Victory on Stem Cells!

ib1yysguy

ib1yysguy

Junior Member
Man, it's great to have Obama in the White House. Anyone who says there's no difference between the two parties and it doesn't matter who we elect can eat their shit.

Obama has reinstated government grants for embryonic stem cell research.

http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=en&q=obama+stem+cell

Eat it!

I think Bush should be put on trial for every death from a disease that gets cured by this which occurred between the day he limited research on stem cells to the day they make a cure for said diseases. It's fucking criminal and Bush supporters should be ashamed.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Man, it's great to have Obama in the White House. Anyone who says there's no difference between the two parties and it doesn't matter who we elect can eat their shit.

Obama has reinstated government grants for embryonic stem cell research.

http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=en&q=obama+stem+cell

Eat it!

I think Bush should be put on trial for every death from a disease that gets cured by this which occurred between the day he limited research on stem cells to the day they make a cure for said diseases. It's fucking criminal and Bush supporters should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Bush didn't limit research there honest journalist man. He limited taxpayer funding of it.

You can bust a nut now that government is going to dump my money on it, but don't ever let me hear you bitch about pharm profits when your beloved big brother is subsidizing their research. Guess who's going to reap the profits? Do you nut all over Merck and Pfizer, Amgen?
 
Beefy said:
Bush didn't limit research there honest journalist man. He limited taxpayer funding of it.

You can bust a nut now that government is going to dump my money on it, but don't ever let me hear you bitch about pharm profits when your beloved big brother is subsidizing their research. Guess who's going to reap the profits? Do you nut all over Merck and Pfizer, Amgen?
Click to expand...

That is, as they say, a distinction without a difference. By eliminating tax payer funding he effectively limited the research.

And I sorta think it's going to be the people dying of presently incurable diseases that are going to reap the benefits.
 
ib1yysguy said:
That is, as they say, a distinction without a difference. By eliminating tax payer funding he effectively limited the research.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. Its amazing to me how you radical leftists find every solution in the government, yet get surprised and feign shock and horror when the massive beast does shit you don't like, IE the Bush years. But as soon as your team is in, you push for more and more governmental powers. Then you cry again when the other team uses those powers that you jizzed all over to do shit you don't like.
 
I don't like government spending money on anything but of all things this is something I would complain about the least.
 
ib1yysguy said:
That is, as they say, a distinction without a difference. By eliminating tax payer funding he effectively limited the research.

And I sorta think it's going to be the people dying of presently incurable diseases that are going to reap the benefits.
Click to expand...

Because the government controls how we fund research. Remove it from the equation and decisions on what is funded falls outside of government, whether it is controlled by knuckle dragging retards or not.

Of course, then it often becomes subject to profit motive. But, that is driven by consumer demand and therefore ultimately driven by what the people really want, not just what they would force others to want if they could. Also, there is the frequent filthy rich guy who wants to leave a real mark on the world.

Meanwhile, we, the convinced, waste money on the political process, trying to convince others to support government grants. We waste our time posting on BBs to convince others to join and money on the "right" candidates. Not to mention the loss of resources in the actual bureaucracy (usually highly inefficient) that distributes the money.

Grind's point is valid because the negatives the government injects into the process are not likely to be removed. The government is not getting any smaller under Repubs or Dems. It is just tends to be more stupid under Repubs. We just have to make sure the Dems don't carried away and kill the golden goose through overworking it. And that is almost certain if they are left in power too long.
 
RStringfield said:
Because the government controls how we fund research. Remove it from the equation and decisions on what is funded falls outside of government, whether it is controlled by knuckle dragging retards or not.

Of course, then it often becomes subject to profit motive. But, that is driven by consumer demand and therefore ultimately driven by what the people really want, not just what they would force others to want if they could. Also, there is the frequent filthy rich guy who wants to leave a real mark on the world.

Meanwhile, we, the convinced, waste money on the political process, trying to convince others to support government grants. We waste our time posting on BBs to convince others to join and money on the "right" candidates. Not to mention the loss of resources in the actual bureaucracy (usually highly inefficient) that distributes the money.

Grind's point is valid because the negatives the government injects into the process are not likely to be removed. The government is not getting any smaller under Repubs or Dems. It is just tends to be more stupid under Repubs. We just have to make sure the Dems don't carried away and kill the golden goose through overworking it. And that is almost certain if they are left in power too long.
Click to expand...

A - Mutherfuckin' -Men
 
I offer no legal objection to privately-funded embryonic stem cell research. What I oppose is forcing tax-payers to fund it, especially considering there are millions of Americans who believe it is immoral. Here is a thought: why not have a checkoff on tax forms, allowing those who support the research to allocate a portion of their tax dollars specifically toward that cause (similar to the option of allocating $3 to public funding of Presidential campaigns). This I believe is a reasonable compromise and a win-win situation. Would you oppose this ib1? If so, why?

Generally speaking I am opposed to government funding for any medical research whatsoever, as I believe the free market is best suited for that particular task. However, I would support a compromise.
 
Tabasco said:
I offer no legal objection to privately-funded embryonic stem cell research. What I oppose is forcing tax-payers to fund it, especially considering there are millions of Americans who believe it is immoral. Here is a thought: why not have a checkoff on tax forms, allowing those who support the research to allocate a portion of their tax dollars specifically toward that cause (similar to the option of allocating $3 to public funding of Presidential campaigns). This I believe is a reasonable compromise and a win-win situation. Would you oppose this ib1? If so, why?

Generally speaking I am opposed to government funding for any medical research whatsoever, as I believe the free market is best suited for that particular task. However, I would support a compromise.
Click to expand...

No. It's a lose-lose situation for humanity. We elect a president and a congress to make collective decisions. Scientific research is a collective decision. Fuck you and your checkoff box. I could care less what fascists find immoral, what fascists find immoral is the correct way to go. You'd have a checkoff box for Nazi's to not give money to holocaust victims.
 
RStringfield said:
Because the government controls how we fund research. Remove it from the equation and decisions on what is funded falls outside of government, whether it is controlled by knuckle dragging retards or not.

Of course, then it often becomes subject to profit motive. But, that is driven by consumer demand and therefore ultimately driven by what the people really want, not just what they would force others to want if they could. Also, there is the frequent filthy rich guy who wants to leave a real mark on the world.

Meanwhile, we, the convinced, waste money on the political process, trying to convince others to support government grants. We waste our time posting on BBs to convince others to join and money on the "right" candidates. Not to mention the loss of resources in the actual bureaucracy (usually highly inefficient) that distributes the money.

Grind's point is valid because the negatives the government injects into the process are not likely to be removed. The government is not getting any smaller under Repubs or Dems. It is just tends to be more stupid under Repubs. We just have to make sure the Dems don't carried away and kill the golden goose through overworking it. And that is almost certain if they are left in power too long.
Click to expand...

Well clearly if the government didn't fund science science would be better off. It would be driven by liberty.

ron_paul_gold_coin.jpg


Proof that you CAN eat the constitution!
 
Last edited:
Beefy said:
No, he didn't. Its amazing to me how you radical leftists find every solution in the government, yet get surprised and feign shock and horror when the massive beast does shit you don't like, IE the Bush years. But as soon as your team is in, you push for more and more governmental powers. Then you cry again when the other team uses those powers that you jizzed all over to do shit you don't like.
Click to expand...

Ah, simple Libfascist false equation of the government promoting fascism and the government promoting freedom.
 
Watermark said:
Well clearly if the government didn't fund science science would be better off. It would be driven by liberty.

Proof that you CAN eat the constitution!
Click to expand...

It would be driven, ultimately, by consumer demand. Or what people want for themselves, not for others.

If I could control others they would never abort, spend their money on stupid things, believe in a super ghost, do bad drugs or a host of other things. But I can't. So they will do what their conscience drives them to do.

While, what I want for myself is immortality or at least as long a life as possible. Stem cell research seems to offer some hope. So I care less about some fundies worries over the aborted. They don't exist, I do, as do my dependents. Without government I tend to care more about me, and less about how I can control others, which is a losing proposition anyway.

Water, you are not too far gone. You still get it, mostly. You just need to let go of this notion that you are so smart that you can control others. You are terribly smart, but not that smart. You can't control others.

As an example, if you get to that glorious day when your child is born, trust me, you won't even be able to control that child. Let go. The more you try to control the more miserable you and the child will be.

If we can't control that blank slate of a child, what hope do we have in controlling some stranger from a different culture? And our united states has various cultures.

Control, when applied to others, is an illusion. We can only control ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you will find that all tech and pharma componies, for example, have R&D departments. Watermarxist may think that stands for "reefer & dementia," but I'm certain its actually "research & development..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top