Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[ChromeBoy 0]

Quote

But imho holding a position of "authority" does not negate a person's right to have and express their opinions, nor does it negate a person's right to disagree with the opinions of others who may or may not hold the same "authority" positions.

Damn. Your post just gave me a hard on Lisa.
ooo...Lisa...Why don't you come lay down in this soft savannah...that's it...

[AggieDave 6]

Lisa,
I guess I didn't express myself clear enough to get my point across. Happens quite a bit. This thread has gone better then some in the past, I guess I took what was said the wrong way. The moderators have every right and privalage to express what ever opinion they have, if they want to sacrifice kittens, then go ahead (no, I'm not serious about the kittens, that's a joke). What I expressed is more of a continuation of what I've noticed over the past 3 months or so. My original post didn't quite express that, I'm sorry I was misleading.
What I've seen over the past while is basically what I stated in my previous post. We've had some great discussions here, unfortunately, personally atleast, I seem to always come away with a feeling that when I have expressed my views, which tend to be pretty conservative on *most* issues, or others have expressed those views the responses have implied that since we have conservative views that we are "closed minded" and lack the ability to properly understand the world as we know it. (I know a grammer nazi is going to kill me for that run on...).
That is more of a vibe I've gotten then anything, that's all.
"Are they short-shorts?" T.B.

[Muenkel 0]

I have not yet read all the responses to this thread, so I apologize if I repeat something that has already been posted.
First of all, since you are a moderator here and I am sure very respected, I anticipate most will agree with your point of view.
The fact you claim Bush is "not the brightest" insinuates that your opinion is the correct opinion and anyone who disagrees is not bright.
My 2 cents: There are many people, myself included, who believe there is a divine being who creates life. We believe we are sub-divine and do not have the right to manipulate life in any form. Seperation of Church and State is a wonderful concept and it is what makes our country so great. However, those of us who believe in a divine being, believe we will one day answer to him/her. We also believe that the divine being's law is supreme over any man-made law.
Our President has to make a decision one way or another. Whether we like it or not, he is human and he has his beliefs. We cannot expect him to push aside everything that is "him" when he makes an opinion. If his opinion differs from yours, this does not mean he is not bright. Former President Clinton's opinions differed from mine many times, however I must acknowledge that he is intelligent. After all he was a Rhodes Scholar which I am not.
The issue of cloning and stem cell research is a very complex issue. Ethics, morals, religious beliefs, etc. are all in play here. I personally admire that the man can take a stand, even though it may not be very popular.
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[Scratch 0]

I must admit I have only read some of the posts and skimmed others but a interesting discussion non the less.
The only thing I want to add on the topic of cloning is this.
Like it or hate it. Embrace it or fear it. Non of any of us feel or believe makes any difference.
The genie is out of the bottle guys and we are all going to have to live with it. It will not be going away any time soon.
Every day above ground is a good day.

[quade 4]

I was going to leave this thread alone today as I'm just about to go out the door and toward the DZ, but I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions.

Quote

The fact you claim Bush is "not the brightest" insinuates that your opinion is the correct opinion and anyone who disagrees is not bright.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
The subject line on this thread is a call back to a previous thread in which I said that GW wasn't the brightest because of a bunch of other things he had said -- specifically, him using the phrase "Axis of Evil". I wrote the subject line specifically to attract the attention of the individuals in that previous thread. Most have read this thread as well.
It is, nor has it ever been, my intention to insult the individuals that disagree with me, only to point out that there is, in fact, a wide variety of opinion on the subject and that GW appears to have not taken that into account.
His opinion is no more nor less valuable than mine, yet his actions deny mine.
I could go on and continue to debate all the finer points of why I think GW continues to demonstrate why he's not the brightest, but that is in a nutshell it.
I'll check this thread again at the end of the day, but right now, I gotta jump.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[skybytch 273]

Quote

First of all, since you are a moderator here and I am sure very respected, I anticipate most will agree with your point of view.

I fail to see why quade's status as a moderator means that anyone will (or should) agree with his point of view. There is nothing in the green color of a moderator's screen name that means that we are respected or that our opinions on anything are anything other than our individual opinions

Quote

The fact you claim Bush is "not the brightest" insinuates that your opinion is the correct opinion and anyone who disagrees is not bright.

I don't see this. I see quade's statement/claim as being his opinion, not an insinuation that anyone who disagrees with that opinion is less than intelligent.
pull & flare,
lisa

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I don't see this. I see quade's statement/claim as being his opinion, not an insinuation that anyone who disagrees with that opinion is less than intelligent.

I disagree. Quade's statement is very direct: "Bush proves he's not the brightest...again.". He is clearly stating that he feels Bush's stand on this issue is not bright. Therefore you can assume if someone agrees with Mr. Bush, then they are also "not the brightest".
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I fail to see why quade's status as a moderator means that anyone will (or should) agree with his point of view. There is nothing in the green color of a moderator's screen name that means that we are respected or that our opinions on anything are anything other than our individual opinions

I agree with this statement. I feel completely free stating my opinion even if it is different than a moderator's. However, I feel like in any community there are those who want to "fit in and feel like they belong" and to do so, try to follow those they perceive to be the leaders. Moderators here do have a certain authority and are perceived to be somewhat of a leader. I think perhaps (my opinion only) that some like to jump in and agree in order to have a feeling of belonging. This is just a general statement and I don't think it just applies to DZ.com.
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[skybytch 273]

Quote

However, I feel like in any community there are those who want to "fit in and feel like they
belong" and to do so, try to follow those they perceive to be the leaders. Moderators here do have a
certain authority and are perceived to be somewhat of a leader.

So because of this moderators should not express their opinions?
pull & flare,
lisa

[scottbre 0]

Quote

So because of this moderators should not express their opinions?

Exactly! Moderators should be like bouncers, they don't dance, but they throw out the real trouble-makers.
j/k btw. "Yea, I didn't think we'd actually be turning any points..." ~ Goat #4

[skreamer 1]

OK, but bouncers get paid for their services don't they? Hmm, how much are we paying these moderators for their services? *(edited in the interests of global harmony)
As for that argument of people agreeing with the moderators just to fit in. Well, if this was www.needlepointforthelimpofwrist.com then maybe, but somehow I don't see that applying to skydivers.
My $0.02/£0.01 worth
Will
"Look before you jump, don't die until you're dead"

[scottbre 0]

I felt that I made this abuntantly clear, but for the sake of the spotting skills challenged, I will reitterate that the bouncer comment was a JOKE.
"Yea, I didn't think we'd actually be turning any points..." ~ Goat #4

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

I didn't realize that 'being the brightest' was a requirement for the job of president. If that were true, there would only be one person eligible (ie the brightest). Of course, since Clinton I also realize that 'integrity' is not a requirement for being president either. Clinton's subordinates, (military, FBI, DEA, SS, etc) would have lost their jobs and faced prison time for doing what he lied about and later admitted to doing.
You might not agree with Bush but at least he states unequivocally what he means and then stands behind it.

[jfields 0]

Actually, the joke is on all of us.
"Quade" is actually the evil, lurker, alter-ego pseudonym for none other than President George Bush himself. He spends time in the forums doing research and we have been nothing more than an underpaid focus group all along.
Those who expressed dissent with his policies will be audited by the IRS, conscripted by the Marine Corps, shadowed by the FBI and sent to an undisclosed laundry hamper along with Dick Cheney's dirty underwear. Those who supported his ideas will get real tax refunds, insider information on the next Enron-like scandal before the crash, a valid "Get out of jail free" card, and likely a cabinet position or two.
Does that explain everything?
Justin

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

I disagree. Quade's statement is very direct: "Bush proves he's not the brightest...again.". He is clearly stating that he feels Bush's stand on this issue is not bright. Therefore you can assume if someone agrees with Mr. Bush, then they are also "not the brightest".

I think you're missin' the point dude. I dunno if you read it, but Quade had another thread awhile back about Bush and his lack of "brightness." The "AGAIN" part of the title in this thread means its like a continuation of the last one. Just because Quade feels that Bush is not bright, doesn't mean that he thinks that you are not bright. Think about it.
As far as people agreeing with moderators on issues such as this just because they are moderators....I think its pretty safe to say that doesn't happen here....
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[skreamer 1]

No shit sherlock, no need to reiterate anything - I just wanted to remind people that the moderators don't get paid (unless they are hard core masochists that is).
"Look before you jump, don't die until you're dead"

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

Does that explain everything?

Pretty much!!!
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I just wanted to remind people that the moderators don't get paid (unless they are hard core masochists that is).

Yup. I get paid only in abuse and oh, how I love it. Beat me, hurt me, make me write bad checks...
pull & flare,
lisa

[FallingMarc 0]

Quote

"Quade" is actually the evil, lurker, alter-ego pseudonym for none other than President George Bush himself. He spends time in the forums doing research and we have been nothing more than an underpaid focus group all along.

HA! I think this is one of the best threads I've been a part of. Civil, good natured debate can be a wonderful thing.
However, I think I saw something by Quade up a ways about "having to go jump today," for which I will never be able to forgive him, as it is 75 and sunny here, and I'm stuck on the ground until saturday.
Either way, thanks for the discussion everyone...
Marc

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Beat me, hurt me, make me write bad checks... "
Just don't downsize irresponsibly, or take her last beer .
Cya
D

[JDBoston 0]

Personally, I think the joke's on the American people for believing this. I admit Bush has handled the events of the last 6 months fairly well, but most of what he's done on the domestic policy front is gush out platitudes about saving children and education and the environment etc., and then turn around and kill or stall policy initiatives that really DO those things, in favor of policy initiatives that big companies have spent $ lobbying for. I think he's one of the most shameless liars we've got.
Joe

[james1010 0]

Let the discussion continue . . . came across this brief article on EMBRYONIC stem cell research, scary stuff:
The un-programmed cells of an early embryo are derailed from their natural course of development and coaxed through chemical manipulation to become very specific tissue types that will be used to treat the unhealthy or diseased tissue of those already born. Opponents of funding ESCR have argued vehemently against this stark utilitarian treatment of human life, unfortunately with little effect.
Regarding the justification that the embryos "left over" in IVF clinics (reportedly >300,000 in the US alone) will simply be discarded anyway, reflects a chilling absence of moral conscience. We do not consider it appropriate to take organs from dying patients or prisoners on death row before they have died in order to increase someone else's chances for healing or cure. Neither, then, should we consider any embryos "spare" so that we may destroy them for their stem cells.
How far down this road have we already come? Consider the story of Adam and Molly Nash. Molly was diagnosed with Fanconi anemiaa hereditary and always fatal disease. Doctors determined that the best hope for Molly was a cell transplant from a relative whose cells matched Molly's, but without anemia. So Molly's parents produced fifteen embryos by IVF, only one of which had the right genetic material. It was implanted in Mrs. Nash who gave birth to Adam. Adam's stem cells were taken from his umbilical cord and implanted in his sister. Despite all the success of the treatment and the medical justification, the fact remains that Adam was conceived, not just to be a son, but a medical treatment. Adam was a meansvaluable only insofar as he carried the right genetic material. If he hadn't, he would have been rejectedlike the other fourteen discarded embryos. The undeniable conclusion is that we are growing humans for body parts.
Whaddaya think of that?
James

[jfields 0]

Quote

Whaddaya think of that?

Personally, I think it is fine. Using some brains, some science, and some test tube cells, they saved their daughter's life. Who outside of that family stood to be harmed in any way?
Just my $.02, of course.
Justin

[christopherm 0]

That's just horrible, how could the parents possibly want that? You know the kid isn't loved as much and that's going to be pretty damn tough for him to stomach why he was born solely for body parts. I mean i know i'm a mistake but damn... that would just suck.
-So, how hard is the ground?!

[Lindsey 0]

What I think of that is that we have some pretty HUGE questions to contend with.....our responses to which will resound LOUDLY for generations. While I, personally, have a big problem with creating embryos for the purpose of using their parts, I'm not willing to impose my belief in this area, no matter how strong it may be, on the rest of society.... I value liberty as well, and I am not so presumptuous to think that my values are more valid than the person next to me who disagrees with what I think....
Eve was framed!
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley