US Presidential Race

[Sand]

So, is it our physicality than makes us human, or is it our mind and memory? I place more importance on the mind, memory, and personality than any physical form.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

I think the fact we are human makes us human. Biologically we are human. A cat doesn't know it's a cat; but it's still a cat. A shark doesn't know it's a shark; but it's still a shark.

[Tale]

"Humans" are vastly overrated.

[kirottu]

The correct scientific term is "hunam".

[Sand]

I think the fact we are human makes us human. Biologically we are human. A cat doesn't know it's a cat; but it's still a cat. A shark doesn't know it's a shark; but it's still a shark.

 

Those are merely labels we place on them and nothing more.

 

The question is what makes us human, Volourn, not what makes a cat a cat. Is it our simple biological physical forms? I don't think so. After all there is only 1.2% genetic difference between our physicality and the physicality of a chimpanzee, yet we have the ability to forge vast nations, create great works of literature and architecture, and move beyond our own planet and into the stars.

 

Only 1.2% genetic difference.

 

Being human is beyond just our physicality.

[kirottu]

It

[Volourn]

" Is it our simple biological physical forms?"

 

It absolutely is.

 

 

"Being human is beyond just our physicality."

 

And?

 

 

A newborn child, and an old geezer with an extreme cas eof alzeihmers are still humans. What do you refer them as? Pieces ofc rap? Feces? What? They are still human. Period. Even mass murderers are human. Rapists are humans. Star athletes are human. Even you, and I ar ehuman.

 

We're human because we are human.

 

Period.

[Sand]

Pieces of crap? No.

 

Newborns have the potential of being human. Those who suffer Alzeihmer's have lost the ability to be human. Without the ability to reason we are nothing better than animals.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sand

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

" Is it our simple biological physical forms?"

 

It absolutely is.

 

 

"Being human is beyond just our physicality."

 

And?

 

 

A newborn child, and an old geezer with an extreme cas eof alzeihmers are still humans. What do you refer them as? Pieces ofc rap? Feces? What? They are still human. Period. Even mass murderers are human. Rapists are humans. Star athletes are human. Even you, and I ar ehuman.

 

We're human because we are human.

 

Period.

 

Oh come on... your not human.

[Volourn]

'Without the ability to reason we are nothing better than animals."

 

Except, by dfeintion, humans *are* animals.

[taks]

i think sand has stepped himself into a line of reasoning he knows is bunk, yet does not know how to get out of. hehe...

 

taks

[Hildegard]

offtopic ppl

[Sand]

i think sand has stepped himself into a line of reasoning he knows is bunk, yet does not know how to get out of. hehe...

 

taks

 

Oh, there is an easy way out of it. Stop posting about this load of bull and get back on topic.

[Fionavar]

i think sand has stepped himself into a line of reasoning he knows is bunk, yet does not know how to get out of. hehe...

 

taks

 

Oh, there is an easy way out of it. Stop posting about this load of bull and get back on topic.

 

Astute observation ...

 

/watches derail-a-meter

[Guard Dog]

Just read it on RealPolitics.com. Fred Thompson, former Senator, radio host and some time actor is probably getting into the race. Right now he plays the DA on "Law and Order". Here is a man who had a senate voting record that impresses me. He is what I would call a contructionist and he has a reputation of being a straight shooter. He will make an interesting candidate if it is true. Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham are behind him already.

[Arclam]

I don't like any of the 6 for which options were given. If I had to pick from those I would choose Rudy. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary or McCain. Especially McCain. If I met McCain on the street, I would have to stop myself from slugging him. As a former McCain supporter and an Arizona resident, I feel betrayed by him.

 

He is not a "maverick" and he is not "moderate" (at least in the sense of the mainstream spectrum). He is a power-hungry old man who sees this election as his last shot. He is willing to pander to the right for the presidency.

 

He agrees with almost everything the president says now. He supports the surge in Iraq, and voted to allow torture of detainees. (Keep in mind that he was tortured in Vietnam and has said in the past that torture should be outlawed).

 

He has flipped on Roe v. Wade. He used to say that while he disagrees with it, banning abortion would lead to self-operations and hidden, unsafe clinics.

 

He said in 2000 that "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

Now Falwell is his friend.

 

The good thing is that in their ignorance many evangelicals still think he is a maverick.

 

My favorite candidates, both announced and potential, though I think they have about as much of a chance as an ice cube in Phoenix, are Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, Wes Clark, and a little further down the list Bill Richardson.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Arclam

[Gorgon]

It's funny anyone would chose to put Farrakhan on the left of anything in any comparision. He is a reactionary racist ****. The fact that he happens to be black hardly compensates.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Gorgon

[Sand]

Just read it on RealPolitics.com. Fred Thompson, former Senator, radio host and some time actor is probably getting into the race. Right now he plays the DA on "Law and Order". Here is a man who had a senate voting record that impresses me. He is what I would call a contructionist and he has a reputation of being a straight shooter. He will make an interesting candidate if it is true. Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham are behind him already.

 

I don't like his stance on some of the issues.

[Guard Dog]

I don't like his stance on some of the issues.

There is an old saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Hold out for a perfect candidate and you miss out on the good ones.

 

He agrees with my views on one of your favorite subjects, medical/scinetific research. There should be no avenue of research banned by the government. But the government should not fund research either. It is not the governemnts job to block or aid in any private endeavor which includes stem cell research.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

I think the government should fund projects that would better the lives of its citizenry as a whole. The government is for the people who are governed, not the other way around. The last thing I want is an uncaring, cold government body that does not care if its citizens live or die.

[Guard Dog]

I think the government should fund projects that would better the lives of its citizenry as a whole. The government is for the people who are governed, not the other way around. The last thing I want is an uncaring, cold government body that does not care if its citizens live or die.

So you want the federal government reigned in to conform to the limits of the Constitution when it comes to foreign policy and to leave you alone when it comes to matters of privacy (like abortion), but when it comes to social engineering and "helping" it's okay if they go hog wild? You can't have it both ways. Either it conforms to the framework or it does not. I cannot say that I do not trust the government to tell me how to invest for retirement (privatizing social security), then ask the same government I did not trust to provide health care for me.

 

With respect, you are not asking for a government the cares abut it's citizens, you are asking for one that runs it's citizens lives.

[Sand]

Hog wild? No. In moderation, yes.

 

Such as I am against the over use of the welfare system. It gets heavily abused and some people use it as their only source of getting by. That is wrong. It should help people to get off welfare instead of perpetually support them. Six months to a year at most, but not 5 or 10 years. Give support so people can be independent or use government aid as a TEMPORARY crutch during disasters, such as Katrina or those huge snow storms the Midwest had so they can get back on their feet.

 

Support those in need so that they no longer be in need, and eliminate dependency.

 

I advocate social programs that aids making people independent, not dependent, of the government.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Sand

[The.Donut]

For all those who support Obama:

 

How Obama learned to love Israel

[Gorgon]

There may be a point in there, but the source is so obviously slanted that it loses credibility.

 

 

I mean, honestly I wonder what a site called http.://electronicintifada.net/ would think about Isreal.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Gorgon

[Sand]

Well, Israel needs to be pulled back and held accountable for its actions, as do palestine. Personally I say we abandon both sides, stop funding and supporting both sides, and let them deal with each other in their own way without US funding or US interference. If some other nations want to pick a side let them, but we need to wash our hands of it and leave it alone.