Here's to perspective...

[Rob Graham]

No fetus is viable in the first trimester. That is a simple statement of fact. Even with the most aggressive medical assistance, a fetus of three months or less will not survive outside the womb. It is therefore not viable. In the opinion of some, it is also not yet a human life entitled to the same protections given those fully formed humans outside the womb. The assertion that such a fetus is from the moment of conception forward, a self-aware human life and deserving the full protection accorded a breathing human is a religious decision. No legal opinion has been presented on that subject, nor can one be presented because it is simply not possible to determine at what point the fetus becomes self-aware. This is exactly the decision rendered by Roe v. Wade, which overturned Texas' prohibition of abortion based on the fetus not having the protection of the constitution before it is viable, rather than on some definition of when life begins. It found that the mothers right to terminate was based in the due process clause of the constitution (specifically the majority opinion cited section 1 of the 14th amendment which prohibits the states from abridging the un-enumerated rights of citizens. The Appeals court decision that preceded the Supreme Court case found the same justification in the 9th amendment). The court in no way made any legal determination as to when life begins. They instead chose to define at what point life acquires the rights of a citizen. I see no point in belaboring this any further. As I pointed out, my original point had to due with the negative impact this issue has on the resolution of all others, not on the correctness of one position or another with regard to this issue. Personally, I find abortion tragic and would neither recommend nor support it, but agree with the courts finding on the superiority of the mothers rights up until the fetus is viable. Your dogged pursuit of this issue only serves to emphasize the accuracy of my original point.

[Rob Graham]

Stan Shannon wrote:

And we are not debating abortion, we are debating Roe v Wade. Two completely separate issues.

Not so's I can tell. On both points.

Stan Shannon wrote:

In fact, I do not. A capitalistic society cannot exist without a moral foundation controlled by the people.

And since the only "moral foundation" you accept is a religious one, you concede the original point, that you would have a religious belief determine the law, which is different how from the Taliban (other than in choice of religion and degree)? Bah, enough. You shout in circles like Ilion, not wishing to convince but rather to berate.

[Stan Shannon]

Rob Graham wrote:

Bah, enough. You shout in circles like Ilion, not wishing to convince but rather to berate.

Rob, you people are absolutely incredible. I have presented well reeasoned objections to each of your points. I merely claim that religious inspired political opinions are as viable as any other, even though I largely disagree with them myself. You started this debate by accusing me of being like the taliban, and you end if with accusing me of being like the taliban while at each step of the way you have ridiculed and belittled those who take a principled, moral stance against things with which they disagree. And the reason they are not supposed to do that is (a) the supreme court said so, and (b) we have money problems. And then you turn right around and say you didn't. ANd unless I agree with you, I'm demonized as being like the evil Illion. God all mighty... This is precisely why I am perfectly comfortable with the economic meltdown. It is time for this insanity to end. No civilization can survive such a blatant abandonment of even the slightest shred of common sense and logic such as you exhibit, economy or no economy.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Rob Graham wrote:

In the opinion of some, it is also not yet a human life entitled to the same protections given those fully formed humans outside the womb. The assertion that such a fetus is from the moment of conception forward, a self-aware human life and deserving the full protection accorded a breathing human is a religious decision. No legal opinion has been presented on that subject, nor can one be presented because it is simply not possible to determine at what point the fetus becomes self-aware. This is exactly the decision rendered by Roe v. Wade, which overturned Texas' prohibition of abortion based on the fetus not having the protection of the constitution before it is viable, rather than on some definition of when life begins. It found that the mothers right to terminate was based in the due process clause of the constitution (specifically the majority opinion cited section 1 of the 14th amendment which prohibits the states from abridging the un-enumerated rights of citizens. The Appeals court decision that preceded the Supreme Court case found the same justification in the 9th amendment). The court in no way made any legal determination as to when life begins. They instead chose to define at what point life acquires the rights of a citizen.

Well what about those who disagree? You are saying that you want them to be abandoned. To be given no access to any political means to express their disagreement. That is exactly what your entire argument is based upon.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[peterchen]

The markets.. yes. You do realize that all this attempts to "help" the market are actually about the people that depend on them?

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist

[Stan Shannon]

peterchen wrote:

You do realize that all this attempts to "help" the market are actually about the people that depend on them?

I realize its an attempt to enslave the people who would otherwise be free in a free market system. And you realize, dont you, that none of this is going to work. The situation for the people who depend on the markets is only going to worsen because of government.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[peterchen]

Free markest create free people? We should start with killing the restrictions on slavery then. How much freedom a free slave market could bring to people! Seriously. I realize that none of the savings packages will prevent anything similar in the future, nor will it help e.g. automobile builders to not go bankrup. Knowing they get bailed out with a finger wagging will not make them change strategies. And I don't trust the government to make the best of the shares they now own. It's bad enough for enough people right now to stop worrying about your beloved freedom of the market (which could never work without some form of government favorable to it, anyway).

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist

[Stan Shannon]

peterchen wrote:

Free markest create free people? We should start with killing the restrictions on slavery then. How much freedom a free slave market could bring to people!

A little history lesson might be in order here. See, every civilization throughout human history was built on the backs of slaves (by one name or another). It wasn't until free market economies began to emerge that slavery began to disappear and civilization began to depend upon free labor - ie people being paid for their work. Now, I realize that the Marxist world view is that slavery ended because of some sort of grand moral awakening on the part of humanity. But the evidence clearly indicates that the great moral awakening was made possible by the evolution of free market capitalism. Without it, all the moral enlightenment possible would not keep either of us from either being, or owning, slaves.

peterchen wrote:

Seriously. I realize that none of the savings packages will prevent anything similar in the future, nor will it help e.g. automobile builders to not go bankrup. Knowing they get bailed out with a finger wagging will not make them change strategies. And I don't trust the government to make the best of the shares they now own.

You still don't seem to understand. It ain't going to work. Not now, not ever. The economy might manage to stagger back to its feet for a short while, but it won't last long. Trying to beat more work out of the poor beast is simply not going to provide the results you expect. And all of those poor folks you care so much about are going to suffer the most. Socialism does not work. It never has, it never will and humanity continues to suffer from the belief that it does or can be made to work if only we get the right person in charge of it. Sorry, but it aint' gonna happen, dude.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Shepman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Every other statement is mutually contradictory. "I trust my neighbor..." "OMG! My neighbor is a christian!!!!"

It is possible to be a Libertarian and and be a Christian. It is also possible to be a Libertarian and not like Christians. That's probably what you have trouble understanding. People like you need to have everything spelled out for them in a series of simple rules, preferably enforced by a large police contingent.

[Shepman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well what about those who disagree? You are saying that you want them to be abandoned. To be given no access to any political means to express their disagreement. That is exactly what your entire argument is based upon.

I read and understood the entire previous post. Your straw man argument was a waste of bandwidth. It neither correctly restated what was said, no refuted anything. More and more you resemble Ilion in your inability to understand what others are saying to you. How long will it be before you start responding with asterisks?

[Shepman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

But modern conservatives would embrace Goldware and Taft much more eagerly than modern liberals would do so for Jackson and Humphrey.

Barry Goldwater: "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. . .You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

[Shepman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

A little history lesson might be in order here.

You arrogant old man. You are Ilion all over again. X|

[Stan Shannon]

Shepman wrote:

You arrogant old man.

You disagree with my history lesson, but don't say why. Do you actually know anything about history, Shepman or, like most of your generation, have you spent your young life playing video games and eating cheetos? I will give Oakman credit for a least knowing enough about history to know what to google for.

Shepman wrote:

You are Ilion all over again.

You keep saying that as if its an insult. He and I agreed on a good many things, and disagreed on a good many others. The problem people had with him, including myself, is that he would not actually engage in debate. More like you, in fact, than I. So, if you disagree with my little historic discourse, why don't you try actually refuting it. It is a simple question, was, or was not, slavery (meaning actual enforced servitude, not someone making less money for their labor than you think they should) in our scoiety more common before the rise and evolution of free market capitalism or afterwards? And do you concur with Peter's observation that capitalism is somehow a threat to free labor? Maybe Oakman will come by and help you out.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Point taken, as he become older and more senile he promoted more libertarian sounding arguments, just as Lee Atwater become more liberal sounding as cancer ate up his brain and James Brady did after having half his brain shot away. Yet all of these men, in their full intellectual vigor, were all rock ribbed conservatives. Many still consider Goldwater to have been the father of modern social conservatism. And like modern conservatives, he was compared to Hitler and Nazis etc for his efforts to control the growth of government. Which was as ironic then as it is now. "You Nazi bastard! You want to shrink the power and size of government!!!!" Come on, use some brains, who really sounds more like a Nazi, someone who is opposed to the government having the power to define human life, saying who can be legally destroyed, or those who are for government having that kind of power? Its a simple question.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Shepman wrote:

It is possible to be a Libertarian and and be a Christian. It is also possible to be a Libertarian and not like Christians. That's probably what you have trouble understanding.

Not the point at all. The point is that these people are saying that they "trust their neighbors", but they cleary do not trust them enough to oppose the courts flagrant disregard for its own constitutional limits. They certainly do not trust them with the kind of political power that the original constitutional formulation provided for. We were supposed to have the power to define for ourselves at the local level whether or not abortion, or sodomy should be legal, or flags should be burned or whatever, or to have the constituion amended to allow or disallow those issues. To claim otherwise is to promote the theory that it is the purpose of government to actively suppress the creation of laws which might, in some way, originate from some kind of religious conviction. I, on the other hand, maintain that any governmetn with the power to do that is inherently tyranical.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Shepman wrote:

I read and understood the entire previous post. Your straw man argument was a waste of bandwidth. It neither correctly restated what was said, no refuted anything.

No, actually, I quite elegantly demonstrated the irrationality of the libertarian ideal.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[peterchen]

Confluence != causality. Oh, and try to match this timeline[^] with developments of free markets.

Stan Shannon wrote:

It ain't going to work

What "it"? And define "work", just once.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Trying to beat more work out of the poor beast is simply not going to provide the results you expect.

Now you sound like Ayn Rand (you know that this is no compliment from me, but I guess you consider it one nonetheless). It's just an attempt to smooth the inevitable valley. Economically, it's stupid, but it's still better than your ignorance covered behind "If it doesn't work for them, they are not using enough".

Stan Shannon wrote:

Socialism

There's more than two things in this world, you know?. Err, no, you don't. :sigh:

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist

[Stan Shannon]

peterchen wrote:

Oh, and try to match this timeline[^] with developments of free markets.

Some statistical outliers, but that all seems to correspond pretty well to the evolution of modern free markets. It is a question of : did the enligthement lead to a philosohical rejection of slavery and ending slavery lead to improved economies, or, did the enlightenment lead to improved capitalistic economies which created the conditions necessary for slavery to no longer be needed? I maintain that the latter was the dominant factor historically simply because throughout history economic evolution has tended to preceed cultural change which leads to philosophical change, rather than vice versa. But, granted, this might be an exception, although I don't believe that it was.

peterchen wrote:

What "it"? And define "work", just once.

"It" is the use of the state to manage the markets. And "work" is the actual successful realization of the goal to provide economic stability and resources to people.

peterchen wrote:

Now you sound like Ayn Rand (you know that this is no compliment from me, but I guess you consider it one nonetheless).

Well, fiscally speaking ,I am as much of a libertarian as anyone around here. (Actually, thats probably not quite true. I certainly believe that taxation for the purpose of the general welfare should be progressive in nature. But I don't believe that one class should be taxed to provide directly for another). I'm not a big fan of Rand, but she made some good points.

peterchen wrote:

It's just an attempt to smooth the inevitable valley. Economically, it's stupid, but it's still better than your ignorance covered behind "If it doesn't work for them, they are not using enough".

Capitalism is characterized by cyclic highs and lows. But the inevitable trend will always be upwards limited only by the environment's physical capacity to sustain it. When government chooses to smooth out the vallies, it has to borrow from what would later have been a mountain. That sends an economy into an inevitable downward trend. No government can force the markets to actually grow, and the notion that it can achieve stability has failed on every occassion it has been tried. It is doomed to failure.

peter

[Lost User]

More cheap money is being provided to tide over problems caused by cheap money. The bailouts are intended to legitimize the price rises funded by debt (or more fancily called leverage). I hope that the banking system changes for ever. It is no wonder that banks that were conservative have tided over the situation well -- for example: Wells Fargo required a down payment for home mortgages, and they are in the best shape. The retail banking business must be made separate from the investment banking and brokerage businesses. If an investor wants risk, he may choose it himself by consciously investing in risky propositions. Banks must not be allowed to use these low risk money to fund high-risk businesses. Throwing money at banks, and not asking them to be careful with deposit money; and asking for separation of riskier businesses is a crime. Governments across the world in power between 2003-2008 failed to curb price inflation of everything (real estate appreciated 500% during this period in many parts of the world), and now they wonder what happened. I just hope that they leave the down-slide alone.

[soap brain]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Not so much. An occasional mispelled word is no big deal. Poke tongue I rarely even proof read my comments. In the age of spell checkers, I actually think my spelling and grammer are pretty damn good.

How can you be comfortable accepting mediocrity? :confused: Even if it is only spelling and grammar, I don't know how you can sit there knowing that it could be improved on and not do so.