ART 355 Paging ART 355 Where are you??????
The difference is that though everyone believes that an adult human being is a life, it is only a certain religion that views a fetus as a life. Science has reached another conclusion: that the fetus is simply a part of the woman's body until it is capable of surviving on its own and therefore to remove it is not taking a life. My objection to the death penatly, if any, is not because I think it's wrong to kill a guilty man. It's because our system is not reliable enough to convince me that they are always getting the right guy. Remember all those death row inmates released in Illinois when DNA evidence proved them innocent? If we can't trust that the right guy has been convicted, then we'd better not kill them. If I witnessed someone kill my family, would I want to kill them? Damn sure I would. But I wouldn't ask my government to do my dirty work for me.
yes, i saw meet the press and must say that i was made even more angry. how is this possible that enlightened voters can rally around this guy? i wanted to post my comments ...truth is i cannot as i do not know where to start! the only comment: the emperor has no cloths! lets not even get started on the independent council to investigate intel. last, did anyone actually count dubyah's refs to "winning the war on terror"? simply ashamed, pcb
Perhaps you can tell us what scientific literature and research PROVES this. I'm a PhD student in biomedical engineering and haven't seen it out there. The fetus isn't just a tissue extension of the woman's body... it is without a doubt genetically a completely different entity. Brad
.Not if the woman only looked do-able after six beers, has three kids already, isn't looking for a relationship, and you're married. Luke
brad, while i'm not a doctor, my parents both happen to be. your point is valid as is slim's of sorts. i think the issue that slim was making was more to illustrate the issue of a women's right to choice, not the technical nature. slim , if i am wrong and have spoken out of school, i apologize. and to bikardi (clever name...i like it!) there are many articles in jama and the new england journal of medicine that address the issue of the the fetus and when it really becomes viable. bikardi, i am hopeful that you will look into this as you are a in the process of getting your phd, you may or may not find it enlightening. my father has written on the subject and if interested look him up in the campus library in the ref. section. his name is dr. charles davenport cook and you will find his bio in the publication, who's who in america. he is am impressive man and i hope you will enjoy his research. best, peter
brad, one last comment, perhaps most important: cheers to you for working on your phd! i wish i had the endurance to have done it as well. i ran out of gas after the mba program. where are you in school? good luck on your path!! hey , this is a ferrari site so i must ask...what ferrari's do you have in your sights? peter
You see what happened to this thread?? We start talking politics and bantering about the Left Democrats... and the Right Republicans. and BOOM we are into a debate on Abortion. WTF. 2 things to add Letterman the other night did a skit "George W Bush - Genius" I almost chucked up a lung it was so funny. Basically it was Bush getting stuck on a tough word and then comparing it to Porky Pig....... Anyone catch 60 min last night.....
Thanks Pete, as far as my point refered to, I was replying to the statement that the fetus was apart of the the woman's body, not an entity of it's own.(As for Luke's argument...cicumstances DO NOT negate facts). I'm sure there is alot of debate on when a fetus is viable outside the womb and I haven't researched that so I'll leave it be. I will say that there are cases where people who are badly injured or are exremely ill aren't viable without outside help (like machines or whatnot), but I think everyone would agree that they are alive. And for the left wing guys and gals out there... I'm not really for the death penalty either... I think there would be better/harsher punishments (life in the frozen tundra working 16 hrs. a day comes to mind, but I digress). I think if you guys would offer a real alternative punishment(equally harsh) to the death penalty, more people from the right might get on board. Anyway, I think this thread is been sufficiently hijacked so I'll leave these discussions for another day. I'm finishing my first year now and will also be starting my first year of MBA classes next fall (I'm doing a dual degree). I haven't really made a decision as far as what car to go for... I guess that depends on the $$ after school. Realistically, maybe a 328 GTB, but one can dream right? I also like the 512 TR among others... I'm just here to learn as much as I can in the time being. P.S. bikardi??? Are you refering to my screen name? If so, it wasn't intentional although now that I look at it, it is quite funny. It's actually based on my name. Brad
I just got back from Central America, nice vacation. I just read this thread, and one thing seems to come out from all of the banter: 1. Those who support Bush seem to make excuse after excuse regarding his economics. Word after word, excusing the terrible condition we're in. I know that despite out lack of knowledge, we still seem to think that Clinton didn't do what he did: get us out of deficit spending, reduce inflation, and create a great economy that employed almost all of us. However we do have a source, whose still in government, and if he wants, will be reappointed by George Bush: Alan Greenspan, who in his book, credited Clinton with the economic compromises that made a strong contribution towards the great economy. I suggest that for those of you still in school, you need to read his book: Maestro (sp?). That would, in my humble opinion put a stop to this blatter and incoherent support for what history will show as an incompetent dolt who destroyed what took so many others so long to build. Those from the right who'd bash everyone who disagreed with them, I have this one thought: what if you're wrong? Could be, you know. If you recall, all of you, a year ago, thought I was an idiot for suggesting that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq was a war of conquest. Kay has spoken, and guess what: I was right. Not because I'm any smarter than you, but because I've seen this before: age does have a way of making us look a little smarter on occassion. In my humble opinion, survival of this country is probably conditioned upon getting "schrub" out of office as soon as legally possible. He's been a disaster and it isn't looking any better. As to those who can't tolerate different opinions, feel free to put me on your ignore list. Information is power, even if you don't like the words you're hearing. Art
one could also argue that things could be much worse given the popping of the BIGGEST BUBBLE in US history. sure anybody can create an good economy in the short run but it was obviously not sustainable. we will never know.... yeah, all those internet jobs.... real value added. as far as WMD. given the suprises in n korea, libya, pakistan. imho, much more prudent to assume that he did (like everyone else did at the time).
Am I the only one who watched 60 min last night? The thrust of the article was about how "Emboldened" the Radical side of Christian Coalition was feeling with Bush in the white house. And how the now Former Judge from Mississippi who did the Ten Commandment's showdown is being encouraged to run for President by the more distant arm of the Republican party..... Anyone else see the humor / worry in this??
HENRYR: Matybe a bubble, maybe just a good economy. Who knows. What I do know is that Clinton=good times. Bush=Bad times. Simple reality check. Greenspan is a lot bighter than I, perhaps even you. He seems to think that Clinton was the cause of the good times. Don't let facts get in the way of your analysis. If on the other hand you know an economist of equal stature, I'd be pleased to learn of his reasoning behind the good economy when Clinton was in office. If you have such, please post. As to the war issue, there was a very easly solution, one that we, the US has followed for about 150 years: don't start wars without just cause, which in the past has meant that someone has attacked us. Bush, Cheeney, Wolfowitz, Rice, et al chose to change the parameters with their false claims. On the one hand, if they were wrong, I have yet to hear an apology from them, indeed what I'm hearing is that they are either lying now about why, or they were wrong then, but their very refusal to admit to a serious error leads me to believe they were lying them (a position I held even prior to the attack on Iraq). An honest man makes a mistake, they acknowledge it and move on. A liar or cheat doesn't admit to a mistake, they try to cover it up (just like Clinton, but when evaulting the respective guilt remember that Clinton was hiding an indescresion, but Bush et al killed thousands). It amazes me that the Christian right has this hatred of Clinton, but seem to forget that if we take the 10 commandments in their order, that the 1st one is "Thou shall not kill". Selective thought processes is my simple minded analysis. Art
Of course those folks who love those Clinton good ole days will patiently wait a few years until interest rates go back up to 10% before they buy that new house or car. Because they wouldn't want to participate in a "bad" economy. I'll bet they are just "giddy with glee" when it comes to spending money that they don't have to, especially when it's all in the name of being a good liberal.
Damn, if that's not the dumbest argument I've heard lately. "Sure, many people say the riots were horrible for the city, but not me, I got this big screen for 'free!' The rates are a symptom of the poor economy. Give me 2000 IT salaries and I'll take the 10% any day! Luke.
So you're equating thieves and vandals with people who voluntarily walk into a bank and take advantage of low interest rates to purchase or refinance their homes? The economy IS, and always HAS BEEN, a double ended rope. When one end gets pulled, the people on the other end have it bad. But eventually it comes their time to "pull the rope" and the economy swings back their way. In today's economy, the little people finally get a chance to buy a home or new car without lining the wallets of the big shots for a change. OF COURSE Big Daddy Big Bucks is proclaiming that the sky is falling. He wants to return to the glory days of high interest and fat loan interest dollars that pay for HIS new Ferrari. Oh boo hoo hoo. Big Daddy is having to drive around in last year's model. Cry me a river.
Great argument Arlie, but you seem to have forgotten all those people who are no longer employed. Bet their not driving their new Ferraris. The economy isn't a zero sum game, when the lake goes up, everyone one gains. Interest rates weren't that high under Clinton. Check it out, the 10% was under George Bush Senior, not Billy boy. Art
Of course not. You're claiming the silver lining makes the whole storm cloud worth while. That's dumb. Sure, people are buying (bigger) homes that once couldn't, but the rates will go up, and what then? All I'm saying is that I highly doubt ANYONE at ANY END of the economic latter in this country prefers today's economy over the one that existed 4 years ago, big house or not. ..except maybe the repo men. Luke.
But the 5.5 % is right now, under George W., and the people walking into a bank RIGHT NOW, are better off than they were when Billy Boy was online. Even a fraction of a percentage point makes a ton of difference over the life of a loan. And for "all those people who are no longer employed", strange that I don't know of any, and haven't run across any, and I'm no wealthy big whig at all. If the economy is so BAD, wouldn't I have run across a few friends or relatives who have hit the skids? No sledding among any of the folks that I know. But here's one that will make you feel better Art: you said, "when the lake goes up, everyone one gains." I suppose that's like Republican Ronnie Reagan's "trickle down economics" theory. For what it's worth, I didn't know anybody who was doing any great prospering under the "trickle down" theory either. The rich are always rich no matter what the economy. Why not let the little guy enjoy a few low interest "good times" for once?
If the rates go up, so what? The people who got into their loans at low rates are laughing all the way to the bank. I have a friend who refinanced all his properties when the interest rates were rock bottom. He's saving a ton of money. Ask him how "bad" this economy is? And if the rates eventually go up, according to your theory, everything will be better. So what's the big worry? Or is that just economic "whistling in the graveyard"?
