Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: agin no proof for your liberal lies

Do you even read the posts? We have most certainly provided ways that Steadman's Medical Dictionary is a legitimate source for medical information, and you have no means to say otherwise. What I see is no proof for your ignorant claims. Just because it damages your case does not mean that it is automatically "liberal lies". Actually do some research on the topic, instead of accepting something as truth because you want it to be true.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: agin no proof for your liberal lies MUST you always lie. F.ex., when the students at Standford Medical School goes out to buy a medical Dictionary, the one on their book list is Steadman's Medical dictionary:
http://pcap.stanford.edu/curriculum/booklist.html

And a site discussing good medical dictionaries:

http://www65.pair.com/lim/shorthand/bookstore.html
...Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary
Stedman's Medical Dictionary
These are two of the best medical dictionaries available today. ...

[Plodder]

stanford is an extrmely liberal institution as are most of the western universities. These universities also support naked parties.

the other site is a completely random site it has no importace whatsoever.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: stanford is an extrmely liberal institution as are most of the western universities. These universities also support naked parties.

Actually, Stanford University is the top research campus on the West Coast of the United States. Statistics show that nearly all universities are liberal, but that does not affect their research. The very term "research" implies that it is an objective study, and all findings are reviewed by a panel of scientific experts (which are not from Stanford), before the findings can be published. Therefore, Standford is definitely a credible source for information.

Besides, can you prove that the Stanford administration supports naked parties?

[Nicholas]

Freakonomics is easily debunked, and it all depends on whether one sees people as a cost or benefit to society. Whereas Freakonomics clearly sees people as a cost and opressive, I see them as a benefit, here is an example:

Instead of abortion, the same energy and expense is devoted to adoption. Instead of 43,000,000 abortions there are 43,000,000 adoptions to solid families. The 43,000,000 grow up, go to college and get $50,000/year jobs, which means that they are adding at least that to the economy = $2.15 trillion or approximately 25% bigger. As a result Annual Tax Receipts are 25% greater, or $500billion, which means that the deficit and national debt are non-existent. This also means that the US's contribution to the UN (blah) and other charities and faith-based organizations would be 25% bigger (i.e. more money for the poor). Also, the US wouldn't have an impending collapse of their pension and Medicaid systems due to low birthrates. And as is often argued by others, within those 43,000,000 aborted babies were the geniuses who would have solved AIDS, cancer, and thousands of other problems afflicting society, which also have huge costs associated with them.

Ultimately, to those that see it as a cost, see the reason for abortions, rather than potential benefits.

[LostSoul3412]

Nicholas wrote: Freakonomics is easily debunked, and it all depends on whether one sees people as a cost or benefit to society. Whereas Freakonomics clearly sees people as a cost and opressive, I see them as a benefit, here is an example:

Instead of abortion, the same energy and expense is devoted to adoption. Instead of 43,000,000 abortions there are 43,000,000 adoptions to solid families. The 43,000,000 grow up, go to college and get $50,000/year jobs, which means that they are adding at least that to the economy = $2.15 trillion or approximately 25% bigger. As a result Annual Tax Receipts are 25% greater, or $500billion, which means that the deficit and national debt are non-existent. This also means that the US's contribution to the UN (blah) and other charities and faith-based organizations would be 25% bigger (i.e. more money for the poor). Also, the US wouldn't have an impending collapse of their pension and Medicaid systems due to low birthrates. And as is often argued by others, within those 43,000,000 aborted babies were the geniuses who would have solved AIDS, cancer, and thousands of other problems afflicting society, which also have huge costs associated with them.

Ultimately, to those that see it as a cost, see the reason for abortions, rather than potential benefits.

Unfortunately, all of this is speculation into the future, which is why freakonomics holds no group from refutations. Also, embryos that have been aborted would not automatically been adopted.

"In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. (Flango and Flango, 1994) - http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-numbers-trends.html

Since adoption numbers have remained fairly consistent, there are only 120,000 children adopted each year. Add another 43,000,000 to the picture, and you are presented with a case of a vastly overstretched welfare system and a government so grossly in debt that virtually all governmental services have been shut down. I am not saying that aborting embryos is a good thing, I am merely debunking the arguments that say that the embryos that have been aborted would have grown up to become great physicians and scientific leaders. If anything, because of the massive amount of children placed in adoption agencies, they would have grown up with little to no education, no family, and on the brink of starvation because the government would be unable to support all of those children.

[steen]

Nicholas wrote: Freakonomics is easily debunked, and it all depends on whether one sees people as a cost or benefit to society. Whereas Freakonomics clearly sees people as a cost and opressive, I see them as a benefit, here is an example: But then, you pushing sophistry and speculation is not evidence of anything other than your imagination.

Quote: Instead of abortion, the same energy and expense is devoted to adoption. Instead of 43,000,000 abortions there are 43,000,000 adoptions to solid families. A claim you would have to prove, as for many years, the number of adoptions, even at its best, have been only about 10% of the number of abortions we see every year. So unless you have other proof, you are instead adding about 1.3 new babies to the orphanages and welfare rolls every year. Your "debunking" seems woefully ignorant of reality so far.

Quote: The 43,000,000 grow up, go to college and get $50,000/year jobs, which means that they are adding at least that to the economy = $2.15 trillion or approximately 25% bigger. Or they drain government resources till they turn 18, then occasionally work minimum wage jobs and steal the rest of the time, unless they get on welfare as well.

Quote: As a result Annual Tax Receipts are 25% greater, or $500billion, which means that the deficit and national debt are non-existent. Or it completely bankrupt us. If more people would so help the economy, then there would be no restriction on immigration. yet, repugnicans are falling over themselves, trying to limit the inflow of people into the US. It is a strong indicator that reality is the exact opposite of your fantasy sophistry. We, of course, also don't know how many of these kids would grow up to be the next McVeigh, Dahmer or unabomber.

And so on and so on. Interesting example of sophistry and wild speculation you provided. but given that evidence right now, today, is speaking against your wild claims. it looks like you are just ranting nonsense, and that reality would be very different from your fantasy.

[Plodder]

you are all assuming that the tax rate will be constant and that there will be little economic growth.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: you are all assuming that the tax rate will be constant and that there will be little economic growth.

Economic growth does not equal government funds. Income taxes generate the spending power of the American government, and just because money is being made by the private sector, does not necessarily mean that the government will have more money to spend on government programs.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: you are all assuming that the tax rate will be constant and that there will be little economic growth. Oh, no. The tax rate will very much need to go up to cover the massive expense of all these unwanted kids in orphanages and group homes.

[Plodder]

one word fpr yall: LENDING

oh and steen: PROOF PLEASE?.....

[steen]

Plodder wrote: one word fpr yall: LENDING Ah, a "borrow and spend" fundie. No surprise there.

Quote: oh and steen: PROOF PLEASE?..... Rumania.

[Plodder]

actually borrow spens and as always the invisible hand.

It will all work out.

click the link

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: one word fpr yall: LENDING

Well, considering how much debt the American government is in (reaching $44 trillion), and considering how much of that debt is already owned by foreign countries, like China and Japan (www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060509-090825-1678r.htm), I don't think that the United States is really in any posistion to lend even more from foreign nations.

For those who don't understand what it means to own debt, basically, the American government has bills to pay, but does not have the money to do so. What happens, is that the Chinese government (for example, since they own the largest share of our debt), buys that debt from the United States. Basically, the Chinese government give us money, in exchange for debt ownership that will come back to haunt us, but since the repercussions are not felt immediately, it is a popular way to "eliminate" debt.

The way it comes back to haunt us... By the time current American high school students retire, China will be paying for their social security. And if China decides to pull the plug at anytime... well, there's nothing we can do about it.

Scary thought, isn't it?

Anyway, we're in no position to lend money.

[Plodder]

Quote: The way it comes back to haunt us... By the time current American high school students retire, China will be paying for their social security. And if China decides to pull the plug at anytime... well, there's nothing we can do about it. china wont pull the plug. world economy would collapse, theor own people wuld starve.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: Quote: The way it comes back to haunt us... By the time current American high school students retire, China will be paying for their social security. And if China decides to pull the plug at anytime... well, there's nothing we can do about it. china wont pull the plug. world economy would collapse, theor own people wuld starve.

What would stop them? They receive nothing from buying our debt other than control of our future economics. And actually, we are more dependent on China than China is on us. Like the United States, China can support its own population with their own food productions, so starving would not be an issue for them. Also, with America out of the picture, that leave China with more trading partners, and would benefit their economy greatly. I think you overestimate the power of the American economy in world affairs, and I think you underestimate the Chinese economy.

[Plodder]

Quote: China can support its own population with their own food productions, actually they are the largets importers of grain in the orld and we are the largets prducer. the western portion of the country is always suffering form starvation.

[mattwa33193]

Nicholas wrote: The Underground wrote: for example i would not want a girl i got pregnant to get an abortion because i don't think it's the best way to solve thing, however as the decision will affect her THE MOST i believe she should have the choice, although i would do all i could to talk her out of it.


It's not only the girl who suffers the consequences from having an abortion, but also YOU. Refraining is the only choice, not the choice made by her. In fact, maybe it might be worth anticipating in advance or mind-mapping the ramifications before you have an intercourse with female. This is only saves you the bother.

You are certainly right that, the life at conception should live the life like you, than cruelly terminated from an abortion.

Yes, an adoption or a fostering client would care for the new saved life and couples who are infertile, usually are desperate to start a family of their own.

Are you Christian?

And if so, how can you support the idea that abstinence is a perfect form of birth control?

[Nicholas]

mattwa33193 wrote: Are you Christian?

I am an atheist. In my believes, religion is the cause of many conflicts around the world. However, I do not want religion to have any influential movements in the way I should interpret life. Needless to say, I see life how I see it, not from propaganda or agendas.

Quote: And if so, how can you support the idea that abstinence is a perfect form of birth control?

To answer the question from my perspective. The phrase ''perfect'' is a bit of an overstatement. There's no perfect form of birth control as there will always be a minority that will infringe upon it. Abstaining is a method of reducing the unwanted outcomes, at suitable circumstances.

Take, for example, the student life agenda (UK). In that realm, sex seems to be treated as ''pleasure'' within an diversity that is not always taken with precaution. Precautionary is another form of abstinence that must be decided by oneself. We have to accept that, with everything we do, there is a risk involved. True, but in order to minimise the risk, we want to try and take the safest solution possible, to prevent going down a path of great difficulty and complications.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: actually they are the largets importers of grain in the orld and we are the largets prducer. the western portion of the country is always suffering form starvation.

Which is why many Chinese citizens in the Xinjiang, Tibet, Qinghai, and Gansu regions has formed collectives that are self-sufficient with their own production of food and materials.

Also, the United States would already export our grain to China because we are dependent on that trade as well. Nearly 10% of all American exports are agricultural products, and our main trade partners are Canada and Mexico, with only 4.3% of all exports going to China. (Source: CIA World Factbook)

China seems to be doing alright without heavy dependence on American trade...