[quote]100meters wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
While it is pathetic that the left would try and take advantage of MJF for his illness, it is also asinine to say that he is faking.
Taking advantage? I’m pretty sure he’s an advocate for stem-cell research.
Checked my sources…he is.
[/quote]
MJF had a campaign ad for Republican Arlen Specter in 2004.
A much better example of taking advantage of someone’s medical condition would be Terry Schiavo.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wasn’t aware that Stem cell research was illegal.
in fact the only veto done by President Bush during his presidency is to veto stem cell research. He maintained that it destroys fetuses.
I maintain he is a hypocrit because 1,000’s of stem cells are destroyed daily by failed invitro fertilization, but he is fine with that. Not to mention the day after pill, he is fine with, which I (a pro choicer) have a problem with because it opens the door to using it as a form of birth control.
My logic based on the fact it is much more involved, painful, and expensive to get an abortion.
He only stops the federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines.
The federal government still funds existing embryonic stem cell lines as well as lines generated by adult stem cells etc.
You have been deceived on this issue.
You mean the tainted ones scientists don’t want?
Hence, people called “scientists” wanting new lines destined for a toilet flushing.
“You have been deceived on this issue.”
Hilarious. In an ironic/sad sort of way.
Wrong again sparky. All embroynic stem cell lines are “tainted” with mouse cells because otherwise they would die.
If new embryonic stem cell lines were started today they would also have to be “tainted” to survive.[/quote]
Thank God this isn’t true!
(Clue:“scientists” desire funding for new untainted lines–you know, ones not given mouse/animal based feeding solutions)
Hilarious, because you could have said all FEDERALLY FUNDED stem cell lines are tainted, but ya went with the lie instead…
interesting choice.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
While it is pathetic that the left would try and take advantage of MJF for his illness, it is also asinine to say that he is faking.
Taking advantage? I’m pretty sure he’s an advocate for stem-cell research.
Checked my sources…he is.
MJF had a campaign ad for Republican Arlen Specter in 2004.
A much better example of taking advantage of someone’s medical condition would be Terry Schiavo.
[/quote]
Thank you, just about to type that myself, but I figured only I would appreciate it…
[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Limbaugh is nothing more than a big corporation shill.
Yea, it’s all about those evil corporations… LOL I love it when you say crap like that. Funny stuff.
Maybe that one sentence was off topic but it is still true.
But I don’t love it when you say stuff like that because it shows you are still under the influence of the corporate propaganda machine.
When people say things like the following they are not thinking rationally:
All Italians love meatballs.
All Black Americans perpetrate acts of crime.
All Women are bitchy.
All those of Irish decent are drunks.
All corporations are evil.
You see my little Internet knitwit these are called sweeping generalizations. And many who make such generalizations are not very bright. I’ve read many of your posts and you live in a world of make believe.
It might be time to rip that tin foil hat off and join the rest of the rational world.
If you don’t yet understand there is no hope for you.
What is typical of the 20th century corporation?
Extractive, wasteful, massive, linear and create dangerous externalities.
Forced by law to place profit above all things, even the public good.
Yes corporations have done nice things but how do they compare to the bad?
In the early days a corporation was subordinate to people. Now it is the other way around.
They are protected - like people - under the 14th amendment.
Examine their typical actions and tell me what kind of person they are?
So many of the U.S. news outlets are owned by so few. They are concerned with those who own them and there advertising. Not the public welfare. You tend to get small fragments of the truth but what is left out is usually the most important things that pertain to the story. Compare foreign and non-corporate news sources U.S. corporate news and you see something totally different. You see a truly different perspective.
You may think I live in a world of make belive, but it is you that is sitting there watching shadows on the wall.
Be content with corporate news sources, if you like. But you do so at your own folly!
You go on living in la la land where all corporations are evil.
The rest of the thinking world won’t be generalizing and stereotyping the way you do.
And that’s because we’re smarter than you.
Bye dip shit.
[/quote]
Look at the balance of what corporations do!
So you go on believing the propaganda that is spoon fed to you on a daily basis.
And keep up the cheerleading and fake patriotism. The corporations are counting on you. Baaa…baa!
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
You did not name any liberal entertainers.
I was responding to your post specifically.
Olbermann is over the top but he is not as big a scum bag as Rush.[/quote]
What Limbaugh did was assinine. To me, this is akin to the PETA poster “Got Cancer?” that had Guiliani on it after he got prostate cancer. It’s amazing that either side believes this kind of stuff can possibly help their cause.
“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently generated headlines for itself when it posted a billboard ad featuring New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with a milk mustache across his upper lip, a la a “Got Milk?” spot. Instead, the copy read, “Got cancer?” and claimed that milk has been linked to prostate cancer, an illness for which Giuliani currently is being treated.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-murdock092300.shtml
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wasn’t aware that Stem cell research was illegal.
in fact the only veto done by President Bush during his presidency is to veto stem cell research. He maintained that it destroys fetuses.
I maintain he is a hypocrit because 1,000’s of stem cells are destroyed daily by failed invitro fertilization, but he is fine with that. Not to mention the day after pill, he is fine with, which I (a pro choicer) have a problem with because it opens the door to using it as a form of birth control.
My logic based on the fact it is much more involved, painful, and expensive to get an abortion.
He only stops the federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines.
The federal government still funds existing embryonic stem cell lines as well as lines generated by adult stem cells etc.
You have been deceived on this issue.
You mean the tainted ones scientists don’t want?
Hence, people called “scientists” wanting new lines destined for a toilet flushing.
“You have been deceived on this issue.”
Hilarious. In an ironic/sad sort of way.
Wrong again sparky. All embroynic stem cell lines are “tainted” with mouse cells because otherwise they would die.
If new embryonic stem cell lines were started today they would also have to be “tainted” to survive.
Thank God this isn’t true!
(Clue:“scientists” desire funding for new untainted lines–you know, ones not given mouse/animal based feeding solutions)
Hilarious, because you could have said all FEDERALLY FUNDED stem cell lines are tainted, but ya went with the lie instead…
interesting choice.[/quote]
I believe you are completely wrong on this one. Provide a link that shows embryonic stem cells can live without the antigen from mouse DNA or once again I will assume you are lying.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Look at the balance of what corporations do![/quote]
Yes, let’s take a look. They employ millions of people who support our economy. Pay billions in taxes, and supply us with the latest gadgets, toys, clothing, cares, inventions etc.
Feel like a retard yet?
You need to get out from your parents basement more often.
I reiterate, bye dip shit.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wasn’t aware that Stem cell research was illegal.
in fact the only veto done by President Bush during his presidency is to veto stem cell research. He maintained that it destroys fetuses.
I maintain he is a hypocrit because 1,000’s of stem cells are destroyed daily by failed invitro fertilization, but he is fine with that. Not to mention the day after pill, he is fine with, which I (a pro choicer) have a problem with because it opens the door to using it as a form of birth control.
My logic based on the fact it is much more involved, painful, and expensive to get an abortion.
He only stops the federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines.
The federal government still funds existing embryonic stem cell lines as well as lines generated by adult stem cells etc.
You have been deceived on this issue.
You mean the tainted ones scientists don’t want?
Hence, people called “scientists” wanting new lines destined for a toilet flushing.
“You have been deceived on this issue.”
Hilarious. In an ironic/sad sort of way.
Wrong again sparky. All embroynic stem cell lines are “tainted” with mouse cells because otherwise they would die.
If new embryonic stem cell lines were started today they would also have to be “tainted” to survive.
Thank God this isn’t true!
(Clue:“scientists” desire funding for new untainted lines–you know, ones not given mouse/animal based feeding solutions)
Hilarious, because you could have said all FEDERALLY FUNDED stem cell lines are tainted, but ya went with the lie instead…
interesting choice.
I believe you are completely wrong on this one. Provide a link that shows embryonic stem cells can live without the antigen from mouse DNA or once again I will assume you are lying.[/quote]
I think, until proven otherwise, it’s a safe bet to assume 100 meters is lying.
Is it Faux?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
While it is pathetic that the left would try and take advantage of MJF for his illness, it is also asinine to say that he is faking.
The entire issue, on both sides is retarded.
Government should not help fund research unless the public will get some of the money back when the pharmaceutical companies start to make billions on research that WE THE PEOPLE paid for.
Stem Cell research has not been proven to help any condition. It is a lot of hype and speculation.
There are multiple sources of stem cells, embryos is just one, your own body right now is another.
Frozen embryo Stem cells do not constitute a human.
Now, those on both sides, STFU!
“2. Stem Cell research has not been proven to help any condition. It is a lot of hype and speculation.”
I keep seeing this argument and it just boggles my mind.
Why? It is the truth. Scientists have discovered the cure for cancer at least 100 times in my lifetime. Never seems to work out that way.
Stem cells are overhyped.[/quote]
You are a Ludite.
That explains everything.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Dr. mikey:
Did you vote for john kerry?
Or, are you a pseudo-paleolithic-crispy-creme-libertarian-Republican like marm?
This should be fun.
JeffR
Yep, voted for Kerry. It was a Tweedle-Dee vs. Tweedle Dum election.
Does voting for Tom McClintock for Governor make me a Republican?
Having to pick a candidate to vote for in a two party system doesn’t mean you’re choosing sides and adopting their ideology.
[/quote]
Hey Dr. dem/mikey:
First of all, thanks for honestly answering this question. You’ll find that there are many guys like marm who try to appear “above the fray” by saying they are “independent.” You’ll see that they are almost universally regurgitating talking points from the dems. They’ll side with the dems on 98% of the issues and throw in a “screw both parties” to try to seem “balanced.”
It’s just a crock. You lose points by being dishonest.
Now, if you voted for john “hey, I’ll say anything to get elected” kerry, you are a democrat. It’s plain and simple. He has been rated the second most liberal Senator next to his pal, ted.
If you had voted for Lieberman, or someone who is mainstream, then you’d have a point.
But, by voting for kerry, you equal dem.
Oh, if you disagree with this, we’ll be watching you closely and tallying your dem talking points. You’ll eventually sack up and admit it.
Now, to Michael J. Fox. The story keeps changing. I think the whole thing is sad.
It appears that Fox manipulates dosages to make a point.
Again, if you take either too much or too little, you can have the shakes. Since my first post, there have been indications that Fox took TOO MUCH medication to make his point.
I honestly cannot make it any clearer for you. Yes, my original objection stands. If you are manipulating the disease and it’s manifestations to take a (what many of us feel) is an unwarranted shot, that is wrong.
Finally, I wouldn’t have said anything about Fox if I were Rush.
JeffR
[quote]Phatshady912 wrote:
Agreed 100% A good friend of mine who is an Army Ranger lied about having asthma. He got deployed last month, and at any time during the hell of a bootcamp or his Ranger training he could have told them he had asthma and packed it in. But when he said he wanted to join the army he actually meant it, he didn’t just want to act tough on a message board.[/quote]
If you ever were treated, they’ll catch you, plain and simple. Your friend was either never treated or you lie like a rug.
[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Look at the balance of what corporations do!
Yes, let’s take a look. They employ millions of people who support our economy. Pay billions in taxes, and supply us with the latest gadgets, toys, clothing, cares, inventions etc.
Feel like a retard yet?
You need to get out from your parents basement more often.
I reiterate, bye dip shit.
[/quote]
Thanks. This is what I was going to respond with.
My sister-in-law went through this ‘I hate “Corporate America” phase’ a few years back. Now she works for one and it’s all forgotten. Is she a sell-out? Nah. She just grew up.
The lefties like to jump on Corporations, assail them, insult them, say they are the root of all evil. They do this at election time. Then they see what kind of regulations they can hit them with, penalties, etc.
Then they point out how Republicans get all this money from Corporate America. What the fuck are they supposed to do? When you have one party that’s hell-bent on destroying Corporations, the accumulation of wealth, increasing taxes and creating a disincentivised socialist welfare state, who in the hell do you think they are going to give money to? The party that’s trying to destroy them!?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey Dr. dem/mikey:
First of all, thanks for honestly answering this question. You’ll find that there are many guys like marm who try to appear “above the fray” by saying they are “independent.” You’ll see that they are almost universally regurgitating talking points from the dems. They’ll side with the dems on 98% of the issues and throw in a “screw both parties” to try to seem “balanced.”
It’s just a crock. You lose points by being dishonest.
Now, if you voted for john “hey, I’ll say anything to get elected” kerry, you are a democrat. It’s plain and simple. He has been rated the second most liberal Senator next to his pal, ted.
If you had voted for Lieberman, or someone who is mainstream, then you’d have a point.
But, by voting for kerry, you equal dem.
Oh, if you disagree with this, we’ll be watching you closely and tallying your dem talking points. You’ll eventually sack up and admit it.
Now, to Michael J. Fox. The story keeps changing. I think the whole thing is sad.
It appears that Fox manipulates dosages to make a point.
Again, if you take either too much or too little, you can have the shakes. Since my first post, there have been indications that Fox took TOO MUCH medication to make his point.
I honestly cannot make it any clearer for you. Yes, my original objection stands. If you are manipulating the disease and it’s manifestations to take a (what many of us feel) is an unwarranted shot, that is wrong.
Finally, I wouldn’t have said anything about Fox if I were Rush.
JeffR[/quote]
good post Jeff!
My question is: which is worse, a guy who uses his illness to advance his political agenda or the guy who calls him on it?
I don’t think Rush should be faulted at all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey Dr. dem/mikey:
First of all, thanks for honestly answering this question. You’ll find that there are many guys like marm who try to appear “above the fray” by saying they are “independent.” You’ll see that they are almost universally regurgitating talking points from the dems. They’ll side with the dems on 98% of the issues and throw in a “screw both parties” to try to seem “balanced.”
It’s just a crock. You lose points by being dishonest.
Now, if you voted for john “hey, I’ll say anything to get elected” kerry, you are a democrat. It’s plain and simple. He has been rated the second most liberal Senator next to his pal, ted.
If you had voted for Lieberman, or someone who is mainstream, then you’d have a point.
But, by voting for kerry, you equal dem.
Oh, if you disagree with this, we’ll be watching you closely and tallying your dem talking points. You’ll eventually sack up and admit it.
Now, to Michael J. Fox. The story keeps changing. I think the whole thing is sad.
It appears that Fox manipulates dosages to make a point.
Again, if you take either too much or too little, you can have the shakes. Since my first post, there have been indications that Fox took TOO MUCH medication to make his point.
I honestly cannot make it any clearer for you. Yes, my original objection stands. If you are manipulating the disease and it’s manifestations to take a (what many of us feel) is an unwarranted shot, that is wrong.
Finally, I wouldn’t have said anything about Fox if I were Rush.
JeffR
good post Jeff!
My question is: which is worse, a guy who uses his illness to advance his political agenda or the guy who calls him on it?
I don’t think Rush should be faulted at all.[/quote]
You keep proving my assertions about math majors with every post.
Keep up the great work!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He only stops the federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines.
The federal government still funds existing embryonic stem cell lines as well as lines generated by adult stem cells etc.
You have been deceived on this issue.[/quote]
Quote from:
“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush said Wednesday afternoon. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it.”
javascript:cnnVideo(‘play’,‘/video/politics/2006/07/19/bash.stem.cell.research.cnn’,‘2006/07/26’);
"The measure, which the House of Representatives passed in May 2005, allows couples who have had embryos frozen for fertility treatments to donate them to researchers rather than let them be destroyed.
Bush said, “If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I’m not going to allow it.”
In my opinion, this veto was wrong and goes against Bush’s own words.
The Corporation (2004)
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60034810&trkid=189530&strkid=246222509_0_0
Why are corporations given the same rights as a living person, but not the accountability?
Watch the documentary.
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60034810&trkid=189530&strkid=246222509_0_0
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
The Corporation (2004)
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60034810&trkid=189530&strkid=246222509_0_0
Why are corporations given the same rights as a living person, but not the accountability?
Watch the documentary.
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60034810&trkid=189530&strkid=246222509_0_0[/quote]
At the risk of losing the thread, so much whining about corporations, but no one puts their money where their mouth is and throws away the computer created by a corporation.
Software - every part of it - is the result of a corporation. Why be complicit in the corporate conspiracy? Trash your computer. Don’t log onto the internet. You are part of the problem if you do.
As for watching “The Corporation” - don’t waste your money. It includes commentary from ‘social critics’ like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, who both are enriched by the corporate system they claim to despise.
As for Chomsky: Canada.Com | Homepage | Canada.Com
Anyway, back to the topic. Limbaugh should not have done what he did. If there is a desire to attack the issue, do so. But accusing Fox of exaggerating his debilitating disease crossed a line.
Limbaugh is part of the conservatives’ problem. He has become a living cartoon of country-club conservatism. In a day and age when the GOP needs to re-establish with American citizens that it can be taken seriously on important matters of policy, this hack starts eating up headlines with his useless noise.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey Dr. dem/mikey:
First of all, thanks for honestly answering this question. You’ll find that there are many guys like marm who try to appear “above the fray” by saying they are “independent.” You’ll see that they are almost universally regurgitating talking points from the dems. They’ll side with the dems on 98% of the issues and throw in a “screw both parties” to try to seem “balanced.”
It’s just a crock. You lose points by being dishonest.
Now, if you voted for john “hey, I’ll say anything to get elected” kerry, you are a democrat. It’s plain and simple. He has been rated the second most liberal Senator next to his pal, ted.
If you had voted for Lieberman, or someone who is mainstream, then you’d have a point.
But, by voting for kerry, you equal dem.
Oh, if you disagree with this, we’ll be watching you closely and tallying your dem talking points. You’ll eventually sack up and admit it.
Now, to Michael J. Fox. The story keeps changing. I think the whole thing is sad.
It appears that Fox manipulates dosages to make a point.
Again, if you take either too much or too little, you can have the shakes. Since my first post, there have been indications that Fox took TOO MUCH medication to make his point.
I honestly cannot make it any clearer for you. Yes, my original objection stands. If you are manipulating the disease and it’s manifestations to take a (what many of us feel) is an unwarranted shot, that is wrong.
Finally, I wouldn’t have said anything about Fox if I were Rush.
JeffR[/quote]
How did you figure me out so quickly? You’re right, only a Dem would think that some loud-mouthed, drug addled, fat fuck hedonist who enjoys island hoping with a bottle of Viagra so he can diddle LBFM’s would be out of line when he pisses on the character of someone struggling with Parkinson’s disease. I guess I’ll have to come clean…
Dear Jeffrey,
I woke up late yesterday after a long night of partying in the Castro with my gay lover. He’s an illegal alien from Venezuela. We both just love Hugo Chavez. We had spent the whole day driving metal spikes into trees and had to celebrate. Anyway, I smoked a doobie for breakfast (I take it for my back pain) and made a call to my pregnant friend. It took some coercing, but I convinced her to have an abortion. After the call I threw on my Che shirt and Birks, drove over to UC Berkeley in the VW Lovebus and passed out flyers for the Vegan Communist Association of Socialist Atheists. Chomsky is speaking at our next meeting! Needless to say, there was a lot of interest.
I had to cash my welfare check just to pay for gas to get back over the bridge. Gee, thanks Haliburton (Cheney!). I had Al Franken’s “Lying Liars” book on tape playing in the Lovebus so that calmed me down a bit. That and some more medical marijuana. I had to get back to SF quickly because it’s soooo much safer there now that we’ve finally banned handguns.
I got back to the city just in time for a Free Mumia/Anti-Bush/Flag burning rally. Danny Glover was in the zone! When I got home I invited some friends over for our weekly Michael Moore Marathon. We capped the night off with some more pot, discussions about our white guilt and why we hate America (viva la France!), then burned some more flags. A naked bongo drum circle may have been involved, but I’m a bit hazy on that part. It’s a good thing I don’t work because after such a busy day I’m spent. I think I’ll just spend the whole day reading Ward Churchill’s blog.
Regards,
Round Peg in a Round Hole
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
While it is pathetic that the left would try and take advantage of MJF for his illness, it is also asinine to say that he is faking.
The entire issue, on both sides is retarded.
Government should not help fund research unless the public will get some of the money back when the pharmaceutical companies start to make billions on research that WE THE PEOPLE paid for.
Stem Cell research has not been proven to help any condition. It is a lot of hype and speculation.
There are multiple sources of stem cells, embryos is just one, your own body right now is another.
Frozen embryo Stem cells do not constitute a human.
Now, those on both sides, STFU!
“2. Stem Cell research has not been proven to help any condition. It is a lot of hype and speculation.”
I keep seeing this argument and it just boggles my mind.
Why? It is the truth. Scientists have discovered the cure for cancer at least 100 times in my lifetime. Never seems to work out that way.
Stem cells are overhyped.[/quote]
The difference is that some people (like Michael570), don’t know the difference between pop science and real science. Pop science is based on unproven hypotheses that are pushed in the media as fact. But real science does not state that they have a cure for anything even after one successful double blind protocol. It is only after multiple trials using multiple variables that something starts to be even considered as “proven”. And even then, only proven to “possible benefit” a narrow group of people under specific situations.
So you are exactly right, stem cell research is a bunch of hype about nothing.