Unacceptable. If the pro-life crowd really thinks that using fertizilied embryos that are about to thrown in the trash is wrong...

Why aren't they out protesting fertility clinics as they do abortion clinics? Because the know the line is a LOT finer. Every single day those embryos are destroyed as they are tossed out. Why not use them to help cure diseases?

2 fertilized embryos and 1 newborn baby in a burning building. You can save only one. WHich one do you choose "sanctity of life" people?

OK niceville with which Lefties will you start the killing?

Niceville- Answer these two questions please:

If the pro-life crowd really thinks that using fertizilied embryos that are about to thrown in the trash is wrong...Why aren't they out protesting fertility clinics as they do abortion clinics? Why is it OK to throw these embryos out? Where's the outrage?

2 fertilized embryos and 1 newborn baby in a burning building. You can save only one. WHich one do you choose?

Why not sanction killing adults now too.

We have that. It's called "war" and it's an equal opportunity killer.

but you're pro-war, aint ya nicey?

Alex.


Bite me.


Hope that answers your questions.

If not please read between the lines.

And you are on the short short........pier. ;0)


Or is that list?

Whatever.

Tell La Fonda hello.

And how ong before he Rogers snitches? Oops done already.

Bite me.
Hope that answers your questions.

That did not answer my question, niceville. Then again, how would you answer my question. I'm still waiting, though not with baited breath.

"Why not sanction killing adults now too.
Start with the left since they are all for it.
I got a good list of useless to society lefites we can lead off with.
Next."
Posted by niceville at 2006-06-01 10:04 PM

niceville is advocating killing someone to the left of him/herself. I wonder who s/he has in mind. I wonder if we will get an answer.

I've found people opposed to this sort of research rarely know people with incurable illnesses.

Nicevoid advocates murder. No secret there.

Nicevoid advocates murder. No secret there.

Posted by bushskank at 2006-06-01 10:52 PM | Reply



Hey Skanks,


Change your shorts. Your stinking up the place. We know you are used to it but when you live in it......

No denials, just insults.

I am left to trust Bushskank, Woe and Alex as to your beliefs, Niceville.

You'd save the embryos, correct?

Sure P'Ville..


I have found that people who make statements like that are.....

norgitan.


You complete the jumble there fella.

And niceville's answer to the question of who should be killed first is...

"Change your shorts. Your stinking up the place"

Not exactly a surprise to anyone is it?

Nice try on the turnaround attempt.


The left worships murder via abortion, euthanasia or any attempt it can try and hhodwikn us on as long as it purifes the race. Just ask Weddington.

It is the plank in their agenda they would, well, quite possibly die for.

Sick but possibly true for many on the left.

GATOR INN?

(sticking with your favorite team)

Of course, 10 years from now, there'll be a howl in congress demanding an investigation into why only foreign companies are reaping the benefits, and the hugh profits, from a myriad of miracle products that came about as a direct result of stem-call research.

And another traditionally American business segment will be lost forever.

OCU

"And niceville's answer to the question of who should be killed first is..."




You got a better answer to the stupidest question of the evening and month thus far, please provide it or better yet ask your abortion worshipping brethren.

Weddington says it should be the unborn since we do not need more cheap labor or illiterate poor. Just use their stem cells too.

A Dem Double Play(TM)


Now ask dome more idiotic questions you morons.

Thanks

niceville, you said "I got a good list of useless to society lefites we can lead off with."

you still haven't said who is on your list.

"...ask your abortion worshipping brethren."

Ah, that would be you, nicEVILle.

You're the one who worships your beloved abortion.

Why else would you talk about it all the time?

Hans

I'm not advocating killing anyone. you apparently are.

Since God is the number one abortionist Nicey, those abortion worshippers are you.
You sick baby killer!

Niceville, answer the questions, or do you not have an opinion on the matter.

Here are the questions:

If the pro-life crowd really thinks that using fertizilied embryos that are about to thrown in the trash is wrong...Why aren't they out protesting fertility clinics as they do abortion clinics? Why is it OK to throw these embryos out? Where's the outrage?

"Why not sanction killing adults now too. Oh wait, already there on that too. ... Start with the left since they are all for it. ... I got a good list of useless to society lefites we can lead off with."

Behold!

The true colors of the so-called "right-to-life" movement.

Advocate the killing of "useless to society" fellow human beings.

Nice work, nicEVILle.

Hans

2 fertilized embryos and 1 newborn baby in a burning building. You can save only one. WHich one do you choose?

Easy one, Nicey ignores all three to go stand in a crowd to watch the Presidential limo go by. What's life, compared to seeing the Almighty?

"Why not sanction killing adults now too."

That's called the death penalty, gnubsy.

And that's already sanctioned here in the USA.

Live in the now.

Hans

Here you go fellas.....


NY Dem: Put 'Bullet Between Bush's Eyes'

In an outrageous remark that has at least one Republican calling for his resignation, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said Thursday that a fellow New York Democrat would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it."

Introducing Sen. Charles Schumer at commencement exercises at New York City's Queens College, Hevesi began:

"The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it. The toughest senator, the best representative. A great, great member of the Congress of the United States."







Well, it's a start you can all live with.....


Faux outrage now being accepted.

Preferably in block and italics.

Thanks.

Folks, you just cannot make this stuff up.

-Rush

"ask your abortion worshipping brethren."

niceville, you are making a major assumption (incorrectly) about my stand on abortion. I do not favor killing anyone (though sometimes my faith is tested with regard to capital punishment).

The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it.

How is that different from your postion, niceville?

"How is that different from your postion, niceville?"

Bravo, Woe...

And right on point.

Hans

I thought it was a rhetorical question. Obviously I would save the newborn baby.

So let me ask YOU a question then.

Same burning building, same newborn baby, and some stem cell samples: and you can only save one, or the other. But you believe that these particular stem cells have a one-in-a-thousand chance of curing Alzheimer's.

Which one do you save?

"I got a good list of useless to society lefites we can lead off with."

Posted by niceville

Posted on: Illinois: Whole Milk is Junk Food
There are many many examples but.....

what is involved in being our brother's keeper?

1. Teaching him the gospel. (Mark 16:15, 16)

2. Loving him as we love self. (Matthew 22:39; 1 John 3:17)

3. Restoring him when he falls. (Gal. 6:1; James 5:19-20)

4. Sharing his burdens and joys. (Gal. 6:2; Romans 12:15)

5. Doing good to him. (Gal. 6:10)

6. Helping him when he is in need. (Ephesians 4:28) "Steal no more." The very opposite of selfishness.

7. Treating him the way we want to be treated. (Matthew 7:12)

Posted by niceville at 2005-12-11 07:53 AM

Niceville, answer the questions, or do you not have an opinion on the matter.

Here are the questions:

If the pro-life crowd really thinks that using fertizilied embryos that are about to thrown in the trash is wrong...Why aren't they out protesting fertility clinics as they do abortion clinics? Why is it OK to throw these embryos out? Where's the outrage?


RiR, I'd choose the baby. Even if it was a 1:1 chance of the cure, the same scientist can figure out what he lost in the fire. (plus everything is on computers and backed up offsite).

OK I've got to go. Niceville has had almost 2 hours to tell us who is on his Lefty Hit List. Obviously we will not see it tonight.
Maybe someone with connections at DHS will follow up on this. Hahaha.

As well, he hasn't answered these ones:

If the pro-life crowd really thinks that using fertizilied embryos that are about to thrown in the trash is wrong...Why aren't they out protesting fertility clinics as they do abortion clinics? Why is it OK to throw these embryos out? Where's the outrage?

Perhaps they are too hard for Nicey to answer, I don't know.

Though, as Mark Twain once said:
"It is better to remain silent and people assume you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

Same burning building, same newborn baby, and some stem cell samples: and you can only save one, or the other. But you believe that these particular stem cells have a one-in-a-thousand chance of curing Alzheimer's.

Which one do you save?

Posted by rightisright at 2006-06-01 11:36 PM | Reply | Flag

Good question. I'd still save the baby. I try not to let mathematics enter moralistic dilemmas, for fear of becoming a nazi.

I thought it was a rhetorical question. Obviously I would save the newborn baby.

Posted by rightisright at 2006-06-01 11:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is to a degree. That's the point. NO ONE would save the embryos first, the'd save the kid. But that flies in the face of the faith based "life starts at conception" mantra the fundies have. But when push comes to shove, they know it is false, which is evident by their lack of outrage and protest over embryos being thrown away every single day.

I have never seen any pro-lifers outside of a fertilization clinic in protest. Has anyone?

Cheka- thanks to stem cells there's a blind man thathas partial vision now.

Sounds like great technology to me.

Alex posting in the middle of the night to avoid me??

Nature aborted 15,000,000 babies yesterday.

Our of curiosity does anyone know why they have to use human stem cells?

Leave Niceville alone. He had a very rough night: Nocturnal emission.

Now he's got to have a funeral for his sheets.

Show some respect.

Sully I marked that as FUNNY that is Hilarious. LMAO

Larry

I have never seen any pro-lifers outside of a fertilization clinic in protest. Has anyone?

Posted by Alexandrite

* * *

No, I haven't. I'll even say that I know of several couples, including two related to me, who wouldn't have children at all were it not for fertilization clinics.

But I'll also admit that I have a lot of mixed feelings on this issue. There is something just inherently creepy to me--that I can't rationally explain--about using embryos or stem cells for research. I'm not looking for an argument here, because I've every confidence you'll win it. I'm in church every Sunday and have hever heard a sermon on it, nor have I read much about it--so the idea that this is something being pushed by the religious right is kind of nutty.

I just believe that the government should stay out of it until the moral lines become more clear. If private researchers and companies are looking into it, that's OK I suppose. But my tax dollars shouldn't be used to promote something that may be immoral, even wicked, until the ramifications are more clear. I don't care what other governments are doing--who cares, anyway, if we "fall behind" other nations? Should I feel bad if France makes a medical breakthrough? Or if Germany discovers cold fusion?--No, that stuff would benefit everyone, and these authors just want more tax dollars heading toward their own pet projects. I say no.

"But my tax dollars shouldn't be used to promote something that may be immoral, even wicked, until the ramifications are more clear"

Do you include the Iraq war in that list?

"But my tax dollars shouldn't be used to promote something that may be immoral, even wicked, until the ramifications are more clear"


The paradox is if we stop stem cell research over moral outrage how will we know the implications?

Throw these stem cells in the trash as God intended. If God wants us to live longer---then we will live longer. Doctors and science are all evil. Anyone who goes to a doctor will burn in hell for eternity on a lake of fire. The same for school---if God wanted us to know all that stuff we would have been born with the knowledge. Schools are the home of SATAN!!!! Keep your children home and in ignorance as God intended.

The paradox is if we stop stem cell research over moral outrage how will we know the implications?

Posted by pa_cman

* * * * *

You're not hearing me. I'm not saying to stop it. I'm saying that the fed government should stay out of it. Let private companies do it. You can do it--if you feel strongly about it, send a donation yourself. Or, maybe you don't--you just want to raise my taxes to see it happen.

Don't raise my taxes BOO HOO HOO--please don't take my money to save my life or help my country--please don't raise my taxes BOO HOO HOO WAH WAH WAH but its my money mine mine mine

Gotcha.... you're right I misunderstood what you are saying. I agree... let private industry deal with it and it will either succeed because of its potential or the concept die on the vine.
Really... has the goverment ever had any system that was efficient?

So? Let the Brits lead the way, if they want. Why should I care?

Yeah, let the Chinese do it---let our government stay out of it--we can always give the Chinese billions for their research when we need it. They need more of our money as is well known.

I liked this part---Really... has the goverment ever had any system that was efficient?

Posted by pa_cman at 2006-06-02 11:30 AM | Reply


Yes our government is absolutely the worst on the planet. What a piece of shit for a government we have. Hey move out if you don't like it asshole---isn't that they way of the RIGHT?

Yeah, why should you care? You don't want to spend a dime on keeping this country great. Typical Republican.

Anyone who makes less than 200,000 a year and votes republican because they "lowered taxes" is a fucking idiot.

I have never seen any pro-lifers outside of a fertilization clinic in protest. Has anyone?

Posted by Alexandrite


good point Alex. Nor do you see people outside pharmacies in protest of birth control. At least Catholics don't do this. They focus on the abortion clinics only.

The Catholic Church will obviously be against embryonic stem cell research because the world looks to the church for direction. It has to take a stance one way or the other. Right now, it is easy for the church to be against it. Wait until one day that somebody discovers that embryonic stem cells can be used in something that will cure something very tragic like a cancer or lukemia etc...

It isn't a tough decision right now. The church will makes is position known but I don't think it will allow it to be a "wedge" issue like abortion.

Anyone who makes less than 200,000 a year and votes republican because they "lowered taxes" is a fucking idiot.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Bob, settle down please. what is your point?

For all of Buffalo Bob's and O'Reilly's blustering, I'll bet I can guess how much of their money they've sent off to private groups doing this research:

Zero.

But they don't mind getting on here and beating up everyone else about an issue they feel is SO important that it's not worthy of a single dime of THEIR money.

Waaaahhh!!!! The government should take care of everything!!! And raise taxes on all those other guys!!!!

Amazing. Two hours ago I didn't really give much of a damn about this issue. Now that I see how the lines are forming, I'm more resolute: if O'Reilly and BB are for it, it must be wrong. Shut it down.

RIR, it is ALWAYS going to come back to this issue.

Why do we need to give more to DC. They have shown they won't spend it wisely. Everybody agrees that the republicans have spent way too much money..right? Then why in the hell should be call the credit card company and raise the limit when we have shown we can't stay under that limit already?

"Yes our government is absolutely the worst on the planet. What a piece of shit for a government we have. Hey move out if you don't like it asshole---isn't that they way of the RIGHT?"

Whatever med you are on... take more. I didn't say anything like that and you didn't answer my question. What goverment program isn't bloated and wasteful and inefficient? You carry on about raising taxes to fund things... I am all for it... right after ALL waste, pork,gross inefficiency, misuse, and misdirection of resources has been eliminated. When a significant chunk of the money we are already spending stops being pissed away come talk to me about raising taxes to fund things. Until then I'm going to be careful about funding anything where, just for arguments sake, 50 cents of every dollar is actually spent where its supposed to be spent.... as opposed to "I'll vote to fund research if we add this bill so I can have an ice cream parlor named after me in my home town of Nosepick Arkansas".

Why do you hate America, RightIsn'tBright? You want America to fall behind the rest of the world and become a second rate country. You sound like a "treasonist" to me, as Eberly would say.

You got me pegged, Bill--I'm a treasonist because I don't care if the Brits or the Germans or the Chinese or the Martians are the first to develop stem cell research. I don't give a damn. Arrest me. As soon as you send in your contribution to make sure America stays on top.

If Eberly and RightisWrong had their way, there would be no great public universities, no space program and the technological innovations from it,no research and development, no infrastructure, no internet (a government creation) which they could use to whine about taxes.

Wait until one day that somebody discovers that (those killed by abortion) can (dicover and invent)something that will cure something very tragic like a cancer or lukemia etc...





See Eb,

just by changing the subject the scenario which is MUCH more likely comes into focus......

Surely out of 43 million and more dead humans there was the wisdom and knowledge that would lead us to cures.

We'll all find out when we stand before God. And I do not think He will even allow one..."but..but...but Lord"

"As soon as you send in your contribution to make sure America stays on top."

That's a bullshit argument. That's like saying you can't support the Iraq war unless you enlist.

Anyone who makes less than 200,000 a year and votes republican because they "lowered taxes" is a fucking idiot.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Bob, settle down please. what is your point?

Posted by eberly at 2006-06-02 11:49 AM | Reply

My point is that anyone who makes less than 200,000 a year and votes republican because they "lowered taxes" is a fucking idiot. What part did you fail to understand? Did you think most of the tax cuts went to those brackets? Are you that far gone? Did you hear about the deficit? Who do you think is going to pay for that? The deficit fairy? The rich?

There is no "god".
Nature aborts 15,000,000 babies a day.
Deal with it, gnutzy.

If Eberly and RightisWrong had their way, there would be no great public universities, no space program and the technological innovations from it,no research and development, no infrastructure, no internet (a government creation) which they could use to whine about taxes.

Posted by Bill_OReilly



Bill, where have I whined about taxes? never...you are the one who constantly whines about taxes...presumably my taxes...you are the one who whines. You are also the one against all of those other things because the private sector can benefit from it.

If we could go back to the inception of all those things you would be there pissing and moaning about how somebody in the private sector made some money selling some product or service to the government.

You don't give a rats ass about anything except bitching about your lot in life Bill. Our government is going to spend the money it receives from us any damn way they want. I don't care what you do with the tax brackets...the republicans we have in office now would overspend ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY WE GIVE THEM. It will never benefit you nor any of the great things this country has done...like universities, internet, etc..

I absolutely guarantee that if we could go back to the space program then all you would do is piss and moan about how much some private company made selling shit to Nasa, and for what, so we could go to the moon. You realize that defense was the primary reason don't you....how do you feel about Haliburton right now?

100% hypocrisy Bill.....again!

Hmm, it's true that joe fetus that was aborted yesterday could have discovered the cure for Cancer. Here's the thing though - the abortion has already happened. That can not be reversed no matter what happens to the cells.

You realize that defense was the primary reason don't you

Actually the intent was to beat the Russians to it. Especially since they launched an orbiting satellite before we did.

Actually the intent was to beat the Russians to it. Especially since they launched an orbiting satellite before we did.

Posted by Pleasantville


You are right...which goes back to national defense....something Bill might like in theory but when it comes to awarding a contract to a private company for goods and services......whoa...hold the phone...can't do that!

Niceville--God loves dead fetuses----kills them everyday just for fun. Facts are facts. God blinds newborns and starves them to death to the tune of 25,000 a day according to the Christian Childrens Fund. Doesn't sound like God is worried about a few dead fetuses that don't even begin to compare to His body count. You better watch out, I think you are pissing God off---what if He put those fetuses in those women because He KNEW they would be aborted and that was part of His plan. Maybe those fetuses are Hitlers and Stalins and being aborted is part of their punishment--kind of a variation on the Lake of Fire you are so fond of. Maybe by banning abortion you are opening up mankind to the Devils Spawn that should have been destroyed by Gods Will in the womb. Of course you know the Mind of God and know he would never harm infants or the First Born of all (even animals---talk about a mafia hit) or pretty much kill all humans with a Flood. I don't think a few more dead fetuses will bother Him a bit--He might even like the competition. Of course I use the term "He" incorrectly since your God has no penis.

"Bill, where have I whined about taxes?"

About 2 minutes ago.

"Why do we need to give more to DC."

Short memory, eh?

"You realize that defense was the primary reason don't you"

So what? It was public investment for the good of the country. You hate that, don't you?

My point is that anyone who makes less than 200,000 a year and votes republican because they "lowered taxes" is a fucking idiot. What part did you fail to understand? Did you think most of the tax cuts went to those brackets? Are you that far gone? Did you hear about the deficit? Who do you think is going to pay for that? The deficit fairy? The rich?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob


I guess I should make the point that anybody who can't manage to make at least $200K a year IS A FUCKING IDIOT! With all the opportunites that surround you...very easy to do.

Where does that leave you Bob? I have a good guess.


Of course I don't mean any of that but your point is just a stupid.

What in the hell do any of you think tax brackets have to do with the deficit? Nothing....don't bother copy and pasting graphs and charts because none of it is relevant to my point and you know it. I don't care how this govt taxes us. They will overspend on what they collect either way. The republicans will spend all they can...regardless of how it is taxed. You could wave your magic wand and change tax brackets to where you want them and get the revenue you think you would get and it wouldn't matter...Not one more dollar would go where you want it and the deficit would still be there..I don't like it either Bob.

So what? It was public investment for the good of the country. You hate that, don't you?

Posted by Bill_OReilly


No, you know the point is that YOU hate that.

gotta go....no point in debated either of these 2 if they can't agree that no matter how we tax people, it still won't solve any of the problem we have.

Do what I do, E--it BB and BOR are strongly for something, it must be wrong.

Still waiting to hear why it would be such a disaster if the Brits figure out stem cells before we do. Sounds like the libs just like spending money. Other people's. Why not let the Europeans do all the heavy lifting, for a change? Sounds good to me.

Great comeback, Eberly. LOL.

RIR,

A cure is a cure. It would be best if said cure (in research, manufacturing, and sales) helps our economy instead of someone else's.

Eberly--seems like your point is that the deficit doesn't matter and we might as well just keep adding to it since there is nothing to be done. You seem to forget that until about five years ago we had a balanced budget and a surplus.

Why not now---well---TAX BRACKETS. Over 200,000 big tax cuts--under 200,000 itty bitty tax cuts.

Now raising the taxes on the rich and lowering the taxes on the poor would drive the economy---the poor SPEND THE MONEY---the rich stick it in banks that they most likely own or have stock in. Of course the rich don't want to pay taxes or fight in wars---that's what they have poor people for.

Of course we could always follow your course--throw our hands in the air and cluck like chickens because "no matter how we tax people, it still won't solve any of the problem we have."

Well, if any of those things happens, it won't be because the government had anything to do with it.

They can't balance a budget, they can't build a wall to protect New Orleans, they can't spend less than $2.4 trillion they will take in, they can't run elections properly, they do anything at all particularly well at all. So I'm not going to hold my breath and hope some government researcher (any government researcher--the British government is no more competent than ours, so they won't figure it out either) stumbles onto cures for Alzheimers--it'll happen because some company will stand to make a few billion dollars.

And then, like clockwork, the liberals will come on here and demand that said company give the stuff away for free.

"Hmm, it's true that joe fetus that was aborted yesterday could have discovered the cure for Cancer. Here's the thing though - the abortion has already happened. That can not be reversed no matter what happens to the cells."

I am a right wing, gun toting, red meat eating, kill a commie for mommy, republican and I couldn't agree with you more. Why in the hell are we (the U.S.) allowing ourselves to fall behind on stem cell research? Have we all of a sudden turned retarded? God has nothing to do with stem cell research, so let's leave him out of this and start using the brains he gave us to save some lives with the resources that he also gave us.

Pleasantville---he has been told that several times---he doesn't "see" it.

Why not let the Europeans do all the heavy lifting, for a change? Sounds good to me.

Posted by rightisright at 2006-06-02 12:36 PM | Reply


Doing the "heavy lifting" is what makes America a world leader. Bush will get us to third world status soon enough with his attack on freedom and the USSC---but he appreciates your help.

What a bunch fools we have on this board. We need socialism more now than ever. Taxes up around 50% for the rich is more than fair.

Funny. I guess if I don't want the federal government to create another giant spending program, this time to harvest embryos for stem cell research, I want the US to become a Third World country.

Whatever. How can I argue against such bulletproof logic?

RIR you cant. Join the left and you will start feeling better about yourself

Rightisright---Well gee---you don't want the US to do any "heavy lifting", you don't want to pay any taxes unless it goes to killing foreignors, you want religion to rule the land, you think the government can't do anything yet you vote for the most incompetent person available and believe every lie he puts out. Here--this is what you think of the government--They can't balance a budget, they can't build a wall to protect New Orleans, they can't spend less than $2.4 trillion they will take in, they can't run elections properly, they do anything at all particularly well at all.

We had a balanced budget under Clinton, FEMA was effective, and there weren't any questions about election results. But you back Bush and would sacrifice your family's life for him even though all you bitch about has come about since he came to office.

We each use the same criteria in deciding an issue---if you are for it I know it must be wrong.

"you don't want the US to do any "heavy lifting", you don't want to pay any taxes unless it goes to killing foreignors, you want religion to rule the land, you think the government can't do anything yet you vote for the most incompetent person available and believe every lie he puts out. Here--this is what you think of the government--They can't balance a budget, they can't build a wall to protect New Orleans, they can't spend less than $2.4 trillion they will take in, they can't run elections properly, they do anything at all particularly well at all. "





Gee RIR, please provide the links to where you took these stances. I am worried about you.

gotta go....no point in debated either of these 2 if they can't agree that no matter how we tax people, it still won't solve any of the problem we have.

Posted by eberly at 2006-06-02 12:26 PM | Reply




And Ebs,


Slowly but surely you are learning that a muffin recipe is just as effective with these types.


Or just typing blah blah blah in bold block italics.

You might as well tell him to start wearing a sanitary napkin too.

TidyWhitey---I guess you don't realize you can be thrown in jail forever without seeing a lawyer now if you piss off the wrong people--like your neighbors. I guess you missed the part where now all your phone calls can be monitored without a warrant. Did you see where yesterday the USSC took away the rights of whistleblowers who try to save taxpayers from government corruption? How about that Eminent Domain decision? Maybe you should pay a little closer attention to your surroundings.

Niceville

Gee RIR, please provide the links to where you took these stances. I am worried about you.

Posted by niceville at 2006-06-02 01:47 PM | Reply


Try looking at his 12:53 post.

TidyWhitey---If you can't grasp the significance of the deficit, an answer on a blog is not going to help. Ask some of the big people you know and see if they can help you out.

You assessment of FEMA under Clinton is not shared by many people. Mostly partisan hack morons actually.

There were no questions about any elections since 1960 by either party until Bush. No questions over Nixon 1968, 1972--Reagan 1980, 1984--Bush--1988. Not until Bush light and Rove.

TidyWhitey---
Always have been under last 4 presidents. BTW, TSCOUS said phone companies are allowed to do this for marketing research. You are using thier private lines. This was well before USA Today story.

You are delusional.

Yes. I saw where SCOUS would not protect outspoken goverment employees who disagree with policy statements, even if no laws have been broken. They can speak out or blow the whistle all they want to. But they might lose the job. Good and correct decision

It is good that government employees can steal billions of dollars and honest employees are punished for speaking out and the government and YOU think that is a good plan. You are delusional, and stupid. Possibly evil--do you work for the government?

Terrible decision. Look at how the vote broke down. Liberals voted for, Conservatives voted against. If that vote were taken today, it would be different. Look for it to be revisited.

Posted by mightywhitey at 2006-06-02 02:03 PM | Reply

I knew you would think that way---but that is the correct decision. Nothing in the Constitution about taking private land for private use. If it isn't in the Constitution, it is a States Right. I bet you are all for States Rights when it comes to abortion and slaves, but think Big Brother should protect you in Eminent domain. You are delusional, stupid, and a hypocrite.

I totally understand the significance of running deficit spending. Chances are the deficits carried by the gov't as a percentage of GNP is much lower than your personal debt as a percentage of your yearly income. Probably not even close.

The interest is what will kill the country---not the deficit. You don't understand anything except the remote control on the TV--if the book is nearby.

No questions over Nixon 1968
Man you are uninformed. Kennedy stole the election in Illinos which gave him the presidency. See the JFK rolling stone article. His own relative admits it. LOL

That was Nixon/Kennedy 1960. In 1968 it was Nixon/Humphrey. Kennedy was killed in 1963 Did you forget for a second that you were stupid?

Good question. I'd still save the baby. I try not to let mathematics enter moralistic dilemmas, for fear of becoming a nazi.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2006-06-02 06:34 AM | Reply

Good moral question, Alexandrite.

What if genetic testing had been done on the embryo and it was destined to be another Einstein, Salk, Shakespeare, Mozart, Mother Teresa or Babe Ruth? Also suppose the infant was destined to be an average shlub?

Which one would you save under those circumstances?

I agree with Alex, dont throw math or any of this fantastic probablitiy machine crap into the hypothetical, you don't need to.

There is nothing wrong with choosing to save the baby over the embryo's. Doing so in no way invalidates any pro-life stance.

The baby has been born and is presumably healthy. The embyo's might not ever be born there are likely thousands of complications that could arise. This does not mean that the human life of the embryo is less valuable, I dont think it is, but if you are talking about saving an actual child, and saving a potential child, only a fool would save the potential child.

"potential child" itself is a bit of a misnomer itself but I cannot think of another way to categorize it without confusing you... The embryo is, in every sense of the world. "a child." But I chose to call it a potential child to avoid confusion with the "baby."

Pro-Lifers, in general, object to aborting human life. The embryo IS human life, it IS a human being, however, there is no guarantee that this embryo will actually result in a birth. As someone said earlier, nature aborts thousands of children a week? (I would guess). Mother Nature is an evil bitch. No doubt about it. The weak do not survive, if the embryo is unhealthy (or perhaps the mother) nature aborts it. It's cruel, but it is natural.

It is the human interference in this process that most find objectionable... Taking affirmative steps to eliminate purely and truly innocent, defensless human life for no other reason than convenince. One wonders how anyone could not find this objectionable... I know it staggers my mind.

If claiming the fact that nature aborts thousands of children a year is supposed to be the basis for some sort of argument that therefore medical abortion is justifiable, I would like to wipe my ass with said argument.

Anyone who would like to live in a world which is dictated morally or legally or otherwise, according to the laws of nature please raise your hand...

Anyone?

Anyone?

Ok then.

25,000 children starved to death last night according to the Christian Childrens Fund. I'm sure there were lots of Einsteins and curers of cancer that died also.

Let's take care of children that are alive before we start forcing women to give birth to fetuses they don't want.

TidyWhitey

The point wasn't about dissenters now was it. The point was about the ruling keeping honest government employees from losing protection when they report on corruption---which includes theft. According to you the fact that now police can lie to get warrants is OK and makes that a "good and correct decision".

Now look real close at the Constitution and tell me where it says the federal government can take private land for private use. It isn't in there---if it isn't in there it is a states rights issue. It has always been a States Right. If I make this same post again do you think you will get it then?

This ruling extends the definition of public use to include forcing a private party to sell to another private party, because the purchasing private party will create jobs.


This is so wrong I'm embarrassed to be talking to you.

In eminent domain one party is NEVER forced to sell to a private party. They are ALWAYS forced to sell to a government. The government may sell to a private party but that private party doesn't have to provide jobs---unless specified by the state. Find out the laws in your state and quit whining to Big Brother to save your ass all the time.

What the recent ruling did was to redefine "public purpose" (judicial activisim) to include any use which would add additional tax revenue. Because any commercial enterprise will in almost all cases provide more tax revenue than a private residence, the court has basicly eliminated any individual expetation of ownership of real property. It is an incredibly perverse ruling that takes a giant shit on the constitution and pretty much the single most treasured individual right Americans have historically enjoyed and protected above all others.

And yes, the decision was reached by a majority of the ourt representing the recognized "liberal" justices. One can only hope that this current roster will get the chance to overrule this terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible decision.

Rockumsockum---The decision was correct. There is Nothing (do you understand that word) NOTHING in the Constitution about taking private land for private use. The Constitution is very specific that the United States Government only has the right to take private land for PUBLIC use.

Now the way things work is that if something is not SPECIFICALLY designated a right of the Federal Government as described in the Constitution, then it is a States Right. Any other decision would have been Judicial Activism---giving the Government rights it does not have.

I'm sure you are a big States Rights fan when in comes to abortion and slavery, but you want Big Brother to step in when it comes to protecting YOUR ass from the State.

Of course you could always point to the place in the Constitution that says the Federal Government has the right to take or not take private land for private use.

You want judicial activists on the court---that is the only way your views can prevail--tearing down the Constitution.

Buffalo Bob vhow can You sit there and declare that Ruling to be the correct one. We are talking about taking Private land for Private use that is unconstitutional wether You want to admit to that fract or not that is the TRUTH the Fifth amendment declares that Private Land can be taken for PUBLIC use and PUBLIC use only. how hard is that to understand Buffalo Bob any7thing else is UNCONSTITUTIONAL P E R I O D

Larry

Larry---Correct. There is nothing in there about taking private land for private use. If it isn't in the Constitution it is a States Right?

Think I'm wrong? Show me in the Constitution where it says that the Federal Government has the right to take private land for private use.

Now---this is not a new law. This has been the law of the land for as long as there has been an America. George W Bush used this law to steal land for his private business before he became governor of Texas. It is an old law--not a new law. Don't ask me again how I can sit here and tell you about a law that has been on the books for 200 years. I've told you twice.

Buffalo Bob but it specificaly outlines what Private Land can be taken for and that is PUBLIC use so Yes indeed it is spelled out emphaticaly. SO guess what Your Correct Ruling is BULLSHIT. Because it is already spelled out. Nice try Buffalo Bob wrong.

Larry

Larry---The point is if it isn't in the Constitution--it is a States Right. You have admitted there is nothing about this in the Constitution---case closed--it is a States Right.

Point two---it has been the law of the land for two hundred years. Bush used this law twelve years ago to steal land. It is a States Right and has ALWAYS been a States Right. The Court just reaffirmed this and said what was in the Constitution--which is their job---define what is in the Constitution--not what isn't.

Buffaqlo Bob nice try yet again because it is emphaticaly spelled out Private Land for PUBLIC use end of story.

Larry

You stated that if it's not in the COnstitution it's aq States Rights issue. But yet it IS SPelled out within the US Constitution what Private Land can be taken for and that Is PUBLIC use and PUBLIC use only. Oh and it hasnt been on the books for the past 200 Year do try yet again. It has only been recently that Private Lands have been taken for Private use. The Rest of the Time it has been for PUBLIC use specificaly defined in the US COnstitution 5th amendment Buffalo Bob. How hard is that to Understand As You put it CASE CLOSED

Larry

Buffalo Bob,

I don't agree with Larry much but...

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Public use means public use. Schools, roads, park or even a ballpark, etc. These can be taken as public use but not a shopping mall or store. And public use has nothing to do with tax revenue. Can't believe I am going to say this but "Nice try Buffalo Bob wrong","case closed", etc.

LAJ This is the Very FIRST time You have EVER agreed with me the VERY First. I am speechless.

Larry

Larry,

I have agreed on a few other occasions but as a general rule we don't see the world the same way.

All aborted fetuses should be given to science. Mandatory no if and or buts

Since this is suppose to be about stem cells. Who cares if we fall behind, it isn't about winning a race. If we aren't as a nation certain about this type of research, we shouldn't do it yet. Other places in the world will do it and if it works we will probably jump on the bandwagon later. If it doesn't produce any real results, we can think of ourselves as morally superior.

Larry---You are correct--I shouldn't have said "on the books" when in fact many States have no specific laws allowing the State to take private land for private use. But the fact remains that this is the first time the question went to the USSC. That being said since they made the decision they did, it stands to reason that it has always been legal. Bush using this law years ago substantiates that claim.

I believe this law SHOULD be unConstitutional, but the simple fact is that there is nothing against this in the Constitution. The fact remains it is up to your State to make that decision, which should make it easier for you to control this particular law in your State. Ask your reps when they are running what their position is on this issue.

But even if you look at what IS in the Constitution it says for public USE--not ownership. Like the instance of Bush stealing land for his Rangers---the public has the USE of the land, but not the ownership.

The last fact is that whether you and I agree or not and whether you or I are correct or not doesn't matter. What matters is that it is the law of the land now and it should be changed.

With a President sitting in the Oval Office who has always had such an appreciation for advancement in the field of science, I can't understand why the U.S. is lagging behind. (sarcasm)

Is the concern about the US lagging behind in this field about the loss of corporate profits or just nationalistic pride?

Is the concern about the US lagging behind in this field about the loss of corporate profits or just nationalistic pride?

Posted by laj at 2006-06-03 03:58 AM | Reply | Flag


Both I am afraid.

Larry

Larry,

But this seems to be a concern from the left and I didn't think they liked either of those things. It is more of a Bush thing than a liberal thing. Crazy world we live in.

WHat do You mean that We don't like either one of those things WHAT THINGS I am confusald.

larry

Corporate profit and nationalism.

I believe Corporate Profits should be regulated I mean how much money do they need for crying out loud.

As far as Nationalism that is one of Fascists keys. Liberals are Very Prideful of Their country why do You think We speak out against the Government so much and especialy this Corrupt Administration. It's not because we hate Our country it is because We LOVE Our country why we speak out against Criminal Acts performed by the Government.

Larry

LAJ
Fifth Amendment
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The question was---can private property be taken for private use?

That question is not answered by that sentence. If is is not in the Constitution it is a States Right. States have been taking land this way for a long long time. The USSC just reaffirmed their right to do so under the Constitution.

How is a professional ballpark any different than a mall? The public has to pay to use either---the public has no right to be there without the owners permission--both offer goods for sale--the public owns neither. What gives the ballpark more "public use" than a mall?

Taking private property for private use is called stealing Bob...

The Constitution carves out a very narrow and very explicit exception to the very longstanding rule that is carved into the hearts of every American in this country. Your land is your land and nobody can taje it from you. BUT, if the government needs your land for some important public purpose serving a much greater need then your own, they can take it, provided they give you just compensation.

I see what you are trying to say but it is a little silly. The Constitution is a pretty short document and while I am a textualist myself, there is a well established rule of statutory construction called "expresssio de unis" (spelling might be off, its been a while) it stands for the proposition that the expression of one thing (no taking of private land for public use without due process) means that all other "purposes" have been contemplated and dissallowed or to state it another way, that taking for public use is the only exception to the implied constitutional right to enjoy the right to private property free from any interference.

Taking private property for private use is called stealing Bob...

Nope--they take it with due process--entirely legal.

Taking private land for private use is not addressed in the Constitution. If it isn't in the Constitution it is a States Right.

No it's not a States Rights Issue Bob no matyter how hard You try and make it one. The Constitution is plain to see that Private Land can be taken for PUBLIC USE NOT Private.

Larry

Larry---The Constitution says what the Federal Government has the right to do. If the Federal Government has no say about it as shown in the Constitution---it is a States Right.

The Constitution is plain to see that Private Land can be taken for PUBLIC USE NOT Private.

That is not what the Constitution says. Private use is not mentioned--the fifth amendment has been posted several times---nothing in there about private use. Scroll up 3 or 4 posts to see it.