I think people overestimate the number of times minorities actually "pull the race card". From my experience it's often nothing more than an illusory correlation.

This is nonsensical. Here's what I'll do. I'll kindly ask you to name the sections that you're referring to. If you can't name them, I'll assume that you haven't read the bill. It's all I can do.

The only clip from 2009 is his claim that a Public option is not a trojan horse, for a single-payer system. The video then, at ~26 seconds, skipped to 2007 and then to 2003. The rest of the clips from 2009 aren't even about Obama. So I don't know what you're talking about.

The "you lie" yell was ironic because President Obama was speaking the truth on all counts.

And your video is irrelevant to current legislation. It doesn't matter what Obama said 2 and 6 years-ago. What is relevant is the regulations in the current proposed bills.

My major contention when people ask these kinds of question or propose an issue of "better", "better at what"?

My major contention when people ask these kinds of question or propose an issue of "better", "better at what"?

Oi... If you're not going to accept truth based on facts, then tell me now because I don't want to waste my time.

I'm not disputing facts. I'm disputing whether the facts make an action morally warranted. And that fact seems to have flown way over your head. Maybe this is an issue that's beyond your abilities and you don't recognize it, because you seem to be stuck in this conventional thinking that the ends morally justify the means. That if we want less homeless people we have a moral obligation to end their suffering by sterilizing the abjectly impoverished. Or that China is morally justified in its one-child policy.

Dogs, unlike cats, evolved because of humans.

Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about.

Wolves, who were geneticaly less tempermental, trustee humans more and were fed by humans.

Grey wolves, for example, are genetically identical to domesticated dogs. So it's not like there's some "fundamental" genetic difference. You don't know what you're talking about. The difference is the domestication, not the genes. If you take a wolf today (and that's basically how it started, someone took a wolf) and started artificially selecting various traits over thousands of years, you'll end up with a domesticated dog. That's what artificial selection does.

Secondly, that "hypothetical future" is the present. Animal shelters are overun with animals. So either we spay the animals now to prevent surpopulation, or we kill them in shelters. Your choice.

What you're highlighting is a self-inflicted wound. You and people like you don't think of dogs as animals. You think of them as pets. As toys or slaves. And you treat them as such. That's why you refer to yourself as your dog's "owner". For you, the dichotomy is pet/shelter or death. And not freedom. You don't think of these animals as organisms that do or can exist outside of this humane, self-gratification. Let the dogs go and allow selection its course.

My experience growing up in a third world country tells me that dogs will form packs if left alone for months, scavenge for food, hunt down and kill goats and other animals, and dogs will become increasingly feral over time, and that poodles can definitely and do survive on their own and in packs in a metropolitan zone. Now maybe "your poodle" can't. And maybe that says more about how you've raised your poodle or how you just perceive your poodle than it does about the dog itself.

By suggesting that I want to spay the homeless human population, you admt your own ignorance.

You admit you can't read by making this point. By simply altering the subject of the proposition you made, your logic: the movement from one premise to another, to form a necessarily connected and contingent conclusion could be utilized to make the sterilizing argument for the homeless or the poor. It's an argument from analogy. According to your logic, the argument can be made that sterilizing the homeless and the poor is justified because of its end. And that is a necessary implication of your logic.

It's birth control for dogs. It's humane, not immoral.

Yeah, and China's one-child policy is also birth control. It must be humane and moral because "it's doing a good thing". Forced sterilization of another animal is not moral. constraining your consideration to pet or death is not moral. Your entire worldview on "pet" care is immoral. You just don't see. Probably can't. So, I've made my points. I'm out.

First, the term "domesticated" only refers to the adaptation of an animal for living with humans--both dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) have been domesticated. So, if you're going to argue that cats can survive without humans... I'm going to allow you to finish the logic. But the term "domesticated" doesn't mean that they require humans to survive. That is patently absurd.

Second, what I'm advocating is not that stray dogs have equally good lives, what I'm advocating is that it's immoral to spay and neuter dogs based on the assumption that some hypothetical dog in a hypothetical future will hypothetically give birth to a hypothetical pup that some hypothetical person may not want, and therefore the "moral choice" is to ensure that the hypothetical dog living in that hypothetical future won't even be capable of hypothetically giving birth to a hypothetical pup who hypothetically may not be wanted. That's the twisted logic of a psychotic human being.

By all accounts this argument: "stray dogs have far shorter lifespans, suffer more painful deaths, go hungry in metropolitan areas, endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, always have fleas and ticks feeding off of them...." could very well be used to ensure the homeless or poor people around the world ought to be neutered. Let's agree that this is somewhat of a fact. Some stray dogs will live shorter lives. Some will suffer painful deaths (I don't know if it's more painful), some will go hungry in metropolitan areas, some will endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, some "always" have fleas and ticks feeding on them.

So? Does that mean they should never be born because of a hypothetical scenario that some human has concocted in his or her selfish brain? What you're advocating, and this is necessarily implicit from your argument(s) thus far, is that if a dog MIGHT not have a standard of living acceptable to you, then we should ensure that it is never born by neutering or spaying its hypothetical father or mother. And we are moral to do so. And that's absurd and psychotic.

The selfishness is so pungent and thick. It's like a dizziying miasma. I can taste it. In all of your response, there isn't even the winking pretense of acknowledging that these animals are independent organisms that can and do live outside of the care of the doting human who tries to humanize them with psychobabble that really only makes them feel good. I mean, if you really think that dogs view humans as loving "owners" and not just another member of the pack, you've watched too many Disney movies.

"All he cared about was the cone and the fact that he had a home with a loving owner." I mean, really? This has nothing to do with the dog. It just brings you comfort by saying it. And if you think you're dog isn't conscious of its genitalia then you are absolutely out of your flipping mind and should be laughed at and ridiculed. And dogs tend lose interest in sex because a large part of the libido-system comes from the biochemical actions in the mammal genitalia.

Just think about the logic you're using. Forget the fact that dogs are animals that can hunt, form packs and live on their own, go feral after a few months away from human contact, we should cut out their genitalia because WE can't take care of them!! By golly, if a future dog might not have a human in its life, we might as well make sure it's never born! That is the ultimate in selfishness. Come on man. By your reasoning, it's morally right to spayed and neuter the homeless.

No, it's not morally wrong to neuter or spay dogs and cats. Every organization I can think of advises you do just that. The unwanted, uncared for population is so out of hand that we cannot afford not to neuter as a precaution to more unwanted pets.

China for dogs, huh?