Challenge: Grade the President

[Dawnslayer]

Recently, CNN ran an Internet poll to see how their viewers graded various politicians, based on a "report card" system. President Barack Obama got a C- average, while the separate scientific survey gave him a C+. For those not familiar with this system:

A+ = 100%, A = 90-99%, B = 80-89%, C = 70-79%, D = 65-69%, F (failure) = 64% and below. + and - denote the higher and lower end of the letter grade respectively, except for F which stands alone. I = incomplete.

I have to wonder: do the people who give the President a poor grade know how tough his job is? Or do those who grade him highly give him too much leeway? How many who graded really knew the details of what they were grading on, and how many thought to themselves: "I could do better than that?"

-----

This is where you come in. I invite the users of Newgrounds, American and non-American alike, to grade President Obama on his performance so far. Give individual grades for each of the issues: war, economy, gun control, education, environment, health care, foreign policy, and whatever else comes to mind; then, put all of them together for a final overall grade.

But here's the catch: after explaining (as succinctly as possible) why you graded him as you did, you have to tell us what you would do in his position, how you would do it, and why your way would work. Then your fellow users will have the opportunity to grade YOU, using the same system. Grading the president or another user on an issue, but failing to address it yourself, is an automatic F on your report card.

So, can you really give the President a fair grade?...Well, can you?

[hansari]

FFS! Its only been six months!!!

I know some people thought "The Messiah" would shit golden eggs upon taking office but come on people...

At 8/8/09 07:07 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: So, can you really give the President a fair grade?...Well, can you?

Yes! Not everyone is ignorant on the issues. On healthcare alone, you can google millions of opinions and plans people have made themselves. Studentdoctor forums are rife with them...

[TheShrike]

At 8/8/09 08:08 PM, hansari wrote: FFS! Its only been six months!!!

True.

That being said, is the student not graded daily, or at least weekly? What if you were asked to compare this six months to another presidency?

I know that's not an answer to the original post. Tough.

[Dawnslayer]

At 8/8/09 08:08 PM, hansari wrote: FFS! Its only been six months!!!

I know some people thought "The Messiah" would shit golden eggs upon taking office but come on people...

I anticipated this reaction and have prepared a response accordingly. As a citizen who voted for Obama, I agree that passing final judgment only midway through his first year is utterly ridiculous. That would be like your professor failing you out of their class only one month into the semester. But with this in mind, your professor also makes sure you know where you are along the way, usually in the form of a progress report or (if necessary) a student teacher conference.

This was the intent behind the thread - to assess the President's progress in office, not his ability to do the job. That's for historians to decide twenty to thirty years from now. I want to know where people think America is headed, and what direction it should be taken from here. But most of all, I want people to take a good, hard look at the Presidency, and try to do the job themselves to see how far they would get - in other words, cut the guy a break.

I now ask for the return of this thread to its intended topic. Thank you.

[All-American-Badass]

I'll give Obama a 60% Mainly becuase he's still keeping the country together somehow. but i don't approve of his healthcare plan, it'll eventually lead to universal healthcare, or the cap and trade he enacted, though it would reduce emissions from appiances, it will make utility bills much higher and raise taxes on businesses that pollute alot . I also didn't approve of him closing gitmo so quickly. What I really dont like is how close to me they'll send some of the gitmo detainees (Leavenworth), but in reality that's congresses fault, not the presidents.

[hansari]

At 8/8/09 09:06 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: As a citizen who voted for Obama, I agree that passing final judgment only midway through his first year is utterly ridiculous. That would be like your professor failing you out of their class only one month into the semester. But with this in mind, your professor also makes sure you know where you are along the way, usually in the form of a progress report or (if necessary) a student teacher conference.

This first paragraph gave me pause to laugh...

How do you liken the real world with the public education system? Being able to repeat grades...school calling home when your sick...not to mention the low bar public education sets unless your in some accelerated course...

No, you would do better to compare it to College. All responsibilities set on you...and if your failing a course and its already been over 2 weeks, your professor will definitely recommend you cut your losses and withdraw...

At 8/8/09 09:06 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: This was the intent behind the thread - to assess the President's progress in office...

*second laugh...

You sound like you want to draw some sympathy for the man...well I'm not one to demand his exile from America, but I'm far from pleased nor sympathetic...

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/insurance-c o-profits-good-but-not-breaking-records/

I've watched the Presidential news conference and the man spent an hour on healthcare without elaborating on any details (as well as throwing around bad statistics [http://factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-hea lth-care-news-conference/].

He started with UHC on the campaign trail...now he is either cutting his losses or creating a stepping stone. Either way he hasn't provided me with any details on where this is going. Six months yes...but I would like to see what we have so far... or will he just keep saying "insurance will accept pre-existing conditions" and "keep your doctor" like he is still on the campaign trail?

How about that memorable speech in Cairo? Yeah, I haven't seen much change in the middle east policy...let alone change in action on Palestine/Israel... (more wasted words...send Jimmy Carter while Obama does some real work next time)

At 8/8/09 09:06 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: But most of all, I want people to take a good, hard look at the Presidency, and try to do the job themselves to see how far they would get - in other words, cut the guy a break.

Couldn't someone say the same about any President?

I mean redo the Great Depression, Civil War, Cold War, OPEC Oil Embargo, etc.... I mean who honestly knew what to do? We have hindsight now, but seriously...cut Nixon a break guys! If you were in his shoes to hear your enemies plotting, what would you do!? And those senators who let down the fine people of their state for an even finer piece of ass...

At 8/8/09 09:06 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

:I have to wonder: do the people who give the President a poor grade know how tough his job is?

You know if I had a crappy doctor, I'm not gonna accept "do you know how hard remembering 10 years worth of medicine is" as an excuse... (though I bet its tough)

There are people on both sides who choose to be ignorant of the issues and choose headlines to be their political beliefs...frustrating ...but being President is a thankless job. And I doubt Obama was clueless to what he was getting into...

[TheReno]

war, economy, gun control, education, environment, health care, foreign policy,

Alright then.

War: C, He gets a C because hes really doing the same damn thing Bush did. He decided to take out al queda, Sent more troops in, and reeasured the american people it was justified. Just like bush.
Now I would have probably done the same thing. So why a C? Cause to me, these wars and this grading thing, its like if this was a real test the question in 2 divided by 0. Impossible to answer correctly.

Economy: F. Hmmm, Over taxed economy, what to do. Oh yeah lets spend 787 Billion dollars! Oh and then lets get that Cap and trade bill passed, because the only thing I like more then spending shit loads of cash is making it so your energy bill increases 90% or more.
You want to know how to fix this economy? You bring tariffs back. You see, when you make that japanese car cost as much or slightly more then our american made cars, you put a demand on factories to make more. The factories cant handle the strain so they build more factories, bring in more jobs, taking production away from china because its now cheaper to make and sell things here. Oh wait, did I just decrease unemployment and help give the economy a well deserved boost?

Gun control: F. Sotomayor. Nuff said.
I would not put a person in that can just blatently say "The constitution is only for the federal government". Infact, I might make it slightly easier to get a gun. And when I say this, I mean try to get it so the wait is lowered, but I would still keep psychological background checks in place. I mean seriously, criminals break the law. They aint going to listen to a gun ban. I might as well make it easier for you to defend yourself.

Education: B. He gets this because he is trying to follow a WORKING PROGRAM!!!! *Points to Bloomberg* But only a B because it seems to me he hasnt takin a proactive step to this, only giving monetary reasons to follow this plan.
Personally Id do exactly what bloomberg is doing, but make it national law. Id find a way to get it through the senate xD

Im gunna skip enviroment here because what needs to be done is in the eye of the beholder, and with no proof of global warmings existance or lack there of, you cant hate for what you dont know is solving a problem or not.

Healthcare: F. He is working hard to get universal healthcare, such as more funding to medicaid in that 787 Billion I mentioned earlier.
It cannot work with our system of econmic principals. People say "Look at canada" I say "Look at socialism". We have Free Enterprise here. It works. It only fails when democrats that err on the side of socialism come into power. And for those who look at just the parties here, Id like to point out that when Bush took office, it wasnt too long to the Democrats took over in that nasty part of our power base, the legislative branch. The LAW making branch. I would not even try to go for it.

Foreign Policy: D. Like all democrats, hes adverse to fighting. But also like any democrat, he continues a fight if the fights already started. Hes trying to end Afganstan in a victory, but he wont put the hurt on N. Korea.
Id have fucking end N. Korea so long ago. Id have given South Korea a new sea to play in, if slightly irradiated. Dont fucking launch a missle at me unless you want to play ball. And especially dont do it when Im fighting two wars, cause I wont have time for your panzy ass and will opt out for total annilation.

[scarneck]

I'm not surprised he has gotten a C- since most people feel that he has not done anything. Once he gets Health Care through it will go up to a B I think. And if he doesn't get it through...He can expect a low 'grade' for quite some time

[HandsomePete]

At 8/8/09 08:08 PM, hansari wrote: FFS! Its only been six months!!!

That.

I know some people thought "The Messiah" would shit golden eggs upon taking office but come on people...

Oddly, it's only the people that hate Obama that call him the Messiah, or even hold that opinion. Some people might have unnecessarily high hopes, but the word "Messiah" especially doesn't seem in holding with the more secular Left.

[TheMason]

I've graded him in different categories on a 10 point scale for each category.

Administrative
3/10
This includes things like making appointments. He fails. I think Sotomayor was actually a good pick despite what many of my fellow Republicans think. He picked a Bush (the first one) appointee, albeit somewhat controversial. How she does remains to be seen.

He did a decent job on his Cabinet, although he had problems when it came to a few of his appointees (Health & Human Resources and one or two others). However, he has utterly failed at filling senior officials in the Treasury and State Departments. While much of this has to do with his (admirable) desire to thoroughly vet these people...it has crossed over to the point of being incompetent. These positions are where the work get does. It makes Geitner's and Clinton's job more difficult and makes the US look bad when other Governments try to contact us at these levels.

Military
7.5/10
* Somali pirates: good.
* Listening to the military on Iraq: good.
* Keep Sec Gates: good.
* Cutting the F-22: fail.

Foreign Policy
7.5/10
He equivocated too much on Iran: negative.
Allowing Clinton to go to North Korea: good.

Economy
3/10
Sales are starting to pick up on homes. The Stock Market is picking up as well. There was a slight dip in expected joblessness last month.
However:
Obama is Bush III. The stimulus package in a Bush's policy on steriods. Furthermore, in the long run we're going to have to pay for this short-term "growth". There is going to be higher inflation.

The pick-up in home sales is probably just bargain hunters and not a long-term systemic recovery.
Ditto for the stock market.
The White House still projects that unemployment will still go over 10% by the end of the year.

Before Bush left the social security surplus projection of when it will turn into deficit was changed from about 2025 to 2017. A big reason for this is all the irresponsible spending of the Bush years (no I'm not talking about Iraq). Bush created a Medicare drug benefit that will cost over 1 Trillion dollars over ten years (a little less than Obama care). Funnelled money into AiDS relief for Africa and other developing areas. No Teacher Left Standing. Etc, etc, etc. He compounded this by cutting taxes for everyone and abandoning pay as you go.

Now Obama wants to do much of the same. Only his Medicare drug-benefit is healthcare reform which is going to bankrupt us. We need to either raise taxes on the middle class and cut-out tax welfare for the poor (Earned Income Credit as well as other tax credits).

I'm concerned that if the Democrats get their way we'll run through the Social Security surplus in 2012 instead of 2017. Then we'll be fucked. Maybe this is what the Mayan seers saw happening on 24 December 2012?

Bearing
8.5/10
I think Obama is pretty good at carrying the mantle of the Presidency. He looks and acts presidential. He is calm under fire.

Mostly. I don't think he should have gotten involved in entire Professor Gates arrest thing.

TheMason's grade of President Obama:
29.5/50
59%

Pretty much how I would grade President Bush.

[TheMason]

At 8/8/09 11:48 PM, TheReno wrote:

:: Gun control: F. Sotomayor. Nuff said.

I would not put a person in that can just blatently say "The constitution is only for the federal government". Infact, I might make it slightly easier to get a gun. And when I say this, I mean try to get it so the wait is lowered, but I would still keep psychological background checks in place. I mean seriously, criminals break the law. They aint going to listen to a gun ban. I might as well make it easier for you to defend yourself.

It may surprise many here, but I'm holding back on judging him on gun control.

First of all, the SCOTUS opinion until modern times was that the Constitution and its amendments only applied to the Federal government and not the state governments. The idea that the individual rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights applies to the State governments is only a recent idea. So I'm curious about how she will rule on the bench.

Attorney General Holder's opinion on the Assault Weapons Ban scares me.

But it should scare Congressional Dems more. I don't think much will come down in the way of gun control because they (Congressional Dems) will loose seats in 2010.

I'm taking a wait and see approach.

[TheReno]

It may surprise many here, but I'm holding back on judging him on gun control.

First of all, the SCOTUS opinion until modern times was that the Constitution and its amendments only applied to the Federal government and not the state governments. The idea that the individual rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights applies to the State governments is only a recent idea. So I'm curious about how she will rule on the bench.

Attorney General Holder's opinion on the Assault Weapons Ban scares me.

But it should scare Congressional Dems more. I don't think much will come down in the way of gun control because they (Congressional Dems) will loose seats in 2010.

I'm taking a wait and see approach.

Im not saying I dont understand how she arrived at the thought, but I dont understand how she didnt continue on in the thought to see that its pretty redundant to think it only applies to the federal government. Also redonkulous as the 7th amendment I believe is you can have a jury if your suing for 20 dollers or more. Whose going to the supreme court to sue someone? The 9th amendment says that students dont have the right to due process in schools. Didnt realize i was getting my education in the white house. The 10th amendment is the only one I see that comes close to agreeing with sotomayor, if you dont really pay attention to it and read like every third word. Because it then goes on to say "YOUR WRONG BITCH".

The tenth amendment states the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Meaning if the constitution doesn't say jack about this power, but it also says shit about the states not having this power, the states get the right to have it. Well the constitution delegated the right to bear arms, and said it shall not be infringed. Power delegated, states dont get the right to have it.

[Memorize]

I'll give him a D for the simple fact that the recession happened under Bush's watch.

Other than that he seems pretty hell-bent on following good ol' George's footsteps.

[hansari]

At 8/9/09 06:31 PM, TheMason wrote: Military
7.5/10
* Somali pirates: good.
* Listening to the military on Iraq: good.
* Keep Sec Gates: good.
* Cutting the F-22: fail.

All Obama did was say "okay" when he picked up the phone...its the Navy Seals that deserve a gold star for that shit...

Aside from that, if Obama was REALLY listening to the military, he would grant their requests immediately to send more troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102652.
html

Of course, if he did so, I would still call fail unless he alters the strategy. Afghanistan and neighboring regions still have some Taliban sympathy. How about fighting the organizations principles rather than physicaly fighting them?

Until that happens, it doesn't matter how many Al-Qaeda #2's the news says we kill...another one will jump to take his place...

[TheMason]

At 8/9/09 09:47 PM, hansari wrote:

At 8/9/09 06:31 PM, TheMason wrote: Military
7.5/10
* Somali pirates: good.
* Listening to the military on Iraq: good.
* Keep Sec Gates: good.
* Cutting the F-22: fail.

All Obama did was say "okay" when he picked up the phone...its the Navy Seals that deserve a gold star for that shit...

This is something that Bill Clinton failed miserably at when he dealt with Somalia. Was it huge? No. But it is still a positive.

Aside from that, if Obama was REALLY listening to the military, he would grant their requests immediately to send more troops.

The situation is not that easy (I just got back from being deployed to the region). We need more troops to send in.

Of course, if he did so, I would still call fail unless he alters the strategy. Afghanistan and neighboring regions still have some Taliban sympathy. How about fighting the organizations principles rather than physicaly fighting them?

We need both. Look at Pakistan. Our Predator/Reaper drone attacks on Taliban positions across the border are popular with the local population. Yes there is some sympathy but it is not necessarily wide-spread.

However, fighting their belief structures is very difficult. They are bring children up in this by being one of the few groups to be bringing education to poor communities. How do we fight that?

Until that happens, it doesn't matter how many Al-Qaeda #2's the news says we kill...another one will jump to take his place...

Kill enough and possible converts will realize that Allah has not blessed them with success.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/10/09 08:31 AM, TheMason wrote: However, fighting their belief structures is very difficult. They are bring children up in this by being one of the few groups to be bringing education to poor communities. How do we fight that?

By helping increase educational oppurtinities in the areas that aren't run by extremists?

[HandsomePete]

At 8/9/09 09:47 PM, hansari wrote:

All Obama did was say "okay" when he picked up the phone...its the Navy Seals that deserve a gold star for that shit...

At least take into consideration that everyone (who wants him to screw this up) wanted him to say "No.
"

Of course, if he did so, I would still call fail unless he alters the strategy. Afghanistan and neighboring regions still have some Taliban sympathy. How about fighting the organizations principles rather than physicaly fighting them?

What about paying poppy farmers to grow other crops, and actively engaging the populace?

[TheMason]

At 8/10/09 08:43 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 8/10/09 08:31 AM, TheMason wrote: However, fighting their belief structures is very difficult. They are bring children up in this by being one of the few groups to be bringing education to poor communities. How do we fight that?

By helping increase educational oppurtinities in the areas that aren't run by extremists?

That's really easy to say. But practically impossible to do in practice.

* The US is running out of money to do things like this.
* It is not enough to simply throw money at the problem. You have to have oversight of how the Afghan or Pakistani government is spending the money. We gave money to the ISA (Pakistan's CIA) to fight the Soviets, they funneled it to Islamic extremists to fight India. These extremists then laid the foundation for the Taliban.

Easy solution to arrive at, not so easy to implement.

[TheMason]

At 8/9/09 08:04 PM, TheReno wrote:

It may surprise many here, but I'm holding back on judging him on gun control.

First of all, the SCOTUS opinion until modern times was that the Constitution and its amendments only applied to the Federal government and not the state governments. The idea that the individual rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights applies to the State governments is only a recent idea. So I'm curious about how she will rule on the bench.

Attorney General Holder's opinion on the Assault Weapons Ban scares me.

But it should scare Congressional Dems more. I don't think much will come down in the way of gun control because they (Congressional Dems) will loose seats in 2010.

I'm taking a wait and see approach.

Im not saying I dont understand how she arrived at the thought, but I dont understand how she didnt continue on in the thought to see that its pretty redundant to think it only applies to the federal government. Also redonkulous as the 7th amendment I believe is you can have a jury if your suing for 20 dollers or more. Whose going to the supreme court to sue someone? The 9th amendment says that students dont have the right to due process in schools. Didnt realize i was getting my education in the white house. The 10th amendment is the only one I see that comes close to agreeing with sotomayor, if you dont really pay attention to it and read like every third word. Because it then goes on to say "YOUR WRONG BITCH".

The tenth amendment states the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Meaning if the constitution doesn't say jack about this power, but it also says shit about the states not having this power, the states get the right to have it. Well the constitution delegated the right to bear arms, and said it shall not be infringed. Power delegated, states dont get the right to have it.

Nice rant. A little difficult to follow due to your stream of consciousness (read Faulkner much?).

But hey, I'm very pro-gun rights. I think I've established myself as one of the top defenders of the right to bear arms on NG. So fundamentaly we don't disagree with each other.

But that said, I don't think Sotomayor's appointment is all that important. She is replacing Justice Souter not Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito. Therefore she is not going to swing the court to the left.

Also, it is rare that Second Amendment issues make it to the SCOTUS. Before last year's ruling the last one was 70 years ago. So I think chances are slim she is going to rule substantively on the issue of the second amendment.

But in the end I don't think Sotomayor is the worst we could have gotten from Obama. She was appointed originally by Bush the Elder. While she was Sen Monihan's (D) pick for the Fed court, she was supported by Sen D'Amato (R). So I expect (hope) that she will be centrist instead of far left.

What I'm more concerned about is legislation...which I think there is a low probability of for awhile. After all Sen Harry Reid (the Democratic Senate Majority Leader) opposses introducing a new Assault Weapons Ban.

[Ericho]

I'd say about 85%. You really have to appreciate him lifting the ban on stem cell research.

[Memorize]

At 8/10/09 05:50 PM, Ericho wrote: I'd say about 85%. You really have to appreciate him lifting the ban on stem cell research.

There wasn't a ban.

Bush was the first to use federal money to fund Stem Cell Research, all Obama did was expand it to embryonic stem cell research.

Though I thought it was pretty funny that within just a few sentences of saying that "morality shouldn't get in the way of science", he then said that "cloning has no place in our society or any other".

[GrammerNaziElite]

Though I thought it was pretty funny that within just a few sentences of saying that "morality shouldn't get in the way of science", he then said that "cloning has no place in our society or any other".

Quote on the morality bit? I'll eat my shoe if he said that.

[Evark]

Personally, I think the whole idea of figuring out where the president stands while he's still standing there is pretty stupid. Just ask the guy how he thinks he's doing in an interview.

I mean... he's pretty well in-tune with what people think of how he's doing and his policies. He's in the highest political office in the nation, it's his job. So if their purpose is to inform the American people what the American people think of the president's performance thus far... I dunno. Seems redundant. The cynic in me suggests that people see slipping opinion polls and defer their opinion to what's popular when they'd otherwise be indifferent or unsure.

Anyway, you didn't provide a link to the survey or any information about what the scale is supposed to be. I mean... what's average? What's above average? What's superior? What's failing? It's difficult to grade someone when there's no curriculum on which to judge their performance. I approve of him in that I approve of having someone competent behind the helm in general, but not necessarily the way he has handled everything (though mostly, I've been pleased). How that translates into a letter grade, I'm not sure.

[Memorize]

At 8/10/09 11:16 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Though I thought it was pretty funny that within just a few sentences of saying that "morality shouldn't get in the way of science", he then said that "cloning has no place in our society or any other".

Quote on the morality bit? I'll eat my shoe if he said that.

It was a rough quote, but here ya go!

Link!

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.

Then he goes on this long and drawn-out explanation progress and curing diseases, and then...

And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

So let me get this straight... there's a false choice between science and moral values on embryos, but it's "morally wrong" to allow human cloning?

So basically it's "ok" to use tax payer money to subsidize the destruction of human embryos in the name of 'Science!' but it's against our morals to use the same technology to allow for me to clone myself.

Fantastic!

Break out the booze!

[Bacchanalian]

At 8/10/09 11:57 PM, Memorize wrote: So let me get this straight... there's a false choice between science and moral values on embryos, but it's "morally wrong" to allow human cloning?

Manipulation of the human embryo is immoral in one instance for the intended use (cloning for human reproduction). Manipulation of the human embryo is immoral in the other instance for the method (destruction of the embryo). I fail to see how that is a dilemma between science and moral values.

Syntactically, science informs morality. Science is not its own brand of morality, nor does it necessitate moral action. Therefore, science cannot agree or disagree with morality. Science can inform a moral code that disagrees with another, or shed light on the bases of existing moral codes.

[Memorize]

At 8/11/09 03:09 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

I fail to see how that is a dilemma between science and moral values.

You mean except the fact that all he did was move the moral line based on his own morals, right?

It makes me want to lol.

[GrammerNaziElite]

At 8/10/09 11:57 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/10/09 11:16 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Though I thought it was pretty funny that within just a few sentences of saying that "morality shouldn't get in the way of science", he then said that "cloning has no place in our society or any other".

Quote on the morality bit? I'll eat my shoe if he said that.

It was a rough quote, but here ya go!

An incredibly rough quote. I'm almost certain that he was referring to RELIGION. Of course, he couldn't blatantly say that religion was halting scientific progress, what with this being America and all. As for the cloning bit, I'm pretty sure conventional morality covers that, not just religious morality. I think cloning's a bit iffy and I love stem cell research.

[GrammerNaziElite]

So basically it's "ok" to use tax payer money to subsidize the destruction of human embryos in the name of 'Science!' but it's against our morals to use the same technology to allow for me to clone myself.

Well, one of them is using a group of non-living cells to heal other, living people. In fact, most stem cells don't even come from aborted fetuses. VERY LITTLE come from aborted fetuses.

Cloning is creating another, living, thinking creature with no parents, no history, and no proper upbringing. If you can just clone things, you take value away from proper life. It's morally ambiguous, but I still think a pretty definite line can be drawn.

[Memorize]

At 8/11/09 12:37 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: As for the cloning bit, I'm pretty sure conventional morality covers that, not just religious morality. I think cloning's a bit iffy and I love stem cell research.

What I thought was funny was him basically saying "This rule is stupid; bla bla morality", when all he does is shift the morality line.

I on the other hand, am for stem cell research and I personally don't care about cloning (I don't find anything wrong with human cloning, though I'm sure you or others will give me your "morals" for why we shouldn't have it).

The only thing I'm against is using federal dollars to fund it.

[Elfer]

At 8/8/09 11:48 PM, TheReno wrote: You want to know how to fix this economy? You bring tariffs back. You see, when you make that japanese car cost as much or slightly more then our american made cars, you put a demand on factories to make more.
It cannot work with our system of econmic principals. People say "Look at canada" I say "Look at socialism". We have Free Enterprise here. It works. It only fails when democrats that err on the side of socialism come into power.

So you're against socialist policies because they reduce the quality of the services available, yet in order to fix the economy, you want to bring in tariffs, which are exactly the thing that allow companies to produce inferior goods for a higher cost and still profit?

But you think that bailing out companies that weren't able to withstand foreign competition is a bad idea?

How 'bout: wut.