Changes made by Barack Obama

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I'll look forward to all these cures that will no doubt come flooding in now.

[thecobra2 0]

Watch this documentary about Obama......it will open your eyes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Watch this documentary about Obama......it will open your eyes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE

 

[Nightwing 0]

Is Obama's presidency going to be a giant game of Paranoia for the GOP?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Watch this documentary about Obama......it will open your eyes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE

 

Holy crap. I'm not sure what was stupider, this, or "Loose Change: 2nd Edition."

 

I just love how anyone can be a film maker these days on a computer, throw together a bunch of vaguely related clips, and suddenly it's supposed to present a strong case for their crack pot views.

[Jingus 0]

Watch this documentary about Obama......it will open your eyes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE

Oh godDAMNit, it's another masterpiece from that fucking moron Alex Jones, aka the guy who made that "documentary" Endgame which was thoroughly disembowled in this thread. Without even bothering to watch it, lemme guess: something to do with the New World Order and a sinister plot which goes something like: 1.deceive and kill lots of people; 2.......; 3.PROFIT!

 

EDIT: wait a second. Out of curiosity, I checked to see what thecobra2's other 34 posts were sbout. The post quoted here was the only one that came up, as if it's the only thing he's ever typed. How does that work?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

KRS-One, Joe Rogan, Jesse Ventura, North American Union, the guy who wrote this--this film has it all!

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Anything containing the phrase "North American Union" automatically fails.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Watch this documentary about Obama......it will open your eyes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE

 

EDIT: wait a second. Out of curiosity, I checked to see what thecobra2's other 34 posts were sbout. The post quoted here was the only one that came up, as if it's the only thing he's ever typed. How does that work?

 

When Dames almost killed the board it caused this. It means Cobra has only made the one post since then.

[Jingus 0]

So he waited five years without posting, only to come back with THAT? I... but... why'd he... ARGH. Even by internet standards, that is inexplicably dumb.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Holy crap. I'm not sure what was stupider, this, or "Loose Change: 2nd Edition."

They made a "final definative" version of it-they even tried to get it a theatrical relase. They did-it made it into one theatre for like a few days, then everyone who wasn't a truther pretty much gave up and ignored them. It's amusing really-what was supposed to be Dylan Avery's defining moment became a barely microscopic one. At this point, a part of me wouldn't be suprised if "Loose Change" and it's ilk are only convincing the already converted. It's been a long tme since I heard someone say they recently saw one of those and bought it hook, line and sinker.

 

And maybe I typed too much there.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I know that whenever I've shown that stuff to people who'd never seen it before (not Loose Change, but other 9/11-related stuff) it at least scared the piss out of them, if not causing them to look up more on their own. Last time I had occasion to do it was months ago though. That's all I'm saying, I don't want to argue with anyone. (backs off of this particular thread within the thread)

[Crimson G 0]

Anybody read the article by Charles Krauthammer (I know I'm gonna get dinged for this one) regarding Obama's stem cell announcement. I thought it was actually a rather fair indictment on the man (until the last sentence, perhaps):

 

Morally Unserious in the Extreme

[Rendclaw 0]

How amusing. Trying to bury the man for doing what he said he would do on the campaign trail...

 

I don;t even bother to argue about stem cell research, just like I don;t argue about religion and politics in general. But the amount of vicious negativity towards Obama is at once appalling and saddening.

[At Home 0]

What a joke. The writer is suggesting that science is morally tenuous, and opening up stem cell research could lead to experiments like Tuskegee. How absurd.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Charles Krauthammer

His name sounds like a Faust or Amon Duul II tribute band.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

I believe that the problem is that Mr. Krauthammer is misinterpreting the meaning of what Mr. Obama meant when Mr. Obama stated, "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values." In particular, the phrase false choice seems to have confused Mr. Krauthammer. I believe that he interprets false choice to mean wrong choice, i.e., that Mr. Obama is choosing 'sound science' over 'moral values,' except when he arbitrarily and hypocritically decides not to do so. I believe that the correct interpretation is that Mr. Obama's usage of false choice means false dilemma. He meant that G.W. Bush presented the false dilemma between 'moral values' and 'sound science,' and that Bush sided with 'moral values.' Mr. Obama's point, then, is that we can continue to have 'moral values' (such as in regard to outlawing human cloning) without sacrificing 'sound science' (such as in regard to conducting stem-cell research).

[SuperJerk 0]

I frankly don't understand his point of view. His argument is self-contradictory.

 

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

 

If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways.

[At Home 0]

Contradictory. Self-contradictory is redundant.

[SuperJerk 0]

Sometimes I am redundant and repeat myself.

[Crimson G 0]

I frankly don't understand his point of view. His argument is self-contradictory.

 

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

 

If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways.

 

I believe he's objecting to the use of humanity, not necessarily the state that these humans (or potential humans) are in within that same arena of scientific use. He's arguing that developing a human embryo to harvest it for genetic research or whatever other purpose is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether you believe them to be persons or not.

 

Mr. Obama's point, then, is that we can continue to have 'moral values' (such as in regard to outlawing human cloning) without sacrificing 'sound science'

 

I believe Mr. Krauthammer agreed with Obama on this point (if this what he meant by such a muddled sentence), but disagreed with the way he allowed for such a wide possible interpretation of the new position of the federal government. Basically, his point was that science is not a replacement for morality and morality needs to be involved in a proper and careful interpretation of stem cell laws. Obama seems to have given science a morality of its own. (It's the same point made by Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park. "You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should.")

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I don't think Krauthammer's argument has any legs.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

ROLL LOL.

[SuperJerk 0]

I frankly don't understand his point of view. His argument is self-contradictory.

 

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

 

If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways.

 

I believe he's objecting to the use of humanity, not necessarily the state that these humans (or potential humans) are in within that same arena of scientific use. He's arguing that developing a human embryo to harvest it for genetic research or whatever other purpose is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether you believe them to be persons or not.

 

Even if he's using a middle-way definition for what the embryos are, that doesn't answer the question WHY it is wrong (or even why it is the equivalent to making a human life).

[Crimson G 0]

Even if he's using a middle-way definition for what the embryos are, that doesn't answer the question WHY it is wrong (or even why it is the equivalent to making a human life).

 

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end."

 

It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.)

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

So potentially finding cures for life threatening diseases = slavery and other human atrocities? What the fuck?

[SuperJerk 0]

Even if he's using a middle-way definition for what the embryos are, that doesn't answer the question WHY it is wrong (or even why it is the equivalent to making a human life).

 

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end."

 

It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.)

 

But since it is NOT the same thing as making a human life, then why is it wrong?

 

He's trying to say that the rule to not make a human life covers potential life...but does it really?

 

How is "cultivating human cells for harvest" any different than donating blood or other things that involving people donating cells?

 

I think these questions need to be answered before anyone can prove extracting embryotic stem cells is the moral equivalent of slave---wait...whut?

[Nightwing 0]

Wait, embryonic stem cell harvest is the same as chattel slavery!? When did this happen?

[Crimson G 0]

Even if he's using a middle-way definition for what the embryos are, that doesn't answer the question WHY it is wrong (or even why it is the equivalent to making a human life).

 

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end."

 

It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.)

 

But since it is NOT the same thing as making a human life, then why is it wrong?

 

He's trying to say that the rule to not make a human life covers potential life...but does it really?

 

How is "cultivating human cells for harvest" any different than donating blood or other things that involving people donating cells?

 

I think these questions need to be answered before anyone can prove extracting embryotic stem cells is the moral equivalent of slave---wait...whut?

 

So you'd be fine with creating embryos simply to utilize them in stem cell research, rather than what they're biologically meant for, which is to grow into a human being? It's treating (potential) human beings like they're no different from chicken eggs. We should simply use these things regardless of how we've gotten them and their legitimate functions in growing into human life. Mr. Krauthammer correctly said that this is treating human beings as a means, rather than an end.

[EricMM 0]

We throw away so many embryos a year...