<p>primitive, please, stop asking for sources all the time, not that there's anything wrong with links, but if everyone just linked to some random website and called it their argument, well debates would be pretty pointless wouldn't they? And primitive, it is illegal to abort fetuses after they are 7 weeks old, that is their right. I think yuo do understand this, but are denying that fetuses have rights simply because you don't want to admit that you didn't know this initially. No offense, but your political insight is pretty shallow. you remind me of my fellow classmates who only know to call bush an idiot, because they're incapable of stating any other reasons for not liking him. I don't hate Bush, but i don't like him either. (just for clarification :) )</p>
<p>Yeah, politics is definitely ran by interest group money. Take for instance Soros' 10 million dollar ad campaign for Kerry.</p>
<p>Oh um, primitive did you say you traveled to London? So how was it, did you stand out or were you able to mingle with the sophisticated, dapper british society? Lol</p>
<p>So umm, uc_benz, if you care to respond, how is London? I'm curious cause i lived there for two years.</p>
<p>I loved London!...I've been there a few time, and my sister went there to study abroad!...it's just soooo fun...like...you'd expect it to be like any other big city like New York, but it's soo different...so many good plays, restraunts...the Ritz was FANTASTIC....a safe and efficient metro is always a plus as well....i liked london alot better than i did paris...rome is my favorite, aside from the fact that someone in my group was about this (__) close to having her wallet stolen by a little kid.</p>
<p>"Take for instance Soros' 10 million dollar ad campaign for Kerry."</p>
<p>...and all the corporate backing for the Bush campaign</p>
<p>re: stem cell research
I thought it involved embryos and not fetuses. yes, there's a point where it goes from one to the other. this whole 'fetus rights' debate doesn't seem to relate to stem-cell research at all.</p>
<p>they should at least give it more backing to see what they can accomplish, cures for cancer sound pretty awesome to me but whatever</p>
<p>just so you guys know Im not a complete fundamentalist i think that stem cell research is not bad as long as they dont use real fetuses.</p>
<p>it does involve embryos and not fetuses.....primitive just insisted on going on that fetuses had no rights</p>
<p>yes, London is beautiful. West something cathedral was incredible. Oh the workmanship back then! I only wish I'd had the chance to visit the Sistine Chapel in Rome though. Ireland is still better than England though. And did you visit Cambridge Narfasfa?</p>
<p>Westminister? haha. London is alright; I definitely like American cities/people better. My favorite European country is probably Italy or Spain.</p>
<p>obviously primitives past statements may invalidize (lol i think i made up a word) anything else he has ever said.</p>
<p>Spain is okay, it was much too hot and there were too many naked bmales and bfemales on the beaches. Austria is the best country, why, cause it has the best symphony in the world. Whatever.</p>
<p>Top 5:</p>
<ol>
<li>FDR - He had his faults but he won WWII and brought the nation together</li>
<li>Washington - Set a lot of precidents</li>
<li>Lincoln - Saved the Union</li>
<li>Teddy Rooselvelt - Why? He should a lot of character and conviction, even if I don't agree with a lot of things he did.</li>
<li>Johnson - Passed the Cival Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, while he had faults he got stuff done.</li>
</ol>
<p>Worst Presidents:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harding</li>
<li>Nixon</li>
<li>G.W. Bush (Cut taxes, while at war? This guy is nuts!)</li>
<li>Buccahanan</li>
<li>Andrew Johnson</li>
</ol>
<p>Most Overated:</p>
<ol>
<li>George W. Bush </li>
<li>Kennedy (As a strong liberial I hate to admit it, but he wasn't all that successful, except with the Cuban Missle Crisis)</li>
<li>Andrew Jackson</li>
<li>Grant</li>
<li>Ronald Reagan (This guy was a decent politition, but didn't do as much for America as many say)</li>
</ol>
<p>Underrated:</p>
<ol>
<li>Ford (While not very successful he kept things going after Watergate)</li>
<li>Carter (Carter has his presidency screwed up because he was too smart to be president in this dumb country)</li>
<li>Hoover (He wasn't good, but he didn't cause the depression by himself)</li>
<li>Polk (Disagree with a lot of his policies but he was succsesful at achieving his goals)</li>
<li>Jefferson (Hard to say he is underrated but he took power peacefully and didn't create choas with the first political shift in American history)</li>
</ol>
<p>Interesting how you failed to mention trumann as you seem to care a lot about the successes of presidents during times of war.</p>
<p>My top 5:
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and I'm having a hard time choosing the fifth. Its between Jefferson or LBJ or Truman</p>
<p>"Lincoln - Saved the Union"</p>
<p>I would consider that the worst thing he has ever done. With all you guys talk of the constitution you should understand that the south had every right to secceed</p>
<p>Fact: Showdown for best president spot is between Licoln and Reagon.</p>
<p>Reagan = bleh</p>
<p>Lincoln>Washington>T. Roosevelt>Jefferson>Reagan</p>
<p>With the exception of Reagan, I tend to like to like the older presidents.</p>
<p>Seth Blue, I am a devout Catholic but I see nothing wrong with embryonic stem cell research. You cannot consider anything before the completion of the first trimester to be a "life".</p>
<p>actually...the South had no right to seceed....if you understood how the founders wanted the government to operate, you'd realize that the ability to seceed gave the states too much power. Also...according to McCullogh v. Maryland, national authority preempts state authority...so the federal government had the final call, and they said no. If each state had the power to seceed, the U.S. would have fallen apart, and the government would end up the way it was under the Articles...weak and unable to control the states/regulate and stabalize a national economy. Since the Supreme Court is "the voice of the Constitution," and since John Marshall so blatantly stated that the national government was more powerful and had more of a say in operations vital to political stability, South Carolina's secession was inherently unconstitutional by judicial precedent.</p>
<p>Furthermore....the U.S. as the Confederacy probably would've collapsed or gone back to the Constitutional system (posing a setback in economic and social progress) shortly following the Civil War.</p>
<ul>
<li>Self analysis...no sources needed on this one...:)</li>
</ul>