Who is your choice for US President?

Quote:

Hilary is a communist...she's like that german folktale of midnight thieves that steal your children dressed in dark colors and karl marx' bandanas strapped across the eyes. She's evil, you can tell in the way her mouth curves ever so slightly to the left when she wins a delegate. Pure Darkness, that would stagger Dick Cheney at the knees at the mention of her name.

M-kain as I like to call him is also evil and also very dark. Greedy too. You can tell whenever you see him taking donations for his campaign, you'll notice how the table scrims just in the oddest of ways as they swip goods under the table. They don't tell you this but he's being mind controlled by Bush.

Obama, he's 12 in a candy factory shop, it's late and dark and he can't find the lightswitch, but to me he is the one with the cleanest of intentions so if I had top pick between them I'd rather choose inexperience over pure evil.

My basic view at this point in time.

Obama is not change. Have you seen how much money he has recieved. McCain wishes he had that much. All that money means he has payback. Dont kid yourself he is one of them.

all politicians are dirty lol.
Hillary may be Evil but we need someone a bit hardcore after the douchebag who is our current president is in office. As they said on the news the other day bush has never succeeded at anything especially being president. I guess only November will tell but in a sense I like hillarys attitude about things and I've always been a fan of her husband, i think that has alot to do with her popularity in the election is because people have the love for bill moreso then her and not many will take the time to look into what she is wanting to bringforth to the americans they are just wanting to see a clinton in office.

Either way if McCain doesn't win there will be history made with this election.
I have never voted in any elections but I've been on the watch this year and I think I will xfer my voting card from IL to Tn and vote this november

please excuse my typos it's late at night lol

Quote:

Obama is not change. Have you seen how much money he has recieved. McCain wishes he had that much. All that money means he has payback. Dont kid yourself he is one of them.

I think that just means his campaign manager and strategist along with his donations collector and paypal treasurer are all evil but maybe not him. See the way it works is, Obama pays for someone to be evil for him while M-kain and Hilary enjoy the taste of blood and money.

I don't know I still think Hilary is horribly evil even if Bill is a good guy. If Hilary becomes president and turns out to be an extention of Bill Clinton's administration (and it turns out that the success behind that administration wasn't just the economy's climactic bubble or the receptivness of Congress at that time)then that would be great, fantastic even. But somehow I always knew that the pants in that relationship belong to Hilary and if Hilary from the time Bill was president till now has smelled the steemy wads of money that potrude via corrupt scandalings then there is no stopping her and the world is doomed. Even if she isn't completely Evil, if she becomes president all we will have to pvp other online guilds with is online chess and dos attacks. If that doesn't spell Morbid Hallucinated Voracity(medical term for evil) then .....

Negative, Owain - Perot dropped out of the race. He half-assed came back, but he took a HUGE hit in standings, and probably for good reason.

In any case, if he had never dropped out and stuck the whole thing through he would have had a fair decent chance of winning.

Doesn't change my opinion of 3rd party candidates any. Most are flakes or egomaniacs, Perot being a prime example. Not the kind of guy I'd want for Pres. The electorate seemed to agree with me.

Quote:

all politicians are dirty lol.
Hillary may be Evil but we need someone a bit hardcore after the douchebag who is our current president is in office. As they said on the news the other day bush has never succeeded at anything especially being president.

Yeah, she's hardcore alright - hardcore safety nazi. I don't feel like losing any more of my rights due to safety reasons, and Hilary is the worst one yet. She'd rather ban things and eliminate things through micromanagement and holding us all by the hand rather than promote programs that educate on proper parenting. Shit, I don't need another mommy - I'm perfectly fine with the one I have.

You have to be a complete egomaniac to contemplate seriously running for president in the first place. Bush is a flake , and an egomaniac, for example.

The fact of the matter is, you have to be borderline insane to seriously contemplate the idea that you might seriously be sitting in the highest office of the most powerfull nation in the world.

That goes for any party, 3rd or otherwise.

It doesnt matter who gets President can anyone of them stop this from happening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...rc=rss_business

If there is ever a cause or reason for pure violence, it's right there.

Ok whats your point. An American company is making a profit. I know big oil is an evil empire trying to take over the world.

I dont get why people get made at oil companies making a profit, its what companies do. Do you get mad when other companies make profits. WalMart, General Electric, General Motors, Home Depot, Berkshire Hathaway, HP, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Kroger, AT&T, Target, Dell, UPS. These are some of the top companies in america all making profits.
Sorry but I find it silly when people get mad at so called big oil. If you look up the biggest oil companies in the world you have to go all the way down to 17ish to even find exxon or any american company.

So who should you be mad at, I say a little organization called OPEC. Or lets say the government for the high taxes they put on gas. Or maybe the decline in avalible crude. Or the fact that a new oil refinery has not been built in 30+ years to help with demand, thanks envirofreaks. Dont forget when crude oil was 70-80 gas prices were 3+. Now its over 100 for crude and gas prices are about the same, WTF is that.

Dont get me wrong Big Oil is evil, so is WalMart, Target, Home Depot and well all the Forbes 500. Welcome to American. Get as much as you can while it last then start all over.

For a short term historic wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004-2006

When I got my first car and bought my first tank of gas it was around 80 cent a gallon and the first thought in my head was how the hell am I gonna pay for gas.

You get mad at them when gas is starting to push $4 / gallon
and the oil companies keep reporting ' record profits ' to
the tune of multi-billion dollars.

Most of the other companies you listed sell what I call
'optional' merchandise. You don't have to purchase any of
it in the event you can't afford it.

Gasoline, on the other hand, is like insurance. It's one
of those things you cannot do without. The oil companies
know this, and price it accordingly. What are you going
to do? Not buy any ? Good luck with that.

The percentage of people who can live without a
gas powered vehicle in the US is laughable.
For probably 95%+ of Americans, no vehicle =
no job = no money = very sh*tty life.

Oil and it's derivatives are critical resources and
should have some serious oversight in just how freely
the price can swing.

However, while the greedy bastages that are Big Oil
rake in billions and the expense of the rest of us, one
of the primary reasons for high priced gasoline is the
falling dollar.

As the dollar continues to plummet vs other world currency,
the price of just about everything is going to go into
orbit. Oil just happens to be in the spotlight atm.

Yeah, nothing wrong with oil companies making a profit, even a recrord profit. The problem is the govt giving subsidies/etc to those oil companies.

Dont like the price of gas? build an electric car. Ride a bike. Take a bus. Not that im happy about the price of gas, I dont like taking a bus any more than the next guy,but it sure shouldnt be the govt regulating the prices.

Govt subsidies for big oil, are a problem though. Govt printing to much money to finance the unnecesarry wars of an egomaniac flake , thereby devaluing our currency is a problem.

Govt is the heart of the problem, and less govt is almost always the solution. Even AT&T wouldnt be selling civil liberties down the pike, if they werent literally charging the feds about 14k$ an hour when they do anything.

If OPEC drops production gas goes up. If OPEC raises production gas goes down.

So tell me how Exxon controls gas prices. If they buy cheap, gas is cheap. If they buy high, gas is high.

I use to sell product for a company, we went by 25% as our profit. If our cost went up our profit went up due to our 25% profit. We didnt drop our prices becaouse the public was mad at the increase, they just paid more. I am assuming most companies work the same. So yes if crude oil is 100 a barrel when it was 80, profit goes up.

Yes everyone needs gas but with inflation it is about the same as the late 70's. It is also a commodity and will go up and down. as with the gas crunch in the 70's it will most likely go back down to a lower price, and the evil big oil profits with it.

So OPEC is who you should be mad at. As in the 70's they made the price rise then.

Government subsidies, not just oil, is another whole crazy problem in itself. Without it bread is 20 buck a loaf but government is smaller and we pay less in taxes. I can see both sides of that argument. Granted I dont see big oil needing it.

Yeah, I know my dad's company used to run like that, I'm pretty sure all distributors/retailers deal like that.

And yeah, prices in the market tends to stabilize over the course of two years or so to re-align with the line of its average growth. So although price may be say, $40 over what it should be at the moment, eventually it might drop to say $20 less, then a bit more, then a bit less, and then it might sky rocket again like it did these past few years.

Well without subsidies agricultural products would nearly be free, but farmers would also be homeless.

I totally agree with Daye. We are a low income family, and while Gas is cheaper in Tennessee compared to the rest of the states, it varies right now from 3.09/gallon to 3.19/gallon.
I don't have to drive anywhere so I stay home a lot and only go back and forth to pick my son up from school. When he use to ride the bus I never went anywhere. I can shove 10$ in my gas tank and last me for a week. He doesn't ride the bus due to issues we were having with his safety on the bus.

But there are alot of people out there like us who just make what we need to get by, with the rising cost of gas prices we minimize what we can so Steve can get back and forth to work, he drives for work but thankfully on a company truck with a company gas card, he has a huge ass truck lol so I know the gas prices are crazy and now a days Diesel is more expensive then Gasoline and it use to be cheaper. With gas prices going up and up all of the paychecks are staying the same. Where we live we don't have the option of public bus system or biking to work. Steve work is over 16 miles from us and it's all country roads along the way. If he was closer to his work he'd totally bike but if he did it now he's likely to be killed on the curvy country roads. They are saying that gas is going up over 4$ a gallon here soon and if that is the case at least us and I am sure most other people will be screwed. We've cut back on a lot of grocery shopping cut down Tv prices etc the higher it gets the more we'll have to cut back it's just ridiculous and something needs to change. Daye and Derid totally said it best

Not necesarrily Helemoto, A couple years or so ago I remember gas prices spiking even though oil was at a low point, due to needs for additives/EPA requirements+ lack of refining capacity.

Its not just an oil issue, there are bottlenecks in many links of this particular supply chain. Especially for regions that have "special needs" regarding mandated additives/refinement/etc.

Dont get me wrong. Of course I want cheap gas. I average 1000 miles a week for work, once I filled my tank 7 times in one week. My wife drives my kids to school 20 miles one way. If we go somewhere we drive to Omaha 28 to 38 miles one way just to get something to do, cause there is not a frickin thing to do in the town I live in.

All I was trying to say was there is more to high gas then the evil oil companies.

Like Derid said, I remember that clearly now.

Without subsities your food would be skyhigh not cheap, because there would be alot less farmers. Well other then evil corporate farmers. Until corn was used for gas additive, the corn and other grain prices were the same price 30 years ago. Try being a farmer when your product sold for the same price 30+ years in a row and food in stores went up every year.

Ya Steve's Gma leases her land during season and the farmers aren't making shit anymore. I am sure you and your wife notice how horrible grocery prices are getting.

Meat is expensive here in Tn worse then it is back home in IL. You can get a 3lb Roast chicken for anything less then 4$ If you want pot roast forget it it's over 12$ just for a shitty meat portion. There are shitloads of cows,goats, farms and chicken farms here but they send everything out but prices here are crazy

Most of the high gas prices are calculated by the cost of
crude oil which, right now, is going at $107 / barrel USD.

That's probably 50% of the total price of gas.

The rest is calculated in the costs to move it from point
to point ( trucks ) state and federal taxes ( about .40 per
gallon ) refinement costs, then finally the little guy at
the gas station gets his cut. ( a very small one at that )

While Big Oil isn't solely the one to blame, it's within
our power to limit their profits to something acceptable if
it will help turn the economy around. I don't mind Big Oil
making a profit, after all, that's what companies do.

Just bring their profits down to a reasonable level ( one
that isn't record setting every !@#$!@#!$ quarter ) and cut
the taxes in half for a while.

It is not, however, within our power to persuade OPEC to
increase supply. Nor would it help much to be honest.

Our biggest problem is the devaluation of the dollar. It's
killing us. We are paying $107 / barrel, whereas
( if my math is right ) Europe is paying about ~69 Euro
for the same oil. Yes Europe pays through the nose for gas
( somewhere in the realm of $12 USD / gallon ) but this is
because their government taxes the living hell out of it.
Like 75% tax I think.

As the dollar keeps dropping, oil will keep climbing.
It will reach a critical point where folks can no longer
afford to even drive to work. Long before we reach that we'll
see consumer spending taper off due to high gas / energy prices
and that will hurt business even moreso.

It is at this point when the economy will officially implode.

Yeah, I could take the bus. Which would connect with
another bus, which would connect with another bus, which
would ultimately get me to my building some two hours later.
That's not gonna happen.

Biking / walking to work is out of the question as it's forty
miles *points* that-a-way.

Can't move INTO Houston as I can't afford the $300,000+ they
want for condos inside the loop.

So, I'm stuck driving. While I drive a Volvo that gets
30mpg, gas is still a very noticeable expense every month.

It isn't going to get any better until / unless the dollar
rebounds and gets some of it's bite back.

Daye, instead of telling them how much they can sell it for - which in the end will cause shortages, why not just elimate all the taxes on it?

Could cut a big chunk out of gas costs if it wasnt taxed to heavily. Artificial price limits do nothing but cause problems and shortages.

What would happen, is costs for everything would go up even more, because goods couldnt be transported, people would do and buy less because they had to save gas just to get to work, and black market sales would thrive while the oil companies cut back on investment, R&D, exploration, etc

It would end up being a disaster.

That and, it violates the principle of private property rights. We need to remember we dont have a "right" to their oil. We do however, have a right to elect people who would stop taxing and regulating us to death, and printing trillions of dollars to fight useless wars and pay people to
spy on us.

One path leads to prosperity, one path leads to further economic depression combined with an ever more overbearing govt.

Well yeah, that'd eventually be the result of no subsidies, but for a while before the majority of the smaller farmers would be kicked out of their farms by the banks to whom they owe mortgage payments, the prices would rocket to the floor because of the insane supply that would occur if the government weren't paying them not to grow food.

And gas won't reach a price that will force people to stop driving. It's an inelastic product, look at Europe, like you said they pay around four times what we do and are still driving as much as in the U.S. Sure, they use Diesel because it's dirt cheap over there and mileage is far better, or they drive scooters or whatever they can, but regardless, you just can't make a living without a car.

Not talking food, though talking food subsidies is an interesting, and complex topic. Theres a little more to it than getting cheap bread due to subsidies, the econo-mechanics
of it are fairly complex.

For now lets focus on oil, though if someone wanted to make an alternate thread discussing general and/or food subsidies id love to take part, I find it an interesting topic.

Back on Oil though, something worth mentioning is domestic drilling in Alaska, and other places that got blocked by the left-wing enviromentalist types is also largely to blame.

I wonder if people will change their minds when gas hits 5$/gallon.

Man, tell me about domestic drilling. My girlfriend is a finance major, one of her classes (maybe business economics or something like that) was speaking about domestic drilling the other day. Apparently just one well has access to enough oil to provide for the entire U.S. for five years. That's one well, that's not even talking about what the rest of the state has to offer. And eco-freaks get all worried about what a disruption to the environment the pipes would be, but honestly, if you see the pictures of the pipelines you can barely even notice them. I thought they'd be like 10 feet in diameter spanning all of Alaska, the pipes are like two feet in diameter, the caribou would never think twice about them.

If you eliminated the taxes completely ( both Federal and
State ) you would shave about forty cents off the end price.

While it would be a fast and easy temporary fix, it would
be exactly that. Temporary.

If we don't do something ( and soon ) about the falling
dollar, gas will be the least of our worries

Quote:

Ok whats your point. An American company is making a profit. I know big oil is an evil empire trying to take over the world.

I dont get why people get made at oil companies making a profit, its what companies do. Do you get mad when other companies make profits.

1. I get fucking PISSED every time I go to the gas station - which is 2-3 times a week. On average I am spending 70$ PER WEEK so that they can get their God Damned Profit. NO, I'm not driving a gas guzzler, but to get to one of the few jobs I could find in this area for me, I have to drive 50 minutes ONE WAY to work every day. Lastly, if I do not buy gas so I can drive to work, I won't get paid.

2. NO, I do not get mad when NEWEGG or DELL or most other companies make a profit off me, because it only happens once every 2-4 years. That goes for most other things. Even grocery prices going up isn't pissing me off - I can still pay $45 for protein powder that will last me 2.5 months or roughly 90 meals!!!

However, None of that compares to what gas prices are doing to my income OR the rest of the economy. I am paying more than DOUBLE what I used to pay for gas 5 years ago, PER gallon. That's absolute insanity. For poor people like me, that totally sucks. I can't just choose not to go to Best Buy and instead go to newegg.com to save money like I can for computer parts. There's little alternative and I really cannot afford a hybrid. Gas prices are affecting EVERYTHING and in a NEGATIVE way. And not just in a small way, it's huge. How can you NOT get pissed about that?

some links to state gas taxes these do not include city, county,wholesale, eviromental tax. With those added in some states pay over 60 cents in tax. Also some states tax rate is a % not a flat rate so as prices rise,well you know.

http://www.nebraskagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

I was suprised to find my state one of the highest.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/Helemoto/flinstone.jpg

This car is alittle old but the gas mileage is great.

I live in Wisconsin - even WORSE than Nebraska. Can't wait to be in Texas...

Quote:

And eco-freaks get all worried about what a disruption to the environment the pipes would be, but honestly, if you see the pictures of the pipelines you can barely even notice them.

That's not to mention that Alaska has about the same area as half the contintal U.S. If they are Drilling Oil in Wyoming it has absolutely no effect on the wild life and eco-system in Arizona...

"None of the above" was not a choice?

Well, gas in Texas isn't pleasant atm either

Since I drive a Volvo, I have to use premium gas. It's
checking in at $3.48 / gallon as I type this. . . . Diesel
is checking in at $3.85.

28-30 miles per gallon. ~80 mile round trip drive to work
daily. One fill up a week running about ~$48.00 each.
That's just shy of $200 / month just for the privilege of
driving to and from work. I like to think of it as a tax
for those who don't live within walking distance of their
jobs. . . . then again, if I lived within walking distance
the costs would likely be that much higher anyway. So
whatever money I saved on gas would go to higher taxes or
rent for that prestigious "in-town" condo or home.

While we won't see the point where folks quit driving to
work, they will make sacrifices in other areas that will
hurt the economy as well. Since gas is an absolute must
have, folks will cut down spending elsewhere.

Entertainment, trips, eating out, etc. etc.

This, in turn, will simply add fuel to the fire when the
consumer spending numbers come out and the decline causes
the market to bleed some more.

Somewhat of a snowball effect if you will.

http://money.aol.com/news/story/_a/whos-getting-rich-as-gas-prices-soar/20080313172309990001

News story about gas prices and cost of production and who makes money on it.

The only way to stop it is if the US citizens somehow make the oil companies loose money which is very hard because everything we use has some type of oil in it plastics (bottles,shoes,anything that has to do with plastics has some type of oil). Also rubber uses alot of crude think about how much of that we use. So until we can come up with something to minimize the use of other products including gas we are screwed (just turn the bat sideways and stick it u know where).

Better hope for ethanol(e85) or hydrogen cars to push real heavy then only will oil companies have competitors other then themselves.

the us wont make oil companies lose money, seeing as they have the rest of the world to supply as well, the states thinks it is the center all the time for oil prices to come down it would need to be a massive government move in multiple countries to expose this quazi monopoly that they all have going with each other and make them start competing again, here in edmonon there is a "oil shortage" but seeing as we have about 30 refineries within 20 minutes of each other, on top of the oilsands in fort mcmurray and under an hour away another 15 refineries I cant see this being a legitamite claim, but every single last station upped its prices by nearly 15 cents a liter over night... kind of strange how every single company raised the prices even with though it was only esso that had the so called problem at one of the refineries here in sherwood park

Arcain i dont want to hear about oil refrineries just look up southeast texas. The gulf coast produces if im not mistaken something like 70% of the US oil right now they are building the 2nd largest plant in the world. Id say within 2 hours of each other there are about 90-100 plants just where i live about 50 if not more because i dont know what they got in Houston. Just in my area the golden triangle there are about 25-30 easy if u include water treatment plants prolly alot more. Yes my area is like 4th on the terror list from all the plants in this area.

Even the alternate gas things like where they turn the corn into gas for cars, most cars will need to be adapted to that and it will be a lot of money out of our pocket. Before I went back to school and took this class, if most farmers start to sell off their corn or whatever to make the biofuels it's going to effect the land that the farmers grow their crop on. Ya I guess I am kinda of what you guys been calling an eco freak, since that is my major in college, but if there was a lot of farmers who harvested their corn for the bio fuel they remove the entire crop. Typically farmers who just use it for regular harvesting they leave behind the stuff that cannot be harvested and it reabsorbs into the soil and will still have a good output of crops for next harvesting season. If farmers used that corn for bio fuel they will not have the harvested leftovers going back into the soil which would eventually make the soil go bad and the area will not yield anymore crop. In doing so that would put our corn and other food prices going through the roof.
I would love to see some sort of alternate fuel system.

I am curious if anyone here has a hybrid vehicle? I would love to get one myself just for the gas costs alone although the lesser threat for the environment is a good factor as well. But in reality it's all about the money.
I wondered for those who have hybrid cars is it really that much of a savings.

A professor of mine was actually calculating the "savings" of a hybrid the other day during a tangent he took in class. It ends up costing you about the same as a regular car. Sure, over the course of five years or so (if you drive an extremely high amount of miles per year) you'd end up saving a couple thousand dollars, but the thing is the battery needs to be replaced every five years or so, and costs just about as much as the money you'd save on gas. If you want to save the environment, go ahead and get a hybrid. If you want to save money, don't bother.

I vote hydrogen, thing is though then you'd be spending more money on electricity if you have one of the hydrogen stations you plug into your wall at home. Or you'd probably be spending a fuckton buying hydrogen at a station (which only exist in SoCal at the moment.)

Either one of those solutions would take the gleam off the spear that oil holds steady fast to our bellies. At least wedge it out a good ways.

We should start investing into compressed air vehicles, cars that run on highly compressed tubes of carbon. Or Could go with metallic nuclear reactive propulsion in vehicles by using say maybe aluminum isotopes which can be harvested in space then brought down to earth to be refined and placed at like maybe Best Buy, they would probably last longer then an electric cars battery, but we would need layers of radioactive suits while we drive,lol and figure out how to fly all the way past mars without taking forever to get back...hum could use robots... Or a mixture of these car models. Say maybe a steam vehicle, one that uses an electrical battery similar to the electric cars battery that's only purpose is to raise the temperature of a small central heated core to really hot temperature and then we could insert solidified carbon dioxide to cool the core and as the steam pumps out it could motorize the car. Instead of having to replace the battery say every 5 years it would be every 15 or 20. In any case we should be doing something instead of trying to figure out where to get oil next cuz the oil thing is just not working and an entire nation is being pulled into awkward positions by the belly button, just need to find some lobbying shoes and the right pairs of ears.

The wife and I own a Toyota Hybrid Highlander and we average 28mpg. Hybrids are best for those who do a lot of in town driving and accelerate slowly away from lights and stop signs so that the electric motor is the primary source for as long as possible. The gas motor kicks in around 25 or so and then depending on how much the battery is charged and the current driving conditions the electric motor will supplement the gas motor. We have the full size V6 gas engine with 230HP so all in all I think the 28mpg is decent. Note also that we live 22 miles out of town so the majority of our driving is done at speeds between 45 and 60 mph which is not optimum for a hybrid.

Wow i didn't know that 5050. Yea for us we live far enough out of town but there isn't anywhere that we'd drive where the speed limit is below 40.

On a side note, ethanol is not a very good answer. It takes more ethanol, energy wise, than gas to travel the same distance so you end up burning more ethanol than gas to go the same distance... doesn't make much sense. Then there is the grain issue for feedyards, bread etc.... Ethanol is at best political fodder....

A pleasure to help Elph!

Not sure what you mean Elph. Farmers farm the same way they do for feed corn or the bio fuel. And yes I know this for a fact. The only difference is the type of corn they grow, which is better for the end product one way or the other.

Also corn fuel takes more energy to make then it will give,I risk my life saying this where I live, and will in the end be given up. The farmers love it due to the fact that corn prices have gone up. They havent seen a increase in decades till biofuel hit.

Now here's a thought:

Company X makes a profit from selling Gasoline. As all good
companies do, they like to see their profit lines either
maintain a steady level or increase. ( Shareholders usually
demand the latter over the former )

Now, with that in mind, what do you think will happen if
magically we started using 50% less gasoline tomorrow ?
The magic car fairy works overtime one night and replaces
everyones vehicle with one that gets double the gas mileage.

Since we just cut our consumption in half, all of a sudden
Company X is now selling half the gasoline it used to. The
profits also cut in half much to the dismay of the
shareholders.

What's the fix ?

Why to raise gas prices of course. If they have the
capacity to do so, they can also try to mass produce
enough of it cheaply to undercut the other companies
who also sell gas. With Crude Oil checking in at record
prices though, it's nearly impossible to produce gas
cheap enough to be able to undercut the other guy by very
much.

The theory is gas prices will actually rise due to Company X
trying to maintain the same profit they've enjoyed for
years. It's the only way they can continue to make money.

Thoughts ?

Its basic supply and demand... China especially, as well as other rapidly developing countries have played a large part in huge increases in demand.

Another aspect is our weak ass dollar, which is losing value to to 6 or so years of massive overspending. We've been printing way to much money to pay for various foreign adventures, and other ill-advised spending practices.. as a result, our dollar isnt worth as much. We would have crashed into massive depression already if an extremely high portoin of the worlds debt wasnt held in dollars in the first place.. but as debt flees to other currencies, we will have to clean up or act or face economic annihilation.. but I digress.

A third part is taxes, and royalties... the article Helemoto linked was a very good one, go back read it , even there it says that the oil companies would be paying 100b in taxes/royalties for a 40b profit.

When you think about it, thats a tax/royalty rate @ 250% of profit. Frankly, judging by that metric, I'd say the amount of profit is absurdly low. The US govt only accounts for part of that figure, part is royalties paid to say, the Sauds ( Bushes friends.. and what excellent examples of liberty loving enlightened folk..... lawls) but still, US taxes are still going to be eclipsing the profit totals by a wide margin.

Imagine the price of gas, if the taxes were gone, and oil could be had from alaska and other domestic sources, and as such no royalty paid. The price would drop by a large margin, even though profits would also rise.

Moral of the story : instead of blaming big oil, and expecting a government to somehow forcefully lower prices - place blame where its deserved - on our own government. Our gas prices are our own fault, for electing the F-class government we have been electing, and supporting the retarded policies we have been supporting as a society.

The real culprits are US voters.

That's assuming that their is a magical car fairy. Which I know, to everyone's dismay...unfortunately there is not. Sad but true. Just like their isn't a tooth fairy, CUZ I STILL HAVE MY TOOTH AND NO MONEY, or maybe I just had neglecting parents when I was young. lol.

I think that the scenario would go like this, say Company Y starts mass producing higher mpg cars, along with Company P, N, F and probably D. A single company pumping mpg cars probably wouldn't be enough to hit the broader side of the market. You would also need Advertising Companies like H and S to pump consumer bases into such a realm with "VOTE OR DIE" type of messages. Enough to have them dump their cars that they currently use. Even if they started doing this now, it would be a couple of years before this actually kicked in depending on the rate of deterioration of all cars being used at this point in time along with a broadly accepted philosophy of marginalism when they were purchasing cars; sublimed into these advertising projects to come of course. And let's not forget the all powerful and demeaning state of trust between consumers and the economy. If they somehow managed to green all these things, that's still say what? Five, Ten years. The effect of gas usage and price would be like slicing the tip off a cake every year, and with the media the way it is now. We will be in a red gas alert for years to come and then some.

Heck in reality we could be using less gass now then we have in years, quantitively speaking; but we wouldn't know it because the price of oil serves as an index to the average consumer's perspective and they are manipulating this to their hearts content.

So what can we do? We're screwed, practice power walking or riding a bike....

Actually, after the fifth year of oil price misindeminity, and once it has become apparent to the international public of the existence of it, rally up the Department of Commerce along with the Department of Energy have them and all their peons along with certain representatives from other countries lobby the U.N to construct a temporary establishment of the International Sanctum of the Common Welfare, have them disband OPEC, OECD along with any other Multi-Corporate Guised Monopolies occupying the International Stage.

If they fail to comply find ways to embargo them of needed resources. Personnel, Electricity, or even Sewage. Place pressure on the countries housing these oil companies to comply with the aspects of this project at the stake of international financial claim as deemed evitable by the ISCM.

Once these oil-monopolies are disbanded, disband the Department and reconstruct it as seen fit in the event of a similar incident. Not all the oil companies need to be demoralized at least more then half, this would leave room to avoid World War III, and stubborn countries could be ignored and addressed at a later date. However in the event that a country decides to rescind their promise to the cause, any countries that decide to follow that country will have to be demonstrated with a delicate show of force so as much to give the impression of all seriousness without causing other countries to rally together. It would be important to keep these countries apart therefore the process would have to be done painstakingly slow so as to provide a time lag and keep them from shrouding together.

Once all countries have agreed, impose obscene taxes on the import of oil for companies that are on the roster for these giant international monopolies and wait for it all to crumble. The department will be kept active for five years after which it will be disbanded and kept in the pockets of the U.N. These activities would have to be kept in total darkness and at the under the table of all major countries and the U.N, once the smoke has settled, remove everyone that participated from the U.N chair and delete all records. That would probably be the biggest help in solving this problem. Oil wise...

I will probably be assassinated by oil spies in the later part of tomorrow or the day after. But my legacy lives on.

Long live KGB, Comrades.

I was listening on the radio and some PH.D guy was saying the same thing, that if taxes were removed then oil prices would go down about 50 cents if not more, but what if the these oil companies raise the price or Bush's buddies want more from the cake now that their arn't any taxes? I don't like giving Bush's friends any money. Heck now that they have realized that people are willing to pay that much for oil then....

First, your only thinking of the immediate pump-taxes for that 50 cents. Throughout the chain, there are plenty of other tax burdens.

As long as there is sufficient supply, a decrease in the cost of bringing you the fuel will result in a decrease of the cost of fuel. As long as competition is able to fulfill supply, and therefore is real competition, prices tend not to skyrocket if costs dont skyrocket.

And though Bush is indeed a failed oilman, and assuredly the oil industry kisses his ass like so many other industries... just because some of them may be his friends, still , if applied uniformly - the capitalistic mechanisms that are good for oil are good for everyone else.

If govt wasnt meddling so much in our business, business wouldnt be meddling so much in govt. Since our govt doesnt really respect Capitalism anymore, unfortunatly business has to gain as much govt influence for their own protection. Unfortunatly, like any power attained - by nature it will be misused, hence all the cases of leechers using the govt as a competitive tool in one form or another, but it is misguided govt that makes it happen in the first place.

That's assuming that oil companies arn't evil...but I see what you mean.

Dont forget, if they took the taxes away from gas, they would just tax you on something else.

The government doesnt lower taxes.

If the government really cared about you they would ban tobacco products. But they never will because of the taxes they get from them. It is kind of funny they raise taxes on cigs to help pay for medical cost, but didnt ban it. And if they did they would raise taxes on something else.

The US has more oil in reserve than it uses in production. There are 176 federal oil reserves nationwide each holding 4x the amount that the larger refineries such as exxon and motiva use in a 5 year span for production purposes. places like Big Hill reserve in winnie texas are veritable fortresses. I had to work there when i was doing fire safety and inspections and it takes them 2 hours just to check you in the front gate. soldiers, dogs, background checks, practically dismantling my company truck. the funny thing is that this reserve is in the middle of BFE in winnie Texas and most residents in the area don't even know that it is there.

There is no oil shortage in the US. The oil is just being boggarted while our government tries to buyout other countries supplies so that we will have a future monopoly on the market.

There are still many drillable areas in the US but we won't use them due to the fact that our government has been trying to corner the oil market for years and us tapping those resources is counterproductive to the goal.

o btw dont vote mccain, he is emperor palpatine. just take along look at him if you dont believe me

Helemoto, you just hit the problem right on the head. Oil shouldnt be treated any differently than any other industry, but you just summed up in one short post about half of the basic underlying structural problem in this country... the other half being govt spending.

Because they are harvesting their entire corn product for bio fuel they clean up all the remains of the corn that is typically left and will saturate back into the soil. When they aren't harvesting their corn for bio fuels what they harvest the remains are left on the ground to reabsorb into the soil which helps to provide the soil with nutrients and keep it a renewable source along with other means of conservation.

Maybe some, but alot wont do that simply because many farmers
can actually think ahead. That, or they just grow peanuts - and other crops that actually act to reinvigorate fertility.

I'll have to get you the article but you'd be surprised. It was a discussion that had came up in our class was pretty interesting hehe.

It would be an interesting article. I live in a state that is one of the main producers of the corn you are talking about. I see year to year how they harvest and they still do the same as always.

If you watch the combine it shots everything but the corn out the back into a spreader that, well spreads the remains about the ground.

Then they use special tillers that help to prevent soil erosion. This also pushes some of the spread into the soil.

Then after winter is over they till the land for planting.

I talk to lots of farmers due to the fact that some are my friends and some I want to hunt on the land they own. But I would like to see the article you are talking about, and my farmer friends would be interested also.

IMO: McCain started off quite early with low blow mud slinging. He brought out an affair with one of the candidates who has now dropped out -- ... now how is it that no one hears about HIS misfortunate seduction? McCain's ex wife was a beautifull model who was involved in a pretty serious car wreck .. she was disfigured and required a lengthy recovery .. during this time our politician was out having a fling, and later divorced his wife and married the woman he is with now! Hmmm now doesnt that make you wonder?

he wants to keep us in war, put us further in debt, make the rich richer, eliminate the middle class and put the entire country into depression. We are on our way there now, if we dont do something radical here we all are going to have some hard times ahead.

Hilary, I'm not even going to touch on that one. All i can say is she is a froot loop!

Brought this thread from the dead. Now that we have the game set we could start a new one.

Yes Obama wants us to be a socialist country I agree with you on that.
I think of McCain as one of the guys from Grumpy Old Men.

Mccain dropped a bomb naming his VP

HISTORY IS GONNA BE MADE WE'RE EITHER HAVING A FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OR THE FIRST WOMAN VICE PRESIDENT !!!!!!

I'm a swing voter i admit it i vote for who i think will make a change the only real thing i hate the most about mccain is the long haul war he's ready to commit 2 with a military shrinking in size and not enough brigades to fill the rotation slots we can't keep holding multiple fronts and making threats to other countrys i mean we are some badass mother fuckers but hey we'll all human also and commitment to longterm war is costly in many many many way to many ways this is my 4th year out of the last 6 i'm overseas its lame

And voting for obama i'm not to like big on doing it yet but he has some time to change my mind still mostly biden has to help him change my mind

Been seeing a lot of ppl getting on McCain's case about him making the commitment to the long haul on the war in Iraq.
Truth be told it doesn't matter who gets in office we are going to be there for an entirly long time anyway.

If I were still serving I would rather have a man committed to the fact of the matter and thus taking actions accordingly. Granted we don't know exactly what he will do since he isn't president. I'm just saying.

I would tend to agree with you Rep in the voting department. I vote for the canidate that I think will make the biggest changes that we need as a country. I don't really care what polictical party he belongs too.

So this is an email concerning McCain's VP choice that I received from MoveOn.org [which is admittedly very biased in favor of the Left] and it has some cited sources, so have a read if you care to...

Quote:

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

* She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
* She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
* She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
* How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7

This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=2

4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-7998819-1mbcJax&t=8

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 3.2 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Zachary B****** on August 30, 2008. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.

Moveon.org sorry but that would be like taking everything Rush said without using your own mind.

First off this whole thing about experience pisses me off.
Who says you have to have 20 years of it to become president much less vice-president. They seem to make a big deal about her being a small town mayor then only 2 years of governor.

35 years of age
Natural born American
Think thats all the exp you need.

Looks like to me the dems have it backwards with a less experienced guy in the president spot. Obama has nothing to brag about with his record. Atleast the reps have someone that knows how many states are in the US.
It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

Democrats were wondering if Obama had enough experience before he even said he was going to run.

Hes was only in the senate for 2 years.

I think he has just as much right to run as anyone else. But to harp on her for running as VICE-PRESIDENT is bullshit.

Didn't they learn in college that you can't use Wikipedia as a source? =x

Quote:

Didn't they learn in college that you can't use Wikipedia as a source? =x

Depends on who you are reffering to as "they".

As most of them probably were finished with colleges before wiki's ever exsisted.

1) I said in my post that MoveOn is super biased.

2) Take a look at what they cited Wikipedia for. It's a half-breath blurb about 2 offices she's held... Granted that Wikipedia shouldn't usually be used as an official source, I think this use is totally acceptable. Not to mention that most wiki articles concerning politicians are semi-protected, so all changes need to be approved before they're displayed.

I have no experiance but i'd be willing to bet i'd go down as the best president in history hands down Nationally and the most well liked ever Internationally

Until you find out that the guy who wins has always been the one who put the most money into his campaign, and the only way to raise that much money is by accepting donations in exchange for favors you have to pay back once you're president :P

Doesnt change the fact that he does not have very much exp. Where are all the articles about that?
Actually I dont care. The whole who has more exp is bullshit to me.
But if you make a point about one person, and the person you support has the same problem..............

Speaking from outside one of the UK forums I post on has done a poll with Mcain getting 12% and Obama getting over 80%.

Many of the republician ideals would go down very badly indeed here,

anti abortion, pro gun, anti stem cell research, creationist and wanting to teach that in science lessons, anti gay, someone with those views and I belive Palin has them would be concidered a nutjob in this country and those views are pretty common amoungst republicans.

We got alot of nutjobs in the US tho and Mccain might win Republicans vote that way reguardless of whos on the stage the democrats i believe do the same

Its the swing voters who are gonna decide the elections for the next 20 years

Quote:

anti abortion, pro gun, anti stem cell research, creationist and wanting to teach that in science lessons, anti gay, someone with those views and I belive Palin has them would be concidered a nutjob in this country and those views are pretty common amoungst republicans.

I got no problem admiting

Anti-Abortion/StemCell. I dont kill babys

Pro-Gun .... I'm in the Greatest military on the planet so DUH

Creationism ... Much of the world Believes in (God) in some form and America was a country based on it (In God We Trust) I would never deny God

Anti-Gay I just lol'ed if another guy wants to suck another guys dick lol whatever i just don't want it around me go and do whatever u want but don't bring it around me one of my friends i work with she is gay but doesn't flaunt it around us wearing panzie pink rainbows and try to convince us being gay is the way to be and we love her to death its all those other nutcases wearing spandex and holding signs and dressing in any god forgiving set up and trying to tell me being gay is the greatest experiance on earth is what i find sick just keep it away

I dont like the total views of either party to be honest ... I said what i hated about Mccain and the war so i'll say What i don't like About Obama/Democrat

I work hard very very hard and sacrifice alot in the military but my very best friend i have known for 22 years now who is 29 yr's old refuses to work has no motivation in life itself and smokes weed all day and its not even his weed ....... He gets Money from the goverment every single month and lives in an area where housing doesn't even cost him 25-50 dollars a month and he's perfectly healthy and is totally fine to live for free and enjoy it

I have problems with shit like that and its in alot of citys i live in cleveland and its everywhere ... I dont even wanna talk about the shit when u have kids and start getting money and free housing for it

we have driven people who want more then just the bullshit thats out there and we drive ourselfs to get more i gotta say i hate the freeloaders and the people who want to make it even easier for them thats just me tho

And if anyone doesn't believe people get free food free housing and more i'll start providing links once they get the shit for free they start depending on it and have 0 motivation to get a job i mean why should they hell

SHADE REPLY INC

RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANTRANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT

END RANT

I'm not planning to debate on any of those issues as debating homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion, creationism nearly always gets very devisive and with people getting upset and angry with each other and we certainly don't need that in the guild at the moment.

Was just illistrating how the democrats and republicans are viewed abroad.

There is a big difference though between beliveing in and loving God compared to beliveing every bit of the bible is literally true and that creationsim should be taught as fact in science lessons.

But anyway last I'm saying about it, my views on all of those subjects (other than the gun one where both sides make good arguements) are very very very different to a significant percentage of republicians.

I wouldnt debate those issues and i love u no matter what fleeting

Ditto mate

Quote:

Doesnt change the fact that he does not have very much exp. Where are all the articles about that?
Actually I dont care. The whole who has more exp is bullshit to me.
But if you make a point about one person, and the person you support has the same problem..............

All I did was quote an email I got so that people could get a quick gist... If I had a problem with people having very little experience then I probably would have supported Hilary instead of Obama in the primaries, but I don't. It's her radically conservative and, in turn, controlling political beliefs/policies that trouble me - if McCain takes office with this crazy bitch as his VP then we're fucked. If anyone feels that we wouldn't be completely fucked over, please tell me why!

Quote:

Speaking from outside one of the UK forums I post on has done a poll with Mcain getting 12% and Obama getting over 80%.

Many of the republician ideals would go down very badly indeed here,

anti abortion, pro gun, anti stem cell research, creationist and wanting to teach that in science lessons, anti gay, someone with those views and I belive Palin has them would be concidered a nutjob in this country and those views are pretty common amoungst republicans.

Stem cell research G.W. Bush is the only president that has ever given money to this. So anti stem cell he is not. Now I am thinking you mean the stem cells that you kill babys to get. But did you know that adult stem cells are where the money is at. With adult stem cells they have made great progress with and the baby killer ones they have not.

Anti abortion. So what. I dont think killing babys is a nice thing to do.

Creationist and wanting to teach that in science lessons. I send my kids to private school, they teach both not much of a problem there. BTW THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Its a theory because they havent proven it yet.

Not sure about the anti-gay thing I have not heard of a bill put up about outlawing them.

PRO GUN GOD I LOVE GUNS!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

I'm not planning to debate on any of those issues as debating homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion, creationism nearly always gets very devisive and with people getting upset and angry with each other and we certainly don't need that in the guild at the moment.

Was just illistrating how the democrats and republicans are viewed abroad.

There is a big difference though between beliveing in and loving God compared to beliveing every bit of the bible is literally true and that creationsim should be taught as fact in science lessons.

But anyway last I'm saying about it, my views on all of those subjects (other than the gun one where both sides make good arguements) are very very very different to a significant percentage of republicians.

We can debate just dont get mad about it. Unless your a politician then I dont like you.

We wont be fucked over because... What do think they are going to do. Force you to go to church??? Dont think so. Force you to get pregnate and not have a baby??? Dont think so.

First tell me what you think they are going to do to you. Things that have a real chance of happening. Not some biased political crap the other side is saying.

Lastly I am niether republican or democrat. So dont think I am defending anyone. I just dont like politicians in general.

Ladys and Gentle My Boy Helomoto is a lil mad it seems today and there isn't enough whiskey to settle him down heh dam T calm down bro :P

Quote:

We can debate just dont get mad about it. Unless your a politician then I dont like you.

I enjoy debateing these issues but it wouldn't be me who got mad or upset. It's almost impossible to debate someone who belives in creationism, intelligent design or in the literal interpretation of the Old Testement without offending or upseting them. After all you are in essence going to be trying to disprove everything they belive in.

As before I don't plan to debate these topics but will comment on a few of your misconceptions or misleading comments.

Quote:

Stem cell research G.W. Bush is the only president that has ever given money to this. So anti stem cell he is not. Now I am thinking you mean the stem cells that you kill babys to get. But did you know that adult stem cells are where the money is at. With adult stem cells they have made great progress with and the baby killer ones they have not.

Bush Vetoed the stem cell research bill that had been passed by the senate. It's true that currently the only tretments from stem cells come from adult stem cells, however embryonic stem cells are much more versatile and likely in the end to provide more treatments. Both types need continued research and both have the potential to save and improve the lives of many millions of people.

The word baby killer is wholey misleading, embryonic stem cells come from 4-5 day old embryos consisting of less than 150 cells, you can fit multiple of these embryos on the head of a pin and they are not babies. These stem cells come from embryos created for IVF treatments that and I'm sorry to use capitals but it's so important WERE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY!!!! or were going to be stored way past their life span which is in essense the same as destroying them. These embryos are far less life than the tiny flys that your car kills everytime you go anywhere and they are much much less life than the cow killed to put the yummy fillet steak on your plate.

Quote:

Anti abortion. So what. I dont think killing babys is a nice thing to do.

abortion is a much more difficult topic especially as the age in which a featus can survive gets lower, no one wants to kill a featus but many are pro choice and see abortion as a last resort. There are many cases where abortion is the better of two bad options. Of course the best thing to do is to put systems in place to reduce as much as possible the cases of unwanted pregnancy, again in general republicans and more specifically Palin and McCain fall down here with abstinance only policys that simply do not work. Sex eductation and information about controception are much more effective

Quote:

Creationist and wanting to teach that in science lessons. I send my kids to private school, they teach both not much of a problem there. BTW THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Its a theory because they havent proven it yet.

If you teach creationism in relgion classes and Evolution in science classes there is no problem, there certianly is a problem if you try to teach creationism in science classes and give it equal weight to evolution. People often use the word theory to attack evolution, in science a theory isn't a guess as it often is in everyday speech. Evolution has over 100 years of evidence and testing behind it. Evolution is both a theory and a fact just as the theory of gravity is both a theory and a fact. Exactly how they work are theorys but both gravity and evolution themselves are proven facts.

Shit I am not mad. I am the guy that walks up to a bear and pokes him in the eye with a stick.
I could care less what people think its up to them to belive what they want.
Just dont knock on my door and tell me to think like you.

Yes Bush did veto the last round of funding, but has funded before which included dead baby cells. Cant say that about any other president. The veto was to prevent a new line of dead baby cells to be used in research.

With stem cell the

is not the only country doing work in it. But yet adult stem cells are still the only one makeing results.
But where do you draw the line. It can come down to girls getting pregnate and selling to doctors. But this is another part of the debate on how far should we go. You can say its not killing babys all you want but they are still dead babys.

Anti abortion people are supprised when someone goes to term with a baby they know to have some form of defect. Enough said about that.

Theory -a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact

Sorry had to look that up I am not as smart as most of you. Hell I still think the world is flat. But evolution is still a theory.

The whole teaching religion thing I will not debate. I stated my solution and it works for me. My oldest daughter had the highest score on the yearly state test(forgot what it is called I told you I am stupid) so I really cant complain. They even taught her about dinosours!!!!!!

When you say "It's almost impossible to debate someone who belives in creationism, intelligent design or in the literal interpretation of the Old Testement without offending or upseting them. After all you are in essence going to be trying to disprove everything they belive in."

Flip that to what you belive in. I love how liberals bitch about people not being open minded but bitch even louder when everyone doesnt belive in what they say.
Not saying you are like that but I hear and see it alot.

Why do people have issues with someone beliving God created all life. Does it really effect you if they do.

Try some of what the teachers are teaching kids today that goes above and beyond what the text books have in them.

Global Warming being man made. Thats a theory. But how many kids had to sit through Al "the internet" Gores movie.
Why do so many people belive in it. LIBERAL propaganda(I hate the ultra right just as much as the ultra left). But thats ok????? There is no evidence suporting it but its the new religion.

Fuck I have to stop posting I sound like I am in a log cabin making letter bombs. No wonder rep thinks I am mad.

I will post my manifesto later.

Sweet Baby Jesus it looks even worst then I thought because I dont know how to line item qoute

You are correct about theories, however Evolution is still the mainstay of science, and does have a good degree of supporting evidence.

Not to say Intelligent Design and Evolution are incompatible... I dont think that in the least. Evolution is only incompatible with Old-Testament literalism.

If a man can dig a series of trenches on a hill, and thus predict where the water would flow if he brought a hose to the top and started pumping - who is to say God couldnt form
a ball of energy out of nothingness knowing ahead of time the form it would take when he released it, based on how he created it?

However, at the same time- Science, as in the best empirical work of the *VAST* majority of those PhD's who spend their lifes work attempting to understand biology, and the natural world hold evolution as far and away the most likely scenario to describe the actual mechanics of how the current state of life came to be on this planet.

Saying that modern science, or that any significant body of modern scientists support I.D. as an alternative theory is patently false.... and in science class, what should be taught are the views and deductions of scientists.

I think studying the metaphysical and religeous aspects are also important, culturally if nothing else - however it really irks me when people try and pass I.D. off as science... because its not.

Thats not to say people shouldnt believe in it, or the idea shouldnt be introduced to the young - but honestly I would think its proponents should work out their strategy to where they didnt have to rely on deception to attempt to achieve mainstream status with the ideal.

Those who push I.D. as true science do more to discredit the idea than anyone. Most people are smart enough to be able to believe something that science doesnt currently account for, because they also realize the infinite limitations of the state of modern science - its easy to tell that its rather incomplete, we are at the tip of the iceberg in relative terms to all the knowledge and understanding to be had in the universe.

However, science is the art of whats known, understood, and the best hypothesis, theories and work of those trying to make things known and understood.

Anything not falling under those criteria and having met the scrutiny of peer-review within the community should not be passed off as "science" and not sold as such to those who dont know any better. Its not fair to those who expect to learn science in a science class.

Quote:

The veto was to prevent a new line of dead baby cells to be used in research. But where do you draw the line. It can come down to girls getting pregnate and selling to doctors. But this is another part of the debate on how far should we go. You can say its not killing babys all you want but they are still dead babys.

As I've already said there is hundreds of thousands of embryos that have been created for IVF that are being destroyed or kept untill they are useless. Even if you belive these embryo's are babies (which they arn't) they are going to be destroyed anyway, why would you not want to potentially develop treatments to save and improve millions of lives with these cells rather than throwing them in the bin?

Quote:

With stem cell the is not the only country doing work in it. But yet adult stem cells are still the only one makeing results.

There are only a few treatments involveing stem cells at the moment but there is the potential for thousands more, research takes alot of time, often decades. Using embryonic stem cells is more complex and so it will take longer to produce treatments, however there is more flexability and potential with these cells than the adult ones, it takes longer to get there but the potential rewards are greater.

Quote:

Anti abortion people are supprised when someone goes to term with a baby they know to have some form of defect. Enough said about that.

I don't really understand that comment, was the anti abortion people a typo? if you meant pro choice people then it's of course a very difficult and complex question with no easy answer, it depends on the funding and situations of the parents and what the condition the child will have is. There is no right answer here, it's just many many shades of grey.

Quote:

Theory -a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact

Sorry had to look that up I am not as smart as most of you. Hell I still think the world is flat. But evolution is still a theory.

Ok, I clearly didn't explain myself properly. Evolution is NOT a theory, Evolution is fact. There is a huge ammount of evidence proving that evolution is fact, just as one small example look at certain bacteria that were once treatable by antibotics but they have now evolved to a state where they are not treatable by antibotics.

The theory of evolution is more about explaining the mechanisisms about how evolution happens these are the theorys.

Many creationists and people who take the Old testement literally try to use the word theory (as you have) to discredit Evolution, this is wrong.

Quote:

The whole teaching religion thing I will not debate.

There is nothing wrong with teaching relgion, in fact it's a good thing, however teaching things in science classes that are quite simply wrong like the earth is less than 10,000 years old isn't acceptable. Your daughter sounds very intelligent, congratulations.

Quote:

Flip that to what you belive in. I love how liberals bitch about people not being open minded but bitch even louder when everyone doesnt belive in what they say.
Not saying you are like that but I hear and see it alot.

This is a fallacy, science by it's very defintion wants to be challenged. Views of scientists are not in any way sacred, if evidence is provided that shows one of my beliefs to be wrong I will change my belief, I see this as the only logical way to think.

If I were to debate weather the Old Testement was literally true with someone who belives it is I will offend them, I don't see anyway I can put my views across along with the facts that won't offend them.

Quote:

Why do people have issues with someone beliving God created all life. Does it really effect you if they do.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't have a problem with what people belive, if you belive in something that helps you through life and helps you to be a better person then great.

However and it's a big however what people belive does affect me and does affect the world I live in when these people run for president or in the case of Palin run for a postion one old man heartattack away from presdient. At this point it's no longer the right thing to do to stay quiet to avoid offence, you have to speak out for what is right.

Agreed Derid, it's perfectly possible to belive in science and at the same time belive in God and the fact he guided the creation of the earth, as long as you don't insist on the literal translation of the Old Testment. There are also many other good reasons not to belive the Old Testment is literal other than the fact it's disproved by science.

I think you miss understood what some of what I was saying. First of my kids school have seperate religion and science classes. I agree with you that they should be seperate.
I guess I dont know what you mean by the world is 10,000 years old. Who the hell belives that.

I may be wrong but Bush will not give money to those but is it against the law for private research to use them????
Everytime you say they are not babys I will say they are killing babys

Not anti but crazy left wing liberals is what I meant. Those that will kill a baby with downs syndrom just because it may be alittle harder to raise them. And yes there is a right answer no grey areas.

Every time you say evolution is not a theory I will say evolution is a theory.

Are you saying Palin belives the world is 10,000 years old??

I wont vote for Obama because he is a socialist/commy. And his god is Karl Marx. I could careless what his religion is.
Did you hear what Obama's minister rants and raves about, do you really know what Obama belives in?
I would rather have Clinton as president before Obama, atleast you know what she is all about.

I think Obama is better than Clinton, but I have an almost impossible time supporting a Socialist myself... but I consider Bush pretty Socialist in practice, even if his friends and cohorts are industrial elites.

If McCain were the McCain of 8 years ago I would have no issues voting for him, in fact I voted for him in the GOP primaries... however the new, NeoCon face of McCain is rather unsettling... combined with his age.

Impossible pick either way TBH.

Best case Scenario would be Obama getting President and conservatives controlling congress... not thinking this is a likely scenario, but it would be the most ideal.

Obama to combat the remnants of the Bush taint, and root out the obviously incompetant and corrupt ( even though Obamas replacements wouldnt likely be saints themselves, internal buearacratic conflict and changing personel would help alot of things) and a conservative congress to simply not pass Socialist legislation...

Embroil the whole govt in deadlock, and political fighting.

That is the best case scenario that has even a remote possibility of happening.

I havent been following yours and Fleetings debate all that closely but I think I know what Fleeting meant in regard to this.

Quote:

I guess I dont know what you mean by the world is 10,000 years old. Who the hell belives that.

Man or any of its variants have only been around for about 10,000 years.

I could be totally wrong but that is what I am guessing he is pointing to.

I think fleeting meant how according to the general stretches of time and years between stories thrown around in the bible, if you follow the bible in a literal, rather than metaphorical sense (which a surprisingly large amount of extremely ignorant people do) then you pretty much believe that the world is 10,000 years old, even though through Carbon dating we can prove it's... I believe 4 billion years old.

Humans have been on the earth I'm pretty sure about 70,000 years actually.

Really, at about 19 days, heartbeat begins. I think brainwaves don't begin for around 3 months though. It's hard to really draw the line as to when an embryo changes from being a parasite living off the mother, to being an independent life-form.

I mean, if you want to say the second the Zygote forms and cells start splitting, then that's already a baby with a life, then what's really the difference between a zygote composed of 2 cells, and the 2 cells apart? Technically, cells are alive. In which case, the egg and the sperm are alive. In which case, you're killing millions of lives every time you beat off.

Obviously you're not going to consider a sperm a living human, I mean, it only has half of the necessary chromosomes, but I'm just saying, there's a really shady boundary with when life begins and when it doesn't.

I don't see what's so hard about the idea of separation of church and state. People treat the fucking government like when there's that little kid picking fights in elementary school, but then getting his big friend to back him up. People don't agree with say... gay marriage because of religion, but then try to get their buddies in the government to stand up for that stance and pass a bullshit religious agenda. And it's really like that for so many of these issues. That's really why I'll be voting Obama, it's an extremely critical time in our country's history, socially speaking, and I don't want an ignorant religious agenda to pretty much control what research can and can not be done, who people can and can't marry, whether or not a woman can have an abortion, etc.

Let's speak about gay marriage. I'm straight and I love it, as I'm almost 100% sure everyone in the KGB is. And although some of you might flat out hate/be disgusted by gays, I'm almost sure most of us feel like Represent explained the other day "I don't mind as long as they don't go hitting on me." Well guess what, they know society feels like that, and unless they're drunk and stupid, they know better than to hit on straight guys. They usually know when someone is gay, and pretty much keep their advances within the gay community. Past that, who cares if they get married or not? Are your balls going to fall off because two men just got married? No, it doesn't affect your life in any way, so just get over it and stop being so intrusive into other people's personal lives. Flat out, bottom line, it's discrimination. It's bullshit to preach Civil Rights and act about how archaic it was to have double-standards for Blacks v. Whites, but then do the same to Straights v. Gays. On top of that, in many cases, such as insurance, beneficiaries need to legally be married to the person with the insurance plan or whatever the case may be. In this case, gays are being royally screwed at the moment, and this is something that needs to be corrected. It's simply not fair to take rights away from any group of people that you're giving to the rest of the citizens.

How about stem cells? You know what, sure, it might be killing baby. Honestly, if the government deemed that anything before the 2nd trimester (I'm pretty sure still not even the size of your fist) is abortable, I don't see why science can't use it to save lives. Think about all the shit that stem cells can be used for. They can completely change the world. Fleeting has muscular dystrophy, no? And although I've heard some of those degenerative muscle diseases can be helped through the use of steroids, I'm sure it's just a way to stall the progress. On the other hand, although I personally haven't looked into stem cells' abilities to cure that condition, I'm sure Fleeting has, and that's why he's gunning for stem cell research, and maybe if he doesn't mind he could enlighten us as to what exactly the disease causes, and how stem cells could cure it. My Step-Father has Multiple Sclerosis. Pretty much what happens with MS is its an auto-immune disease where your white blood cells attack the lining of the nerves on the way to certain parts of your body. These linings act as insulators so that the nerves only react to signals you're specifically sending them, rather than any electrical signal nearby them. When this lining is gone, they get too much "white noise" and if you have any motion at all in the affected limb, it's just a fraction of the strength of what it used to be. My stepdad was in a wheel chair for I believe about six weeks, and then the attacks stopped. Through a bunch of physical therapy he was able to slowly get up and walk with a cane, and eventually without a cane. But he still walks slow as hell, he has a horrible limp (I guess on both legs) he can barely lift his legs, he can't run, he can barely climb stairs with much help of the railing, he can't kick shit, etc. Bush was all for stem cells at first cause he was on Reagan's Alzheimerous dick. There hope that stem cells could regenerate the cells that were dying in Alzheimer's patients' brains (forgot their name at the moment, all I can think is Axioms, which isn't their name. It'll come back to me eventually, but by then I'm sure someone will have said the name of braincells in a reply :P.) Also for example for people with organ failures, there is hope that with Stem Cells we could pretty much grow entire organs, rather than harvest them off other humans. Not just this, but the idea is it'll actually match the recipients' bodies, so that they won't have to take immuno-suppressant drugs so the body's white cells don't attack the foreign organ. There are a lot of bad diseases out there that Stem Cells can help. You're going to tell me that because you're killing the equivalent of one of the eggs you get at the super market, that this research shouldn't be further explored? Please, give me a break.

I've spent like half an hour if not more writing this. I'll speak about abortions some other time.

Err... just realized I sort of missed the whole point about MS. So the goal with stem cells is that they can somehow regenerate that lining to the nerves, therefore allowing those body parts to receive signals correctly again.

Quote:

I think you miss understood what some of what I was saying. First of my kids school have seperate religion and science classes. I agree with you that they should be seperate. I guess I dont know what you mean by the world is 10,000 years old. Who the hell belives that.

I think you misunderstood me originally, I strongly belive in religion being taught in schools and don't know anyone that doesn't even the most staunch of atheists.

However science should be totally sperate, my issue is with Palin and other creationists and people who take the old testement literally that want to teach creation as an alternative to evolution in science classes. There is a very significant percentage of people in America that belive this and there are already many places where this happens.

These people despite all the evidence to the contary belive the earth to be between 6000-10000 years old, they belive that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans but became extinct shortly after the great flood.

Quote:

Are you saying Palin belives the world is 10,000 years old??

I don't know her exact date but yes thats pretty close to it, Honestly I'm astonished that you have not heard this before, it's the view of around a 1/3rd of Americans. According to a Gallup poll

Quote:

Not anti but crazy left wing liberals is what I meant. Those that will kill a baby with downs syndrom just because it may be alittle harder to raise them. And yes there is a right answer no grey areas.

No I'm sorry the world isn't that simple and take it from someone who knows. You have to take many things into account when decideing if it's in everyones interests to have a disabled child.

You have to make sure you can afford the child, It might well mean never working, will you be able to deal with that? financially and emotionally. You have to know that you might be giving up alot of your life for the child and you need to know it won't make you bitter, if you arn't going to be happy the child won't be either. You have to decide are you going to be able to entertain someone who can't go and play football with their friends, do you have the time and the money to provide entertianment? what about pain and quality of life, is someone who is deaf, blind and dumb ever going to be happy? is it more merciful not to bring them into the world? what about cronic pain, how about dignity? are you happy to be wiping an adults bum for them for ever or washing their penis? will they be happy for you to do this or will they feel they have no dignity at all?

The child needs to feel they bring something to the world, if you feel all you bring to the world is pain, if you feel you are a burden and make people unhappy and stop them living their life do you want to live feeling this?

Quote:

Every time you say evolution is not a theory I will say evolution is a theory.

I don't know how to explain it to you evolution is a fact, seperate to that is the theory of evolution.

Do you belive gravity is a fact? the same applies here, gravity is a fact but exactly how gravity works is the theory of gravity.

Evolution is a Fact.

Quote:

Did you hear what Obama's minister rants and raves about, do you really know what Obama belives in?

Obamas minister is a nut job too just like Palin, Obama doesn't belive what his minister belives though.

holding that belief of literalists/young earth creationists requires a remarkable amount of denial of objective evidence and the like which to my mind implies issues with reasoning and logic and therefor anyone with these views are not suitable to run a country.

Great Post Bibliotequa. Agree with you on pretty much all of it.

I too am 100% hetrosexual but belive very strongly in equal rights and equal benefits for gays.

It's true that I have muscular dystropy like Toxiclore however my views on stem cell research are not related to my disablity.

Stem cell research or Gene therapy has almost no chance of being ready in time to save my life my views are based on what I think is best for the world.

My views on abortion of disabled babies though in certain circumstances is of course strongly coloured by my experiences and feelings and I'm also pro euthanasia.

Quote:

Stem cell research G.W. Bush is the only president that has ever given money to this. So anti stem cell he is not. Now I am thinking you mean the stem cells that you kill babys to get. But did you know that adult stem cells are where the money is at. With adult stem cells they have made great progress with and the baby killer ones they have not.

Anti abortion. So what. I dont think killing babys is a nice thing to do.

Abortion - A woman should choose what to do with her own body, not the government. US OUT OF THE UTERUS.

Stem Cell Research - Seems you have been drinking the republican coolade. Do you know what they do with the extra fetus's from reproductive therapy? They throw them in freaking trash can. Why not use them for something good instead of sending them to the landfill. Noone is talking about using abortions for harvesting stem cells.

Quote:

Abortion - A woman should choose what to do with her own body, not the government. US OUT OF THE UTERUS.

QFT

That's pretty much what I was trying to get across, but in terms of all the issues. The government has no right intruding in people's personal lives like that. Especially when they're intruding on the behalf of Religious zealots who just can't stand the fact that other people aren't living the pious lives they are or whatever their reasoning is.

The biggest problem with abortion is that there are just so many gray areas. I can see why people would be against abortions out of convenience (like say I knock up my girlfriend, and since we're both students we just decide to abort since we're not ready to be parents) even though... I still think it's the relationship's decision, not the government or the community's. Really though, like Fleeting said, it could be an abortion because you know the kid may have a disability, or it may be an abortion because the woman was raped or something. Maybe you're just poor as shit and know you'll be giving your 9th child a really shitty life by bringing him into the world. There are just too many gray boundaries, and a law can't be passed as a blanket statement to encompass all those situations.

I had no idea that excess embryos were just thrown out like that. I guess even more reason to promote stem cell research. Like you said, at least put it to good use. Not to desensitize the issue, but it's sort of like back in the early 1900s when Kerosene was THE chemical to refine from crude oil. Gasoline was seen almost as a waste. Then scientists/engineers decided to find a use for it, and look at what a powerhouse it is today.

By the way, thanks Fleeting. And I wasn't saying that you're pro-stem cell because you have MD or anything. I mean, clearly from the rest of your views you seem to be a pretty logically-thinking, religiously-detached guy, and there are plenty of people who won't benefit from Stem Cell research in any way, but think the same way and see that the benefits from Stem Cell research are too good to just ignore. And yeah, I guess you're right that chances are slim that a cure would come in time to cure you (which was a horribly sad thing to read by the way... I think I'll take that to a PM) but I assumed since you are affected by a disease which Stem Cells might be able to cure, you'd care about that topic greatly, because even if you or your generation doesn't benefit from it, years down the line people like you will. And I don't know, I just figured you wouldn't wish MD upon anyone, and if there is any chance of someone getting up and playing a game of soccer with their buddies, or whatever the activity you miss/long for the most is, then you'd be all for that. So I guess really, I did think that you having MD was part of your reason for supporting stem cell research, although not necessarily your only reason, and not necessarily our of a desire for it to save you specifically, but just because you relate to the issue.

1) Evolution is fact. We can see the impact of evolution every single day (and without stretching the imagination!). Of course scientists and the like get to watch bacteria and such evolve regularly, but the rest of us have to settle for evidence such as dog breeding. Breeding dogs is premeditated evolution; breeders take dogs with ideal traits and put them together until they make doggy babies. Then they do it again with the generation of dogs they just bred. This is how new breeds of dog *evolve* into existence.

If you deny that evolution is fact, then you aren't paying attention to the shit that goes on around you every day.

However, I understand that the controversy surrounding the battle between "creationists" and "evolutionists" can be very confusing at times.

It *is* (and this is where the argument is relevant) theory that all life evolved from single-cell organisms that magically appeared one day several billion years ago. At first glance, it seems just as improbable as an invisible sky-daddy deciding our rock needed a little something to spice it up a bit. It is a theory because we have no way of going all the way back to the origin of life and watching it happen. For questioning this, I respect you (as long as you can admit that your beliefs sound just as ridiculous as mine).

2) If we aren't going to let people abort unborn babies to prevent a whole fuckton of unnecessary bullshit then we should give them the right to eat them after they're born!

As a side note I would like to discredit any future rebuttal that may play on the idea that "those (born or unborn) babies are tomorrow's future." Aborting a fetus isn't something people go out and do for shits and giggles, abortions are a responsible way of maintaining the integrity of our social structure.

For 9 months babies are parasites, and then they enter the real world where they rely on us to be responsible and well-off enough to take care of them for 18 years. In the interest of unborn babies everywhere: no one deserves to be raised by parents who don't want them; no one deserves to be raised by parents who can't afford to feed them or bring them to the doctor; and no one deserves to be raised by parents who suck at life so bad that they think having sex doesn't make babies.

I personally believe that abortion should be mandatory unless a couple can meet certain criteria based on levels of education and income (not to say everyone needs a college degree and a desk job, but high school diploma and relevant real-life experience should be required), and can provide a rough outline of how they plan to manage their jobs, time, and money in a way which will provide to the child. It doesn't need to be a tedious procedure, but everyone should be required to prove they can take care of themselves and a child before they should be allowed to raise a child.

Quote:

By the way, thanks Fleeting. And I wasn't saying that you're pro-stem cell because you have MD or anything. I mean, clearly from the rest of your views you seem to be a pretty logically-thinking, religiously-detached guy, and there are plenty of people who won't benefit from Stem Cell research in any way, but think the same way and see that the benefits from Stem Cell research are too good to just ignore. And yeah, I guess you're right that chances are slim that a cure would come in time to cure you (which was a horribly sad thing to read by the way... I think I'll take that to a PM) but I assumed since you are affected by a disease which Stem Cells might be able to cure, you'd care about that topic greatly, because even if you or your generation doesn't benefit from it, years down the line people like you will. And I don't know, I just figured you wouldn't wish MD upon anyone, and if there is any chance of someone getting up and playing a game of soccer with their buddies, or whatever the activity you miss/long for the most is, then you'd be all for that. So I guess really, I did think that you having MD was part of your reason for supporting stem cell research, although not necessarily your only reason, and not necessarily our of a desire for it to save you specifically, but just because you relate to the issue.

Thanks, yes you are right and I agree, just wanted to make it clear that my feelings were just about what was best for humanity and not in anyway selfish.

Thanks for your PM by the way and I will be very happy to respond to all your questions, however my wifes family are arriving in a few minutes and are staying for the weekend, so it will probably be Monday when I next have time to write out a long post. I wanted to comment now though so you didn't feel you had offended me with your questions.

Cheers
Tim

1. I belive abortion is wrong, but I belive in the womans right to decided.

2. I belive life begins at conception, but I have no problem with stem cell research. But slingers ideas of who can and who cant have babys is a little out there. Where the hell will we get all the ditch diggers from if your plan takes effect.

3. I belive in God and evolution. Some may think this is a contradiction but fuck them.

4. I belive the power of the states have been slowly taken away, and that the federal government has overstepped it bounds.

For the most part I have been playing devils advocate. I have decided to stop. Above you see my true beliefs on some issues. I am sorry if I pissed anyone off but this is how I am in real life.

Oh it's cool man, I'd be fine getting the reply anytime you have a chance to give it, whether it be monday, or a month down the line. That's actually how I was feeling when I saw you'd gone on the oracle but hadn't replied. I just thought "well fuck, that's the last time Fleeting every says a word to me." Well yeah, thanks.

Quote:

3. I belive in God and evolution. Some may think this is a contradiction but fuck them.

I agree with you. I was talking to an avid christian and I asked him point blank do you believe in evolution. He said yes, God is smart enough to create everything and he also created evolution. Which makes total sense when you think about it.

I do not believe in god, maybe a higher power of some sort or spirituality. I really do not believe there is one all omnipotent being that answers to no one or nothing.

I love this stuff Hele, it provokes thought if not anything else!

Absolutely. This is by far one of the best oracle conversations in a long time. Everyone has their own opinions, and it's nice to hear them, and the reasoning for them. As long as people don't get heated/pissed off at each other, it's all good.

I think it was said best in the 1993 movie Rudy:

"Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I'm not Him. "