If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2661
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7838 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2661 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | » | Last
 
  2008-08-06 10:58:40 PM  
Whidbey: "Doesn't matter. The margin isn't the issue, it's the billions they're carting off to the bank, taking advantage of consumers, behaving basically like a monopoly..."

Of course the margin matters...

A company that makes a profit of 1% is a heck of alot different than a company that makes a profit of 10%.

And don't forget that their profit affects the retirement of many many americans.

"Because they have too much of an advantage as it is. They have arguably stunted research because they own the game. They've kept us addicted to a non-renewable resource decades after we realized it was time to switch. They have not offered any tangible alternatives, only occasional attempts to assuage the public that they're "working towards the future." It's lip service."

So they should not be able to invest in alternative energy and supply us with hydrogen (for example) for our hydrogen cars basically because you don't like oil companies.

Makes perfect sense...

"I'm proposing a tax break if they stay out of the new technology. Otherwise, the tax rate stays the same, or could possibly increase because of consumer outrage.

They'd have to change their game. Much like Kodak, who had to embrace digital technology instead of fighting it."


You contradict yourself Whidbey....

First you say that they should stay out of new technology then you say they should be like Kodak and embrace new technology.

What do you want Whidbey?

Either you don't want oil companies to get into alternatives and stay only oil companies or you want them to embrace new technology and become more than just oil companies.

"They put a token billion or so to make it look like they're making advancements, but nothing has changed. They don't have to change anything as long as they keep milking the cash cow."

Seriously?????

"A token billion"????

And you think it is wrong that a company would invest a billion dollars working on alternative energy???

Gee... I think it would be a good thing if more companies (oil or whatever) would invest a billion dollars on alternative energy.

"Because they're a dead-end business, ultimately. They'll use whatever influence they have to keep things the way they are, and maximize profit. You are aware that there is a very powerful oil lobby in this country? And this is why Congress hasn't really addressed our energy issues?"

I don't doubt that at some point we will no longer need oil. But that time is not here yet. So at least for now it is not a dead-end.

"And I call BS on that."

That's right....

I forgot that to you a billion dollars is nothing but a token...

"The credible scientists are on board with it. The oil companies pay unqualified "scientists" to dispute findings using flawed or easily-debunked evidence."

Now I'm not a big fan of Wiki but.....

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (new window)

There are all sorts of "credible scientists" that question global warming.

"It is not in their interest to allow competitive technologies that would make them obsolete."

Whidbey oil companies are interested in making money. (how terrible) But what you don't get is that they would be just as happy selling you a tank full of hydrogen as they would be selling you a tank of gas. They don't care where they get their profits.

"Yes we can. We aren't doing it because our government is more pro-oil than pro-green. It's slowly catching on, but not nearly fast enough."

Sigh....

So if you were king around here how long would it take you to convert each and every car, truck, bus, plane, and train to a "green" alternative?

"and while it would be wise for them to switch over like Kodak did with film, they would no longer be making their tens of billions of dollars in profit. "

1. You say that you don't want them to get into alternatives.

2. IF they did get into alternatives and start supplying all of us with the fuels that we need (whatever that would be) they would (guess what) make a profit and most likely a large profit.
 
  2008-08-07 01:12:00 PM  
dottedmint: Whidbey: "Doesn't matter. The margin isn't the issue, it's the billions they're carting off to the bank, taking advantage of consumers, behaving basically like a monopoly..."

Of course the margin matters...

A company that makes a profit of 1% is a heck of alot different than a company that makes a profit of 10%.

And don't forget that their profit affects the retirement of many many americans.


Sorry, but I'm not going to cry for a company that makes tens of billions of dollars in profit a year. They should be guaranteeing their employees' retirements for that matter.

You contradict yourself Whidbey....

First you say that they should stay out of new technology then you say they should be like Kodak and embrace new technology.


I think you misunderstand. I would like to enact a policy that actually holds them to their word about flat-out getting us off oil and switching over to something else.

Forgive me if I'm more than skeptical of their intentions. Sure, it would be smart to do the switch, but they're going to hold off on it as long as they can. Do you understand that?

Either you don't want oil companies to get into alternatives and stay only oil companies or you want them to embrace new technology and become more than just oil companies.

I would prefer they stay out of it. I'd prefer that the govt steal their top scientists and work on a large-scale solution.

And I know you're going to laugh, but read this article:

Al Gore urges man-on-moon-type program on energy.

First off, I'm not a big fan of Gore, but what he says here is highly sensible and shows some real priority in advancing this country and the world into the 21st Century.

And you think it is wrong that a company would invest a billion dollars working on alternative energy???

Not if they're just soaking a project with no tangible results. They can probably write off a good portion of it on their taxes or the entire program was funded with public money to begin with. Don't tell me you couldn't waste a billion dollars to keep getting billions more.

I don't doubt that at some point we will no longer need oil. But that time is not here yet. So at least for now it is not a dead-end.

The realization that we need to move past petroleum has been a dominant paradigm for more than 35 years.

Now I'm not a big fan of Wiki but.....

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (new window)
There are all sorts of "credible scientists" that question global warming.


That list has been tossed about in dozens of discussions here, and the consensus is that it's a padded collection of unqualified "scientists" who have a political agenda for their positions, funded by oil companies, some who have not published papers on the subject ever, many are economists, physicists, weathermen...

I don't get my climate change information from economists.

I've got a huge file of links if you're interested, but to cut through it I'm not BS'ing you when I say that science is on board with man-made global warming, and while they're not all in agreement of what impacts it could have on our ecosystems, there are some huge concerns. Enough to put the pressure on reducing societal emissions. Many cities and municipalities are serious about this.

We can argue it, but the cause is moot. The real argument is "what can be done?"

Whidbey oil companies are interested in making money. (how terrible)
But what you don't get is that they would be just as happy selling you a tank full of hydrogen as they would be selling you a tank of gas. They don't care where they get their profits.


That'd be nice to think that, but their actions say otherwise. The simple truth is that they stand to make the maximized amount by controlling the industry and keeping things the way they are. Otherwise, there's just too much risk. Hydrogen? It's not the answer. Hydrogen is in even shorter supply than petroleum. It's a ruse, something they can sink their capital in and later admit it was an experimental program and shelve it.

So if you were king around here how long would it take you to convert each and every car, truck, bus, plane, and train to a "green" alternative?

Less cars, obviously. Building good public transportation that would attract riders at a low cost. Less air travel. Unfortunately that would probably mean removing govt. subsidies and allowing air travel fares to increase to discourage the more frivolous uses, and yes that often includes business-related travel, a good deal of it.

But air travel can wait, there is far more need to streamline cities and outlying areas to accomodate rail and bus service. It totally works out here on the west coast, and the east coast has us beat with a very efficient rail system. We're not doing that, though. Right now Congress is too worried about what the oil companies want and how many more billions of dollars in corporate welfare we can give them.

.IF they did get into alternatives and start supplying all of us with the fuels that we need (whatever that would be) they would (guess what) make a profit and most likely a large profit.

I agree. I just do not believe that is their real intention at this point. They're too busy generating a smoke screen that green tech is "not ready" and "we're 20 years from getting off oil."

20 years x 40 billion in earnings= 800 billion dollars

20 years of footdragging for nearly a trillion dollars. I'd say that's great business sense. Just not very environmentally responsible.
 
  2008-08-08 06:48:42 PM  
"Sorry, but I'm not going to cry for a company that makes tens of billions of dollars in profit a year."

That's right....

I forgot that you think profit is bad...

"I think you misunderstand. I would like to enact a policy that actually holds them to their word about flat-out getting us off oil and switching over to something else."

It's not the job of the oil company to get us off oil.....

If they want to produce oil.... that's their choice....

If they want to produce some alternative fuel.... that would also be their choice....

"I would prefer they stay out of it. I'd prefer that the govt steal their top scientists and work on a large-scale solution."

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "steal their top scientists". Scientists can work for whoever they want to work for. If they want to work for the oil company that is their choice.

Second, are you saying that you want the government to be responsible for coming up with the alternative? I trust the private sector more than government.

"Not if they're just soaking a project with no tangible results."

You assume that there has not been "tangible results". You also assume that your "man-on-the-moon-type program" would have better results.

"Don't tell me you couldn't waste a billion dollars to keep getting billions more."

Just as your "man-on-the-moon-type program" could.

And after all.....

A company that spends money to try to come up with an alternative fuel has the incentive of making a profit selling that fuel to their customers.

A researcher who is being paid by the government would not want to come up with some great alternative because then that person would be out of a job.

"I'm not BS'ing you when I say that science is on board with man-made global warming, and while they're not all in agreement of what impacts it could have on our ecosystems, there are some huge concerns."

No Whidbey... Science is not "on board with man-made global warming".... Some scientists are on board but NO not all scientists agree with Gore. And the scientists who think Gore is full of it are not all "unqualified". You can't just dismiss the alternatives by saying that the experts are unqualified.

"Hydrogen is in even shorter supply than petroleum. "

UM....... Water is made up of hydrogen....

And....

From Wiki...

Hydrogen is the most abundant of the chemical elements, constituting roughly 75% of the universe's elemental mass.
(new window)

Hardly a ruse....

"20 years x 40 billion in earnings= 800 billion dollars"

Yet what you forget is that (as I said before) they don't care where they get that profit from.

IF over the next 20 years they can make 10 billion on alternatives and 30 billion in oil they would still get 800 billion.

Then over the 20 years after that they might make 20 billion on alternatives and 20 billion on oil... another 800 billion.

Then the 20 years after that they could make 30 billion on alternatives and 10 billion on oil... gee another 800 billion.

And of course 20 years after that.... (you guessed it) .... 40 billion in alternatives... 800 billion.

After all....

I'm constantly told that we are going to run out of oil.....

So why wouldn't an oil company get into alternatives so that when we do run out of oil they are ready to sell us the alternatives.

It would be a rather stupid choice to refuse to get into alternatives and then when we run out of oil not have anything to sell us.
 
  2008-08-11 01:35:59 PM  
dottedmint: It's not the job of the oil company to get us off oil.....

If they want to produce oil.... that's their choice....

If they want to produce some alternative fuel.... that would also be their choice....


They need to stay out of it, seeing as how it's clearly a conflict of interest. I'd be willing to give them an "either-or" on the tax breaks. Gone would be the days where they control an industry and have that much influence in Congress.

are you saying that you want the government to be responsible for coming up with the alternative? I trust the private sector more than government.

But we're not seeing enough from the private sector. There has to be at least some incentive for some of these billionaires to cut loose. They only see one thing: money, and how to get a return on it.

I'll give someone like T. Boone Pickens credit for sinking some of his fortune into wind power, but there's not enough initiative otherwise. The alternative industry needs to be jump-started by taking away subsidies and tax breaks from the oil companies and putting it into what Gore proposed in the article above.

No Whidbey... Science is not "on board with man-made global warming".... Some scientists are on board but NO not all scientists agree with Gore.

Not the point.

And the scientists who think Gore is full of it are not all "unqualified". You can't just dismiss the alternatives by saying that the experts are unqualified.

They are unqualified, as I've pointed out. The list you produced has been discredited. If you want information, you go to the real scientists who are publishing papers on the subject, not some hodge-podge collection of yahoos drummed up as political opposition.

You assume that there has not been "tangible results". You also assume that your "man-on-the-moon-type program" would have better results.

What "tangible results," then? I thought you were the skeptic who believes we're "20 years away?" I can't think of any results, only goals that are as of yet unrealized, because the leaders of country still believe oil and coal are still the number one priority and that as far as wind and solar we're on our own.

We have to change our attitudes, and I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing a master-slave relationship with big oil, and they're calling the shots. You're just not getting that. The dollar signs are blinding you.

And I goofed and substituted "hydrogen" for "helium." There is not currently a hydrogen shortage, but there are concerns that available needed hydrogen could be diverted for alternative technology much in the way that biofuels would be taking up our food supplies.

Just the same, I don't think it's viable techonology. Hydrogen is also very explosive. Not exactly a safe alternative. Doesn't change my suspicion that BP isn't just throwing money into a black hole to make it look like they're coming up with something.

Face it: they're going to milk oil to the last drop, and they're going to use their influence on our government to keep things the way they are. THAT'S why they should be out of the equation altogether.

It would be a rather stupid choice to refuse to get into alternatives and then when we run out of oil not have anything to sell us.

See, that's the thing. We aren't "running out of oil." We have just enough of it for such a transition. And the wise thing to do is find a way out of the mess while we use our current supply. We don't have to drill, and for that matter we turn right around and export half of what we sell.

I forgot that you think profit is bad...

When they stunt progressive societal growth? Yes, I do. I think the oil companies should be put out of business.
 
  2008-08-11 09:01:57 PM  
"They need to stay out of it, seeing as how it's clearly a conflict of interest."

There is no "conflict" here.

If they are in the business of selling us energy (that is after all waht oil is) then it does not matter what form of energy they sell us.

Basically Whidbey, oil companies are going to turn into energy companies.

"I'd be willing to give them an "either-or" on the tax breaks."

I love how you think that paying (what was it?) three times their profits in taxes is some sort of "tax break".

"Gone would be the days where they control an industry and have that much influence in Congress."

Whatever company ends up providing our country with our energy needs is going to have a huge influence on government policy.

"But we're not seeing enough from the private sector."

Then you clearly are not paying attention.....

I think this is one heck of a tangible result....

static.flickr.com

No. It isn't the answer to all of our problems but it is most definitely a result. All of the results have been driven by the private sector.

"There has to be at least some incentive for some of these billionaires to cut loose. They only see one thing: money, and how to get a return on it."

And that is what will drive the private sector to come up with alternatives. A company that sees profit in alternatives will invest in alternatives. That's why Pickens is investing in wind power. He sees profits in it.

"taking away subsidies and tax breaks from the oil companies "

Again.... amazed that you think paying three times their profits in taxes is a tax break....

"They are unqualified, as I've pointed out. "

Just because you claim they are unqualified does not make them unqualified.

You can't claim that each and every scientist that questions what Gore says is unqualified.

"but there are concerns that available needed hydrogen could be diverted for alternative technology much in the way that biofuels would be taking up our food supplies."

Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe I don't think we need to worry about hydrogen shortages.

And I didn't think you agreed with the claim that ethanol was affecting our food supply????

"See, that's the thing. We aren't "running out of oil." "

I'm not the one saying that we are running out of oil. People on the left are constantly telling me that we are running out.

"And the wise thing to do is find a way out of the mess while we use our current supply. "
The wise thing would be to increase our oil supply to bring down the price of gas, increase our production of alternative energies, and increase our technologies to make more effective use of those energies.

"When they stunt progressive societal growth? "

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "progressive societal growth"....

If you increase the supply of oil, you will see the price of fuel go down and that would help spur real growth in our economy.

If some company (oil or alternative) comes up with some great alternatie fuel that would also spur growth.

This economy runs on energy.

I think we need to increase our supply of all energy.

You want to limit what we use for energy and that would limit our growth.

"I think the oil companies should be put out of business."

And that sure would do wonders for the price of gas....

You can't put oil companies out of business until you have a good alternative.
 
  2008-08-12 06:49:16 AM  
Here is an article about Chevron promoting and developing alternative energies....

Link (new window)
 
  2008-08-12 01:25:36 PM  
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't have any confidence that big oil is going to shoot their cash cow. Their track record speaks for itself.

They want to footdrag and stall the market until the crisis gets to a boiling point.

Their so-called "alternative technology" experimentation smacks of tax write-offs.

Your link is propaganda. As long as we have a powerful oil lobby who dictates policy to our government, it's all smoke and mirrors.

And that is what will drive the private sector to come up with alternatives. A company that sees profit in alternatives will invest in alternatives. That's why Pickens is investing in wind power. He sees profits in it.

But again, most see profit in keeping things the way they are. Billions now versus half that, or a quarter of that down the line?

I don't think so.


I think this is one heck of a tangible result....


Remains to be seen whether that technology thrives or is killed off.

I'm a skeptic, dottedmint. I do not have confidence that the big players in the status quo are doing what it takes to plan for the future.

I really believe that something needs to come out of left field and turn the market on its ear. Without the oil companies standing watch and looking over someone's shoulder.
 
  2008-08-12 09:35:38 PM  
"Your link is propaganda. As long as we have a powerful oil lobby who dictates policy to our government, it's all smoke and mirrors."

Other than your hatred of oil companies Whidbey what evidence do you have to back you your accusations?

So you think that Chevron investing $300 million dollars each year into alternative fuel sources is propoganda and smoke and mirrors????

"But again, most see profit in keeping things the way they are. Billions now versus half that, or a quarter of that down the line?"

Again Whidbey you are making baseless claims. You don't know what sort of profit there would be with alternatives. They might make more of a profit.

Would a company make more of a profit selling hydrogen (for example) than oil?

I don't know...

You don't know...

I would suspect that there would be as much profit in selling us hydrogen as in selling us oil.

"Remains to be seen whether that technology thrives or is killed off."

First.... Do you have actual proof that oil companies have "killed off" any alternative technology?

Second.... How would oil companies "kill off" a 100% electric car that actually looks good and is sporty?

As they improve the battery technology and improve manufacturing so that it becomes more affordable that alternative will become more and more popular.

"I'm a skeptic, dottedmint. I do not have confidence that the big players in the status quo are doing what it takes to plan for the future."

Maybe they are... Maybe they aren't....

Bottom line is that YOU don't think they are doing what they should.

That doesn't mean they aren't....

"I really believe that something needs to come out of left field and turn the market on its ear. "

There is nothing stopping anyone from coming up with that big "something"....

If you start up your own company and invest money in coming up with some great alternative to oil, there is nothing the oil company can do to stop you.

And here is an article where ConocoPhillips is investing $5million in a Colorado biofuels center.

Link (new window)

They probably feel that they can get more than $5million by selling biofuels.
 
  2008-08-13 12:50:05 PM  
dottedmint: Other than your hatred of oil companies Whidbey what evidence do you have to back you your accusations?

Of course. The oil lobby has everything to lose by profit loss. Converting to alternative technologies means less money now.

They've successfully pressured this government and they've paid scientists to flat-out deny climate change. If they're so beneficent about their intentions, why do they do either? And how is it fair that powerful corporations dictate policy to our government?

So you think that Chevron investing $300 million dollars each year into alternative fuel sources is propoganda and smoke and mirrors????

Yep. Absolutely. It's the perfect scam. Of the $3 billion the company will spend for 2006-2008, only about half is going toward wind and solar, with the rest dedicated to more dubious alternatives like synthetic gas made from petroleum.

They are an obstacle to progress because of the control they've struggled to keep over the market and over US energy policy.

Second.... How would oil companies "kill off" a 100% electric car that actually looks good and is sporty?

They have before.

They want to control the process, dottedmint. They're powerful unscrupulous people who don't give a damn about the long-term.

There is nothing stopping anyone from coming up with that big "something"....

There's plenty. This country isn't even on board with the concept of man-made global warming, our government hands out billions in corporate welfare to fat oil companies, and as of yet there is no announced program to give subsidies and incentives to individuals or groups who want to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Just handouts to the fat cats.

If you start up your own company and invest money in coming up with some great alternative to oil, there is nothing the oil company can do to stop you.

They've got a powerful lobby in Congress and they have stifled the development of true alternatives for the last 30+ years.

As long as they keep convincing Congress to keep feeding them the billions they need to make even more billions, they are not a reliable agent of change.

And as I've pointed out, there are no incentives/subsidies to start such a company.

They probably feel that they can get more than $5million by selling biofuels.

But they KNOW they can get more than 50 billion by keeping things the way they are and pretending to be the mavericks of the alternatives industry.

They're in the way, and I'd like to see them put out of business.
 
  2008-08-13 09:45:33 PM  
"Converting to alternative technologies means less money now."

Not if they are selling it to us.

That's the point Whidbey.

"They have before. [killed off a 100% electric car]"

But Whidbey they haven't.

IF they had as you accuse them of this car would not be here.

static.flickr.com

But it is here....

So they are not able to kill off this car. There is nothing that they can do to kill off this car.

As the makers of this car improve technology to make it more affordable it will become more popular.

If I could afford one I would buy one...

"There's plenty. This country isn't even on board with the concept of man-made global warming,"

That would not stop you from creating an alternative fuel.

"our government hands out billions in corporate welfare to fat oil companies,"

As well as billions to bio-fuel companies.

"and as of yet there is no announced program to give subsidies and incentives to individuals or groups who want to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Just handouts to the fat cats."

Um....

Department of Energy to kick $14 million for PHEV battery research (new window)

DOE to Provide Nearly $20 Million to Further Development of Advanced Batteries for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (new window)

SatCon Gets Government Grant To Develop New Hybrid Electric Vehicle Drive Components (new window)

So as I said before....

If you start up your own company and want to come up with the next big thing in alternative fuels, there is nothing stopping you.

"As long as they keep convincing Congress to keep feeding them the billions they need to make even more billions, they are not a reliable agent of change."

We've been over the whole oil company / tax issue before.

I'm sorry but paying three times their profits in taxes doesn't make me think they are getting anything out of the government.

I suppose you think they should pay (what?) four times their profits in taxes?

Maybe five?

"But they KNOW they can get more than 50 billion by keeping things the way they are and pretending to be the mavericks of the alternatives industry."

More baseless accusations....

As I said before....

We don't know what profits alternatives will or will not bring to a company.

An oil company is not going to care where they make their money.
 
  2008-08-14 02:26:17 PM  
dottedmint: So they are not able to kill off this car. There is nothing that they can do to kill off this car.

You hope. I have my doubts.


If you start up your own company and want to come up with the next big thing in alternative fuels, there is nothing stopping you.


In other words, we're on our own, is what you're saying.

While the oil companies still get billions in corporate welfare.

Don't you think that's a little odd? That even though there's some supposed "push" for alternatives, that there are no hefty subsidies or incentives for programs at the government level?

Meanwhile billions of our tax dollars go to already fat conglomerates.


We don't know what profits alternatives will or will not bring to a company.

An oil company is not going to care where they make their money.


Just looking at their track record. 30 years and nothing viable has come out. Meanwhile big oil controls this government.

Sorry man, but that simply isn't right.
 
  2008-08-14 10:27:30 PM  
"You hope. I have my doubts."

Your "doubts"????

What exactly is Exxon going to do to stop Tesla from selling their electric car?

I know you hate oil comopanies but they do not have as much power as you accuse them of.

"In other words, we're on our own, is what you're saying."

What?!?!?!

It is not a question of being "on our own"....

If you can come up with some alternative fuel that is clean burning, cheap, and can replace oil there is nothing the oil companies can do to stop you from doing that.

"While the oil companies still get billions in corporate welfare."

Ya know....

I am curious....

How much "corporate welfare" did ConocoPhillips (or some other oil company) get last year?

"That even though there's some supposed "push" for alternatives, that there are no hefty subsidies or incentives for programs at the government level?"

Did you not see the three links that I posted that talked about subsidies, incentives, and investments of government money to alternatives?

You keep making baseless claims here Whidbey...

"Just looking at their track record. 30 years and nothing viable has come out."

Oh.... I see....

It should only take us 1 year to come up with an alternative fuel that can replace oil.

Right?

And over the last 30 years we have come up with hydrogen cars, elecric cars, hybred cars, higher fuel efficiency, and even compressed air cars.

Yes.... We are still waiting for someone to come up with that one great discovery that can replace oil.

We don't know when that will come.

It might be tomorrow or another 30 years.

IF you have an idea then by all means start up your own company and work on that replacement.

As I said before.... The oil companies can't stop you.

"Meanwhile big oil controls this government."

Right.....

They "control" this government and yet they pay three times their profits in taxes.....

I think it is safe to say that any company would gladly give up "control if it meant that they would have to pay that much in taxes and fees to be in "control"....

I'm actually curious if you could come up with an industry that is regulated and taxed more than the oil industry is????
 
  2008-08-19 06:47:19 AM  
Can anyone explain why Obama was unable to answer this question?

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

His response was,

"Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. "

Above his pay grade??????

You've gotta be kidding me.

As a Senator he is paid to be able to answer that question. He has to vote on that issue. In fact he has one of the most liberal voting records on the issue of abortion. So in the past answering questions like that was not above his pay grade.

As someone who is running for President he will be expected to be able to answer that question. He will have to sign into law bills that deal with that very issue.

Are you telling me that as President he would not be able to sign any abortion bills into law because it would be above his pay grade?
 
  2008-08-19 03:40:40 PM  
dottedmint: Can anyone explain why Obama was unable to answer this question?

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

His response was,

"Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. "

Above his pay grade??????

You've gotta be kidding me.

As a Senator he is paid to be able to answer that question. He has to vote on that issue. In fact he has one of the most liberal voting records on the issue of abortion. So in the past answering questions like that was not above his pay grade.

As someone who is running for President he will be expected to be able to answer that question. He will have to sign into law bills that deal with that very issue.

Are you telling me that as President he would not be able to sign any abortion bills into law because it would be above his pay grade?


If I may answer that, I saw that thread yesterday but didn't have time to read it or comment.

I think basically Obama's problem was that he was standing on a stage in an evangelical nest. He knows where they stand and they likely know where he stands, so he was answering with a joke that conveyed the sensitivity of the issue without making a whaking doll out of himself in a pro-life stronghold.

You adjust your discourse to the venue and your audience.

For a more complete answer from Obama you can check out this one from last October:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-issue/ (new window)
 
  2008-08-19 09:51:27 PM  
So basically TB Obama didn't want to be honest about what he thinks????

Nice....

Yet not surprising....
 
  2008-08-19 11:33:01 PM  
Well, yeah, I was kind of disappointed too, dottedmint, I would have prefered a frank schooling about the "Christianity" of not forcing inevitable abortions underground. But you know as well as I do that would have crashed and burned in that venue, and been completely unproductive for both Obama and the listeners there.
 
  2008-08-20 06:27:20 AM  
But that's not much of an argument.

'It should be legal because people are going to do it anyways.'

And that doesn't answer the question,

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"
 
  2008-08-20 09:57:58 AM  
dottedmint: But that's not much of an argument.

'It should be legal because people are going to do it anyways'


Well it's certainly not a very pretty argument but that doesn't mean it isn't a good one.
When you are talking about something as deeply and personally affecting and even dangerous physically and emotionally as a pregnancy, the cold hard truth that you have to face is that it will clinch the desperation mode in many who are living it in desperate circumstances. And the law forbidding it, amounts to stubborn gnashing of teeth and wishing it away while all it does is force the desperate underground and agravate the social ramifications of abortion and it's surrounding related issues. (As you can see I'm a pragmatist, though certainly not a relativist.)

This is not the only argument, by the way, only one important one and it still requires elaboration.

And that doesn't answer the question,

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"


I'll get to directly addressing that question in a minute, but there's something about this question that bugged me to begin with.

The question is posed to a poltician and and policy maker, yet it is a purely philosophical question with an indirect relation to a strongly argued policy issue. That tells me that it is a disingenuous question. The question they are ultimately trying to get answered is 'what is your stance on abortion' yet they choose to jump the gun and ask for an answer to one of the supporting issues that fall within the abortion argument. That just pisses me off. Ask the honest question and then ask for the clarification of the argument. Or at least state your own position on that specific question and then argue against the response.

I don't know maybe it's purely an etiquette issue but it still bugs me.

Now on to the actual question:

I'm not sure how Obama would answer it but judging from his abortion related answer in the link provided earlier. I would say that he probably would have a hard time even figuring out how the question is even relevant since the philosophical issue of when someone is granted rights is pretty much an arbitrary one of personal opinion since even if you say it begins at conception it is still an arbitrary maybe pragmatic personal preference.

The reason I think Obama would see the question this way stems from the part of his answer relating to mothers being in the best position to weigh the circumstances, issues, and decide. This tells me that he is someone who respects nuance and understands that there is no clear objective hierarchy of the fundamental moral imperatives. Therefore when you are face with a situation which places more than one moral imperative in opposition to one another the choice of which takes precedence depends on the particular circumstances of the situation as well as subjective philosophies about those imperatives.

The question when does a baby get human rights is frankly stupid, since anyone asking it will assume that the answer directly relates to the moral imperative on abortion while it does nothing of the sort, but only, possibly, helps add to the vastly more complex argument over abortion.

Adult humans have human rights too while there are innumerable circumstances under which those rights may be legitimately abrogated.
 
  2008-08-20 09:31:09 PM  
"Well it's certainly not a very pretty argument but that doesn't mean it isn't a good one."

Well....actually....

Just because people will still have abortions does not mean that abortions should be legal.

After all....

Murder is illegal and yet people still do it.....

Should murder be legal?


"Ask the honest question and then ask for the clarification of the argument."

I guess I need to disagree with your take on that question.

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

Obviously it is an abortion based question and while it may not be asked in the way you would want, ultimately it is up to the person asking the question.

As the person running to be President Obama should have been able to give an HONEST answer to that question.

"I would say that he probably would have a hard time even figuring out how the question is even relevant since the philosophical issue of when someone is granted rights is pretty much an arbitrary one of personal opinion since even if you say it begins at conception it is still an arbitrary maybe pragmatic personal preference."

It is relevant because as a Senator (let alone President) he has to vote on issues that deal with that very question. He actually has a very liberal record on voting on that issue.

So in the past he hasn't had a problem answering questions based on the "philosophical issue" of abortion.

"Adult humans have human rights too while there are innumerable circumstances under which those rights may be legitimately abrogated."

Right....

And Obama easily could have said that a baby has "rights" at a certain stage but "there are innumerable circumstances under which those rights may be legitimately abrogated."

So again as a Senator he has been able to say adult rights should be taken away under certain circumstances so why couldn't he say when a baby has rights?
 
  2008-08-20 09:58:36 PM  
*peeks out of the lurkage*

Hey good to see you in here again, Thorndyke...:)
 
  2008-08-21 11:13:26 AM  
dottedmint: Murder is illegal and yet people still do it.....

Should murder be legal?


Absolutely not, but that's a false analogy. Everything from the motives to the victims to the methods to the actors are different and can be measured against society's goals and desires. The circumstances of murder are vastly different from those of abortion. We have the ability to perceive those differences and the responsibility to acknowledge them.

Lets consider extramarital sex instead... While some consider it immoral and it has, in particular times and places, been illegal, it has been found at least equally immoral to legislate such acts partly because it was not realistically enforceable. Same thing goes for Prohibition and look where that went. These are acts committed not by criminal minds but by regular people accross the psychological and demographic spectrums, whether they were made illegal or not, and unlike murder.

dottedmint: Obviously it is an abortion based question and while it may not be asked in the way you would want, ultimately it is up to the person asking the question.

The only thing that is obvious is that person was asking about abortion, not that the question itself is inherently related to the issue of abortion.

As an ethics student I can assure you it is entirely possibly to consider this question completely independent of the abortion issue, say in the simple context of defining the concept of rights themselves.

But I'm willing to grant that such sensibilities about directness may be no more significant than differing cultural and etiquette rules. I guess my personal etiquette and culture just prefers more of a "say what you farking mean and don't play games to try to trump a conclusion from your opponent" approach.


dottedmint: As the person running to be President Obama should have been able to give an HONEST answer to that question.

Look I just told you that from my perspective the question seemed dishonest while the answer was evasive so I guess it still comes back to cultural preference which those people seem to share, eh?

Honestly? I cannot muster the outrage over such cautious discourse from either candidate in the middle of a campaign, in a highly polarized political climate, in a limited and ideologically homogeneous venue. This wasn't a general public debate. So why impose unnatural, rigid prohibition on the adjustment of message and discursive style to the audience? You would be a failure of an orator to adhere to such an utter lack of normal human linguistic habits. Honestly.


dottedmint: It is relevant because as a Senator (let alone President) he has to vote on issues that deal with that very question. He actually has a very liberal record on voting on that issue.

On this point, I have to say, I am in agreement with you. IF the question was sincerely nothing more than when does a human acquire their rights, he should, as a ward of the public domain and expert on the law, be able to formulate a well thought out answer to that...but it wasn't. The question was about abortion and everyone would have accused him of evasion and spinning yarn if he had tried to formulate an adequate answer to that philosophical rights question.

dottedmint: So in the past he hasn't had a problem answering questions based on the "philosophical issue" of abortion.

Again, you are denying the distinction and conflating the two issues here. The RIGHTS issue is a philosophical one, the ABORTION issue, for Obama, as a politician and public servant, must primarily be a pragmatic and utilitarian policy issue.

dottedmint: And Obama easily could have said that a baby has "rights" at a certain stage but "there are innumerable circumstances under which those rights may be legitimately abrogated."

So again as a Senator he has been able to say adult rights should be taken away under certain circumstances so why couldn't he say when a baby has rights?


Yup he could have, but for any number of reasons he deemed in that moment possibly that the lengthy philosophical answer and in relation to the overall limitted amount of time which might be lent to other issues as well, that the answer he gave would be appropriate.

He could have (and I might have prefered that he) hijacked the entire event to explore that one issue of abortion adequately. But instead in the moment, he chose another direction and my reaction is frankly: whatever.


whidbey: *peeks out of the lurkage*

Hey good to see you in here again, Thorndyke...:)


Hey, w'sup, whidbey! Hope all is well in your neck o' the woods!
 
  2008-08-22 07:38:42 AM  
TB Absolutely not, but that's [murder] a false analogy.

Lets consider extramarital sex instead...


You claim that murder is a "false analogy" and yet you use extramarital sex as your analogy to abortion????

In both murder and abortion an innocent life is ended.

Yes, the motives are typically different but the end result is the same.

Would you prefer if I used infanticide as an analogy?

Infanticide typically does not involve the same motives, methods, etc as some gang-banger doing a drive-by.

"So why impose unnatural, rigid prohibition on the adjustment of message and discursive style to the audience? You would be a failure of an orator to adhere to such an utter lack of normal human linguistic habits. Honestly."

Because he is not running to be an orator. He is running to be President. And as President I would want him to be honest about what he thinks. I don't want a President that would change his message to fit the group of people he is talking to. I can respect a man that I disagree with if he gives me his honest opinion. I cannot respect a man who would say one thing to me and then something different to someone he supports.

"IF the question was sincerely nothing more than when does a human acquire their rights, he should, as a ward of the public domain and expert on the law, be able to formulate a well thought out answer to that...but it wasn't. The question was about abortion and everyone would have accused him of evasion and spinning yarn if he had tried to formulate an adequate answer to that philosophical rights question."

Not at all....

If he would have said that he thinks a baby gets rights after it is born and that before that point the right of the mother trumps those of the baby that would be an honest answer and nobody would accuse him of evasion or spinning anything.

There are plenty of us who would simply disagree with him but he would have given an honest answer.

"The RIGHTS issue is a philosophical one, the ABORTION issue, for Obama, as a politician and public servant, must primarily be a pragmatic and utilitarian policy issue."

They are more related than you want to admit TB....

IF you say that a baby gets rights only after birth then clearly before birth it has no rights. This means that you can abort it and not violate it's rights.

IF you say that a baby gets rights after a certain point in the pregnancy but before birth then clearly before that point it does not have rights. And again before that point you would be able to have an abortion and not violate it's rights.

Clearly at whatever point Obama wants to say a baby gets rights it would be possible to abort that baby before that point and not violate it's rights.

They are not separate issues.
 
  2008-08-22 10:19:22 AM  
dottedmint: Would you prefer if I used infanticide as an analogy?

The important difference here is that I wasn't using extramarital sex as an analogy to abortion so much as an example to refute your suggestion that unenforceability (people will do it whether or not it's legal)was a ridiculous consideration and never a factor in our legislative decisions.

- I cannot respect a man who would say one thing to me and then something different to someone he supports.

Do you honestly, I mean really honestly on your honor, believe this to be equivalent to an about face on his professed opinions, a flat out lie? Because that's certainly what your reaction here implies.

He didn't contradict his well established record and reputation regarding his stance on abortion, he simply decided not to elaborate on it in that venue. Why is that so hard to accept? I doubt you could avoid making off the cuff decisions in a debate that people would disect and criticise you for. How long was that "debate" anyway? How many questions were asked? How long was devoted to each candidate's answers? These are all things that are ignored in a snap judgement of dishonesty on this matter.

And once again these people are CAMPAIGNING, they are in full promotional mode, playing up their strengths and qualities while dowplaying their weaknesses at least as perceived by their likely detractors. If you want complete answers about his policies, don't go to a farking showcase publicity event, go to his record, written policy platform and statements made outside the campaign. The few months of the campaign are all about optics and and very careful and parsing when it comes to substance. I thought everyone knew that.

- There are plenty of us who would simply disagree with him but he would have given an honest answer.

Sure, but they might also rip him a new one. Maybe none of these people care if you're open about a repulsive (in their eyes) opinion. Which Die Hard was it where Bruce Willis had to stand in the middle of Harlem with a sandwich board carrying a racial slur? Not everyone is as open to debate on such issues as you are, Dottedmint. And evangelicals are not exactly known for their moderation and intellectual honesty in all areas.

- Clearly at whatever point Obama wants to say a baby gets rights it would be possible to abort that baby before that point and not violate it's rights.

But see, I've been saying throughout this conversation that abortion can be wrong or justified regardless of whether the fetus does or doesn't have rights(or when they get them).

The question implies both that A) If the rights can be demonstrated to be obtained after birth then abortion is automatically justified, and B) If the fetus already has rights then abortion is out of the question.

Neither of these are logical necessities flowing from the establishment of the rights of the fetus issue.
 
  2008-08-22 03:11:21 PM  
 
  2008-08-22 11:04:12 PM  
TB "The important difference here is that I wasn't using extramarital sex as an analogy to abortion so much as an example to refute your suggestion that unenforceability (people will do it whether or not it's legal)was a ridiculous consideration and never a factor in our legislative decisions."

Actually it is possible to enforce abortion laws.

It is illegal for me to smoke pot yet nobody would know what is or is not growing in my basement.

Does this mean that we should do away with drug laws?

People will use drugs anyways..... make it legal.....

"Do you honestly, I mean really honestly on your honor, believe this to be equivalent to an about face on his professed opinions, a flat out lie?"

I would not call it a "flat out lie" but it was clearly not an honest answer to the question.

He was doing everything that he could to NOT say what he really thinks about abortion and when a baby should get rights.

"He didn't contradict his well established record and reputation regarding his stance on abortion, he simply decided not to elaborate on it in that venue. Why is that so hard to accept? I doubt you could avoid making off the cuff decisions in a debate that people would disect and criticise you for."

Obviously it is hard to contradict something when he doesn't actually answer the question. He wasn't contradicting himself but he was trying to ignore (or at least not bring up) what he really thinks.

Do you honestly think that he does not have an opinion as to when a baby should get rights?

"Sure, but they might also rip him a new one."

People are more likely to rip him a new one for not giving an honest answer. (as I am)

I will gladly express my disagreement with Obama when it comes to the issue of abortion but that is a difference in policy.

But when he says that he can't give his opinion on an issue that he clearly has an opinion on it is alot different.

"And evangelicals are not exactly known for their moderation and intellectual honesty in all areas."

Hmmmm.....

My whole point is that Obama was not being intellectually honest' in how he answered that question.

And for the record I can think of more than a few democrats that are not "known for their moderation and intellectual honesty in all areas".

"Neither of these are logical necessities flowing from the establishment of the rights of the fetus issue."

Actually if you are saying that an abortion is OK then clearly you are saying that baby does not have rights.
 
  2008-08-24 09:17:53 AM  
Sen. Craig Strikes Again
www.cafepress.com/politicaltalk
 
  2008-08-25 02:53:43 PM  
So I gata bring something new to the table...

Are there any McCain supporters out there? Like I'm being serious...Because I can't find any.

I'd be curious to know if there are any supporters out there, and why you support him.
 
  2008-08-25 08:08:18 PM  
Well Drakin020 I'm not sure I am his biggest supporter but I support him over Obama.

The simplist answer as to why is that I agree with him more than I agree with Obama.

It really is that simple.
 
  2008-08-26 11:05:18 AM  
dottedmint: Actually it is possible to enforce abortion laws.

If you can show me an anti-abortion law that will also prevent the desperate and dangerous illegitimate abortions that occured before Roe v Wade, then I'll concede, until then I call bullsiat as the conventional history is on my side on this one.

- People will use drugs anyways..... make it legal.....

It's like you've just repeated your earlier point and ignored the rebuttle I made to it.

"Lets consider extramarital sex instead... While some consider it immoral and it has, in particular times and places, been illegal, it has been found at least equally immoral to legislate such acts partly because it was not realistically enforceable. Same thing goes for Prohibition and look where that went. These are acts committed not by criminal minds but by regular people accross the psychological and demographic spectrums, whether they were made illegal or not, and unlike murder."

If you re-read our conversation you'll notice I already acknowledged that the fact that a law will not effectively remedy the problem it is meant to remedy cannot exclusively and always be used as a justification to discard the law but it CAN and HAS been used as A justification (likely along with others) to do just that.

For the record I do consider the failures of drug law to be a partial justification for the repeal and reform of drug legislation. But that's a whole 'nother issue.

- He was doing everything that he could to NOT say what he really thinks about abortion and when a baby should get rights.

Is this anything like McCain's dodging the 'elitism' hypocrisy issue by not answering how many houses he owns???

At this point, since you are not consistent with your application of that criteria, your whole honesty angle is plainly not so much a logic and reason argument as it is an easthetic preference. So I guess I don't have anything more to say on it.

- Actually if you are saying that an abortion is OK then clearly you are saying that baby does not have rights.

Again! NO! Recheck your reason and critical thinking theory. That is not a factual or logically sound statement.

You are either forgetting or ignoring arguments I have already made and which you have yet to refute while instead repeating your initial statement.

Abortion may be "OK" and justified EVEN IF a fetus has rights that must be set aside and superseded by other moral considerations that may take precedence, either by themselves or counted together.
 
  2008-08-26 11:19:35 AM  
dottedmint: Well Drakin020 I'm not sure I am his biggest supporter but I support him over Obama.

The simplist answer as to why is that I agree with him more than I agree with Obama.

It really is that simple.


Ok, what about? How do you feel about his Pro War stance? How do you feel about his opinion on FISA, The Patriot Act, and Habeas Corpus?
 
  2008-08-26 11:34:50 AM  
Drakin020: How do you feel...

Why are you asking "how do you feel?" instead of "What do you think?"

I know it's just a colloquial turn of phrase that is often used interchageably with "What do you think?". But it is honestly a pet peeve of mine since I think it equates emotional reactionary prejudice with reasoned opinion. It just makes me throw up a little in the back of my mouth everytime I hear it.
 
  2008-08-26 12:00:18 PM  
Thorndyke Barnhard: Drakin020: How do you feel...

Why are you asking "how do you feel?" instead of "What do you think?"

I know it's just a colloquial turn of phrase that is often used interchageably with "What do you think?". But it is honestly a pet peeve of mine since I think it equates emotional reactionary prejudice with reasoned opinion. It just makes me throw up a little in the back of my mouth everytime I hear it.


How do you feel....what do you think....It gets the same point across.

Lighten up francis.
 
  2008-08-26 12:57:16 PM  
"If you can show me an anti-abortion law that will also prevent the desperate and dangerous illegitimate abortions that occured before Roe v Wade, then I'll concede, until then I call bullsiat as the conventional history is on my side on this one."

I never said that they would prevent each and every abortion. I only said that abortion laws can be enforced. I don't know of any law that prevents 100% of what it is meant to prevent.

"Is this anything like McCain's dodging the 'elitism' hypocrisy issue by not answering how many houses he owns???"

Was the number of houses owned an issue for Democrats when Kerry was running?

Yes...

I think he should have given a clearer answer but the number of houses owned by the McCains does not affect anything he would do as President.

"Abortion may be "OK" and justified EVEN IF a fetus has rights that must be set aside and superseded by other moral considerations that may take precedence, either by themselves or counted together."

OK...

Let's look at what you just posted.

"Abortion may be "OK" and justified EVEN IF a fetus has rights"

Ok so at this point the fetus has rights.....

"that must be set aside and superseded by other moral considerations that may take precedence, either by themselves or counted together."

So you are setting aside and superseding the rights that the fetus has.

In other words in order for you to say that an abortion is OK you need to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS of the fetus.

And this goes back to what I said earlier,

"Actually if you are saying that an abortion is OK then clearly you are saying that baby does not have rights."

because you have "set aside and superseded" those rights.
 
  2008-08-26 02:26:12 PM  
dottedmint: I never said that they would prevent each and every abortion. I only said that abortion laws can be enforced. I don't know of any law that prevents 100% of what it is meant to prevent.

And I never suggested any such absolutes, I'm fortunately educated enough to consider most black and white propositions to be implausible at the outset, I simply stated from the beginning that the relative ineffectual nature of a law should be a consideration as a factor which might CONTRIBUTE to the argument against the law, and should not be discounted as ridiculous . YOU are the one implying that if the law prevents just one, it is absolutely valid and suggesting that only if it would be 100%ineffective would the argument about enforceability be valid.

I think he should have given a clearer answer but the number of houses owned by the McCains does not affect anything he would do as President.

Maybe not, though, considering one of your major criticisms here is about the candor and honesty of the candidate, I would have been more easily swayed in your direction if you had stuck to the principle and not let him off because the subject in his dishonesty was less directly relevant to the presidency.

So you are setting aside and superseding the rights that the fetus has.

I'm beginning to have doubts about your sincerity, because I beleive my argument there (and taken with the rest of my posts) to have been fairly clear, despite the semantics, but ok, maybe I should have said "and/or".

Regardless, what I meant to say and make clear with several posts is that while the baby may have rights, other rights or moral considerations might be more important and chosen to take precedence over the rights of the baby who hypothetically has them and got them at conception.

You see regardless of whether or not the baby has his rights taken away, the dicision to abort was made based on other rights and moral considerations outweighing the right to life of the baby/fetus/zygote, assuming, for the sake of argument, it has such a right.
 
  2008-08-26 02:37:14 PM  
Drakin020 "How do you feel about his Pro War stance? How do you feel about his opinion on FISA, The Patriot Act, and Habeas Corpus?"

I'm not sure I would call his stance "Pro War".

He feels we need to stay in Iraq until Iraq is stable and can defend itself against the terrorists. It appears that this is going to happen sooner than later because the Iraqis are starting to talk about taking over security and when US troops can leave Iraq. This is thanks to the surge in troops that McCain had been calling for before it happened. It looks like McCain was right about that.

If we had listened to Obama, Saddam would still be in power and who knows what he would be doing now. Maybe invading Kuwait again.

"How do you feel about his opinion on FISA, The Patriot Act, and Habeas Corpus?"

I actually have not researched his stance on these issue too much so why don't you tell me what you don't like about his stances here....

On FISA I think this government should be able to listen in on people talking to terrorists.

That seems rather simple.

And what specific part of The Patriot Act do you not like?

And Habeas Corpus has under certain circumstances been suspended to protect national security in the past.
 
  2008-08-26 03:49:26 PM  
dottedmint: Drakin020 "How do you feel about his Pro War stance? How do you feel about his opinion on FISA, The Patriot Act, and Habeas Corpus?"

I'm not sure I would call his stance "Pro War".

He feels we need to stay in Iraq until Iraq is stable and can defend itself against the terrorists. It appears that this is going to happen sooner than later because the Iraqis are starting to talk about taking over security and when US troops can leave Iraq. This is thanks to the surge in troops that McCain had been calling for before it happened. It looks like McCain was right about that.

If we had listened to Obama, Saddam would still be in power and who knows what he would be doing now. Maybe invading Kuwait again.

"How do you feel about his opinion on FISA, The Patriot Act, and Habeas Corpus?"

I actually have not researched his stance on these issue too much so why don't you tell me what you don't like about his stances here....

On FISA I think this government should be able to listen in on people talking to terrorists.

That seems rather simple.

And what specific part of The Patriot Act do you not like?

And Habeas Corpus has under certain circumstances been suspended to protect national security in the past.


You know, I'd debate this, but you seem like the kind of person who is ok with being spied on, and sacrificing his liberties for saftey from the boogyman Osama.

So I think it would be worthless to argue if you are ok with that.

/Jeez do many people feel the same as you?
//That's just sad...
 
  2008-08-26 04:18:14 PM  
Drakin020: So I think it would be worthless to argue if you are ok with that.

Just out of curiosity, when WOULD it be worthwhile for you to debate those opinions? Only with people who disagree with them? That doesn't really make much sense.
 
  2008-08-26 04:21:05 PM  
"Maybe not, though, considering one of your major criticisms here is about the candor and honesty of the candidate,"

Well.... yes.....

When it comes to major policy issues I do expect a candidate who is running to be President to give an honest answer to a question.

Asking him how many homes he owns is anything but a policy issue.

From what I've read none of the properties are actually owned by John McCain personally. They are all owned by Cindy her children and companies that they control.

"Regardless, what I meant to say and make clear with several posts is that while the baby may have rights, other rights or moral considerations might be more important and chosen to take precedence over the rights of the baby who hypothetically has them and got them at conception.

You see regardless of whether or not the baby has his rights taken away, the dicision to abort was made based on other rights and moral considerations outweighing the right to life of the baby/fetus/zygote, assuming, for the sake of argument, it has such a right."


What you are not getting is that it doesn't matter if you "set aside and superseded" the right of the fetus or say "other rights or moral considerations might be more important and chosen to take precedence over the rights of the baby" you are saying that when the choice is made to have an abortion that the baby no longer has rights.

And again this goes back to my origional statement....

"Actually if you are saying that an abortion is OK then clearly you are saying that baby does not have rights."

Obviously the only "right" that we are talking about here is the right to life.

When a person is sentenced to death their "right" to life is taken away from them.

So IF a fetus has the "right" to life but then you say that it is OK to abort that fetus then obviously that "right" has been taken away from it. It doesn't matter how you take away, or override that right. It is gone.

Seriously....

How do you kill something that has a "right" to live if you don't take away that "right"?
 
  2008-08-26 04:36:54 PM  
Drakin020 "You know, I'd debate this, but you seem like the kind of person who is ok with being spied on, and sacrificing his liberties for saftey from the boogyman Osama."

Oh....that's right. I forgot. Bush and Cheney are spying on me. Like they really give a rats ass about what my brother and I talk about on the phone.

Now.....

IF I was calling Osama and plotting to launch terrorist attacks on this country I would expect the government to spy on me to try to prevent that attack.

In some cases they might get a warrant and in some cases they might not.

And what liberties do you think you have lost over the last 8 years?

I'm curious....

Oh...and...

IF you are not willing to debate with people you disagree with why would you even bother coming in here?
 
  2008-08-26 04:38:04 PM  
Man, we are at an impasse here aren't we, dottedmint?

This line of the conversation started when I suggested that 'whether or not the baby had rights' was irrelevant to the abortion argument since there was a logical possibility of justifying abortion regardless of whether or not the rights existed prior to the abortion.

The question and it's answer does not help to establish one way or the other whether abortion itself can be right and allowed by law, though it is often erroneously assumed to provide a conclusive judgement against abortion if the answer can be shown to be that the fetus has rights.
 
  2008-08-26 04:53:32 PM  
dottedmint: Drakin020 "You know, I'd debate this, but you seem like the kind of person who is ok with being spied on, and sacrificing his liberties for saftey from the boogyman Osama."

Oh....that's right. I forgot. Bush and Cheney are spying on me. Like they really give a rats ass about what my brother and I talk about on the phone.

Now.....

IF I was calling Osama and plotting to launch terrorist attacks on this country I would expect the government to spy on me to try to prevent that attack.

In some cases they might get a warrant and in some cases they might not.

And what liberties do you think you have lost over the last 8 years?

I'm curious....

Oh...and...

IF you are not willing to debate with people you disagree with why would you even bother coming in here?


I'm willing to debate with those that have legit reasons for liking McCain such as his policies, but I tend to find some supporters who have this mindset that sacrificing our liberties and freedoms are no problem, thus debating with them is useless.
 
  2008-08-26 05:00:28 PM  
Another interesting article for those who think that under the Clinton administration, the national debt went down. It didn't.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
 
  2008-08-26 11:00:15 PM  
TB "This line of the conversation started when I suggested that 'whether or not the baby had rights' was irrelevant to the abortion argument since there was a logical possibility of justifying abortion regardless of whether or not the rights existed prior to the abortion."

And all I said is that....

"Actually if you are saying that an abortion is OK then clearly you are saying that baby does not have rights."

Because as I have said before.....

In order to say that it is OK to abort a fetus you must say that it does not have a "right" to life.

Unless you can tell me how you kill something that has a "right" to life....

"The question and it's answer does not help to establish one way or the other whether abortion itself can be right and allowed by law, though it is often erroneously assumed to provide a conclusive judgement against abortion if the answer can be shown to be that the fetus has rights."

Of course it can.

IF you say that a fetus has the "right" to life at conception NO MATTER WHAT then clearly you can never abort that fetus.

IF you say that if "this" or "that" happens that the fetus no longer has that "right" to life then clearly you can abort that fetus if those things happen.

And for the record it is possible for our elected officials [it's within their pay grade no matter what Obama says] to make the choice that defines when a fetus gets "rights".

Drakin020 "I'm willing to debate with those that have legit reasons for liking McCain such as his policies, but I tend to find some supporters who have this mindset that sacrificing our liberties and freedoms are no problem, thus debating with them is useless."

WOW...

Why are you here again because clearly you don't seem to want to debate issues.

Tell me Drakin020...

Are you plotting with terrorists to attack this country?

If no, then I don't support any of your liberties or freedoms being sacrificed.

If however you are calling up OBL planning your next big terrorist attack then yes, I think your liberties and freedoms should be sacrificed.

You think they shouldn't???

And I asked before.....

What liberties and freedoms of yours do you think have been sacrificed by Bush and Cheney?

Sorry I forgot. You can't bring yourself to actually debate issues....

My mistake.
 
  2008-08-27 12:04:56 PM  
dottedmint: NO MATTER WHAT

Ok, but the only problem with that is that it's a non-existant and unrealistic conception of rights. No human of any age has or ever had a right to life that is held "no matter what". There are pesky things called circumstances, contingencies, nuances and contexts that make life and morality alot more complicated than a sports rule book.

And for the record it is possible for our elected officials [it's within their pay grade no matter what Obama says] to make the choice that defines when a fetus gets "rights".

I really don't know why you feel you need to waste your time writing this when it was plainly a joke. Five words taken out of an entire event that was otherwise ignored and went unanalysed.
 
  2008-08-27 05:16:43 PM  
TB "No human of any age has or ever had a right to life that is held "no matter what". There are pesky things called circumstances, contingencies, nuances and contexts that make life and morality alot more complicated than a sports rule book."

The only case where I can think of a person not having a "right to life" would be in the case of the death penalty, war, police shootings and maybe in the case of self defense.

But all of those cases tend to be very limited and a result of actions taken by that person.

"I really don't know why you feel you need to waste your time writing this when it was plainly a joke. Five words taken out of an entire event that was otherwise ignored and went unanalysed."

But I don't see it as a joke.

Also....

You and I could sit down and work out when we think a fetus should have rights OR when they should not have rights and express what our opinions are.

Yet for some reason Obama couldn't manage that.
 
  2008-08-28 10:21:17 AM  
dottedmint: The only case where I can think of a person not having a "right to life" would be in the case of the death penalty, war, police shootings and maybe in the case of self defense.

But all of those cases tend to be very limited and a result of actions taken by that person.


Well, there IS an argument out there applying self-defense to the abortion issue, and, regardless of how restricted those contingencies are, the fact that there are any proves that rights are not inherently a "no matter what" proposition and that rights alone may not be used as an argument against the possibility of abortion.

- But I don't see it as a joke.

Do you mean to say you don't think it's funny, or that you don't think Obama intended it as a joke?

- Yet for some reason Obama couldn't manage that.

I've already showed you that Obama HAS managed it before and I said he simply chose not to here.

Your choice to spin it with the word "couldn't" is dishonest.

But I do understand that you would have prefered he actually chose to provide a full answer to the question.
 
  2008-08-28 05:50:30 PM  
dottedmint: If we had listened to Obama, Saddam would still be in power and who knows what he would be doing now. Maybe invading Kuwait again.

Ummm...Just a question: How would Iraq invade Kuwait? Their military was pretty much dismantled after operation Desert Shield / Desert Storm.

George Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq because he knew the cost and power vacuum that would ensue. Saddam was a tinpot dictator that posed no threat to the U.S. or our Allies.
 
  2008-08-28 10:49:03 PM  
TB "Well, there IS an argument out there applying self-defense to the abortion issue,"

True....

However in order to use deadly force you typically need to be protecting your life against an attack.

While I do not have the exact number at this time, the percentage of abortions that are done to actually protect the life of the mother is actually rather small.

And for the record the percentage of Americans who think abortions should be banned even if it was to save the life of the mother is also actually rather small.

"Do you mean to say you don't think it's funny, or that you don't think Obama intended it as a joke?"

Um....

Both....

I don't think he intended it as a joke.

However, IF he did I don't think it was funny.

Especially since I don't recall him laughing about it.

Maybe he laughed on the video but I don't recall hearing it in the audio.

"Your choice to spin it with the word "couldn't" is dishonest."

Actually there is nothing dishonest about my statements.

In front of an audience that he is trying to win over he couldn't bring himself to be honest about what he thinks.

tdyak: "Ummm...Just a question: How would Iraq invade Kuwait? Their military was pretty much dismantled after operation Desert Shield / Desert Storm."

Well....

Considering he was bribing members of the UN to try to get the sanctions lifted and considering he was trying to rebuild his military who knows what exactly Saddam would be doing now.

For some strange reason I doubt that he would be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq and the mid-east.
 
  2008-08-30 02:53:06 PM  
dottedmint: Oops...

My mistake....


Anyone have a new topic they would like to bring up???

Anyone????



Why yes - I do.

How do I gain access to the real forum?
Do I have to pass some kind of coded, torpid exercise in rambling paltry verbal-vomiting to get in?

Or is there one's manhood I must swallow as everyone else has done?

In which case, I am a biter.
 
  2008-08-30 02:57:22 PM  
dottedmint: And for the record the percentage of Americans who think abortions should be banned even if it was to save the life of the mother is also ac

Also for the record: The percentage of FARK that cares if you are aborted today or not is also quite small.

It concerns me.

I will look out for you.
 
Displayed 50 of 2661 comments

First | « | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report