Kittenplay Forum now at http://kittenplay.net

MissAbsinthe · Senior Member

RE: Oh no, truly off-topic! Pro-clicking only, please.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

Get out.

MissAbsinthe · Senior Member

lol I wish Texas Ranger Walker was my Master instead of that other man :(

I saw the Christmas special the other day, it was awesome!

w1ntermute · Senior Member

I can't tell if you're serious or not. This is troubling... So many people like the Texas Ranger that its hard to tell if others are being sarcastic.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

Time for a real post, kids. This time its short.

Lets think about the accusations of "socialism" from McCain/Palin about Obama/Biden.

You only need to mention ONE thing to dismiss that whole barrel of laughs as retarded.

Alaska is a welfare state. It has NO income tax, it has NO sales tax, and each resident gets a check for living there for $3269.

quote from Palin as Gov of Alaska: We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax.

While the unique fiscal circumstances the state finds itself in at the end of this fiscal year warrant a special one-time payment to share some of the state's wealth, the payment comes at a time when Alaskans are facing rising energy prices. High prices for oil are a double-edged sword for Alaskans. While public coffers fill, prices for heating fuel and gasoline have skyrocketed over the last six months and are now running into the $5- to $9-a-gallon range for heating fuel and gasoline across several areas of the state.

In an interview with The New Yorker last summer Palin explained that she would make demands of a new gas pipeline "to maximize benefits for Alaskans":

And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.
Hurr evileye

w1ntermute · Senior Member

Welcome back to the game. In this post I'd like to talk about something that was recently brought to my attention. Obama's proposed healthcare plan. More specifically the rumor of a nationalized patient database.

The main criticism here is that the database basically has your personal information that could a: be stolen and b: be used to further implement a more generalized personal record of individuals.

The first point here is that nothing on Obama's own website, where the plan is outlined in detail mentions a database at all. The only thing related to his site that has any mention at all is somebody's blog talking about their ideas.

The second point is that, unbeknownst to the majority of the public is the vastness of an already established group of databases. Some of them governmental, some of them private.

Description of the largest private database, Lexis-Nexis:

Your name, social security number, current address, previous
addresses, mother's maiden name, birth date and other personal
information are now available to anyone with a credit card through a new Lexis database called P-Trax.
The public databases range from CODUS (criminal and federal employee DNA database) to partially nationalized driver's license databases to the national census beurau.

I'll continue this tomorrow with some possible uses, and threats as insecure methods of storing personal information and what this means to all of us.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

I'll add more to my above post later on, just to clarify. This post is going to be a bit different.

In this post I'd like to try to address the fundamental differences in the thought processes, backgrounds, and why each party has come to think the way they think. Bear in mind, these are all going to be generalizations, but what I'd like to make most clear is that this is not an attack on either side. It is an attempt to describe how different and difficult it is to understand what your perceived political opponent thinks and why they think it.

I'll start with a brief, recent history of each of our political parties.

"In the early 1970s, democratic socialist Michael Harrington used the term in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" who had moved significantly to the right. These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still supported the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.

Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. Kristol also claims three distinctive aspects of neoconservatism from previous forms of conservatism: a forward-looking approach drawn from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour approach of previous conservatives; a meliorative outlook, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; taking philosophical or ideological ideas very seriously.

Political philosopher Leo Strauss (18991973) was an important intellectual antecedent of neoconservativism. Notably Strauss influenced Allan Bloom, author of the 1987 bestseller Closing of the American Mind."

and on the modern liberal Democrat:

"Social liberals, also referred to as progressives or modern liberals, constitute a large part, about 45.6 percent, of the Democratic voter base. Liberals thereby form the largest united typological demographic within the Democratic base. According to the Pew Research Center liberals constitute roughly 19 percent of the electorate with 92 percent of American liberals favoring the Democratic Party. While college-educated professionals were mostly Republican until the 1950s, they now comprise perhaps the most vital component of the Democratic Party. A majority of liberals favor diplomacy over military action, stem cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, and environmental protection laws as well as the preservation of abortion rights. Immigration and cultural diversity is deemed positive; liberals favor cultural pluralism, a system in which immigrants retain their native culture in addition to adopting their new culture. They tend to be divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Most liberals oppose increased military standing and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

This ideological group differs from the traditional organized labor base. According to the Pew Research Center, a plurality of 41 percent resided in mass affluent households and 49 percent were college graduates, the highest figure of any typographical group. It was also the fastest growing typological group between the late 1990s and early 2000s. Liberals include most of academia and large portion of the professional class."

Each of these descriptions are actually of the most vocal, largest, and publicly recognizable groups within each political party currently.

Now that we know who I'm talking about, lets get down to why I think the way I do, and how each party affects how the majority of it's members think.

(to be continued, after work)...

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 16:44, 2008-10-31

The_Sequel · Veteran Member

Wow...look what happens when I don't post for a day or two.

Okay, one: Bruce Campbell would be a totally better candidate than Chuck Norris. Plus he can kill Norris with his chin.

Two: I have almost nothing to say about the political analysis being posted...but I'd like to give you all a small anecdote about earlier today.

I recently had a debate, very informally in a class, with a man who I had previouslhy known had very different views than I. We had butted heads on some other occasions, but without a true debate, per say. Well today we got on this huge tengent about wellfare and disability. Disability really got me going, and after spinning my whole sob story (all of it being true, by the way) about my mother and our family living on disability and whatnot. He didn't budge. He held that the government shouldn't pay wellfare or disability, because it wasn't any of the government's business to do so. Well, needless to say the entire class, including the teacher, got on him about...well....that his views often lead to despotism and revolutions. He still didn't budge. I had no idea stark economic darwinists still existed...and this new fact gives me fear as to what else could be lurking out there, and in what numbers.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

The_Sequel wrote:

Wow...look what happens when I don't post for a day or two.

Okay, one: Bruce Campbell would be a totally better candidate than Chuck Norris. Plus he can kill Norris with his chin.

Two: I have almost nothing to say about the political analysis being posted...but I'd like to give you all a small anecdote about earlier today.

I recently had a debate, very informally in a class, with a man who I had previouslhy known had very different views than I. We had butted heads on some other occasions, but without a true debate, per say. Well today we got on this huge tengent about wellfare and disability. Disability really got me going, and after spinning my whole sob story (all of it being true, by the way) about my mother and our family living on disability and whatnot. He didn't budge. He held that the government shouldn't pay wellfare or disability, because it wasn't any of the government's business to do so. Well, needless to say the entire class, including the teacher, got on him about...well....that his views often lead to despotism and revolutions. He still didn't budge. I had no idea stark economic darwinists still existed...and this new fact gives me fear as to what else could be lurking out there, and in what numbers.

This I think aptly describes some of my points in various posts quite well. It doesn't matter which side you're on. Somebody's got to have a better or more effective idea than the other. I used to be VERY big on small government. Small government spending, less government in our daily lives etc. This is essentially conservatism in a basic way. I, having seen where this can go, and realized how it can affect people in a negative way with a country as large as ours have slowly moved in a different direction.

The point I'm trying to make though is that when somebody shows an idea different from your own, everybody's knee-jerk reaction is to go with what they know. Weather its right or wrong, better or worse should be in everybody's interest. If my reaction were to stick with my small government ideas, I'd be having a very hard time defending my point against your story. I started reading, watching and listening to as many sources as I could get my hands on.

You're only doing yourself a disservice if you form your opinions from a single source. If you have pre-conceived notions about important topics from only CNN, only FOX, only NPR, Newsweek, whatever (I know, I feel bad abot putting NPR next to those guys too). They can be a great souce for raw debate coverage, and if you take an objective look, SOME campaign information.

Enough rambling, public. Take it upon yourselves to educate, learn, research. Since these topics are SO hot-button, SO divisive, everybody who votes needs to decide who they are voting for with ALL of the information they can get. These decisions have a huge impact, even if the electoral college is a farce.

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 01:17, 2008-11-01

w1ntermute · Senior Member

I've been a bit slow on updating my posts, which I promised to do, but at this point its almost too late. Most people have a concrete decision in their minds of who they want as President, and thats who I was attempting to reach.

My reason for all of this spawned from the increasing evidence to me that so many voters are ill informed and making assumptions based upon their one or two favorite sources.

In closing I'd like to give one last bit of advice:

Make your own INFORMED decisions. Do your OWN research. If anything can be taken away from this thread it is that everybody has opinions, and having different opinions is what makes our country what it is. Having as much information available to you as possible is only going to further make our country a better place. Please don't take only the information provided to make your decision, weather you agree or not. It was meant to spur people into finding their own sources to argue or agree with.

Play nice, kids.

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 01:43, 2008-11-04

w1ntermute · Senior Member

The Aftermath: The people have spoken, for those who agree or disagree.

DISCLAIMER: this isn't meant to villify an entire political party. In fact, it should be to promote the exact opposite. Separate yourself from the people who smear personality and character. Join together on the issues YOU care about. Join together on the things that matter in the real world. Lift the veil on this crazy, slanted crap and make your party BETTER. This should be the goal of anybody who calls themselves Democrat or Republican. The fact that we had an election doesn't excuse anybody from being lazy until August of 2012.

Some of you who aren't too big on the state ballot measures may or may not know about Californias prop. 8. I am VERY surprised that in California of all places something like this would still fly, even with a very small marjority.

This speaks to a larger problem, and one that I've been posting about pretty consistently throughout this thread. I don't want to sount like a conspiracy theorist, but it does seem like one sometimes. The vast ammount of crap that gets spun through the media weather you want to call it 'mainstream' or some kind of blog that people frequent that speaks to their views tends to speak one way or the other, depending on your 'core' side.

The problem with having a 'core' side is that people tend to follow that side blindly and increasingly with more trust as they go. The fundamental problem with this is that it creates a false trust, ignorance and even distain for the other perceived 'side' weather there is just one other perceived side or not.

The perpetrators of such villification and ignorance aren't limited to just one 'side' as you might think I'm going with this, but it is certainly much louder, wider spread and easier swallowed by one group in particular. Just listen to Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity. No other group that is so widely accepted is so fiery, hateful, fear inspiring and far reaching as this, in America.

Way to be idiots, CNN. Fox isn't the only lame news source:

Don't get me wrong, I like some conservative ideals, governmentally speaking. Most of those died out long ago, in reality. Government spending? check. Fiscal responsibility? check. Smaller government? check. Oh for the good old days.

I'll post a letter that sums up the feelings and what the measure actually was from somebody posting on another board. Despite them being full of emotion, I do think they put a decent ammount of thought into their rant, and rightly so.

They had some pictures too, but it doesn't really require reproducing them since they described them accurately enough anyway.

Do you see this? This is the sheer stack of pro-Prop 8 material I was sent before the election. That's a pile about as thick as my pinkie.

This is the empty driveway and street because none of my housemates can stand to be here while I'm shouting "****" every so many minutes when I realize that thanks to you pricks, I can no longer do over 1100 things (almost 1200) most of you take for granted now. Things like seeing my partner in the hospital if (s)he is injured, and god forbid that happens, by the way, because (s)he can't get on my insurance from work, which is something the people with heterosexual marriages can do. Needless to say it's a long list and I'd love to know how you felt you could take those things away from us when you can't even look us in the eyes and tell us why you felt we needed to be second-class citizens. (Thank god we were both citizens already, by the way, because immigrating would have been a fun can of worms when, hey, how about that, we can't even use that old standby of the marriage clause if one of us is a foreginer!)

This is the filth, in detail, deciding to paint us as some kind of predators who want your children for our own, like some fairytale witches, stealing them for nefarious plots. Nevermind that we can't even adopt kids in most cases because if a state's not denying us the right, we're somewhere just between "child molestor" and "single mother" on the right to adopt food chain. Isn't it great knowing you helped this, people who donated to that campaign? Decided that hey, you couldn't bear to deal with us doing... what, exactly? so much that you had to slander us? But no, you couldn't even say these things yourself, and I know so many of you know better than this bull****. But you turned a blind eye because holy **** buttsex.

These are the marshmallows I had planned to roast, in a hatebaking style, as I burned those fliers I showed you. But no, I couldn't even do that, with how badly I was shaking, because right now I'm hurt, I'm pissed, and I'm really just hanging on out of spite right now, because I know that even though I'm making some of you squirm right now over the dick move you pulled on so many of us, there are a few of you, the people who SPREAD the lying fliers, the ones who have no religion but your own selfish intentions as an excuse, the ones who spit in my face when I first came out, who want nothing more than to see that, see me dead and buried, because I don't want to go down on you for your lack of [gender reference removed].

This is all that's left of them right now. This is how I feel: burnt, ruined, alone. On my street alone there are still people with pro-Prop 8 signs up in their yard. Most of them know me. Some of them even went to school with me, and yet none of you could look me in the eye and give a single reason why the hell you voted as you did. There would be such an outcry if we did this to you, but hey, we have a black president and the chickens are safe! I know you're better than this. You voted down that bull**** law about abortions needing a parent, it's not like you all just parroted the church's dialogue. You voted down animal cruelty, you're not heartless. But you decided you had to rip mine out and stomp on it because hey, thinking about my sex life (and let's be honest: that's the only difference between us... it's not like I don't go to church too) makes you feel icky.

It just hit me why you wanted that animal bill passed, thinking on it: you pig****ers obviously wanted to keep the sex toys in working order.

(afternote: This might be mine, or I might have just posted it on behalf of a Californian who wanted to remain anonymous on these boards, I don't plan to tell. All I'm going to say is that reading it brought someone who routinely does suicide counseling to depression. Thanks, blue states. Real big help this time.)

too long, didn't read? summary: sorry, gays. california still bigotted.

Edit: I think this brings an end to my posting in this thread, minus any replies to other's future posts. It exemplifies my stance on some of the things still wrong with our country. There will always be problems, but without action, without discussion, nothing changes. Challenge your government, your teachers, your parents, your friends, your neighbors, your self. Fight for what you think is right, not what somebody tells you. That is what still makes our country great, the fact that we can still question, and still hope to make a difference.

This should matter to all of you kinky people, to put it in perspective. Most of the things we do are still illegal. I haven't mentioned it at all before, but to give the lazy folks something obvious...

Thank you, good night.

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 04:05, 2008-11-06

The_Sequel · Veteran Member

Ugh...I have to say I was surprised by this election.

Florida, California, and Arizona....just...wow....I had thought "Well, we did just elect a black president, maybe things will look up for logic and forward thinking in this country". Alas, I ate my words. Except for in Michigan, who legalized Medical Marijuana (A topic which is very close to me because of my mother, who was illegally suggested marijuana by many of her doctors). They also decriminalized possession under 1 gram, I think...which is a good step.

But wow...just...and the state...was that Arizona?...that banned adoption for unmarried couples? I mean I have no words for the amount of stupidity that shows. I do hope that the younger generations can help stop this injustice.

Note: I could say some really horrible, almost rascist things against evangelical christians right now. I make no allusions about it, I'm not an unbiased man in that sense. I just want to say this so that you know that I restrained myself, and can get an idea what my views are in that respect.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

The_Sequel wrote:

Ugh...I have to say I was surprised by this election.

Florida, California, and Arizona....just...wow....I had thought "Well, we did just elect a black president, maybe things will look up for logic and forward thinking in this country". Alas, I ate my words. Except for in Michigan, who legalized Medical Marijuana (A topic which is very close to me because of my mother, who was illegally suggested marijuana by many of her doctors). They also decriminalized possession under 1 gram, I think...which is a good step.

But wow...just...and the state...was that Arizona?...that banned adoption for unmarried couples? I mean I have no words for the amount of stupidity that shows. I do hope that the younger generations can help stop this injustice.

Note: edited out - not going to go there

I think it was Mass. who decriminalized pot (and Michigan?)

I see the banning of adoption for unmarried couples as a thinly veiled slap to the gay population. They already can't get legally married AND in any state it is very hard to adopt, being unmarried. It falls right between being a pedophile and unemployed as far as your chances, from what I understand.

The_Sequel · Veteran Member

w1ntermute wrote:
I think it was Mass. who decriminalized pot (and Michigan?)
I see the banning of adoption for unmarried couples as a thinly veiled slap to the gay population. They already can't get legally married AND in any state it is very hard to adopt, being unmarried. It falls right between being a pedophile and unemployed as far as your chances, from what I understand.

Maybe...I might have gotten it messed around. Although I'm sure it was Michigan who legalized Medical Marijuana.

And I don't think the slap to the gay population is thinly veiled at all. Everyone sees it, at least everyone I've talked to. I'm not going to go on about how horrible it is, blah blah, blah...because I'm sure we all know it is. But what surprises me most is that things like this actually passed. Which means one of two things. A) The number of...people of a lesser intelligence and logic...outnumbers those of people of logic and reason, or B) the people of logic and reason aren't voting. These are horrible problesm on their own. But I'm sure things like these won't go unnoticed. And I assure you I'll be one of those in the rallies...in a dress...waving a rainbow flag .

w1ntermute · Senior Member

The_Sequel wrote:

w1ntermute wrote:
I think it was Mass. who decriminalized pot (and Michigan?)
I see the banning of adoption for unmarried couples as a thinly veiled slap to the gay population. They already can't get legally married AND in any state it is very hard to adopt, being unmarried. It falls right between being a pedophile and unemployed as far as your chances, from what I understand.

Maybe...I might have gotten it messed around. Although I'm sure it was Michigan who legalized Medical Marijuana.

And I don't think the slap to the gay population is thinly veiled at all. Everyone sees it, at least everyone I've talked to. I'm not going to go on about how horrible it is, blah blah, blah...because I'm sure we all know it is. But what surprises me most is that things like this actually passed. Which means one of two things. A) The number of...people of a lesser intelligence and logic...outnumbers those of people of logic and reason, or B) the people of logic and reason aren't voting. These are horrible problesm on their own. But I'm sure things like these won't go unnoticed. And I assure you I'll be one of those in the rallies...in a dress...waving a rainbow flag .

Just as we see the ignorance and stupidity of the masses voting for something that they are afraid of, we see ignorance and stupidity in other things brought to center stage this election season.

Just as we must not be ignorant and stupid about homosexuals, we must also remember not to be ignorant and stupid about religion. There are two sides to every argument. Sure, we can paint a large swath across ALL Christians or Muslims as having a terrible agenda. We could also paint a large swath across our own atheistic views as being ignorant and stupid.

I pose this because often I am driven to conflicting thoughts involving religion and humanity. The division of belief and my own thoughts. Just because I don't believe, or don't understand doesn't mean that I should be condemning every religion's views on every subject that I have a different view on.

I bring you a quote from the NewYork Times: " 'John McCain! Not Hussein!'So goes the latest popular chant on the campaign trail with Gov. Sarah Palin, demonstrated at a morning rally in central Florida." and The middle name Hussein, he said, added to the suspicion. 'I guess Obama was named after Saddam Hussein,' he said. - John Mitten, attendee at a Palin rally. (not an isolated incident)

I'm not defending a religion here, I'm defending somebody's right to practice their religion without persecution. As Colin Powell said recently: Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, hes a Christian. Hes always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is?"

This, I believe, is the dynamic we are seeing at work in the quotes above and in all those terrifying videos of the angry mobs at Sarah Palin rallies. We are not seeing a crowd of naive simpletons being led astray by demagoguery. We are seeing a crowd of people who have chosen to accept unreal ideas, and who are therefore forced to embrace The Stupid.

Racism, bigotry and xenophobia are immoral, of course, but they are also, just as fundamentally, untrue. They are unreal. They provide a theory and a framework for living in the world that cannot be reconciled with the reality of this world. The person who chooses to accept that unreal framework is thus constantly forced to choose between unreality and reality, between the theory and the facts. To hold onto the unreal framework, they must continuously reject reality. And every time they do that, they get a little bit dumber.

To quote from the Bible: "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him." -book 1, 2:9 of John.

Yes, I just quoted the bible. While I don't believe in any religion, we can still learn decent, every day lessons. Yes, there are good things to be read, even if you don't agree with the overall doctrine.

Here I am defending two religion's rights to practice. How is that for devil's advocate?

Can't we all just get along, hold hands and sing 'we are the world'? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 06:54, 2008-11-06

Saberrah · Senior Member

From the moment Sir posted this thread, I've done my best to stay away from this, but curiosity continuously pulled me back, mostly to understand my Owners views on things. For awhile now, I've been debating with myself if I should post anything in this thread, and I've concluded that I should.
I am the one with the "wildly different views" Sir mentioned at the start of his post.
I'm a Nondenominational Christian. Meaning...I believe everything in the Bible, start to end. And I take everything in the Bible literally. I do believe the world was created in seven days, and the days being what it is now. The Bible doesn't state HOW exactly he did that, and I do have my theories, but that is not for this post. I'm just using this as an example that I do believe in what the Bible says.
The reason for this post is to show others that not ever Christian is as "evil" as some would like to believe. Reading through this thread has made me shake my head numerous times. I kept wondering if I should post something, anything, but I felt that anything I wrote would be attacked....and sadly, I still feel the same. But, I feel I must at least say something.
I have always considered myself open minded. I'm a Christian living a BDSM lifestyle, a very rare thing from what I have come to learn. My moto in life is a quote from the Bible, "judge not, lest ye be judge" Matthew 7 verse 1. I have taken this to heart. I do my best not to judge others for their view points or lifestyle, and I like to think others won't judge me. I'm far from a perfect Christian. I sin. I sin daily. And I believe that when my time comes, that God will judge me then. And I do believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again, to save us (human kind) from our sins.

John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

No one is perfect. Simple as that. But, it is not my place to judge. I feel that if another wants to marry another of the same sex, then let him or her do as she wishes.

For me, murder is murder. No matter if the person is old, or just a tiny little fetus. I'm against abortion. It is something I refuse to ever do. I'm of the mind that if the parents doesn't want the child, then give the child up for adoption. There are so many people out there that want nothing more than to have a little baby for themselves, and for one reason or another, can't. But, I'm not about to force my belief on another. If someone is seriously thinking about having abortion, then my answer to them is to talk to as many women as she can to learn just what it is those women went through because of their own abortions. I tell them to learn the risks, and to seriously consider if it is that they can destroy an unborn life. Its their choice. I would love nothing more in the world to say "NO!" to the person, but it's not my place. The most we can do is educate the person.

As for the fact that so many people can't adopt for one reason or another....I think it's kind of sad that single unmarried people cannot adopt. There are so many kids that need a good home and by restricting who can or cannot adopt this much is sad. Yes, I think there needs to be qualifications; a steady job, financially and emotionally able to support any child, a healthy environment and to provide security. But, there are so many single people, older women or men who have no interest in getting married or dating, but still want a child and are unable to have one themselves...to say they can't adopt because they're single is disheartening. I believe that as long as you can provide what a child needs, emotionally, financially, and growth wise, then they should be allowed to adopt. It shouldn't matter if they person is gay or not as long as they can provide and maintain a proper home.

My thoughts on drug use is a bit more biased. I used to smoke marijuana in high school....until someone took advantage of my drug induced high and raped me. I was sixteen. Since then I've been against drugs altogether. I went through my experimental stage with it and found it lacking. Terribly so. I would love nothing more to have illegal drugs off the street. But that will never happen. People are always going to sell and push illegal drugs. Sticking the drug users in jail isn't the answer. Rehabilitation would be a more likely solution. The usage of marijuana for medical reasons is understandable, but there are always going to be those who will misuse that privilege. So, while I said I'm against drugs, there really isn't much one can do about it other than to choose their friends wisely. I choose to stay away from those that do drugs. I want nothing to do with it. People may do as they please with it, it's their choice, but I for one want it as far away as possible from me.

I'm Christian and I'm not perfect. I don't live my life completely by the Bible. That's impossible. The best I can do is do my best, and ask forgiveness when I have fallen short, which is very often. The reason for this post isn't to point fingers at anyone for any reason, but to help others understand that not all Christians are as bad as some think. I hope I have helped with that, but I honestly don't know. Even now I am questioning this post, but I feel posting this is what I must do.

Judge not lest ye be judge....keep your mind open and always be willing to learn. It works for me...will it work for you as well?

The_Sequel · Veteran Member

Okay...wow...

As both the previous posts concerned religioun, I suppose I should comment. I'll say again that I am not unbiased in this subject. I have had some bad experiences with members of the christian faiths, and I'm afraid it has left me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Though I'd like to think that I'm not too bad with it. The extent of it being the occasional spur of the moment generalized statement, and a rolling of my eyes when anyone mentions "god" as a point of evidence for this thing or the other.
Maybe I'm digging myself deeper into a hole here, but no one's unbiased. Just like Saberrah's experiences have done the same thing to her on the subject of drugs. I don't want to ban religioun or anything of the like...though I would like to see more logical thinking in the world...research...all that jazz.

On Abortion...I won't get too into this because it is an issue which, as I have previously stated, I'm very passionate about. I think the best way to illustrate my point is to realize that an aborted fetus wouldn't, in an ideal world, just sit in a jar somewhere. Stem cell research could help save millions of lives using the cells from said fetus. And, from a medical standpoint, they are just blank cells...there is a cut off for abortion, and by the cut off point, only some, if any, cells have specialized. Most of the pictures the protestors wave around are late abortions done due to a risk to the mother's life. Formed heads and eyes don't come until weeks after pregnancy...and any resemblance to a human form isn't until months afterwards.

On drugs...I'm pretty sure it can be put together my stance on drugs. Legalization and moderation, so that laced street drugs don't hurt more people. And, as far as abusing medical marijuana...people abuse prescriptions drugs, too.

-- Edited by The_Sequel at 17:15, 2008-11-06

w1ntermute · Senior Member

The_Sequel wrote:

Okay...wow...

[words]
-- Edited by The_Sequel at 17:15, 2008-11-06

I'll start off my reply by prefacing that I do enjoy playing the devil's advocate. In most of my arguments though, the majority of what I argue I do believe, so it is not solely for the sake of discourse.
I'll start by giving a description of abortion, the state at which a fetus becomes a fetus and some statistics by reputable medical studies. This is so that we can all be on the same page, and perhaps get a better idea of what exactly abortion does and does not cover, in a medical sense.
"A fetus (or foetus or ftus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses, or sometimes feti. The fetal stage of prenatal development starts when the major structures have formed, and lasts until birth.
In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age (the 9th week after fertilization)." -wikipedia
"An embryo (from Greek: , plural , lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full") is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of implantation until the end of the 8th week, whereafter it is instead called a fetus." -wikipedia
These definitions are meant to aid us in understanding just what abortion is, and what is widely held as acceptable, as far as studies conducted world-wide and in the US. Embryonic stem cell research has the name embryo in it for a reason.
Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2003, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 88.2% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks.
As you can see, most abortions are conducted before the embryo has reached the fetal stage. Typically the other 12 or so percent are due to medical complications with a pregnancy, or other rare cases.
Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week. Abortion methods, like most minimally invasive procedures, carry a small potential for serious complications. The risk of complications can increase depending on how far pregnancy has progressed.

Women typically experience minor pain during first-trimester abortion procedures. In a 1979 study of 2,299 patients, 97% reported experiencing some degree of pain. Patients rated the pain as being less than earache or toothache, but more than headache or backache.

Local and general anesthetics are used during the procedure
The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of controversy. No scientific research has demonstrated a direct causal relationship between abortion and poor mental health, though some studies have noted that there may be a statistical correlation. Pre-existing factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, pre-existing psychiatric illness, and conservative views on abortion increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.

In a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." The APA revised and updated its findings in August 2008 to account for the accumulation of new evidence, and again concluded that induced abortion did not lead to increased mental health problems. As of August 2008, the United Kingdom Royal College of Psychiatrists is also performing a systematic review of the medical literature to update their position statement on the subject.

Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by pro-life advocates as a separate condition called "post-abortion syndrome." However, the existence of "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization, and some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.
Sources: http://www.womensmedcenter.com/faqs/default.asp
Is there post abortion syndrome? NY Times
Guttmacher Institute, "More on Koops Study of Abortion"
Washington Monthly article on myths about abortion
"Psychological responses after abortion". Science 248 abstract
...continued, I broke the post length. How about that.

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 01:05, 2008-11-07

w1ntermute · Senior Member

continued...

On to drugs!

Despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, drugs have become more accessible, cheaper, and more potent. The illegality of injectable drugs leads to a scarcity of needles which causes an increase in HIV infections. An easy cure to this problem, while upholding the illegality of drugs, is the Dutch policy of distributing free needles. The money spent on both increased health costs due to HIV infections and drug prohibition itself causes a drain upon society. Despite the fact that most drug offenders are non-violent, the stigma attached to a conviction can prevent employment and education.

A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl with which their heroin had been cut, the easier to make derivative MDA sold as MDMA (pure medical E/extacy).

An economical perspective:

The United States efforts at drug prohibition started out with a US$ 350 million budget in 1971, and is currently (in 2006) a US$ 30 billion campaign. These numbers only include direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, and as such only represent part of the total cost of prohibition. This $ 30 billion figure rises dramatically once other issues, such as the economic impact of holding 400,000 prisoners on prohibition violations, are factored in.

The war on drugs is extremely costly to such societies that outlaw drugs in terms of taxpayer money, lives, productivity, the inability of law enforcement to pursue mala in se crimes, and social inequality. Some proponents of decriminalization say that the financial and social costs of drug law enforcement far exceed the damages that the drugs themselves cause. For instance, in 1999 close to 60,000 prisoners (3.3% of the total incarcerated population) convicted of violating marijuana laws were behind bars at a cost to taxpayers of some $ 1.2 billion per year. In 1980, the total jail and prison population was 540,000, about one-quarter the size it is today. Drug offenders accounted for 6% of all prisoners. Today drug offenders account for nearly 25%.

It has been argued that if the US government legalised marijuana it would save $7.7 billion per year in expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Also, that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if it were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if it were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Sources: "Economics". Drug War Facts.

"Prisons, Jails and Probation Overview". Drug War Facts.

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise. (lol)

"The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition". The Marijuana Policy Project.

Friedman and Szasz on Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition. Drug Policy Foundation Press.

Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record - washingtonpost.com

And to add a personal note: I am not necessarily about every body doing drugs, nor am I for everybody who doesn't want a child having an abortion. These are, again, things that I think people should be able to make their own decisions about. What should be focused on is education, not criminalization.

I have experienced the very worst side of drugs in my life. My uncle shot himself after overdosing, and being a long time addict since I was young. This in itself though does not mean that everybody who wants to expirament, or habitually get stoned is going to go through the same things. We all at least know somebody who drinks alcohol. Does everybody who drinks go out and drive recklessly? No. To prohibit the private use of drugs for whatever reason is beyond anybody's judgement. If somebody wants to expirament, or get high, they will find a way.

To make it legal is to make it safer. In my mind it can't possibly get any more dangerous than it is at this point. I could probably draw closer ties to terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan through opium than Bush did to WMDs. We even helped, just like the Iran Contras of Reagan.

Check out what we did for them.

and this.

Should I go on? I think you can see where I'm going with this. The LA Times and The Nation aren't TOO conspiracy theory are they?

Its just my slanted view. Have at it. doh bleh