" things (that is good if you are an eviroment + sort of person).

[uniquinous]

You see it as neutral or bad. I see it as neutral, bad, or good. The experience to me is good, outweighing the bad.
I was referring to (in keeping with the rest of our discussion), the neutral/bad effects it has on your body. It has no (zero) positive affects on your body when used. Do you really believe the impotence-like symptoms you exhibit while smoking are a good thing?

I've done my research, a Marijuana cig is equal, in tar and cancer causing agents, to 4 normal cigaretts
Nono. Marijuana in itself isn't harmful. It doesn't attack you and inject cancer into your veins. This is my point in saying it isn't harmful. It can be harmful if used in varying ways. So can pizza.
These two quotes of yours seem to be self-contradictory. Perhaps you should rethink or rephrase this argument. Furthermore, the normal uses of pizza have not directly been shown to cause cancer. Burning it to a blackened brick and then snorting it isn't good for you, clearly, but that doesn't fall under "normal use". In contrast, many of the normal uses of marijuana are in fact harmful to you. If you'd like me to bring forward some primary scientific literature on the subject, please let me know. :bigsmile:

On an aside: The problem with you using extreme examples like pizza to prove your point, is that they are so extreme they don't apply. You seem to do this in quite a few of your posts I've noticed. I enjoy discussing these things with you at your best, so you might want to keep this in mind for the future. ;)

[dirka dirka]

I was referring to (in keeping with the rest of our discussion), the neutral/bad effects it has on your body. It has no (zero) positive affects on your body when used. Do you really believe the impotence-like symptoms you exhibit while smoking are a good thing?
Debatably.. it might have a medical value, but there isn't much proof of this, so I'll let ya have that.

These two quotes of yours seem to be self-contradictory.
A marijuana cig is defferent than marijuana. Marijuana just sits there and looks pretty. A marijuana cig is smoked. Marijuana is not harmful. Marijuana cigs are.

On an aside: The problem with you using extreme examples like pizza to prove your point, is that they are so extreme they don't apply. You seem to do this in quite a few of your posts I've noticed. I enjoy discussing these things with you at your best, so you might want to keep this in mind for the future. ;)
... you can choke on pizza... thats about equal in danger to marijuana.


Edit: I see my point is too subtle. Marijuana is a plant. Marijuana, like any other plant, sits there and looks pretty. Marijuana should not be illegal, just like any other plant shouldn't be illegal. Smoking marijuana may be illegal, although thats a whole other debate.

[uniquinous]

You are joking, right? You're not really trying to follow through with the pizza example, are you?

I'll assume you are for the hilarious effect. For this example, it is assumed both getting high and choking on pizza is reversible (you come back down, and stop choking, respectively). Person A is in the process of choking on pizza. Person B is high.

The negative effects (damage) on the body for A: none. In normal choking situations the person *experiences* a bad feeling, but there is actually no damage to the body unless you were to purposely leave the pizza in your throat for extended periods of time. This would be the equivalent to OD on marijuana (while you can't die from OD, you can get quite sick). Similarly, you can choke on marijuana (and infused products) as eating the drug falls under "normal use", so these two items cancel each other out. Person B however has quite a few things that can go wrong with their body during use. I'll just stick with erectile problems as my example for now. Clearly, this information proves one should not drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence of either of these scenarios, especially if you're choking on a pot brownie.

Now let's look at the case of afterwards: Yet again there's no prolonged damage to the choker's body. The pot user on the other hand has increased cancer and asthma risk (you sure your dirty bong water is doing that good a job of filtering the carcinogens and junk? - even if it is a large normal use is straight smoking).

Now let's look at the case where each person decides they want to quit the habbit. Well, withdrawal from choking still has no bad reactions. Pot withdrawal on the other hand has been shown to cause irritability, anxiety, and insomnia.

As I said, please move off the pizza example, as cute (if not desperate) as it may be.

[dirka dirka]

This would be the equivalent to OD on marijuana (while you can't die from OD, you can get quite sick).
This proves how little you know. You can not, under any set of variables, OD on marijuana.

[Hellblazer]

Just I saw a name of the topic and decided to post one more proof :)
Yeah, but monkeys are alot smarter than Bush.:p

[HorNeT]

wow. I bet if anyone of you were president you would do 1000x worse than Bush. You would not be able to handle the pressure and situations he has been through.

[Hellblazer]

wow. I bet if anyone of you were president you would do 1000x worse than Bush. You would not be able to handle the pressure and situations he has been through.
You like him and don't watch the news or read the nespapers, right? tsk tsk:dry:

[uniquinous]

This proves how little you know. You can not, under any set of variables, OD on marijuana.
OD does not mean death, which is why I stated "while you can't die from OD". However, a large amount of canibus CAN cause violent non-fatal OD symptoms:
"Large doses of potent cannabis, especially when swallowed, can cause "toxic psychosis." Symptoms include auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoid delusions, confusion and amnesia. When cannabis use is stopped, these symptoms usually disappear within a week."
Furthermore, you state "under any set of variables". That's not true at all. Pot, in conjunction with alcohol or other drugs (variables) can be very harmful. Instead of directly insulting your intelligence like you did to me, I will instead assume you were aware of this and just didn't explicitly state it. I will not attempt to claim some miniscule intellectual superiority over you for a nitpicky point (as you did to me). Attack my points, not me.

The fact of the matter is you can overdose on anything, even excessive ammounts of water (~3 quarts). Too much of anything will eventually hurt your body. In my example, I was equating a large excess of pot to a large excess of choking. It's a silly setup for this silly example. Even negating that entire point and throwing it out completely, you've manage to nitpick on something insignificant while my underlying argument is well in tact and undisputed.

[dirka dirka]

Let me say this slower.
You simply can not OD on Marijuana.

If you have auditory and visual hallucinations, it simply means you got some real high grade weed, and you should go back to that dealer in the future. It doesn't mean you OD'd. Paranoid delusions, confusion, and amnesia are signs of a bad trip. It doesn't mean you OD'd. It simply means you were not prepared before hand or were in the wrong mind set.

Now. Here is the position of any source that says you can OD on Marijuana. Overdose means a large dose, more than needed. Do you think you need any Marijuana? No. Therefore any dose is an OD.

[inked]

You like him and don't watch the news or read the nespapers, right? tsk tsk:dry:

New and news papers feature stories which are filtered though editors. Then the story is researched and a lot of the time supporting evidence refuting the news' story is not included.

Also I recently came across an interesting fact supporting Harriet Miers that I had not seen before. 40 of the 109 justices who have served on the US supreme court never had any previous experience as a judge( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9583051/ ). That figure refutes a major arguement against her about not having any experience would make her a bad canidate. Now I feel the greatest arguement against her is that she may impose her conservative religous views and legislate from the bench, and remove the Roe v. Wade ruling among other major court cases. Also Miers is a fomer Democrat, thus showing her views might shift over the course of time.

EDIT: uniquinous doesn't that quote just say that ingesting marijuana makes you high? Which I hope is a well known fact. Also you don't OD smoking marijuana you pass/black out.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Let me say this slower.Uhm...you can't say it slower...you're on the internet... But you're point is recieved.

Paranoid delusions, confusion, and amnesia are signs of a bad trip. It doesn't mean you OD'd. It simply means you were not prepared before hand or were in the wrong mind set. ...
Couldn't you say that about any drug? If your body begins to tolerate it, and you take a higher dose because of it, and it is more than any body can handle, it's an OD.

Now. Here is the position of any source that says you can OD on Marijuana. Overdose means a large dose, more than needed. Do you think you need any Marijuana? No. Therefore any dose is an OD.
By that token, nearly anything is an overdose. If you're not sleepy, you take a sleeping pill. Do you need it? No, you could go on without it. But, it isn't an overdose.

Your argument has merit, but your logic is kind of...lacking. Don't argue, it's not against you, this is more like....constructive criticism.

[dirka dirka]

Uhm...you can't say it slower...you're on the internet... But you're point is recieved.
lol, yea, oddly enough I say that alot not even knowing

...
Couldn't you say that about any drug? If your body begins to tolerate it, and you take a higher dose because of it, and it is more than any body can handle, it's an OD.
Thats the thing. Marijuana does not have a toxic level. Your body can handle as much as you can take in. THC is not toxic.

By that token, nearly anything is an overdose. If you're not sleepy, you take a sleeping pill. Do you need it? No, you could go on without it. But, it isn't an overdose.
Exactly, and it is logical, however not the true meaning of the word. That is why you can't OD on Marijuana.

Your argument has merit, but your logic is kind of...lacking. Don't argue, it's not against you, this is more like....constructive criticism.
... not at all. You proved my point, actually.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Thats the thing. Marijuana does not have a toxic level. Your body can handle as much as you can take in. THC is not toxic.However, at some point, it will be too much...everything has its limit, even good ol' dihydrogenoxide.


Exactly, and it is logical, however not the true meaning of the word. That is why you can't OD on Marijuana.
But....if nothing is an OD, then everything that would normally be considered for an OD is an OD...it works the other way, too. However, we have things that are accepted as an OD, so therefore, the second clause is the one that is correct.

[uniquinous]

look dirka, our definitions are just different. I'm talking about the "you can OD on anything" sense of the word. You're talking about that "OD = death/severe-hospital-visit" sense of it. Drop that nitpicky point. Can you refute any part of the greater argument posed in my post? Please don't just move on to criticise my spelling and grammar.

Inked: that quote is meant to show too much produces "toxic psychosis", a physiologically undesirable and bad (toxic) effect of taking too much, that's all. I was just showing too much can start to exhibit unwanted negative effects. This, by many definitions, is an OD. Dirka disagrees, but that's his entitlement. You will find different definitions in the literature, but all agree that no amount of pot has been shown to kill anyone from OD.

Again I ask dirka: please see the argument in my post. Pulling a weed from the woods doesn't mean you've chopped down a forest. Similarly, removing the OD argument altogether doesn't really affect what I was getting across.

[dirka dirka]

However, at some point, it will be too much...everything has its limit, even good ol' dihydrogenoxide.
Nope. There is simply not enough THC is Marijuana to product an OD. Maybe, and I stress maybe, if marinol(pure thc) was used, there is a possible OD... I don't know though.



But....if nothing is an OD, then everything that would normally be considered for an OD is an OD...it works the other way, too. However, we have things that are accepted as an OD, so therefore, the second clause is the one that is correct.
Exactly. Therefore you can't OD on Marijuana.

look dirka, our definitions are just different. I'm talking about the "you can OD on anything" sense of the word. You're talking about that "OD = death/severe-hospital-visit" sense of it. Drop that nitpicky point. Can you refute any part of the greater argument posed in my post? Please don't just move on to criticise my spelling and grammar.
No. I'm not talking about death or hospital visits. You can not OD on Marijuana. I'm not insulting grammar at all, I'd be the last one to do that rightfully.

Again I ask dirka: please see the argument in my post. Pulling a weed from the woods doesn't mean you've chopped down a forest. Similarly, removing the OD argument altogether doesn't really affect what I was getting across.
... and I honestly don't care. There is no reason to ban a plant. Not one reason on earth. There may be reasons to not allow people to use the plants for intoxication purposes... but thats another story.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Nope. There is simply not enough THC is Marijuana to product an OD. Maybe, and I stress maybe, if marinol(pure thc) was used, there is a possible OD... I don't know though.Oh, I'm not talking about the THC alone. I'm talking that ANY substance in the known universe will be bad for your body when taken in a high enough quantity. (By the way, for those who couldn't figure it out, dihydrogenoxide is water).



Exactly. Therefore you can't OD on Marijuana.

I...I'm sorry, I'm a dumbass, I don't see the logic... If I said that everything that could be considered an OD is one (including Marijuana), then... how does that lead into being unable to OD on it?

[dirka dirka]

Oh, I'm not talking about the THC alone. I'm talking that ANY substance in the known universe will be bad for your body when taken in a high enough quantity. (By the way, for those who couldn't figure it out, dihydrogenoxide is water).




I...I'm sorry, I'm a dumbass, I don't see the logic... If I said that everything that could be considered an OD is one (including Marijuana), then... how does that lead into being unable to OD on it?
You wanted me to use the logical meaning of OD. You simply can't OD on it. This is fact. Eat as much as you can, until you cant eat anymore, you're just gonna have a good time.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You wanted me to use the logical meaning of OD. You simply can't OD on it. This is fact. Eat as much as you can, until you cant eat anymore, you're just gonna have a good time.
Okay.
The OD might not be the problem, but I don't care how much you think it's "Just a good time", the effects affect your judgement at the time, making it dangerous.

[dirka dirka]

Okay.
The OD might not be the problem, but I don't care how much you think it's "Just a good time", the effects affect your judgement at the time, making it dangerous.
Really? I did not think smoking weed with a few friends, playing ps2 for two hours, and passing out was very dangerous. Then again... I'd think that drinking in a bar, driving home, and attempting to find your house would be a ton more dangerous. So tell me... whys drinking legal, its obviously worse.

[Office_Shredder]

Drinking is only legal because of its historical precedence as a legal drug.

[Jeffery]

Drinking is only legal because of its historical precedence as a legal drug.
Not to mention the last attempt tomake it illegal didn;t work so well.....

[dirka dirka]

Alright, and in all that, we can accept that no matter what anybody tries to argue, Marijuana is (beyond all crazy wacky ideas) better in society and better for someone to use compared to alcohol(its weird, everytime I need to spell alcohol, I have to look it up!)? Correct? So I think the next step is legalization of Marijuana.

Now, this is where I get to the depressing issue for me. I want Marijuana to be legal 10 times as much as the next guy. However, its not that important, and there are many things we need to get done first than bash current laws that might not be perfect.

[Hellblazer]

New and news papers feature stories which are filtered though editors. Then the story is researched and a lot of the time supporting evidence refuting the news' story is not included.
Well, even so, if you watch this guy give speeches and answer questions it's hilarious how dumb he can be. I heard him on the radio in the following scenario:

Questioner: Mr. President, what's the name of Pakistan's leader?
Bush: The General.
Questioner: Can you be more specific?
Bush: *thinks for a moment* We just call him the General.

[green97sierra]

I want Marijuana to be legal 10 times as much as the next guy. However, its not that important, and there are many things we need to get done first than bash current laws that might not be perfect.
yeah! i mean, hell, marijuana's not being legals hasnt stopped you thus far, right? what difference would it make if they made it legal?

[dirka dirka]

yeah! i mean, hell, marijuana's not being legals hasnt stopped you thus far, right? what difference would it make if they made it legal?
More or less, exactly. Not to mention.. really, its not like its even being considered by the government yet.

[green97sierra]

Drinking is only legal because of its historical precedence as a legal drug.
drinking is also legal because prohibition failed miserabley and resulted in FAR more money/manpower being spent on the suppression of alchohol then the costs of just letting people drink in the first place.

also, marijuana and other various forms of NATURAL drugs (ahem, dirka ;) ), including alchohol, have been around since the dawn of human civilization. your argument becomes only valid with the combination of historical and legal. no 'western' civilization has condoned the legal use of ANY drug, excluding tobacco and alchohol. as a matter of fact, historically, the only reason it is a controlled substance is because 'western' civilization decided it to be so.

no i do not condone the use of drugs. no, i do not consider marijuana to be of the same danger-level as, say, meth or crack. yes, i would kick my kid's ass if i found out he was doing anything illegal, including underaged drinking.

[dirka dirka]

drinking is also legal because prohibition failed miserabley and resulted in FAR more money/manpower being spent on the suppression of alchohol then the costs of just letting people drink in the first place.

also, marijuana and other various forms of NATURAL drugs (ahem, dirka ;) ), including alchohol, have been around since the dawn of human civilization. your argument becomes only valid with the combination of historical and legal. no 'western' civilization has condoned the legal use of ANY drug, excluding tobacco and alchohol. as a matter of fact, historically, the only reason it is a controlled substance is because 'western' civilization decided it to be so.
Here is the thing though. Exclude what happened in history, and take into consideration what we know about drugs. There is no reason for Marijuana to be illegal when alcohol is not. You can atleast see this argument, correct?

no i do not condone the use of drugs. no, i do not consider marijuana to be of the same danger-level as, say, meth or crack. yes, i would kick my kid's ass if i found out he was doing anything illegal, including underaged drinking.
Thats good and bad. However, the good obviously outweights the bad. Considering the bad part of that is only lack of moral leasons and such that could only be found through mistakes and/or experimenting.

[Office_Shredder]

Not to mention the last attempt tomake it illegal didn;t work so well.....

Exactly... it was legal for so long, when the government made it illegal the people were like "hey.... what you doin' wit my beer?"

[green97sierra]

Exactly... it was legal for so long, when the government made it illegal the people were like "hey.... what you doin' wit my beer?"
at least i know that's what my gran-papi was sayin'!

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Really? I did not think smoking weed with a few friends, playing ps2 for two hours, and passing out was very dangerous. Then again... I'd think that drinking in a bar, driving home, and attempting to find your house would be a ton more dangerous. So tell me... whys drinking legal, its obviously worse.
First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not advocating alcohol. That's a different story. Also, this is not a general case. For others, it may be different. Even the slightest switch from "yes" to "no" may mean doing something you regret.

[dirka dirka]

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not advocating alcohol. That's a different story. Also, this is not a general case. For others, it may be different. Even the slightest switch from "yes" to "no" may mean doing something you regret.
Didn't put a word in your mouth. Nobody