Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-07-17T03:57:48Z

HKK:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think. I care about whether or not stem cells have value. Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.
[[User:Cthx]]

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]
:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]
Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]
: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research. It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand. While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs. Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding. Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather. Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on. We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies. I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies. I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
- [[User:JCasto]]
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human. Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life. Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization? Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away. Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research? JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
::"Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life" How can you say something like that? To me that is sicker than any story of the Holocaust or the Gulags. A fertilized egg under normal conditions becomes more cells, and even more cells. It is simple science. What do you think you are? You are a group of cells with just a few more years progress. Just because you may die in a car crash tommorow doesn't mean I'll shoot you now and harvest your body parts for someone in need of a heart or a lung. How do you justify that your life is more important than someone elses? God created all human beings with worth and dignity from the moment of conception. Also just because, "Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away" doesn't make anything right. Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right? These are HUMAN BEINGS that we are talking about. It is not our right or privelage to make the decision of life or death for them. Isn't that what a murderer is, someone who decides that another human is not deserving of life? --[[User:CRD|CRD]] 21:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Stem cell research is bad. Embryos are living beings.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that abortion is wrong, as it is the taking of a human life. However, using discarded embryos and aborted fetuses for stem cell research is not the same as condoning abortion. If the embryo or fetus is no longer alive, harvesting its stem cells is extremely similar to using the organs of a deceased person to save a living one, or using a cadaver for scientific research. --[[User:ac09]]

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originiate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

YES for stem cells. Allow me to explain:

*You are a killer. By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp. By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants). By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash. And you are shameless about it. Jesus condones killing. His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered ''en masse'' to make bread. Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected. Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important. After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.
*Why is human life so valuable? Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable. Why? One could say that human life is valuable because it is human. That, however, is an arbitrary distinction. The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties. Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have. Here are a few:
::::The ability to feel pain
::::The ability to think
::::The ability to have emotions
Embryos, however, have none of the above properties. Therefore, they do not have the value of a human.

*But what about God? God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary. Besides, how do you ''know'' that God does value them? After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him. And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But don't embryos have potential? Why stop at embryos? Why even stop at conception? By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder. ''Potential'' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But it's ''just not right''?! If you have any other objections, please post.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative. To research stem cells.

Q.E.D.
[[User:Cthx]]

Fairly recently it was discovered that stem cells could be obtained from umbilical cords, pleasing both sides of this debate, I would assume. Does anyone object to this? [[User:HKK]]

:No, I want to deliberately kill babies. Seriously? If umbilical cord cells are easiest to obtain/highest quality, then YES I support umbilical cord cells over embryonic. If, however, they are of inferior quality (i.e. can't be made to specialize) or are too hard to get (i.e. they're needles in haystacks), then embryonic cells are better. [[User:Cthx]]

From what I've gatherd stem cells from cord blood are still a new idea but they show enormous potential. Scientists have also found a way to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. I also support research of embryonic stem cells (especialy when there are so many to be gained through things like invitro fertilization that would have otherwise been disposed of), however in light of recent scienific breakthroughs this debate is becoming much less neccessary, as there are now multiple ways to satisfy both sides.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-07-13T04:17:44Z

HKK:

Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?

2007-07-08T21:37:49Z

HKK:

Is it not the story of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf (Fox)? Edwards fears Fox because they hufffed and puffed. Then Obama fears Fox when he huffed and puffed. Hillary fears Fox so she ran with the other pigs. America faces serious challenges in the future. Can we afford leaders that are afraid to confront issues? What about confronting our enemies?

To me, it is a hell of a clue on how they would lead, lead America to disaster. Remember General Pace calling homosexuality immorral? I know for sure Hillary and Barack were like deer in headlights, afraid, very afraid to answer. Why trust Americas leadership to people that only want to tow the line for liberals only, not the rest of America?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 08:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not solely a Democratic problem. McCain refused to attend CPAC. About the only time we hear from Cheney is on El Rushbo. One might even call running from Fox the television equivelent of protecting an article to preserve one's edits, which often happens on a certain conservative wiki that I know. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I've read your response over and over, sorry it doesn't make sense. McCain refused to attend CPAC because? The only problem, which you call solely not a Democrat problem, is that candidates of the left have refused attendence purely on childish reasons and the influence of MoveOn that says Don't! Those childish reasons are what make it so pathetic. What they are saying to America is we don't trust America to know our real views, lets keep it hush hush until the elections over. So in order to appear like they made a legitamite desicion, they call Fox nammes and try to marginalize their reputation. Edwards says he prefers a debate hosted by CNN. Wonder why? Maybe because it was established by a far leftwing supporter? Maybe because not only do they tilt more than left, their partisanship is overwhelming for the leftwing bias. Is it fair for America to not know the truth? All these candidates want is softball questions that don't put them in a position to alienate voters. That perfect example being General Pace's comments. Cho Cho, the train bears down as a response is requested of our fearless Democrats. Only days later do they clarify their unwavering support for gays, not immoral, huh?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Part of being President is being a military leader. And part of being a military leader is knowing how to choose terrain that's favorable to you, and bad for your opponents. And with Fox's fairly consistent anti-Liberal bias, I can't blame them for wanting to appear somewhere else. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

BobD, what's the D for Democrats? You can't blame them? hmmm. Maybe all Republicans should boycott anything having to do with NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. Just admitt you hate Fox because they tilt to the right. Bias is what the leftwing media offers. That is not tilting left, that is one viewpoint only- leftwing bias. When you claim Fox bias, your assertions are foolish because they offer a liberal perspective (which I hate), unlike the left media companies that offer no rightwing perspective. The left of America is so much wanting a communist system whereby one party rules unchallenged. Keep dreaming, your democrat leaders are a sorry bunch. Your democrat leaders can't keep offering America no views on the issues and keep winning elections.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry Jpatt, you seem to be forgetting that the ''reason'' the debate was cancelled is because Roger Ailes, the CEO of FOX, said:
<blockquote>
"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?"
</blockquote>
:So apparently, comparing a highly educated, well respected presidential candidate with a terrorist leader is acceptable in the eyes of Mr. Ailes. This is called racism, and racism is bad. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::To be fair, that joke made me laugh. And if you don't think we'll be hearing a '''LOT''' of "Obama Bin Laden" comments, both joking and not, between now and November of 2008, you are far more optimistic than I am. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 23:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure we will be hearing them. Is it funny the first time? Yes. Is it at all appropriate to do? No. It's racist, bigoted, and generally an indicator of the speaker's tact. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Look on the bright side--it'll get all the bigots and idiots out in the bright light of day, where we can see them. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hojima, racist? liberals are so easily offended or should I say selectively offended. I didn't see the race involved in that cute remark. It was meerly a word play. And play is what our democrats are good at, such ego maniac multi,multi-millionaire actors. Go ahead, vote for your mamma Obama. How about that word play. RACIST. In fact, democrat leaders are soo much child like. Not your old democrat party thats for sure. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

For those individuals that suggest Democrats just trying to find a fair forum. I give you the fearless Republicans.

Lo and behold next week all the Republican candidates will be on MSNBC — the same channel that, as Mitt Romney pointed out, will include a moderator who used to work in the Carter administration and for Tip O'Neill. That could be unfriendly territory. These Republicans don't seem to care. As Romney pointed out, "We're happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us." Why? "Because we have courage," Romney said. "I have courage of my convictions."--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Jp on April 15 you listed a slew of media outlets that you contend to be liberally bias; does it not seem odd to you that the majority of trusted news outlets these days would be liberally bias when America seems to be fairly evenly split between liberals and conservatives, or to suit the terms of this debate Republicans and Democrats. By contending that the vast majority of today’s political media is liberally bias you assert that the vast majority of America’s population is left wing, which as we can see in our judicial, legislative and executive branches of government is not the case.--HKK

:HKK: that the majority of media outlets that ''you'' trust are [[liberal]]ly biased, need not seem so odd at all if the population is split evenly between liberals and [[conservative]]s--or even if conservatives are in the majority. The ranks of [[journalism|journalists]] ''are not'' drawn at random from the ranks of the general population. Nine out of every ten professional journalists today, donate regularly or have donated to liberal causes, and to the [[Democratic Party]].<ref>Dedman, Bill. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485 Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)]." ''MSNBC'' 5:07 p.m. ET June 25, 2007. Retrieved July 3, 2007. Take note also of this correction: ''Correction: One of the names was included in error in the list of newspeople who contributed to political campaigns ("The list: Journalists who wrote political checks") on June 21. Joe Cline, a graphic artist at The San Diego Union-Tribune, is in the advertising department, not in news. His name has been removed. Because Cline had given to Republicans, the adjusted tally is 143 journalists: 125 giving to Democrats and liberal causes, 16 to Republicans, and two to both parties.''</ref> The trouble is twofold:

:#Conservatives do not apply to go to journalism school as frequently as liberals do. The reason: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who don't even know enough to teach, scribble.
:#Even when conservatives ''do'' apply to journalism schools, they either don't get in or get hounded out of school, not being able to handle the overwhelming and unremitting hostility of the "learning environment" directed toward conservatives generally.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Terry your attempt at wit in relation to your assertion that liberals can do no more than ‘scribble’ has been dually noted, along with your utter failure at it as you managed to leave out half of the important information from ''your'' quoted source. It is true, well at least according to your article from MSNBC.com, (though I am surprised you found it to be a trusted source as it is a part of NBC, a news medium you appeared to believe to be liberally biased) that nine out of ten news professionals ''donating'' today do indeed donate to Democratic causes. It is not, however, true that ''all'' journalists donate to political causes; in fact, according to the article ''you'' cited these donors are a “tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485). While it is true that there are more left wing journalism majors than there are right wing the difference is not as great as you would like people to believe; in fact as of 2002 48% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning to the left and 52% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning either to the right or sitting in the middle (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304). And if Jp’s contention were true then we could reasonably assume that at least the majority of the conservative population (Fox’s core demographic) tuned in to Fox, or at the very least prefers Fox over the media sources that the two of you believe to be liberally biased, however, this is not the case either. According to a study conducted by the ad agency Carat USA “37 percent of viewers calling themselves ‘very conservative’ watch CNN in the course of a week, while only 32 percent tune to Fox .” (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). CNN’s cumulative ratings are also significantly higher than Fox’s, most notably during April 2003, “at the height of fighting in Iraq”. It was at this time that CNN ‘cumed’ 105 million viewers as opposed to Fox’s 86 million (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). It does not make sense that Fox would suddenly become a more trusted resource for news during election time than they would be on any other given day. Perhaps you see Fox as the only trusted source out there, but the majority of America respectfully disagrees. --[[User:HKK|HKK]]
:HKK, your argument assumes that one who does not donate is, by virtue of declining to donate, politically neutral. Or if such a person is not neutral, then you are assuming that the non-donating group splits its votes either down the middle, or in proportion to their readership.

:I don't donate either--but I have already demonstrated how [[conservative]] I am. That I don't donate is because I can't afford to. And besides--people ''donate'' the most important thing that candidates really need when they ''vote'' for that candidate. Now are you prepared to assert that the journalists who do not donate, do not vote, either? Well, maybe not--but are you prepared to show that the journalists who do not donate, ''split their votes straight down the middle'' or even that they vote in proportion to the general population?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

HKK, I'm not all that familiar with the American political scene, and I don't want to speculate too much on ''why'' the journalists might lean more one way than the other, but I think that it's fairly well established that they ''do''. I recall hearing quite a few years ago of a survey that showed that 80% of the American population was opposed to abortion, but 80% of journalists were in favour of it.

Also, the survey that you quoted regarding what journalists believe of themselves (48% liberal/52% conservative or in the middle), I wouldn't give much weight to, as a lot of people consider themselves to be "just right" and everybody else with different views to be "biased". To put it another way, you are asking people to judge where they are in relation to a "centre" that is based on where everyone else is, and most would not be able to accurately make that judgement.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:00, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:Not at all, my point was noting your skewed fact and pointing out the irony of the fact that apparently you are not even capable of scribbling. I also do not appreciate your trying to justify your spin on news sources by contending that a vote is somehow a donation. Furthermore the fact that there are more conservative readers than there are conservative writers (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304) only serves to prove my point; if the number of conservatives in the population out weighs the number of liberals [which they did as of 2002 anyway, 41% to 17% (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)] and Fox is still unable to maintain a higher cumulative rating than CNN then clearly CNN appeals to more than just the liberal set, (a fact which was stated in greater detail above), thus proving my point that CNN is a more trusted news source than Fox. In saying that America was not more right than left I was not contending that the journalists were evenly split, but rather that population was, (though admittedly after doing a bit more research on the topic I found that these numbers were even more extreme than I needed to prove my point). Why would so many conservatives tune into CNN if they found it to be liberally biased? And why would Democratic presidential candidates appear on a Fox when it clearly has fewer viewers than CNN, and the ones that it does have are resolutely against voting for Democrats anyway? --[[User:HKK|HKK]]
::You couldn't have been noting ''my'' skewed facts—I hadn't written anything prior to your previous reply! I was just jumping in to make the point that regardless of "liberal" or "conservative" leanings of whoever, I understood that it was fairly well established that the leanings of journalists was not representative of the leanings of the population as a whole, whereas you seemed to be questioning that point in an earlier post.

No, and I apologize for the mix up. I had written that on a word document in response to Terry H but I was unable to post it at the point that I finnished it so I put it up the next morning after you had replied. My apologies.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]
== References ==
<references/>

Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?

2007-07-06T17:04:08Z

HKK:

Is it not the story of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf (Fox)? Edwards fears Fox because they hufffed and puffed. Then Obama fears Fox when he huffed and puffed. Hillary fears Fox so she ran with the other pigs. America faces serious challenges in the future. Can we afford leaders that are afraid to confront issues? What about confronting our enemies?

To me, it is a hell of a clue on how they would lead, lead America to disaster. Remember General Pace calling homosexuality immorral? I know for sure Hillary and Barack were like deer in headlights, afraid, very afraid to answer. Why trust Americas leadership to people that only want to tow the line for liberals only, not the rest of America?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 08:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not solely a Democratic problem. McCain refused to attend CPAC. About the only time we hear from Cheney is on El Rushbo. One might even call running from Fox the television equivelent of protecting an article to preserve one's edits, which often happens on a certain conservative wiki that I know. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I've read your response over and over, sorry it doesn't make sense. McCain refused to attend CPAC because? The only problem, which you call solely not a Democrat problem, is that candidates of the left have refused attendence purely on childish reasons and the influence of MoveOn that says Don't! Those childish reasons are what make it so pathetic. What they are saying to America is we don't trust America to know our real views, lets keep it hush hush until the elections over. So in order to appear like they made a legitamite desicion, they call Fox nammes and try to marginalize their reputation. Edwards says he prefers a debate hosted by CNN. Wonder why? Maybe because it was established by a far leftwing supporter? Maybe because not only do they tilt more than left, their partisanship is overwhelming for the leftwing bias. Is it fair for America to not know the truth? All these candidates want is softball questions that don't put them in a position to alienate voters. That perfect example being General Pace's comments. Cho Cho, the train bears down as a response is requested of our fearless Democrats. Only days later do they clarify their unwavering support for gays, not immoral, huh?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Part of being President is being a military leader. And part of being a military leader is knowing how to choose terrain that's favorable to you, and bad for your opponents. And with Fox's fairly consistent anti-Liberal bias, I can't blame them for wanting to appear somewhere else. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

BobD, what's the D for Democrats? You can't blame them? hmmm. Maybe all Republicans should boycott anything having to do with NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. Just admitt you hate Fox because they tilt to the right. Bias is what the leftwing media offers. That is not tilting left, that is one viewpoint only- leftwing bias. When you claim Fox bias, your assertions are foolish because they offer a liberal perspective (which I hate), unlike the left media companies that offer no rightwing perspective. The left of America is so much wanting a communist system whereby one party rules unchallenged. Keep dreaming, your democrat leaders are a sorry bunch. Your democrat leaders can't keep offering America no views on the issues and keep winning elections.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry Jpatt, you seem to be forgetting that the ''reason'' the debate was cancelled is because Roger Ailes, the CEO of FOX, said:
<blockquote>
"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?"
</blockquote>
:So apparently, comparing a highly educated, well respected presidential candidate with a terrorist leader is acceptable in the eyes of Mr. Ailes. This is called racism, and racism is bad. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::To be fair, that joke made me laugh. And if you don't think we'll be hearing a '''LOT''' of "Obama Bin Laden" comments, both joking and not, between now and November of 2008, you are far more optimistic than I am. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 23:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure we will be hearing them. Is it funny the first time? Yes. Is it at all appropriate to do? No. It's racist, bigoted, and generally an indicator of the speaker's tact. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Look on the bright side--it'll get all the bigots and idiots out in the bright light of day, where we can see them. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hojima, racist? liberals are so easily offended or should I say selectively offended. I didn't see the race involved in that cute remark. It was meerly a word play. And play is what our democrats are good at, such ego maniac multi,multi-millionaire actors. Go ahead, vote for your mamma Obama. How about that word play. RACIST. In fact, democrat leaders are soo much child like. Not your old democrat party thats for sure. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

For those individuals that suggest Democrats just trying to find a fair forum. I give you the fearless Republicans.

Lo and behold next week all the Republican candidates will be on MSNBC — the same channel that, as Mitt Romney pointed out, will include a moderator who used to work in the Carter administration and for Tip O'Neill. That could be unfriendly territory. These Republicans don't seem to care. As Romney pointed out, "We're happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us." Why? "Because we have courage," Romney said. "I have courage of my convictions."--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Jp on April 15 you listed a slew of media outlets that you contend to be liberally bias; does it not seem odd to you that the majority of trusted news outlets these days would be liberally bias when America seems to be fairly evenly split between liberals and conservatives, or to suit the terms of this debate Republicans and Democrats. By contending that the vast majority of today’s political media is liberally bias you assert that the vast majority of America’s population is left wing, which as we can see in our judicial, legislative and executive branches of government is not the case.--HKK

:HKK: that the majority of media outlets that ''you'' trust are [[liberal]]ly biased, need not seem so odd at all if the population is split evenly between liberals and [[conservative]]s--or even if conservatives are in the majority. The ranks of [[journalism|journalists]] ''are not'' drawn at random from the ranks of the general population. Nine out of every ten professional journalists today, donate regularly or have donated to liberal causes, and to the [[Democratic Party]].<ref>Dedman, Bill. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485 Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)]." ''MSNBC'' 5:07 p.m. ET June 25, 2007. Retrieved July 3, 2007. Take note also of this correction: ''Correction: One of the names was included in error in the list of newspeople who contributed to political campaigns ("The list: Journalists who wrote political checks") on June 21. Joe Cline, a graphic artist at The San Diego Union-Tribune, is in the advertising department, not in news. His name has been removed. Because Cline had given to Republicans, the adjusted tally is 143 journalists: 125 giving to Democrats and liberal causes, 16 to Republicans, and two to both parties.''</ref> The trouble is twofold:

:#Conservatives do not apply to go to journalism school as frequently as liberals do. The reason: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who don't even know enough to teach, scribble.
:#Even when conservatives ''do'' apply to journalism schools, they either don't get in or get hounded out of school, not being able to handle the overwhelming and unremitting hostility of the "learning environment" directed toward conservatives generally.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Terry your attempt at wit in relation to your assertion that liberals can do no more than ‘scribble’ has been dually noted, along with your utter failure at it as you managed to leave out half of the important information from ''your'' quoted source. It is true, well at least according to your article from MSNBC.com, (though I am surprised you found it to be a trusted source as it is a part of NBC, a news medium you appeared to believe to be liberally biased) that nine out of ten news professionals ''donating'' today do indeed donate to Democratic causes. It is not, however, true that ''all'' journalists donate to political causes; in fact, according to the article ''you'' cited these donors are a “tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485). While it is true that there are more left wing journalism majors than there are right wing the difference is not as great as you would like people to believe; in fact as of 2002 48% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning to the left and 52% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning either to the right or sitting in the middle (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304). And if Jp’s contention were true then we could reasonably assume that at least the majority of the conservative population (Fox’s core demographic) tuned in to Fox, or at the very least prefers Fox over the media sources that the two of you believe to be liberally biased, however, this is not the case either. According to a study conducted by the ad agency Carat USA “37 percent of viewers calling themselves ‘very conservative’ watch CNN in the course of a week, while only 32 percent tune to Fox .” (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). CNN’s cumulative ratings are also significantly higher than Fox’s, most notably during April 2003, “at the height of fighting in Iraq”. It was at this time that CNN ‘cumed’ 105 million viewers as opposed to Fox’s 86 million (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). It does not make sense that Fox would suddenly become a more trusted resource for news during election time than they would be on any other given day. Perhaps you see Fox as the only trusted source out there, but the majority of America respectfully disagrees. --[[User:HKK|HKK]]
:HKK, your argument assumes that one who does not donate is, by virtue of declining to donate, politically neutral. Or if such a person is not neutral, then you are assuming that the non-donating group splits its votes either down the middle, or in proportion to their readership.

:I don't donate either--but I have already demonstrated how [[conservative]] I am. That I don't donate is because I can't afford to. And besides--people ''donate'' the most important thing that candidates really need when they ''vote'' for that candidate. Now are you prepared to assert that the journalists who do not donate, do not vote, either? Well, maybe not--but are you prepared to show that the journalists who do not donate, ''split their votes straight down the middle'' or even that they vote in proportion to the general population?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

HKK, I'm not all that familiar with the American political scene, and I don't want to speculate too much on ''why'' the journalists might lean more one way than the other, but I think that it's fairly well established that they ''do''. I recall hearing quite a few years ago of a survey that showed that 80% of the American population was opposed to abortion, but 80% of journalists were in favour of it.

Also, the survey that you quoted regarding what journalists believe of themselves (48% liberal/52% conservative or in the middle), I wouldn't give much weight to, as a lot of people consider themselves to be "just right" and everybody else with different views to be "biased". To put it another way, you are asking people to judge where they are in relation to a "centre" that is based on where everyone else is, and most would not be able to accurately make that judgement.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:00, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Not at all, my point was noting your skewed fact and pointing out the irony of the fact that apparently you are not even capable of scribbling. I also do not appreciate your trying to justify your spin on news sources by contending that a vote is somehow a donation. Furthermore the fact that there are more conservative readers than there are conservative writers (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304) only serves to prove my point; if the number of conservatives in the population out weighs the number of liberals [which they did as of 2002 anyway, 41% to 17% (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)] and Fox is still unable to maintain a higher cumulative rating than CNN then clearly CNN appeals to more than just the liberal set, (a fact which was stated in greater detail above), thus proving my point that CNN is a more trusted news source than Fox. In saying that America was not more right than left I was not contending that the journalists were evenly split, but rather that population was, (though admittedly after doing a bit more research on the topic I found that these numbers were even more extreme than I needed to prove my point). Why would so many conservatives tune into CNN if they found it to be liberally biased? And why would Democratic presidential candidates appear on a Fox when it clearly has fewer viewers than CNN, and the ones that it does have are resolutely against voting for Democrats anyway? --[[User:HKK|HKK]]
== References ==
<references/>

Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?

2007-07-05T21:26:35Z

HKK:

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-03T19:18:59Z

HKK: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK

Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?

2007-07-03T18:43:44Z

HKK: