(V): That is the point when suffering can occur.


Thats hog wash.... its like saying that if I kill you in your sleep, therefore no suffering, then it is okay???

Tuesday: I have never yet blamed Bam for anything, except being a socialist with a bad plan, but nothing specific so far

Tuesday: What did Bush do to stop abortions?


You forget that we have 3 seperate governments.... president, congress and courts... Bush did what he could to get supreme court in his favor on abortion, and he is personally against it... he did what he could do, but this should help your curiousity a bit?

Tuesday: Obama has nothing to do with torture and he is phasing out of Iraq


this started under the Bush administration, phasing out of Iraq....

just pointing this out, since all we hear about is how Obama inherited so much of a mess from Bush... but it doesnt seem like you want to admit everything else, like this, that he inherited as well

Übergeek 바둑이: A girl of 13 is pregnant.


I dont disagree that abortion should be a legal medical option..... but it is not necessarily the free choice of a woman to do with her own body as she wishes.

.... and you have to remember, this "child" you speak about at 13, it wasnt so long ago, when life expectancy was much shorter, this child was in the prime of her life and easily in child bearing years

Übergeek 바둑이: It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.


So it is not torture to inflict this kind of pain if it involves a lawful sanction? So, if I make a law saying that waterboarding is a lawful way to interrogate a terrorist suspect, then all of a sudden it is not torture anymore????

Tuesday: Being the US does not give anyone the right to torture no matter what

Okay, so you dont think that making a man eat his last meal and then walk himself into a chair to be executed is a form of torture? I sure do, and just like you think that waterboarding you would be tortuous, I feel the same about someone leading me to my death chair

Übergeek 바둑이: For approximately the fist two trimesters the fetus needs the woman to survive,



Sorry, i havent read the whole post or any after yet, I like to comment on certain points when I see them....

I believe that a fetus could survive in an artificial womb... I agree that a woman is a unique kind of incubator, I dont think you would really argue that just because of this, that they are an object to be sold though

(V): What??? You consider sending a man to his death a nice thing????

If you do... please explain how!


What does being nice have to do with torture? According to your last comments, then anything that is not a nice thing is torture?

(V): how do you know they are conscious? To mutilate and torture an unborn child they have to be conscious


Really? how do you know they are not conscious?


So, if I take a terrorist and render him unconscious, then cut off his hand, that is not torture or mutilation??? Really?

(V): your gov agencies just support people that do in the name of democracy


Really??? Name the most recent civillian that the US government supported to be tortured????

(V): Some archaic old law based on misconceptions of how a baby is made???




explain the misconception of how a baby is made then? I mean, you can obviously accept that we are an evolving creature from the point of birth into adulthood and beyond, right? But you cannot accept that we are the same evolving creature from the point of our conception?

The notion that a woman has a right to do with her own body as she wishes, i will not argue, and so too for a man..... but an unborn child is not a part of a womans own body, the womans body is simply the incubator for the unborn baby....


how can a sperm, injected into a woman by a man, be then called part of the womans body???

If I pick up some diamonds from your table and swallow them, are those diamonds now part of my body, which I have the right to do with them as i please????

(V): but torturing them rather screws up the higher ground that those interning the terrorists are claiming to have.


Thats not true... the higher ground that we claim to have is that we dont target and kill innocent civilians and we dont torture any civilians who are innocent!

You dont think it is torture to make a man walk to a chair and be tied down in it for the purpose of injecting him with something to cause his death?

Where is the nobility in that?

You dont think it is torture to mutilate an unborn baby, like making an omelet?

Where is the nobility in that?

gogul: Being poor is not the cause of famine...

gogul: no i do not...

Tuesday: I saw video of waterboarding. Bush and Cheney are no better than the terrorists.


Terrorism is an act to purposely attack INNOCENT civilians....

Waterboarding these non civilian terrorist, you cant see as even remotely different?

We allow NON INNOCENT people here be killed for their crimes, legally put to death... but you dont like that we waterboard some one who has intentionally attacked innocent civilians?

We allow women the right to kill their unborn children, but you cant stand us allowing a terrorist to be waterboarded???


I saw a video of an abortion and anyone who has had one or who has supported the right to have them, are no better than the terrorists

(V): And we are not talking about trickle down, we are talking of uncontrolled collapse.




R u kidding me?? really???

Thats exactly what trickle down is.... when big companies support smaller companies who support their employees who again support other small businesses... and if the big guy falls, so too does the rest of them!


That is exactly what trickle down is!!!!!

and when Raygun was doing it, you said it was bogus, but now when bam is at it, well all of a sudden you think it is the best economic policy ever invented?????

Tuesday: So u 2 are not in favor of bailouts for the big dawgs because if they dont the little dawg will die too?

(V): Anywho... my only point was originally, that when I used to complain that you cant take from the rich to give to the poor because we need the rich to create jobs for the poor, all I heard from you and other like minded people was how wrong I was, that trickle down was all hog wash..... and now all I hear from you is how we cant let the big guys go down, because it will effect all of the poor people who make a living because of these big guys!


Its all a bunch of contradictory crap from you all... saying one thing when it conveniences you and saying the exact opposite now, because it conveniences you now!

(V): it's a matter of economics and real life, rather then ideal models.


Well the problem I see with your way, is that now you bring too much subjectivity to the equation.

Who then decides what is too high or too low, maybe it is someone you agree with or maybe it is not anyway, its always a subjective call made by fallible and mortal humans, and you may like the decisions they are making right now, but how do you guarantee that will remain as such?

(V): Why... boards, cycles, and other things like Madoff.


So, boards are bad, but you trust some government bean counter to make better choices for us then? ...and what if the bean counter is Bush, for example, and has his head in the butts of oil? Then do you still want the government to make the decisions about where to use trickle down and where to not use it?

You just get into too much trouble when you start trying to micro manage everything... of course the free market has its pitfalls.... like you said with a democracy, its only the best we have found so far, but I dont see anything that tells me that a free market economy isnt the best we have so far, or that a socialized, micro managed economy is any better

(V): Trickle down..... Not good




Okay, now we are getting somewhere..... if trickle down economics is not good, it doesnt work, then why is it, in your opinion, something that will work in a bail out situation?

(V): Then where is your answer about trickle down economics? Its a simple question, yes you believe in and like the concept, or no you think it is a faulty economic policy?

(V): See... I ask you about trickle down economics and you start talking about education?

(V): Now looking back over the last 100 posts or more, I can see why its so difficult to debate with you... you are all over the map, you never seem to stay on topic, I still havent found where you answered my question about trickle down economics?

I wont even use the word liberal.... but many people who have debated with me about how trickle down economics doesnt work, are now the same people who tell me that you have to keep the big dogs alive to protect the little dogs.... do you see any contradiction there?

(V): ....I missed a lot here....

Are you black? Is it a stereotype to call you a black or a category? Its just what you are.... and if your views align themselves with liberalism, then you are a liberal

(V): your last post... it has nothing in it about trickle down economics?

All i know, is that every liberal I ever talk to, will tell me that trickle down economics doesnt work, when I argue that you cant keep taking from the big dogs because without the big dogs there are no little dogs... but now, for some odd reason, it is the liberals telling us how we have to keep the big dogs alive because the little dogs rely on them???

(V): Funny thing is that it is you liberal types who say you dont believe in trickle down economics, except when it is turned upside down... I mean really???? You want to take from the rich to give to the poor, and then when the rich start to fail, then you want to bail them out

(V): You think it's all about big people and forget the little people who big business is reliant on


Again, you are wrong... I didnt forget about all those people, that just the way life goes sometimes. There might be a factory so I decide to build a hot dog stand to take advantage of their lunch breaks.... its all good, but I shouldnt get some government guarantee that this factory never goes out of business, just to protect my small venture?

(V): That lack of hope (everyone who disagrees about the cause and effect and cure) all agree was devastating.


Again, you assume too much and miss the whole point

The lack of hope was obviously not devastating, since we recovered and grew to even greater heights than ever imagined!

(V): Sounds socialist even communist in regard to reasons for communist/socialist states. But such is that such an attitude is against your free market model you idolise. No more Bill Gates, no more multi-internationals ruling the market.....


Not really.... I am not against the free market at all.... it is the free market that would let failing companies fail, if Bill gates cant make it, well then too bad for him. But I dont want to force him to make less, or "force" him to stay in business (make it) with government. Thats what socialism does... it puts government supported limits on the highs and the lows, which most liberals subscribe to, they just want everyone to be middle class, they dont like to see anyone fail, and they will take from those who succeed to keep that from happening!

I am not saying that is all bad.... and mostly their hearts are in the right place, I just believe that in the long run, that is not the model i would want us to subscribe to... I believe it makes us all too homogeneous, too generic, and that is not good for growth and productivity and creativity... it creates laziness and complacency and in the end a blah, ordinary, and completely mundane country

gogul: want the big fishes to starve so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so much. Well high politics, justice and the big corporations, soon as it implodes this will be a real relief for the people (maybe not every single individual, but who cares, lazy times will be over then, GREAT!)

Übergeek 바둑이: The solution is let companies fail and let the economy take the hit and start over.



Whats wrong with that idea??? Many economists believe we would have come out of the great depression faster and stronger had we simply done that, and my opinion is that is what we should have done this time as well

Tuesday: Czuch: Where did you get he was homosexual?

There are many people within his "handlers group" that have admitted he has taken home the random gay waiter from restaurants etc... he supposedly had many gay encounters over the years....

Tuesday: But come on... no difference between letting your own children sleep in a bed with you, and a homosexual adult letting minor boys that he is not related to sleep with him????

(V): No foreign cheap labour source ... basically no more "99c" stores.

Okay, so everything would cost more, but nothing else would change, would it?

If manufacturing came back here, unemployment would go down, but wages would go up, then it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, even at minimum wage, so we would be right back where we started, except now, instead of 99 cent stores we would have 5 dollar stores!

Übergeek 바둑이: Whats the solution then??? Government mandate wages paid? Maybe that US manufacturers should have to pay US minimum wages no matter who does the work? Then where will that leave us? What would the after effects be?

Übergeek 바둑이: Well said.....

(V): and that collapse of one segment can lead to the whole being severely weakened to the point of collapse.


That is your quote.... the collapse of on part can lead to the collapse of the whole.... explain then what that means?

To me it means that if you let part of the auto industry collapse, then it is possible the whole auto industry will collapse as a result... what else could your statement mean then?

(V): How about dinosaurs? They existed once, in great supply... you cannot blame humans for their demise nor any government could have saved them....

Its just the way of the world.... there might come a day when humans dont exist on this planet, talk about ghost towns!

You can have your governments keep putting their finger in thew dike holes, but just like that wont keep the dike from failing, your governments cant stop the world from changing as it is going to do

(V): So, you really believe that there is a chance that the whole worldwide auto industry will collapse????

I can bet you any amount of money that there is absolutely a ZERO percent chance that will or can ever happen, at least until we all stop driving cars

(V): ghost towns from the collapse of the local supporting industry when such towns population have been reliant on one industry.

You said it will lead to the collapse of the whole industry, not of a town... thats where you have no proof... there is no evidence to prove that if you let a few car giants die that the whole auto industry will collapse because of it, try to stick with one debate at a time

(V): others have been caught up in all the mess and failed of no fault of their own.

You seem to believe we all have a God given right to be successful???

Thats where we dont agree... Success is a condition of many factors, some of it in our control, some of it not, like timing and luck.

Try to start a computer company during the great depression and you would fail... not because of the depression, but because the internet had not yet been invented, not a bad business idea really, but just not the right time in history.

Try to start one now, and you will likely fail as well... too late, bad timing, not the fault of a depression, should the government support you?

There are plenty of car companies thriving right now, and banks as well, the smart ones.....

Point is, we do not have any right, nor is it the responsibility of the government to make sure we are all successful

Imsoaddicted: Sah - Keh

Thats how we pronounce it here....

(V): not the same as a depression related collapse.




Its NOT a depression created collapse!!!! Its a I cant keep up with the times or run a business correctly related collapse You put out too many loans to too many people who cannot afford to pay them back, thats just a poor business decision.... not anything to do with a depression!

Again, AD already told you examples where many banks are doing just fine.... why do you ignore these facts?

(V): and that collapse of one segment can lead to the whole being severely weakened to the point of collapse.


This is your theory, maybe, but you have no proof, or historical record to back that up!

You just dont get that things are always in constant change.... the climate for one, but you just want governments to stop it anyway.

AD, just gave you a real life example of a huge industry change, when ATT split up... we recovered from that, and got stronger even.
You will push to stop burning fossil fuels, but you want to save the industry that makes cars that burn them?

Then, on the other side, you could care less if some oil exec. goes to the poor house, along with all his employees, right?

I just dont get it?

Tuesday: sorry... I just have an image of some poor Chinese kid, up to his thighs in rice paddy, runny nosed on a cold morning, thinking how wonderful his government is because they can afford to buy the debt of the US......

Tuesday: oh... and I pronounce it like... saahkay

(V): "snot eaters" ........... is that what you call Chinese people??


not really, I just made that up for effect, but I ate some snot before when i was a lad, out on a cold morning... its not very becoming

(V): we are all descendants of conquerors and those who did terrible things in the past.

... ahhh, so you are saying that the Chinese are on the correct path, just going through some growing pains, based on the fact that the US had some of its own???