The Presidential Veto & the stem cell bill the House has voted for

RBM

RBM

CAGiversary!
I'm sure we've all heard by now that the House of Representatives has passed a bill (238 to 194) supporting federal dollars for stem cell research. Similarly, we've all probably heard that President Bush has stated his firm intention to veto the bill if and when it crosses his desk.

Skipping some of the more tiresomely obvious arguments for & against such research (e.g. that it rewards/supports the destruction of embryos, that the benefits far exceed the perceived cost, that such costs are incurred regardless of whether or not the research is conducted, that the potential for stem cells is exaggerated, that we have some moral responsibility to pursue/abandon said research, etc.,) I would like to suggest the not-too-slim possibility that some of the early benefits of such research may be reaped in other countries. Naturally, there are private companies conducting such research right here in America (it's not illegal...we simply haven't allocated federal funds to support it) and it's difficult to gauge how much private funding it receives here, as compared with research organizations abroad. However, while the contention over federal funding for it continues, I would like to ask a fairly simple question:

If an innovative form of medical application for such cells is discovered abroad, how would it effect your attitude toward federal funding for the research here? Example: an effective treatment which altogether halts the progression of or even reverses the neurodegeneration associated with Parkinson's disease is developed overseas in 8 months. Would you then support increased funding for similar research, here?

That might seem like a simple-minded question, but I don't think it is. True, one of the arguments against supporting such research is that the claims of its potential are bloated...but I don't believe that this is one of the *central* reasons against it. It seems that opponents of this research are against it in principle due to the perceived loss of life, and that loss would still be applicable in the context of my question.
 
Is this the first time Bush will veto a bill? And it's to cast out science and ensure that america stays in the dark age? What a loser.
 
So does this mean that Bush is an activist president? I mean if he's going against the majority that obviously means he's an activist, the republicans use that same logic to call judges activists afterall...
 
[quote name='RBM']
If an innovative form of medical application for such cells is discovered abroad, how would it effect your attitude toward federal funding for the research here? Example: an effective treatment which altogether halts the progression of or even reverses the neurodegeneration associated with Parkinson's disease is developed overseas in 8 months. Would you then support increased funding for similar research, here?
[/QUOTE]

That has always been a concern of mine, it would be agitating if major progress is made elsewhere because the government is selective on what it funds. Not that anyone would notice another scorched hut on the Bush warpath.
 
It's too bad that Bush is going to veto this bill. Stem cell research could really help a lot of people, and I think the president shouldn't follow party lines on this issue.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So does this mean that Bush is an activist president? I mean if he's going against the majority that obviously means he's an activist, the republicans use that same logic to call judges activists afterall...[/QUOTE]

:roll:
 
This is a very complicated issue. Personally, I support stem cell research in almost all it's forms. I have no moral quam again using recently fertalize zygotes or the thousands of micro embryos that are going to be destroyed.

But I also support the President a hundred percent on this issue. The bill should be vetoed, and the house and senate should be forced to develop a super majority to overcome it.
 
[quote name='Rich']:roll:[/QUOTE]


That's your response? That's it? You put a smiley face rolling its eyes.

I've been rolling my eyes for a long time, ever since the republicans coined that phrase "activist judges" for judges that refused to rule based on popular opinion. That's actually one of the reasons I was pushed away from the repulican party. Anyway though, I fail to see how this situation is any different? I mean the president is ruling (through veto) against something that passed by quite a few votes (meaning that its popular opinion, basically). Seems pretty similar to me.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']It's too bad that Bush is going to veto this bill. Stem cell research could really help a lot of people, and I think the president shouldn't follow party lines on this issue.[/QUOTE]

See that's funny part it's not completely a party issue. If it was the bill never would have passed in the house. Now granted most of the republicans opposed it but if it was striaght down party lines it would have failed.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So does this mean that Bush is an activist president? I mean if he's going against the majority that obviously means he's an activist, the republicans use that same logic to call judges activists afterall...[/QUOTE]

Heh, "activist president" has a nice ring to it.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']

I've been rolling my eyes for a long time, ever since the republicans coined that phrase "activist judges" for judges that refused to rule based on popular opinion. [/QUOTE]

Like the ones that forced The Citadel to admit women into its school, despite a 150 year old tradition of males only, wives, sisters, mothers, and daugthers of graduates wanting to keep the tradition, and the state wanting to keep the tradition?

How about the students at Ole Miss who are, by court order, refused permission to wave tiny battle flags in their stadium, despite a statewide vote in favor of the flag by a margin of 2:1?

At least Rehnquist has some balls, despite being admonished by the National Bar Association in a formal resolution for singing Dixie.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']This is a very complicated issue. Personally, I support stem cell research in almost all it's forms. I have no moral quam again using recently fertalize zygotes or the thousands of micro embryos that are going to be destroyed.

But I also support the President a hundred percent on this issue. The bill should be vetoed, and the house and senate should be forced to develop a super majority to overcome it.[/QUOTE]

I have two questions: Huh? and Why?

The first can be interpreted as this: if you support it, why not support its passage, rather than a preference for a certain manner in which it passes? No comprende.

myke.
 
No one agrees with Bush and after preaching about how he has to listen to the will of the people he goes against his own Congress.

What a fucking asshole, I wish he would just die already. Next time get a working garnade and pretzels with more salt.
 
[quote name='Rich']
How about the students at Ole Miss who are, by court order, refused permission to wave tiny battle flags in their stadium, despite a statewide vote in favor of the flag by a margin of 2:1?
[/QUOTE]

Battle flags.:lol: I'll have to remember that one.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Battle flags.:lol: I'll have to remember that one.[/QUOTE]

AMeL.gif
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Yes that would be a confederate flag.[/QUOTE]

What do you think their battle flags were?

That's what you call stuff at school sports events.
 
[quote name='Rich']What do you think their battle flags were?

That's what you call stuff at school sports events.[/QUOTE]

It was a very interesting choice of words.:D
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']It was a very interesting choice of words.:D[/QUOTE]

Not really. Have you gone to a college that's big on sports? Fight songs, battle flags and hymns, etc. aren't uncommon things.
 
[quote name='Rich']Like the ones that forced The Citadel to admit women into its school, despite a 150 year old tradition of males only, wives, sisters, mothers, and daugthers of graduates wanting to keep the tradition, and the state wanting to keep the tradition?

How about the students at Ole Miss who are, by court order, refused permission to wave tiny battle flags in their stadium, despite a statewide vote in favor of the flag by a margin of 2:1?

At least Rehnquist has some balls, despite being admonished by the National Bar Association in a formal resolution for singing Dixie.[/QUOTE]

Yeah good point they're all activists. I mean for god's sake why do we have to give women equal rights?

Ahh so the confederate flag stands for being a battle flag now? What about when it used to be representative of state's rights like back in 1996? I guess any excuse will pass for being able to fly a flag that the vast majority of people see as being a symbol of white supremacy, racism, and slavery. If it doesn't stand for that then why do you always see racists and KKK members using the flag as (and here's that phrase again) a battle flag. Then again we could use similar logic to say that the Nazi flag is just a symbol for country's rights. See any states or countries rushing to fly that flag?

Just because a majority wants something doesn't always mean that it doesn't trample on the rights of some minority group. That is the reason we have judges that are supposed to be impartial.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"battle flags." :rofl:

myke.
...that's akin to calling the Ku Klux Klan "friendly neighborhood anonymous christians."[/QUOTE]


Well they do bring crosses to people's houses and make sure that it is properly illuminated...
 
[quote name='Rich']Not really. Have you gone to a college that's big on sports? Fight songs, battle flags and hymns, etc. aren't uncommon things.[/QUOTE]

I hope someday to have the skills nessasary to sugarcoat things like that.
 
Putting "myke." in the middle of every post is annoying enough, but putting a "...xxxx" after that is even more annoying.

And is the confederate flag is offensive to you, then i'm sorry, but you're probably one of the people who supported the New Orleans School Board in their decision to take George Washington's name off an elemntary school because he was a former slave owner. For the record, no school in NO can have a name bearing presidents Jefferson, Maddison, Monroe, Jackson, and some others.

Or perhaps you're one of them who supported the renaming of Custer National Battlefield to Little Big Horn National Battlefield because the Indians consider the massacre of Custer's command a great victory...because offending the Indians with the name Custer is much worse than offending the Americans with a huge statue of Indians who scalped and mutilated Americans at said battlefield.

You probably support the renaming of all college teams bearing the names "indians, braves, redmen, redskins, or chiefs," too, right?

Do you support UCLA's 1997 development of the National History Standards for textbooks for grades 5-12 that need make no mention of Constitutional Convention, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright Brothers, George Washington and his Farewell Address, and the moon landing, but stress the Russian advances in space, the founding dates of the Sierra Club and National Org. for Women, and "leeway" for teachers to teach about the Rosenbergs "either way"?

I could go on and on for days with these stupid fucking changes caused by the cultural revolution.

Because those are all as offensive as the confederate flag. The confederate flag symbolizes white supremacy and racism just as much as the original US flag...the one that we would still have if we didn't add more stars.

Maybe I should make a new thread to discuss the cultural revolution...so people can attack me for being "racist."


Oh, and everyone should go see Crossfade in concert. fucking amazing.
 
[quote name='Rich']Putting "myke." in the middle of every post is annoying enough, but putting a "...xxxx" after that is even more annoying.

And is the confederate flag is offensive to you, then i'm sorry, but you're probably one of the people who supported the New Orleans School Board in their decision to take George Washington's name off an elemntary school because he was a former slave owner. For the record, no school in NO can have a name bearing presidents Jefferson, Maddison, Monroe, Jackson, and some others.

Or perhaps you're one of them who supported the renaming of Custer National Battlefield to Little Big Horn National Battlefield because the Indians consider the massacre of Custer's command a great victory...because offending the Indians with the name Custer is much worse than offending the Americans with a huge statue of Indians who scalped and mutilated Americans at said battlefield.

You probably support the renaming of all college teams bearing the names "indians, braves, redmen, redskins, or chiefs," too, right?

Do you support UCLA's 1997 development of the National History Standards for textbooks for grades 5-12 that need make no mention of Constitutional Convention, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright Brothers, George Washington and his Farewell Address, and the moon landing, but stress the Russian advances in space, the founding dates of the Sierra Club and National Org. for Women, and "leeway" for teachers to teach about the Rosenbergs "either way"?

I could go on and on for days with these stupid fucking changes caused by the cultural revolution.

Because those are all as offensive as the confederate flag. The confederate flag symbolizes white supremacy and racism just as much as the original US flag...the one that we would still have if we didn't add more stars.

Maybe I should make a new thread to discuss the cultural revolution...so people can attack me for being "racist."


Oh, and everyone should go see Crossfade in concert. fucking amazing.[/QUOTE]

As soon as I see I skinhead displaying a dollar bill in the back of his pickup, then we'll talk.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']As soon as I see I skinhead displaying a dollar bill in the back of his pickup, then we'll talk.[/QUOTE]

Huh?
 
[quote name='Rich']Huh?[/QUOTE]


Meaning, the confederate flag is STILL being used as a symbol of racial oppression by certain people/groups. None of your other, melodramatic examples are.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Meaning, the confederate flag is STILL being used as a symbol of racial oppression by certain people/groups. None of your other, melodramatic examples are.[/QUOTE]

But yet the left fights for them. If the KKK decided to start using the Mexican flag to symbolize their hatred for whites, would we have to ban the Mexican flag from all Latino communities? You can't hold the entire current south responsible for a few racists. Ole Miss didn't use the flags out of racist motives.

I'm going to bed. My head is still ringing from Crossfade, over 24 hours ago. :(
 
[quote name='Rich']Putting "myke." in the middle of every post is annoying enough, but putting a "...xxxx" after that is even more annoying.

And is the confederate flag is offensive to you, then i'm sorry, but you're probably one of the people who supported the New Orleans School Board in their decision to take George Washington's name off an elemntary school because he was a former slave owner. For the record, no school in NO can have a name bearing presidents Jefferson, Maddison, Monroe, Jackson, and some others.

Or perhaps you're one of them who supported the renaming of Custer National Battlefield to Little Big Horn National Battlefield because the Indians consider the massacre of Custer's command a great victory...because offending the Indians with the name Custer is much worse than offending the Americans with a huge statue of Indians who scalped and mutilated Americans at said battlefield.

You probably support the renaming of all college teams bearing the names "indians, braves, redmen, redskins, or chiefs," too, right?

Do you support UCLA's 1997 development of the National History Standards for textbooks for grades 5-12 that need make no mention of Constitutional Convention, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright Brothers, George Washington and his Farewell Address, and the moon landing, but stress the Russian advances in space, the founding dates of the Sierra Club and National Org. for Women, and "leeway" for teachers to teach about the Rosenbergs "either way"?

I could go on and on for days with these stupid fucking changes caused by the cultural revolution.

Because those are all as offensive as the confederate flag. The confederate flag symbolizes white supremacy and racism just as much as the original US flag...the one that we would still have if we didn't add more stars.

Maybe I should make a new thread to discuss the cultural revolution...so people can attack me for being "racist."


Oh, and everyone should go see Crossfade in concert. fucking amazing.[/QUOTE]

I live for annoying. What's so annoying about it, anyway? Nitpick a bit, willya?

I think that team names such as "indians" ought to be changed, unless we think that team names such as "$$$$$$s," "kikes," "spics," or "chinks" are alright as well. Moreover, anyone who thinks that Chief Wahoo is no different from WWII era anti-Asian political cartoons, or Little Black Sambo-esque images, is deluding themselves in mind-boggling ways.

I agree, to some extent, that the standards we set for our history in classes are downright pitiful; although I'd argue that it is far too ethnocentric, something I don't imagine you'd agree with. Furthermore, in school, nothing "offensive" should be eliminated; know your enemy, I say.

I will admit that your point about the US flag is compelling; a racist history is one facet of American history, while it is the defining legacy of the confederacy. That doesn't solve the dilemma you propose, but I think it's an important point, regardless.

myke.
...annoying, annoying, I'm being annoying. :booty:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think that team names such as "indians" ought to be changed, unless we think that team names such as "$$$$$$s," "kikes," "spics," or "chinks" are alright as well. Moreover, anyone who thinks that Chief Wahoo is no different from WWII era anti-Asian political cartoons, or Little Black Sambo-esque images, is deluding themselves in mind-boggling ways.

I agree, to some extent, that the standards we set for our history in classes are downright pitiful; although I'd argue that it is far too ethnocentric, something I don't imagine you'd agree with. Furthermore, in school, nothing "offensive" should be eliminated; know your enemy, I say.

I will admit that your point about the US flag is compelling; a racist history is one facet of American history, while it is the defining legacy of the confederacy. That doesn't solve the dilemma you propose, but I think it's an important point, regardless.

myke.
...annoying, annoying, I'm being annoying. :booty:[/QUOTE]

They were never called Indians because of racism, they were called Indians because Columbus was hopped up on ganja and didn't know where the fuck he was. Your other examples are there for racist reasons. I don't know how or when Indians became racist and Native American politically correct, but I'll never differentiate the two as one being bad and one good.

A history class SHOULD be ethnocentric, everywhere in the world. We should be brought up to love our country, not to hate it. Yes, we should be taught the negative with the positive, but the emphasis on the positive should be there, as opposed to leaving the positive out almost entirely.
 
[quote name='Rich']They were never called Indians because of racism, they were called Indians because Columbus was hopped up on ganja and didn't know where the fuck he was. Your other examples are there for racist reasons. I don't know how or when Indians became racist and Native American politically correct, but I'll never differentiate the two as one being bad and one good.

A history class SHOULD be ethnocentric, everywhere in the world. We should be brought up to love our country, not to hate it. Yes, we should be taught the negative with the positive, but the emphasis on the positive should be there, as opposed to leaving the positive out almost entirely.[/QUOTE]

The increasing numbers of Asian Indians probably helped change the verbage, in order to avoid confusion. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, by itself, the word "Indian" is racist. In conjunction with iconography such as Chief Wahoo, however, the story changes entirely. I've got some literature on this somewhere; perhaps I'll post some of their points tomorrow. One actually is a ethnographic study of Ole Miss, and the resistance to the movements promoting a change of the, ahem..."battle flag."

myke.
...ethnocentric means that our children have no fucking clue what goes on outside this world of ours; who is the Prime Minister of Canada? The President of Mexico? What is the most significant difference between our Congress and a Parliamentary system? What's a favela? What circumstances led to the ouster of Salvador Allende in 1972?

We learn about the foreign countries we blow the fuck out of, but only when be blow the fuck out of them; did anyone learn about tsarist Russia in high school or earlier (and if so, was it in a public or private school)? I'm not saying what we should or should not teach about American history; what I'm suggesting is that we would do well to teach our youth about what goes on in the rest of the fucking world.
 
I'll bet 95% of Americans don't know how or why the government led by Hu Jintao (China) is the biggest threat in the world to America's economic freedom, holding trillions of dollars in American bonds and controlling the largest army on Earth.

The majority of Americans probably think the biggest threat is the Middle East.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']That has always been a concern of mine, it would be agitating if major progress is made elsewhere because the government is selective on what it funds. [/QUOTE]
People have focused on what it means to support such research, using our tax dollars. "I've worked hard to pay my taxes, and I don't want them to go toward supporting research which is built upon the destruction of human embryos." That's a legitimate concern, and I don't trivialize it. However, I wonder if the folks who object to such federal funding realize the full consequences of such a stance. It won't prevent the loss of such embryos...the studies will still take place. However, they'll take place in a private/commercially funded laboratory or they'll take place in a laboratory overseas. Either way, if and when the fruits of such labors are realized, those therapies will be a lot more expensive for US (those letters can be read both ways) because we won't have a say in the pricing or availability of those treatments.

After all, federal funding for pharmaceutical applications doesn't ultimately determine whether new medicines are discovered (at least, not fully.) It determines how soon they are found and the price structure they are marketed under when they are found. I want the cures for diabetes, cystic fibrosis, heck, *cancer* to be found in a federally funded lab. If a commercial lab--with no ties to federal dollars---finds it, heaven help those whose lives will depend on getting that treatment. They'll be at the mercy of the patent holder.
 
[quote name='RBM']People have focused on what it means to support such research, using our tax dollars. "I've worked hard to pay my taxes, and I don't want them to go toward supporting research which is built upon the destruction of human embryos." That's a legitimate concern, and I don't trivialize it.[/quote]

No it isn't, people always bitch about how their tax dollars are spent. Thre real question is will the benefits be great enough to get them to stop bitching about it in the future. No one complains about all the tax money spent on those giant computers back in the day anymore.


[quote name='RBM']However, I wonder if the folks who object to such federal funding realize the full consequences of such a stance. It won't prevent the loss of such embryos...the studies will still take place.[/QUOTE]
Even if the stuides don't take place the embryos won't be "saved", that would require a ban on abortion.
 
[quote name='Rich']Like the ones that forced The Citadel to admit women into its school, despite a 150 year old tradition of males only, wives, sisters, mothers, and daugthers of graduates wanting to keep the tradition, and the state wanting to keep the tradition?[/quote]

150 years of discriminatory tradition, funny that I really don't care about them losing it.

How about the students at Ole Miss who are, by court order, refused permission to wave tiny battle flags in their stadium, despite a statewide vote in favor of the flag by a margin of 2:1?

At least Rehnquist has some balls, despite being admonished by the National Bar Association in a formal resolution for singing Dixie.
Click to expand...

Confederate flag is not simply a battle flag. I would need to know the whole story, but I see many ways in which a symbol of racism should be barred.
 
[quote name='Rich']A history class SHOULD be ethnocentric, everywhere in the world. We should be brought up to love our country, not to hate it.[/QUOTE]

Quit plaigerizing Orwell... oh wait, I think you're serious :shock:
 
Or perhaps you're one of them who supported the renaming of Custer National Battlefield to Little Big Horn National Battlefield because the Indians consider the massacre of Custer's command a great victory...because offending the Indians with the name Custer is much worse than offending the Americans with a huge statue of Indians who scalped and mutilated Americans at said battlefield.
Click to expand...


For a nation that supposedly promotes freedom and equality, that guy is a stain on our record. There is nothing to commemorate in his loss, the fact that he is still thought of as a hero to some is disgusting. When america is on the wrong side of a war, then it is on the wrong side of a war. What noble cause we were fighting for? Why should we honor that man, or others like him?

Because those are all as offensive as the confederate flag. The confederate flag symbolizes white supremacy and racism just as much as the original US flag...the one that we would still have if we didn't add more stars.
Click to expand...

The thing is though, the american flag symbolizes the entire history. The confederate flag symbolizes state rights with slavery as a major issue, and late in the war and after the war as the major issue. That side lost, the society that would have resulted in the south is hardly something to want to symbolize.

A history class SHOULD be ethnocentric, everywhere in the world. We should be brought up to love our country, not to hate it. Yes, we should be taught the negative with the positive, but the emphasis on the positive should be there, as opposed to leaving the positive out almost entirely.
Click to expand...

I think people are going to favor their country regardless, no need to bumping it up to unrealistic levels at the detriment to reality.

did anyone learn about tsarist Russia in high school or earlier (and if so, was it in a public or private school)?
Click to expand...

I did, but I took AP european history at a catholic prep school, so that was probably why.
 
[quote name='Rich']Like the ones that forced The Citadel to admit women into its school, despite a 150 year old tradition of males only, wives, sisters, mothers, and daugthers of graduates wanting to keep the tradition, and the state wanting to keep the tradition?[/QUOTE]

I've lived in many parts of Virginia most of my adult life. I knew a Virginian girl in high school who bravely went to the citadel in the second coed entry class, but had to drop out because the men there were deliberately ruining her life and reputation. As a Virginian, I would like to send a big "fuck You" out to the bigoted tradition of sexism.

Virginia is not North Carolina, and we don't want to make the confederate flag part of our state flag.
 
[quote name='camoor']I've lived in many parts of Virginia most of my adult life. I knew a Virginian girl in high school who bravely went to the citadel in the second coed entry class, but had to drop out because the men there were deliberately ruining her life and reputation. As a Virginian, I would like to send a big "fuck You" out to the bigoted tradition of sexism.

Virginia is not North Carolina, and we don't want to make the confederate flag part of our state flag.[/QUOTE]

Wait, the men didn't want women at their school? My high school went coed in 93 or 94 (can't remember), and believe me, the guys didn't need much convincing.

The teachers liked it too, they said the maturity levels greatly increased when you got women in class.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"battle flags." :rofl:

myke.
...that's akin to calling the Ku Klux Klan "friendly neighborhood anonymous christians."[/QUOTE]

Are you really that ignorant of our own history? The flag you're talking about is exactly that, the Confederate battle flag. There is another flag that was the official Confederate flag, and the one you see on the back of pickup trucks in the South and in some state flags is the battle flag.

Here you go:
http://www.confederateflags.org/national/FOTCnatl.htm

Regardless of what you think of the flag, at least get your facts straight.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Are you really that ignorant of our own history? The flag you're talking about is exactly that, the Confederate battle flag. There is another flag that was the official Confederate flag, and the one you see on the back of pickup trucks in the South and in some state flags is the battle flag.

Here you go:
http://www.confederateflags.org/national/FOTCnatl.htm

Regardless of what you think of the flag, at least get your facts straight.[/QUOTE]

Your indepth knowledge on this subject is disturbing. All this information and you seem to have missed the point completley.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Your indepth knowledge on this subject is disturbing. All this information and you seem to have missed the point completley.[/QUOTE]

My knowledge of U.S. history is disturbing you? Sorry, maybe you prefer to remain ignorant. And I know the point. I wasn't really commenting on the topic, just on the demonstrated ignorance of several posters in it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']My knowledge of U.S. history is disturbing you? Sorry, maybe you prefer to remain ignorant. And I know the point. I wasn't really commenting on the topic, just on the demonstrated ignorance of several posters in it.[/QUOTE]

That is perhaps the most thickheaded thing I've read all day. No one said it wasn't a battle flag, simply that it is a confederate flag.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think that team names such as "indians" ought to be changed, unless we think that team names such as "$$$$$$s," "kikes," "spics," or "chinks" are alright as well.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be worth it just to see other ethnic groups struggle to find things to say in its place. It'd be kind of like that South Park episode where they bleeped out everyone who wasn't gay from saying 'fag'. Although I am curious as to why only $$$$$$ gets bleeped.

Edit: Aha! more preferential treatment for Black people!!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Are you really that ignorant of our own history? The flag you're talking about is exactly that, the Confederate battle flag. There is another flag that was the official Confederate flag, and the one you see on the back of pickup trucks in the South and in some state flags is the battle flag.

Here you go:
http://www.confederateflags.org/national/FOTCnatl.htm

Regardless of what you think of the flag, at least get your facts straight.[/QUOTE]

Chalk that one up to the deficiencies of the American education system. At any rate, the laughable point is the use of the term "battle flag" by itself. I'm aware that many colleges (and probably others sports teams with devout followings) have various kinds of "battle flags." Mine has a large "C" on it, in the shape of the cat's claw (we are, after all, the Bearcats). The University of Kentucky has a large blue flag with a white "K" on it.

To say "battle flag" with no specification about what is on the flag is intentionally leaving out the most significant point behind the contention at Ole Miss. If he had said, "confederate battle flag," I'd be perfectly content with the amount of detail of specified (although that doesn't absolve me of not recognizing other confederate flags - will you ever forgive me?). By itself, though, "battle flag" is intentionally misleading and similarly laughable.

myke.
...and my analogy it still funny, so nyah!
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']No it isn't [a legitimate concern.] Even if the stuides don't take place the embryos won't be "saved", that would require a ban on abortion.[/QUOTE]

Sure it is. I might want to say to a vegetarian,"Look, your abstinence from eating meat isn't going to effect the livestock industry one bit," but I don't think that's the point. If they object to it personally and want to avoid supporting it (insofar as they can,) then I have no problem with that. If someone is honestly opposed to violence and is willing to dart around on a battlefield with only a medic's gear, then I'll support that...despite the negligible effect on the violence being done. Similarly, I don't believe that opponents to this research are gaining much, except to salve their own consciences and to put us all in a poorer position to take advantage of the potential treatments it can lead to (i.e. higher costs & lower availability/ease of access.) However, I don't dismiss their objections out of hand.
 
[quote name='RBM']Sure it is. I might want to say to a vegetarian,"Look, your abstinence from eating meat isn't going to effect the livestock industry one bit," but I don't think that's the point. If they object to it personally and want to avoid supporting it (insofar as they can,) then I have no problem with that. If someone is honestly opposed to violence and is willing to dart around on a battlefield with only a medic's gear, then I'll support that...despite the negligible effect on the violence being done. Similarly, I don't believe that opponents to this research are gaining much, except to salve their own consciences and to put us all in a poorer position to take advantage of the potential treatments it can lead to (i.e. higher costs & lower availability/ease of access.) However, I don't dismiss their objections out of hand.[/QUOTE]

Wow, did you actually READ that?

Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Your indepth knowledge on this subject is disturbing. All this information and you seem to have missed the point completley.[/QUOTE]

Out of fairness, while I agree that he missed the point (or seized an opportunity to impress us with his knowledge), I think it's rather uncouth to criticize someone for what knowledge they possess.

Unless, of course, it's an abundance of one kind of knowledge (e.g., creationism...er, ahem "intelligent design") relative to a deficiency of another kind of knowledge (e.g., evolutionary biological theories and research), coupled with an air of certainty that their perspective on the situation is irrefutable. Even then, call them out on what they do not know, rather than what they do.

That having been said, I don't think elprincipe's done any of that. He either misread my post, or wanted to point out that it was, in fact, a battle flag (my take? A little from column a and a little from column b).

myke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top