or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Neo-Con blowhard out of touch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Neo-Con blowhard out of touch - Page 4

post #121 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm just saying that I don't want my tax dollars used for it.

But it's ok if it's for war, I know these aren't your words but come on man, do you know what we could have done for the people of the US with that money. Fuck the Iraqis, I'm liberal and I say screw them, let that part of the world turn to shitt, I don't, I know the American people, fucking care. I want my taxes back into the system, I want universal health care, I want a space program worth a shitt, I want social security to mean something. This crap in Iraq is not about saving the American people and you know it's about power and money that the average American will never see. People just don't hate other people because of there beliefs, we started this shitt by fucking in their backyard, with all this CIA, political engineering. Iraq, we friggen armed them man, you want to find the WMD's, look at Lockheed's receipts.

Damn right the Federal Government needs to pay for stem cell research, I want to live a happy life, I want you to live a happy life and I don't want MJF to suffer. Private Business just can't be trusted, look at what their doing to prescriptions prices man, I live in Switzerland a very very expensive country to live in but we don't nearly pay what Americans do on meds.

You know what, heck, I would even give you this debate if Bush turned it down because of the money issue, no, the asshole turned it down because of moral issues. The world isn't flat, wake up.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #122 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Shawn,

You feel strongly that this research should be funded. I feel strongly it should not be. That's fine. Where I take issue with you is how you try to "flip" the argument.

I fail to see why my position should be any less defensible than yours. I'm not saying you're a callous person or a bad person because you support the destruction of an embryo in the name of science (all kidding aside...I know what I posted before). I'm just saying that I don't want my tax dollars used for it.

Why is your position morally superior?


Because you're in support by your own implication of what a Neo-Con blowhard said was really just ok.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #123 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

I know I know I got sucked in-- didn't want to do that. \

Trouble is that, in the current political situation, it really is all about the funding. Stem-cell research hasn't been banned (as some may be led to believed)...and there are likely many people that are optimistic about its promise, but opposed to government paying for it.

Really the funding issue is the issue, at this point.
post #124 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Trouble is that, in the current political situation, it really is all about the funding. Stem-cell research hasn't been banned (as some may be led to believed)...and there are likely many people that are optimistic about its promise, but opposed to government paying for it.

Really the funding issue is the issue, at this point.



Are you trying to say, it's ALWAYS about federal funding for ANY program?

Big DUH on that one!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #125 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic

But it's ok if it's for war, I know these aren't your words but come on man, do you know what we could have done for the people of the US with that money. Fuck the Iraqis, I'm liberal and I say screw them, let that part of the world turn to shitt, I don't, I know the American people, fucking care. I want my taxes back into the system, I want universal health care, I want a space program worth a shitt, I want social security to mean something. This crap in Iraq is not about saving the American people and you know it's about power and money that the average American will never see. People just don't hate other people because of there beliefs, we started this shitt by fucking in their backyard, with all this CIA, political engineering. Iraq, we friggen armed them man, you want to find the WMD's, look at Lockheed's receipts.

Damn right the Federal Government needs to pay for stem cell research, I want to live a happy life, I want you to live a happy life and I don't want MJF to suffer. Private Business just can't be trusted, look at what their doing to prescriptions prices man, I live in Switzerland a very very expensive country to live in but we don't nearly pay what Americans do on meds.

You know what, heck, I would even give you this debate if Bush turned it down because of the money issue, no, the asshole turned it down because of moral issues. The world isn't flat, wake up.


If you feel we should be spending money from Iraq on other programs such as space exporation, I can accept that. I don't think it would make much of a difference to the average person, but I see your point. Social Security needs to be totally overhauled anyway, along with Medicare and the whole welfare system. Universal healthcare is not going to work in this country and I disagree that we should implement it.

There is no evidence that federally funded stem cell research is going help you or MJF or me live a better life. Yes, Bush made a moral judgement. You feel he's wrong, and that's fine. What I don't understand is why you can't see the other side. Some people feel we shouldn't destroy life after experimenting on it, whether it was created for that purpose or not. If you feel it's morally justifiable to do so, I won't criticize you. But there are a significant number of people that disagree, and you should respect their opinion as well.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #126 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

If you feel we should be spending money from Iraq on other programs such as space exporation, I can accept that. I don't think it would make much of a difference to the average person, but I see your point. Social Security needs to be totally overhauled anyway, along with Medicare and the whole welfare system. Universal healthcare is not going to work in this country and I disagree that we should implement it.

There is no evidence that federally funded stem cell research is going help you or MJF or me live a better life. Yes, Bush made a moral judgement. You feel he's wrong, and that's fine. What I don't understand is why you can't see the other side. Some people feel we shouldn't destroy life after experimenting on it, whether it was created for that purpose or not. If you feel it's morally justifiable to do so, I won't criticize you. But there are a significant number of people that disagree, and you should respect their opinion as well.

Ok, I flew off the handle there and I "DO" respect your views. I just feel that something that has to do with our health should be explored in every way.

Morals are a funny thing aren't they, what's bad today will be good tomorrow and visa-versa. We as humans evolve intellectually and emotionally, even if you don't believe in evolution you still can't deny that over time our knowledge increases. Where once we hung people for saying that earth revolves around another celestial body we now criticize for not believing. It was those who stood up to the so called righteous of that time that progressed us and the progressives continue this today.

Good or bad, I'm a progressive, may my soul burn for eternity for saying such blasphemy. But I'm here now, I want to do for you now and my children later. One thing I do know for a fact though evangelical conservatives will only bring darkness to the enlightened.

Bill Hicks: You're not a human … till you're in my phone book. Case closed!
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #127 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Really the funding issue is the issue, at this point.

Absolutely-- it's huge-- and it bears a great deal on how soon we can find cures for these diseases.

The funding issue would be negligible, necessarily, if it didn't matter so much to scientists.
post #128 of 172
One more thing that kills me, the President should not have veto powers. If the people have spoken, that's it, game over, bill passes. What's with this I'm morally outraged over this bill that the people voted on, no, shut the fuck up sir, your John Hancock goes right here Mr. President, nothing else needs to be said, in fact why are we even talking.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #129 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic

One more thing that kills me, the President should not have veto powers. If the people have spoken, that's it, game over, bill passes. What's with this I'm morally outraged over this bill that the people voted on, no, shut the fuck up sir, your John Hancock goes right here Mr. President, nothing else needs to be said, in fact why are we even talking.

Well, then your quarrel is with the U.S. constitution.
post #130 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Absolutely-- it's huge-- and it bears a great deal on how soon we can find cures for these diseases.

The funding issue would be negligible, necessarily, if it didn't matter so much to scientists.

And the debate is whether the government should fund it or not. If there is as much promise as many seem to think, there ought to be tons of private capital banging at the door to fund research in exchange for future profits derived from the research.

Why is the first assumption that the government (i.e., taxpayers) must foot the bill?
post #131 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Well, then your quarrel is with the U.S. constitution.

Well maybe it has something to do with the way our current president interprets and uses the consititution.

I do agree with the idea that the people are the boss. Not the president. He's basically hired ( voted in ) to manage things for the people.

And if he doesn't do well he's fired ( not voted back in or impeached ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #132 of 172


Embryonic Stem Cell Research

So if the feds don't fund ESCR then the private sector funds it. OK, fine by me, the private sector get's all the IP (e. g. patents), and the private sector get to charge "ungodly" prices to save lives. Oh boy, makes perfect sense to me!

So if the feds don't fund ESTR then the state sector funds it (e. g. California). There are a FEW so called "blue states" (e. g. progressive states). OK, fine by me, the public sector get's a fraction of the IP, and we get reasonable costs to save lives. Works for me!

So if the feds don't fund ESTR then other (e. g. more progressive) countries fund/develop it. OK, fine by me, other countries get the majority of the IP (e. g. filing patents here in the US and elsewhere), and the private/public sectors get reasonable costs to save lives. The USA meanwhile becomes a 3rd rate medical science nation, drops to 666th on worldwide list. WTF! But in the end this also works for me!

So it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. And when it does happen, and your offspring (or their offspring), are on their deathbed, and are given two choices, live or die, I wonder which one they'll choose? Take one in the head for the "cause," strap on an ideological bomb for the "cause," or decide to LIVE! Works for me!

I'm pretty sure which choice most rational human beings will take, you know self preservation, the will to live, whatever!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, frozen embryos, continue to stack up, and stack up, and stack up, what should we do with this mountain of embryos? Well of course, stick them in a mountain, in glass, forever, let's just say that mountain is Yucca Mountain, sounds like a movie to me, call it: "Eternity of the Unliving Living Dead!"

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #133 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Well, then your quarrel is with the U.S. constitution.

No it's with the President who abuses it.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #134 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Trouble is that, in the current political situation, it really is all about the funding. Stem-cell research hasn't been banned (as some may be led to believed)...and there are likely many people that are optimistic about its promise, but opposed to government paying for it.

Really the funding issue is the issue, at this point.

However, the ban on federal funding for anything but the short list of embryonic stem cell lines has prevented a lot of needed work from being done. Efforts at getting around that ban and using other sources of funding are greatly complicated by the ban, resulting in much wasted time on the part or researchers and adminsitrators and a lot of money spent on duplicating resources (buildings and equipment) that would otherwise be spent on getting the science done.
post #135 of 172
[QUOTE=SDW2001There is no evidence that federally funded stem cell research is going help you or MJF or me live a better life.[/QUOTE]

It is the nature of research to have an element of uncertainty associated with it. The same could and still can be said about cancer research, HIV vaccine, malaria, and on and on.

[QUOTE=SDW2001Yes, Bush made a moral judgement. You feel he's wrong, and that's fine. What I don't understand is why you can't see the other side. Some people feel we shouldn't destroy life after experimenting on it, whether it was created for that purpose or not. If you feel it's morally justifiable to do so, I won't criticize you. But there are a significant number of people that disagree, and you should respect their opinion as well.[/QUOTE]

Just as in the abortion debate, there are many on both sides of the issue that will never change their minds. IMHO, choice is still the best answer. No one forces abortions on those that find it unacceptable, no one will force stem cell therapies on someone that finds it objectionable.
post #136 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

And the debate is whether the government should fund it or not. If there is as much promise as many seem to think, there ought to be tons of private capital banging at the door to fund research in exchange for future profits derived from the research.

Why is the first assumption that the government (i.e., taxpayers) must foot the bill?

Sometimes the government is the best and most efficient means of getting something done. There is a long history of of how government funded research has advanced science and resuted in cures, products etc. Yes, private money, foundation money, money from small and big pharma all contribute to research, but the government is the major contributor and that is a good thing. When the government holds the major purse strings they help to guide the work towards the goals of improving medical therapies (not just make money) under guidlines developed under the public eye.
post #137 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic

Ok, I flew off the handle there and I "DO" respect your views. I just feel that something that has to do with our health should be explored in every way.

Morals are a funny thing aren't they, what's bad today will be good tomorrow and visa-versa. We as humans evolve intellectually and emotionally, even if you don't believe in evolution you still can't deny that over time our knowledge increases. Where once we hung people for saying that earth revolves around another celestial body we now criticize for not believing. It was those who stood up to the so called righteous of that time that progressed us and the progressives continue this today.

Good or bad, I'm a progressive, may my soul burn for eternity for saying such blasphemy. But I'm here now, I want to do for you now and my children later. One thing I do know for a fact though evangelical conservatives will only bring darkness to the enlightened.

Bill Hicks: You're not a human till you're in my phone book. Case closed!

Fair enough. And honestly, real progress and breakthroughs in stem cell research might convince me that it's morally justifiable. For example, what if a cure for Parkinsons or eve Cancer is found? Then I would say that it is morally acceptable to harvest embryos that have been already created. I still wouldn't support the creating of embryos for the purpose of harvesting them (whether that's happening now or not, I'm just pointing that out).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

Sometimes the government is the best and most efficient means of getting something done. There is a long history of of how government funded research has advanced science and resuted in cures, products etc. Yes, private money, foundation money, money from small and big pharma all contribute to research, but the government is the major contributor and that is a good thing. When the government holds the major purse strings they help to guide the work towards the goals of improving medical therapies (not just make money) under guidlines developed under the public eye.



QFT!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #139 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic

One more thing that kills me, the President should not have veto powers. If the people have spoken, that's it, game over, bill passes. What's with this I'm morally outraged over this bill that the people voted on, no, shut the fuck up sir, your John Hancock goes right here Mr. President, nothing else needs to be said, in fact why are we even talking.

I really disagree with that. In fact, I think we need a constitutional amendment to allow line-item vetos on congressional appropriations bills and the overall federal budget. It's the only way to stop the pork.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Well maybe it has something to do with the way our current president interprets and uses the consititution.

I do agree with the idea that the people are the boss. Not the president. He's basically hired ( voted in ) to manage things for the people.

And if he doesn't do well he's fired ( not voted back in or impeached ).

You mean the President that used his veto exactly one time? Yes, such abuse.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #141 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

However, the ban on federal funding for anything but the short list of embryonic stem cell lines has prevented a lot of needed work from being done. Efforts at getting around that ban and using other sources of funding are greatly complicated by the ban, resulting in much wasted time on the part or researchers and adminsitrators and a lot of money spent on duplicating resources (buildings and equipment) that would otherwise be spent on getting the science done.

You could well be making that up. Prove it.

Quote:
It is the nature of research to have an element of uncertainty associated with it. The same could and still can be said about cancer research, HIV vaccine, malaria, and on and on.

So? I didn't say we shouldn't fund things that aren't "for damn sure." I said we shouldn't fund this one right now.

Quote:
Just as in the abortion debate, there are many on both sides of the issue that will never change their minds. IMHO, choice is still the best answer. No one forces abortions on those that find it unacceptable, no one will force stem cell therapies on someone that finds it objectionable.

Actually, abortion is forced on plenty of people. The people actually have no choice whatsoever in abortion, because the USSC decided that it was a consitutional right to have one. Real choice would be allowing states and localities to decide the issue.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #142 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I really disagree with that. In fact, I think we need a constitutional amendment to allow line-item vetos on congressional appropriations bills and the overall federal budget. It's the only way to stop the pork.



I would agree with you that one, as long as Congress can override by 2/3rd majority (or is it 3/5th) on discretionary spending items only. Anyway, it's more complicated then just giving the Prez unfettered line item veto powers.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #143 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent



I would agree with you that one, as long as Congress can override by 2/3rd majority (or is it 3/5th) on discretionary spending items only. Anyway, it's more complicated then just giving the Prez unfettered line item veto powers.


Yes, I agree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #144 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You could well be making that up. Prove it.



So? I didn't say we shouldn't fund things that aren't "for damn sure." I said we shouldn't fund this one right now.



Actually, abortion is forced on plenty of people. The people actually have no choice whatsoever in abortion, because the USSC decided that it was a consitutional right to have one. Real choice would be allowing states and localities to decide the issue.



Methinks real choice BEGINS at the individual level, so the ONLY way to do that, IS at the federal level. Oh, and since you're into proof, please show me at least one case where someone was "physically forced against their will" into an abortion?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #145 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent



Methinks real choice BEGINS at the individual level, so the ONLY way to do that, IS at the federal level. Oh, and since you're into proof, please show me at least one case where someone was "physically forced against their will" into an abortion?


That's a strawman. I never claimed someone was forced. However, states and localities are forced to accept it as legal, even if the majority of the population of said area overhwhelmingly opposes it. Moreover, the main issue is that there is no constituional basis for the USSC's decision. That doesn't mean it should be illegal (I would not vote to ban it, for one), but it does mean it's not a federal issue.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You could well be making that up. Prove it.

In California: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/pressreleases...0/10-04-06.asp

"The plan identifies the long-term objectives CIRM will pursue over the next 10 years. ... $272.7 million for the renovation and construction of new laboratories and research facilities. "

To be fair, construction and renovation is something that is always happening. Having new lab space is always nice, but in many cases existing space is not used because of the fear of mixing federal money with other sources of money.

I can tell you for a fact that at the University that I'm associated with off-campus facilities are rented, filled with equipment and supplies for the sole purpose of doing work that could not be done at the exsiting facilities. This is a total waste of money and time (more money). There is a move to bring more research on ES cells back to campus, but major administrative hurdles exist to making sure no federal money is mixed with that work. This is very difficult because the electiricty, parts of the building etc. are all supported by indirect costs that come with federal research grants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

So? I didn't say we shouldn't fund things that aren't "for damn sure." I said we shouldn't fund this one right now.

You also just said "Fair enough. And honestly, real progress and breakthroughs in stem cell research might convince me that it's morally justifiable. For example, what if a cure for Parkinsons or eve Cancer is found? Then I would say that it is morally acceptable to harvest embryos that have been already created."

So how are these cures supposed to be found without significant funding?



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Actually, abortion is forced on plenty of people. The people actually have no choice whatsoever in abortion, because the USSC decided that it was a consitutional right to have one. Real choice would be allowing states and localities to decide the issue.

B.S. argument.
post #147 of 172
Carson-- thanks for your knowledge here on federal funding issues. Very informative.
post #148 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's a strawman. I never claimed someone was forced. However, states and localities are forced to accept it as legal, even if the majority of the population of said area overhwhelmingly opposes it. Moreover, the main issue is that there is no constituional basis for the USSC's decision. That doesn't mean it should be illegal (I would not vote to ban it, for one), but it does mean it's not a federal issue.



I don't really want to get into an abortion debate, I can see a community level requirement/restriction, as long as there are "combat zones" where it would be permitted (large metropolitan or strategic geographic locations) at the state level. Or situations, where going out-of-state for an abortion is not breaking the law upon returning to said state where performing abortions is outlawed. This would be most applicable to those in economic hardship.

The social situations from limiting access to abortion place severe hardships on certain demographic/economic situations in certain geographic regions (i. e. the southeast). The proverbial "How do you keep them down on the farm" mentality.

I happen to live in Mississippi, within 10 (or so) miles of the Delta, there is only one remaining abortion clinic within Mississippi now, even now they are (the state) trying to regulate it out of existence.

I really wish I had a magic pill for this one, oops I guess there are several, but even those are severly restricted based on choices made by a small group of people that affect large segments of local populations, based on limited (or no) availability, you know OTC birth control.

Perhaps we should outlaw sex?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #149 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic

No it's with the President who abuses it.

Exercising his Article I, Section 7 powers isn't exactly abusing the constitution. And, well, the veto (if the matter was so strongly supported) can be overridden.

Would you prefer a direct popular vote on governmental legislation/referendums/policies/etc.?
post #150 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Well maybe it has something to do with the way our current president interprets and uses the consititution.

Maybe it has something to with how you do. Regarding the veto...maybe you should read it, tell us what you think.
post #151 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

However, the ban on federal funding for anything but the short list of embryonic stem cell lines has prevented a lot of needed work from being done. Efforts at getting around that ban and using other sources of funding are greatly complicated by the ban, resulting in much wasted time on the part or researchers and adminsitrators and a lot of money spent on duplicating resources (buildings and equipment) that would otherwise be spent on getting the science done.

And why is this exactly?

Perhaps if the efforts were put into securing private funding for the research, then the "getting around" part could be avoided and progress would continue.

Is it possible that private funders don't see the "promise" that scientists do and are unwilling to fund it because they don't see the potential payback?
post #152 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

Sometimes the government is the best and most efficient means of getting something done...but the government is the major contributor and that is a good thing.

I disagree.
post #153 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

And why is this exactly?

Perhaps if the efforts were put into securing private funding for the research, then the "getting around" part could be avoided and progress would continue.

Is it possible that private funders don't see the "promise" that scientists do and are unwilling to fund it because they don't see the potential payback?



That's exactly why government funding is useful. It's a long term potential payback, 10-20 years down the road, perhaps 10's of billions of dollars in investment, who knows, at this time I don't know of any private investors/companies who would be willing to risk large sums of money, on what may be a low ROI, or not be available until 10-20 years into the future.

I really don't see where you're going with this private sector holy grail mantra stuff, I don't mean to criticize you, but how old are you anyway? I'm old enough to have had first hand experience of what federal R&D spending has done to benefit both the public/private sectors for about 30 years or so. Look into almost any history book on technology, see how those projects were funded initially. Even now, with most of the R&D in the private sector, a substantial infusion of federal R&D dollars are required, for those projects to reach fruition, in time to maintain a global leadership position. IMHO, this is a good use of both the public/private sectors.

Do you really understand what role the public sector plays in advancing the private sector?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #154 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

In California: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/pressreleases...0/10-04-06.asp

"The plan identifies the long-term objectives CIRM will pursue over the next 10 years. ... $272.7 million for the renovation and construction of new laboratories and research facilities. "

To be fair, construction and renovation is something that is always happening. Having new lab space is always nice, but in many cases existing space is not used because of the fear of mixing federal money with other sources of money.

I can tell you for a fact that at the University that I'm associated with off-campus facilities are rented, filled with equipment and supplies for the sole purpose of doing work that could not be done at the exsiting facilities. This is a total waste of money and time (more money). There is a move to bring more research on ES cells back to campus, but major administrative hurdles exist to making sure no federal money is mixed with that work. This is very difficult because the electiricty, parts of the building etc. are all supported by indirect costs that come with federal research grants.



You also just said "Fair enough. And honestly, real progress and breakthroughs in stem cell research might convince me that it's morally justifiable. For example, what if a cure for Parkinsons or eve Cancer is found? Then I would say that it is morally acceptable to harvest embryos that have been already created."

So how are these cures supposed to be found without significant funding?





B.S. argument.

1. Thanks for the info

2. You act as if there is no private funding. That's not true. You can't just assume that funding is inadequate because there aren't tax dollars involved (actually, they are involved, but that point remains).

3. BS argument? That's your response? That's really disappointing after a rather well posted response.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #155 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent



I don't really want to get into an abortion debate, I can see a community level requirement/restriction, as long as there are "combat zones" where it would be permitted (large metropolitan or strategic geographic locations) at the state level. Or situations, where going out-of-state for an abortion is not breaking the law upon returning to said state where performing abortions is outlawed. This would be most applicable to those in economic hardship.

The social situations from limiting access to abortion place severe hardships on certain demographic/economic situations in certain geographic regions (i. e. the southeast). The proverbial "How do you keep them down on the farm" mentality.

I happen to live in Mississippi, within 10 (or so) miles of the Delta, there is only one remaining abortion clinic within Mississippi now, even now they are (the state) trying to regulate it out of existence.

I really wish I had a magic pill for this one, oops I guess there are several, but even those are severly restricted based on choices made by a small group of people that affect large segments of local populations, based on limited (or no) availability, you know OTC birth control.

Perhaps we should outlaw sex?



I don't really see where you're going with the last part of that. If certain localities or states wish to regulate it heavily or outlaw it, so be it. Hell, they can ban Adult stores. They can ban smoking. Why not aborting a life?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

And why is this exactly?

Perhaps if the efforts were put into securing private funding for the research, then the "getting around" part could be avoided and progress would continue.

Is it possible that private funders don't see the "promise" that scientists do and are unwilling to fund it because they don't see the potential payback?

Your oversimplifying.

Most of the research that has been done deriving the first ES stem cell lines (at least in the US) was done with no government money. That is how those off-campus labs got funded.

But the issue is that the amount of work that is required to actually figure out how to cure anybody with ES cells is substantial. (Didn't Nixon declare war on cancer and here we are decades later when things are actually starting to look better?) Deriving ES cells from embryos, which has been done by a handful of labs around the world, is just one little aspect of the big picture. To turn those cells into 'therapeutic products' requires expertise across all of medical science (neurology, hematology, cardialogy etc). That is a whole lot of laboratories and a whole lot more funding than will ever come from industry.

Put it another way: The general flow of things is: basic science research is performed at universities, discoveries are made and patents applied for, start-up companies are formed or some established company is enticed, the research is further developed to see if something applicable can be created, then you get to clinical trials. Indeed, the federal government supports this flow, by giving basic science grants to univeristites and giving technology transfer grants to small businesses partnering with university scientists as well as grants to small start-up companies. In terms of embryonic stem cells (and many other kinds of stem cells) we are at step 1 in this process. The research is just to preliminary and long-term for companies to pour money into. If anything, companies are looking to the government (and VC money) to help them in this effort.

Either way, I can assure you scientists don't overlook any possible source of money. Times are really tight right now. Guns, pork and tax cuts haven't left much federal funding for research. I spend about a third of my time writing grants, most of which don't get funded. Beleive me, if I could get more privet money I would. But federal funding is the lifeblood of basic and translational research in this country.
post #157 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

That is a whole lot of laboratories and a whole lot more funding than will ever come from industry.

Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

Either way, I can assure you scientists don't overlook any possible source of money.

No doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

Times are really tight right now.

Interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson O'Genic

But federal funding is the lifeblood of basic and translational research in this country.

Why?
post #158 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I don't really see where you're going with the last part of that. If certain localities or states wish to regulate it heavily or outlaw it, so be it. Hell, they can ban Adult stores. They can ban smoking. Why not aborting a life?



Which part? The MS part, the pill part, or the outlaw sex part (BTW, only kidding there), or before that part?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #159 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent



Which part? The MS part, the pill part, or the outlaw sex part (BTW, only kidding there), or before that part?


I guess the sex part...I was just not in humorous mood I guess!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #160 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

2. You act as if there is no private funding. That's not true. You can't just assume that funding is inadequate because there aren't tax dollars involved (actually, they are involved, but that point remains).

3. BS argument? That's your response? That's really disappointing after a rather well posted response.

2. Sure there is, but see my response to Chris. The federal government is the major source of funding for basic research. As a simple example: a standard NIH grant may give you 250k/year for 4 years, but most private foundations offer grants for 30-50k for one or two years. A lot more things get done when you have the needed resources.

In California, the prop 71 money is a whole new ball game. It is unusaul for the state to fund research at this level. States often do support research, or more likley, the collaboration of universities with businesses to support the commercialization of basic research. However, the amount of money that is involved is much higher than anything before.

3. I knew you wouldn't appreciate that answer, but I think your point is way off. How often does this conversation happen?

Doctor: The test confirms your pregnant.

Woman: What should I do?

Doctor: You need to have an abortion.

My guess is the answer is somewhere around zero.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Neo-Con blowhard out of touch