Your 3 fav U.S presidents

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

thank you.

you did not say how "this administration" *insert imperial march here* violated the 4th amendment.

also, you did not present ANY evidence that cloning embryos contributes to the cures of disease...

you also refuse to face reality. you DID acknowledge that Iraq is a central front...but you don't want to win b/c Bush created the front. whatever.

politics above country, i wish the people you vote for were as blunt...because they'd lose.

refuse to face reality? ill make you a deal... you take an honest crack at giving me a sensible reason as to (1) why it was more important to invade iraq than stabilize afghanistan and (2) what exactly bush's plan is to "win" in afghanistan, and ill not only show you why your criticisms RE stem cell and wire taps are wrong, ill support bush.

this thread was about great presidents. bush is not one. why? he had the entire world backing him in the fight against terrorism and a golden prospect for building a receptive and stable islamic democracy in afghanistan while making an example of bin laden for the whole world to see. instead, he abandoned the pursuit of bin laden, fractured the first sense of international unity since WW2, and lead us into a quagmire in a country that, at the time, had nothing to do with terrorism. he COULD have been one of the great ones. instead, he went the way of lbj and made a huge mistake and dragged the US into a war that not only appears to be unwinnable, but also severely damaged the US's credibility.

i dont i hate bush becos he's a republican. i supported him in afghanistan and thought he was doing a good job in a tough spot. but he fucked up big time with iraq. nor do i want us to fail there, i simply do not think bush and co have any idea how to succeed or what success would be. thus, he is not a good president.

Purple Hawk

South of Seattle wrote:

Isn't hope believing that a positive outcome is possible even when there is some evidence to the contrary?

How can you come up with a solution if you don't try anything?

you have to weigh the costs and the benefits.

so embryonic stem cell doesn't offer much hope...that's fine. why not fund adult stem cell which offers more hope? why waste money on something that offers none?

and beyond that, is the ethical argument of cloning. i don't have a problem with using embryos that are currently in existence, and if not used for research, they will be thrown away. that' is obviously crazy. what i am against is cloning human embryos...it not only introduces all kinds of ethical questions, but there is no evidence that it offers any hope at all to cure any disease.

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

you have to weigh the costs and the benefits.

so embryonic stem cell doesn't offer much hope...that's fine. why not fund adult stem cell which offers more hope? why waste money on something that offers none?

Where do you get this idea that adult stem cells offer MORE hope? Everything I've been able to find seems to say that adult and embryonic cells each offer hope, and each has advantages and disadvantages.

From the NIH:

"Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies."

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

and beyond that, is the ethical argument of cloning. i don't have a problem with using embryos that are currently in existence, and if not used for research, they will be thrown away. that' is obviously crazy. what i am against is cloning human embryos...it not only introduces all kinds of ethical questions, but there is no evidence that it offers any hope at all to cure any disease.

Did I miss the news bulletin announcing that we're shutting down fertility clinics?

Embryos are being created every day! There's probably one being created right now. And chances are it's going to be destroyed, that's what happens to most of them.

And for the sake of clarity, this is what we're talking about. That is an embryo in the blatocyst stage, when stem cells are harvested. We're not talking about babies in jars here, we're talking about cells. Look at that ... then look at someone with Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's, or cancer ... tell them that the thing in that picture is more important than they are.

ryan198

I'm not exactly sure who I'd choose for best, but worst -in order:
1. Ronald Reagan - Moronic puppet who listened to all his rich white constituents (who happen to own all of our communication sources which help delineate popular ideologies). Teamed up with Margaret Thatcher, the WTO, the World Bank, and IMF to royally fuck things up for the majority of this world. Too bad he didn't die when that dude shot him, the world would have been a better place.

2. Dubya - See above about being a puppet. He freaking sucks, he's made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Has allowed the views of NASCAR nation run the rest of the country. Interestingly however it is the laws and rules enforced by his government that help fuck the working class people of NASCAR nation over, but at the same time since all his cronies own everything we see and hear, they are convinced that he's doing right by them.

3. Clinton/Bush I - Clinton did more to proliferate neoliberal capitalism than any other president we have, thereby effectively ending any hope of positive social change, while having liberals believe that he actually cared. Bush I, well there's a reason he didn't get voted back in.

Uncle Leo

ryan198 wrote:

I'm not exactly sure who I'd choose for best, but worst -in order:

Picking the worst IS easier, eh?

South of Seattle

ryan198 wrote:

I'm not exactly sure who I'd choose for best, but worst -in order:
1. Ronald Reagan - Moronic puppet who listened to all his rich white constituents (who happen to own all of our communication sources which help delineate popular ideologies). Teamed up with Margaret Thatcher, the WTO, the World Bank, and IMF to royally fuck things up for the majority of this world. Too bad he didn't die when that dude shot him, the world would have been a better place.

2. Dubya - See above about being a puppet. He freaking sucks, he's made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Has allowed the views of NASCAR nation run the rest of the country. Interestingly however it is the laws and rules enforced by his government that help fuck the working class people of NASCAR nation over, but at the same time since all his cronies own everything we see and hear, they are convinced that he's doing right by them.

3. Clinton/Bush I - Clinton did more to proliferate neoliberal capitalism than any other president we have, thereby effectively ending any hope of positive social change, while having liberals believe that he actually cared. Bush I, well there's a reason he didn't get voted back in.

So basically we've been falling apart for the last 26 years?

hippiemom

Uncle Leo wrote:

Picking the worst IS easier, eh?

It allows for a lot more options, that's for damn sure!

ryan198

South of Seattle wrote:

So basically we've been falling apart for the last 26 years?

Well I'd say whenever the IMF and World Bank got started so actually about 40.

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

Please do go on...because I would like to understand HOW the NSA program violates the 4th Amendment...it doesn't. but continute to talk in vagaries.

I addressed your stem cell remarks in my last post, but I wanted to come back to this.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If you don't get this, I really don't know what to say.

cincybearcat

Uncle Leo wrote:

Picking the worst IS easier, eh?

I'd love to see just how a crappy job those here that can't pick a good president would do if they had the office.

Just goes to show you it's easier to sit around and bitch about others than to actually do anything or see anything good. It's the whiny culture that has been created.

miller8966

hippiemom wrote:

I addressed your stem cell remarks in my last post, but I wanted to come back to this.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If you don't get this, I really don't know what to say.

Its great when libs quote the constitution to serve their agenda, yet the 2nd amendement always seems to go unnoticed.

hippiemom

miller8966 wrote:

Its great when libs quote the constitution to serve their agenda, yet the 2nd amendement always seems to go unnoticed.

I'm a gun owner, miller.

Try again.

soulsinging

miller8966 wrote:

Its great when libs quote the constitution to serve their agenda, yet the 2nd amendement always seems to go unnoticed.

i also support reasonable gun ownership.

ryan198

cincybearcat wrote:

I'd love to see just how a crappy job those here that can't pick a good president would do if they had the office.

Just goes to show you it's easier to sit around and bitch about others than to actually do anything or see anything good. It's the whiny culture that has been created.

The whole point is what can we do? I mean look at Pearl Jam, everytime they have done something completely left-wing at a time when right-wing thoughts dominate they are labelled crazy by the news - see for example the Denver Post following the Bushleaguer performance in Denver.

Look at Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro who are labelled insane by our media yet few have given thoughts as to why our media would be saying these things about men, whose countries were poor in the first place, have reached and maintained literacy and voting rates over 90% in their country's while we can't come close in ours.

Did any national news source seriously question why 9/11/01 happened or did they just tell us it's because Al Queda was a sect of crazy people bent on destroying the world? When Michael Moore's film Farenheit 9/11, albeit polemic, came out reversing this type of media strategy what was our country led to believe about Moore?

The whole point is that everytime you try to make a positive social change in this world it gets co-opted by corporate forces to serve their agenda. For example, last month was Breast Cancer Awareness month, a cause for which everyone from Avon to Ford to the NFL has jumped on, yet the rate of breast cancer has gone up from 27 to 1 to 9 to 1 in the past 18 years. Part of this is because mammographies don't work, part of it is b/c cancer on the whole is becoming epidemic, part of this is b/c our shitty health care system doesn't give a shit about the (minority) poor (watch a breast cancer walk next time you get a chacne it's pretty much all middle class white women), and largely it's b/c many of these corps that are quick to market their compassion actually push through legislation that keeps their carcinogenic products on the market. Right now we are stuck going down a dark and dangerous path, and our leaders, media, and dominant political party are shaping everything we see, hear, and buy to the point that alternatives don't exist in the minds of the many in this country.

Foxwell

Obviously, all leaders are fallible and so, consequently, any choice for "Best President" can be picked apart by using a contextual quote here and a poor decision there. When choosing the best I'd like to think we should all look at the broader picture rather than the minutia.

Having said that, here goes...

1. Abraham Lincoln: I have to say, this pick seems obvious. As The Beatles were to rock and roll, Abe was to the presidency. The real debate, in either case, is who was second best?

2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Many folks like to blame him for today's welfare system, however let us not forget that his New Deal work programs gave millions of Americans jobs as well as a renewed sense of dignity and self-respect.

3. Theodore Roosevelt: a true progressive, environmentalist (anyone who went camping with John Muir has to be a decent man), and a friend of the small businessman/enemy of the out-of-control capitalist. My how the Republican Party has changed.

Honorable mention: William Howard Taft-- the only American President AND Supreme Court Justice. Granted, he wasn't a great President (perhaps because he loathed the job; he would write in his Presidential journal, "I hate this job. I hate this job. I hate this job. Van Halen Rocks! I hate this job." Okay, so I'm paraphrasing).

By the by, why do so many people list John Kennedy as one of the greatest?

I have a difficult time naming a one-termer as the best, let alone a man who served fewer than three years. Yes, he was easy on the eyes, spoke well and gave many Americans hope, but most of the civil-rights policies he championed weren't passed during his administration; LBJ pushed them through. Granted, an assassin's bullet had something to do with his incomplete agenda, yet even Eleanor Roosevelt challenged JFK's political courage.

One last comment...please cut Jimmy Carter some slack...due to the congressional reforms of the early '70's and a general distrust of the Executive Branch (Nixon residue), the late seventies would have been a difficult time for any President.

Good day.
Hail to the Chief.

rearviewmiror

Bill Clinton term 1
Bill Clinton term 2
RFK (yes I know he was never President)

Purple Hawk

hippiemom wrote:

Did I miss the news bulletin announcing that we're shutting down fertility clinics?

Embryos are being created every day! There's probably one being created right now. And chances are it's going to be destroyed, that's what happens to most of them.

And for the sake of clarity, this is what we're talking about. That is an embryo in the blatocyst stage, when stem cells are harvested. We're not talking about babies in jars here, we're talking about cells. Look at that ... then look at someone with Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's, or cancer ... tell them that the thing in that picture is more important than they are.

we really do need to clarify.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM USING EMBRYOS THAT ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE INSTEAD OF THROWING THEM IN THE TRASH.

that is not what this amendment 2 is. it is about cloning...creating embryos for the sole goal of destroying them. Why would you do that a) when there are already embryos available and b) when there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT embryonic research offers any hope to cure Parkinson's, Alzheimer's...etc...instead of using emotion, look at the facts: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

again, i know you'll come back with...well so what if there's no scientific evidence....what about hope? again, the point is is that there's plenty of embryos currently available.

also, to show that fox is a liar, given his insinuation a cure is less likely to occur if a republican is in charge...look at the position of the candidate he is doing an ad for:

http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SETTINGTHERECORDSTRAIGHTCardinVotedAgainstStemCellResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm

and while i don't have any pictures to tug on heart strings and paint the other side and evil, i do have more info


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=9eeae5c9-c9ff-4eab-8ef1-907ae94b1326


as far as your baseless, vague charge that NSA violates the consitution, why did the ACLU drop their lawsuit?

musicismylife78

I think my favorites were ones never elected, but ran for the office:
Robert Kennedy
Eugene Mccarthy
Mcgovern
Nader


But I have to agree with Chomsky who suggested that "Following Nuremberg trial rules, every president since WWII should be hanged for war crimes".

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

we really do need to clarify.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM USING EMBRYOS THAT ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE INSTEAD OF THROWING THEM IN THE TRASH.

that is not what this amendment 2 is. it is about cloning...creating embryos for the sole goal of destroying them. Why would you do that a) when there are already embryos available and b) when there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT embryonic research offers any hope to cure Parkinson's, Alzheimer's...etc...instead of using emotion, look at the facts: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

again, i know you'll come back with...well so what if there's no scientific evidence....what about hope? again, the point is is that there's plenty of embryos currently available.

also, to show that fox is a liar, given his insinuation a cure is less likely to occur if a republican is in charge...look at the position of the candidate he is doing an ad for:

http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SETTINGTHERECORDSTRAIGHTCardinVotedAgainstStemCellResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm

and while i don't have any pictures to tug on heart strings and paint the other side and evil, i do have more info


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=9eeae5c9-c9ff-4eab-8ef1-907ae94b1326


as far as your baseless, vague charge that NSA violates the consitution, why did the ACLU drop their lawsuit?

I don't give a fuck about amendment 2. I don't live in Missouri. Although the text of the amendment does say "No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research," so I'm not entirely sure what you're on about.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about Missouri, or Michael J. Fox, or Rush Limbaugh, or any of that mess in my post. I was talking about the bill recently signed by Bush.

Your friends at stemcellresearch.org state their first objective as being "To advance the development of medical treatments and therapies that do not require the destruction of human life, including the human embryo," so I don't exactly think they're looking at all of this with an open mind. The National Institutes of Health is of the opinion that all types of stem cell research should proceed.