Obama Blames Bush... Again...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]artw wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]artw wrote:
I’m not a big Obama fan, but most of the posts so far are completely asinine. Has Obama fixed things? No, but the huge deficit he has helped to create is part of a solution to a problem. Will it work? It isn’t right now, but it may. The economy is just like driving a car. When it’s going well and thriving (ie moving fast), you simply take your foot off the gas/deficit spending, hit cruise control and try not to run off the road. When the car is stopped, you step on the gas to get it moving.

Whether or not his tactics will work remains to be seen, but putting the blame for the economy’s condition squarely on his shoulders without seriously examining the disastrous fiscal policies of the Bush administration (essentially increasing spending while decreasing taxes) is like suing the doctor who botched your surgery after you got shot while neglecting to identify your shooter for the police.

As for his emphasis on promoting the use of green technology and so forth, why the fuck not? Who cares if global warming may be a fraud? The production and implementation of green technology (along with biotechnology, which the Bush administration significantly set us behind in due to attempts to limit stemcell research) is the next major industry in this country and could be a very viable source of jobs for this country in the future.

Besides, global warming IS occurring at an accelerated rate that far surpasses any natural processes the Earth has gone through in the past, so the industry as a whole is legit to begin with. Who cares if Al Gore gets rich off of it? Good for him. Maybe Bush and Cheney will get a piece of that pie too. [/quote]

no offense atrw, but that has got to be the worst metaphor for fiscal policy I’ve ever heard. Ceterus parabus, you have complete control of a car, but you can’t control the invisible hand you can only hope to influence it in some way…[/quote]

Actually, the analogy is perfect, albeit simplistic. That’s why it’s taught in virtually any economics class. What the fuck is this “invisible hand” you talk of, and do you really think you ever have complete control of a car?

I don’t like the huge deficit any more than most people on this thread, but it went through the roof in an attempt to fix the results of the previous administration’s disastrous policies. This criticism of Obama’s attempts to fix an economic problem more severe than anything any other President this side of FDR has had to deal with is pointless. We won’t see the results of his “fixes” for several years. The Depression took over ten years to reverse. The current situation may take almost as long. Some fixes aren’t even designed to benefit this generation as much as they are designed to benefit the next generation of Americans.

I’ll gladly live with high unemployment rates, high taxes, high deficits and so on if it means that later on down the road my children and grandchildren can enjoy a better standard of living than this generation does. Now all of this may never happen and this deficit spending may end up being a total nightmare (and I certainly don’t downplay the highly negative impact our debt has on our foreign policies toward China), but let’s wait and see before we start lambasting Obama for being a blamesome crybaby.

After all, were the same people deriding Obama’s criticism of Bush deriding Bush equally hard when he blamed 9/11 on Clinton? I don’t think so. It’s all ridiculous. Shit, people are starting to have the same passion and subjectivity for politics (not a good thing) that football fans have for their teams. A 49ers fan would never say or acknowledge anything good about the Raiders and vice versa, and the political landscape in this country has ended up the same way. It’s a shame.[/quote]

yea, cause the economy is best described in simplistic ways … and if you’ve taken most economic classes you should know what the invisible hand is I speak of

Have you ever heard of the USS Cole? Maybe our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? If Clinton had actually done something rather than just issue a condemnation Al Qaeda may not have had the resources or ease to attmept the acts of 9/11 … while Clinton isn’t directly responsible and all the blame shouldn’t be laid at his feet, his inaction certainly didn’t deter anything.

Oh, and how do you expect your children and grandchildren to have a better standard of living when Obama’s spending us right back into the Stone Age? Since when does it make sense, in an attempt to fix a problem, you make the problem larger? Yea we have a spending problem so … let’s … spend … more? On what? Jobs? That’s funny, because last time I checked Unemployments around 10% … And I understand about implemental delays for policy … yea it takes time … well how much time? It usually takes 6 months for effects to be felt … well it’s been a year and unemployments still going up along with inflation … how’s that for effect?

So stop defending this guy, he’s a putz and patsy. If his policy cause this shit to turn around then I’ll eat my words, but right now, I don’t see that happening.

22

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]artw wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]artw wrote:
I’m not a big Obama fan, but most of the posts so far are completely asinine. Has Obama fixed things? No, but the huge deficit he has helped to create is part of a solution to a problem. Will it work? It isn’t right now, but it may. The economy is just like driving a car. When it’s going well and thriving (ie moving fast), you simply take your foot off the gas/deficit spending, hit cruise control and try not to run off the road. When the car is stopped, you step on the gas to get it moving.

Whether or not his tactics will work remains to be seen, but putting the blame for the economy’s condition squarely on his shoulders without seriously examining the disastrous fiscal policies of the Bush administration (essentially increasing spending while decreasing taxes) is like suing the doctor who botched your surgery after you got shot while neglecting to identify your shooter for the police.

As for his emphasis on promoting the use of green technology and so forth, why the fuck not? Who cares if global warming may be a fraud? The production and implementation of green technology (along with biotechnology, which the Bush administration significantly set us behind in due to attempts to limit stemcell research) is the next major industry in this country and could be a very viable source of jobs for this country in the future.

Besides, global warming IS occurring at an accelerated rate that far surpasses any natural processes the Earth has gone through in the past, so the industry as a whole is legit to begin with. Who cares if Al Gore gets rich off of it? Good for him. Maybe Bush and Cheney will get a piece of that pie too. [/quote]

no offense atrw, but that has got to be the worst metaphor for fiscal policy I’ve ever heard. Ceterus parabus, you have complete control of a car, but you can’t control the invisible hand you can only hope to influence it in some way…[/quote]

Actually, the analogy is perfect, albeit simplistic. That’s why it’s taught in virtually any economics class. What the fuck is this “invisible hand” you talk of, and do you really think you ever have complete control of a car?

I don’t like the huge deficit any more than most people on this thread, but it went through the roof in an attempt to fix the results of the previous administration’s disastrous policies. This criticism of Obama’s attempts to fix an economic problem more severe than anything any other President this side of FDR has had to deal with is pointless. We won’t see the results of his “fixes” for several years. The Depression took over ten years to reverse. The current situation may take almost as long. Some fixes aren’t even designed to benefit this generation as much as they are designed to benefit the next generation of Americans.

I’ll gladly live with high unemployment rates, high taxes, high deficits and so on if it means that later on down the road my children and grandchildren can enjoy a better standard of living than this generation does. Now all of this may never happen and this deficit spending may end up being a total nightmare (and I certainly don’t downplay the highly negative impact our debt has on our foreign policies toward China), but let’s wait and see before we start lambasting Obama for being a blamesome crybaby.

After all, were the same people deriding Obama’s criticism of Bush deriding Bush equally hard when he blamed 9/11 on Clinton? I don’t think so. It’s all ridiculous. Shit, people are starting to have the same passion and subjectivity for politics (not a good thing) that football fans have for their teams. A 49ers fan would never say or acknowledge anything good about the Raiders and vice versa, and the political landscape in this country has ended up the same way. It’s a shame.[/quote]

yea, cause the economy is best described in simplistic ways … and if you’ve taken most economic classes you should know what the invisible hand is I speak of

Have you ever heard of the USS Cole? Maybe our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? If Clinton had actually done something rather than just issue a condemnation Al Qaeda may not have had the resources or ease to attmept the acts of 9/11 … while Clinton isn’t directly responsible and all the blame shouldn’t be laid at his feet, his inaction certainly didn’t deter anything.

Oh, and how do you expect your children and grandchildren to have a better standard of living when Obama’s spending us right back into the Stone Age? Since when does it make sense, in an attempt to fix a problem, you make the problem larger? Yea we have a spending problem so … let’s … spend … more? On what? Jobs? That’s funny, because last time I checked Unemployments around 10% … And I understand about implemental delays for policy … yea it takes time … well how much time? It usually takes 6 months for effects to be felt … well it’s been a year and unemployments still going up along with inflation … how’s that for effect?

So stop defending this guy, he’s a putz and patsy. If his policy cause this shit to turn around then I’ll eat my words, but right now, I don’t see that happening.[/quote]

If Clinton had been able to give his undivided attention to matters like the USS Cole, al Qaeda and so forth, I’m sure the odds of a 9/11-style attack would have been reduced greatly. However, he was a little busy with that bullshit Lewinsky scandal. Instead of trying to save his presidency from some twisted neocon witchhunt, led by Henry fucking Hyde of all people, he could have been taking further steps to destroy al Qaeda rather than simply launching a few missiles at Afghanistan. Clinton was hardly sitting idly by, twiddling his thumbs while terrorist plots against this country were being constructed.

As for defending Obama, I’m not defending him as much as I am trying to point out the ridiculous nature of most of the political discussions on this site. Attacking Obama as some sort of Marxist-Leninist hellbent on furthering some radically leftwing agenda at all costs is as asinine as any of these liberals who constantly attacked Bush on everything BUT policy (drugs, pronunciation of nuclear, etc) or accused him of being some bloodthirsty warmonger determined to use Iraq as a means to get all his buddies rich.

My point is that Democrats and Republicans are both wrong about half the time. Trust me, conservatives are not always right and neither are liberals. But I see so many people on this site who are hardcore one way or the other (99% of whom happen to be conservative which invariably leads to me being accused of being a liberal when in fact I’m a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party for more than 12 years) that it gets frustrating watching everyone attack one side without honestly and thoroughly questioning some of their own values.

I hope you do eat your words, and not out of some need for vindication. But even more so, I hope that YOU hope you eat your words. Do you? Do you really hope that Obama has a successful Presidency or do you want to see him fall flat on his face? I’d be curious to know how many people on this site hope that Obama has a successful Presidency. Because if he has a bad Presidency, it will only be good for the GOP, not America as a whole.

23

You’re right. Obama started the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and he bankrupted the US.

Perhaps we should call Bush back to clear up this mess.

That was sarcasm.

You guys gave Bush 8 years to mess everything up. And he did a thorough job. You applauded him every step of the way.

How long do you give Obama the clear the mess up?

24

[quote]artw wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]artw wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]artw wrote:
I’m not a big Obama fan, but most of the posts so far are completely asinine. Has Obama fixed things? No, but the huge deficit he has helped to create is part of a solution to a problem. Will it work? It isn’t right now, but it may. The economy is just like driving a car. When it’s going well and thriving (ie moving fast), you simply take your foot off the gas/deficit spending, hit cruise control and try not to run off the road. When the car is stopped, you step on the gas to get it moving.

Whether or not his tactics will work remains to be seen, but putting the blame for the economy’s condition squarely on his shoulders without seriously examining the disastrous fiscal policies of the Bush administration (essentially increasing spending while decreasing taxes) is like suing the doctor who botched your surgery after you got shot while neglecting to identify your shooter for the police.

As for his emphasis on promoting the use of green technology and so forth, why the fuck not? Who cares if global warming may be a fraud? The production and implementation of green technology (along with biotechnology, which the Bush administration significantly set us behind in due to attempts to limit stemcell research) is the next major industry in this country and could be a very viable source of jobs for this country in the future.

Besides, global warming IS occurring at an accelerated rate that far surpasses any natural processes the Earth has gone through in the past, so the industry as a whole is legit to begin with. Who cares if Al Gore gets rich off of it? Good for him. Maybe Bush and Cheney will get a piece of that pie too. [/quote]

no offense atrw, but that has got to be the worst metaphor for fiscal policy I’ve ever heard. Ceterus parabus, you have complete control of a car, but you can’t control the invisible hand you can only hope to influence it in some way…[/quote]

Actually, the analogy is perfect, albeit simplistic. That’s why it’s taught in virtually any economics class. What the fuck is this “invisible hand” you talk of, and do you really think you ever have complete control of a car?

I don’t like the huge deficit any more than most people on this thread, but it went through the roof in an attempt to fix the results of the previous administration’s disastrous policies. This criticism of Obama’s attempts to fix an economic problem more severe than anything any other President this side of FDR has had to deal with is pointless. We won’t see the results of his “fixes” for several years. The Depression took over ten years to reverse. The current situation may take almost as long. Some fixes aren’t even designed to benefit this generation as much as they are designed to benefit the next generation of Americans.

I’ll gladly live with high unemployment rates, high taxes, high deficits and so on if it means that later on down the road my children and grandchildren can enjoy a better standard of living than this generation does. Now all of this may never happen and this deficit spending may end up being a total nightmare (and I certainly don’t downplay the highly negative impact our debt has on our foreign policies toward China), but let’s wait and see before we start lambasting Obama for being a blamesome crybaby.

After all, were the same people deriding Obama’s criticism of Bush deriding Bush equally hard when he blamed 9/11 on Clinton? I don’t think so. It’s all ridiculous. Shit, people are starting to have the same passion and subjectivity for politics (not a good thing) that football fans have for their teams. A 49ers fan would never say or acknowledge anything good about the Raiders and vice versa, and the political landscape in this country has ended up the same way. It’s a shame.[/quote]

yea, cause the economy is best described in simplistic ways … and if you’ve taken most economic classes you should know what the invisible hand is I speak of

Have you ever heard of the USS Cole? Maybe our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? If Clinton had actually done something rather than just issue a condemnation Al Qaeda may not have had the resources or ease to attmept the acts of 9/11 … while Clinton isn’t directly responsible and all the blame shouldn’t be laid at his feet, his inaction certainly didn’t deter anything.

Oh, and how do you expect your children and grandchildren to have a better standard of living when Obama’s spending us right back into the Stone Age? Since when does it make sense, in an attempt to fix a problem, you make the problem larger? Yea we have a spending problem so … let’s … spend … more? On what? Jobs? That’s funny, because last time I checked Unemployments around 10% … And I understand about implemental delays for policy … yea it takes time … well how much time? It usually takes 6 months for effects to be felt … well it’s been a year and unemployments still going up along with inflation … how’s that for effect?

So stop defending this guy, he’s a putz and patsy. If his policy cause this shit to turn around then I’ll eat my words, but right now, I don’t see that happening.[/quote]

If Clinton had been able to give his undivided attention to matters like the USS Cole, al Qaeda and so forth, I’m sure the odds of a 9/11-style attack would have been reduced greatly. However, he was a little busy with that bullshit Lewinsky scandal. Instead of trying to save his presidency from some twisted neocon witchhunt, led by Henry fucking Hyde of all people, he could have been taking further steps to destroy al Qaeda rather than simply launching a few missiles at Afghanistan. Clinton was hardly sitting idly by, twiddling his thumbs while terrorist plots against this country were being constructed.

As for defending Obama, I’m not defending him as much as I am trying to point out the ridiculous nature of most of the political discussions on this site. Attacking Obama as some sort of Marxist-Leninist hellbent on furthering some radically leftwing agenda at all costs is as asinine as any of these liberals who constantly attacked Bush on everything BUT policy (drugs, pronunciation of nuclear, etc) or accused him of being some bloodthirsty warmonger determined to use Iraq as a means to get all his buddies rich.

My point is that Democrats and Republicans are both wrong about half the time. Trust me, conservatives are not always right and neither are liberals. But I see so many people on this site who are hardcore one way or the other (99% of whom happen to be conservative which invariably leads to me being accused of being a liberal when in fact I’m a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party for more than 12 years) that it gets frustrating watching everyone attack one side without honestly and thoroughly questioning some of their own values.

I hope you do eat your words, and not out of some need for vindication. But even more so, I hope that YOU hope you eat your words. Do you? Do you really hope that Obama has a successful Presidency or do you want to see him fall flat on his face? I’d be curious to know how many people on this site hope that Obama has a successful Presidency. Because if he has a bad Presidency, it will only be good for the GOP, not America as a whole. [/quote]

I’m not a member of any party; I would like to see America shine brighter than ever, but I only see Obama pulling down the shades. I don’t even blame Obama all that much (I just don’t think he’s doing anything to better the country but he’s following his own idealogical ambitions), there’s a lot wrong with this country outside of the realm of politics that’s becoming entrenched in the fabric of our society … one being sense of entitlement; too many people think that working hard is a diesease to be avoided like the plague. Unfortunately a lot of Obama’s policy are perputating that mind set.

On the other hand, the GOP isn’t doing much better (if at all). They seem to be too busy complaining they’re outnumbered and have no real chance to pass legislation (which may or may not be such a bad thing) to realize that they aren’t writting any legislation worth a damn. That summit = set up comment on Face the Nation this weekend kind of hit that point home for me.

25

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
You’re right. Obama started the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and he bankrupted the US.

Perhaps we should call Bush back to clear up this mess.

That was sarcasm.

You guys gave Bush 8 years to mess everything up. And he did a thorough job. You applauded him every step of the way.

How long do you give Obama the clear the mess up?[/quote]

Fail

26

[quote]artw wrote:

As for his emphasis on promoting the use of green technology and so forth, why the fuck not?
Who cares if global warming may be a fraud?
[/quote]
Because much of “green” technology is CO2 reduction. If global warming is a fraud, it will cost money and jobs with no return.

Stem cell research was only restricted in as the embryonic variety. Even then, it was only a restriction of public funding, not a ban of the research. And if we are “behind” on it, what exactly did embryonic stem cell research produce other places?

You have to realize that the government doesn’t produce anything, including research. It can only transfer wealth (minus a huge overhead).

This is completely untrue. Even The British Guys responsible for most of the Manmade climate change admit there is nothing unprecedented about the current warming trend.

You know what is taught in every economic class, and you don’t know what the invisible hand is?

Actually there is a lot of debate about the effect FDR had on the depression. Many economists today think he made it worse and longer and that the war brought us out of it.

Oh yes, run up the deficits… for the children of all people. Because spending money we don’t have so each child is born with tens of thousands of dollars of dept is for their own good.

[quote]

After all, were the same people deriding Obama’s criticism of Bush deriding Bush equally hard when he blamed 9/11 on Clinton? I don’t think so. It’s all ridiculous. Shit, people are starting to have the same passion and subjectivity for politics (not a good thing) that football fans have for their teams. A 49ers fan would never say or acknowledge anything good about the Raiders and vice versa, and the political landscape in this country has ended up the same way. It’s a shame.[/quote]

I fear I have no team.

27

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
You’re right. Obama started the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and he bankrupted the US.

Perhaps we should call Bush back to clear up this mess.

That was sarcasm.

You guys gave Bush 8 years to mess everything up. And he did a thorough job. You applauded him every step of the way.

How long do you give Obama the clear the mess up?[/quote]

Careful Wreckless they will call you the (L) work:)

28

my apologies for not seeing this before. artw use the brain you were given. Has embryonic stem cell research helped even a SINGLE person? No, in reality a number of people with terminal diseases have now died and/or have different forms of cancer.

Bush did not shut off the funding, he simply restricted funding, limiting the research. Again, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN HELPED WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS!!

ADULT stem cells have however helped thousands of people, yet Dr.'s still want to play the role of God. I can personally benefit from adult stem cell therapy, the technology is being help back while other money goes to a waste of technology in embryonic research.

Please learn the truth before you spread ignorance. Thanks : )

[quote]artw wrote:
. . . . The production and implementation of green technology (along with biotechnology, which the Bush administration significantly set us behind in due to attempts to limit stemcell research) is the next major industry in this country and could be a very viable source of jobs for this country in the future . . . . [/quote]

29

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
my apologies for not seeing this before. artw use the brain you were given. Has embryonic stem cell research helped even a SINGLE person? No, in reality a number of people with terminal diseases have now died and/or have different forms of cancer.

Bush did not shut off the funding, he simply restricted funding, limiting the research. Again, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN HELPED WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS!!

ADULT stem cells have however helped thousands of people, yet Dr.'s still want to play the role of God. I can personally benefit from adult stem cell therapy, the technology is being help back while other money goes to a waste of technology in embryonic research.

Please learn the truth before you spread ignorance. Thanks : )

[quote]artw wrote:
. . . . The production and implementation of green technology (along with biotechnology, which the Bush administration significantly set us behind in due to attempts to limit stemcell research) is the next major industry in this country and could be a very viable source of jobs for this country in the future . . . . [/quote]
[/quote]

I’m a molecular biologist not a cell biologist, but I’m wondering if you actually understand the nature of embryonic stem cells and the therapies that their use could affect.

30

Embryonic stem cells are more valuable than adult stem cells because they are undifferentiated cells - i.e. they can be used to help any organ. Adult stem cells are primarily located in places like the brain but the majority of stem cells have differentiated to help in the involvement of certain organs. Embryonic stem cells are needed far more.

Oh, and Obama won’t clear up ALL the mess Bush made overnight. Do people really expect eight years of economic mismanagement to be reversed in one year?

31

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

So why post when that is the case?

32

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

This backs up what I said about the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells re: adult stem cells

As for Obama I don’t doubt he’s making mistakes but the biggest recession in 70 years happened just before he came into office, it seems unfair to blame the resulting economic hoo-haa all on his watch, especially when the sub-prime failure developed before he came into office. And, as another poster pointed out, he was not the president, who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of your views on those invasions, expecting him to sort them all out in the first year would seem to be overly optimistic, no?

33

No, you don’t know what you’re talking about with regard to stem cells. Your posts show you don’t even have the knowledge that ought to have been obtained from a good one-page summary. Which sadly the summary you posted is not, regardless of coming from the NIH.

Or perhaps due to coming from the NIH, as it is a government body much moreso than a scientific one, and has much more to do with funneling money to “in” people and “in” projects than it does with scientific merit. They have turf to defend in this particular matter. So that may explain their extremely biased and misleading statement on this point. But no matter.

As I’ve posted on it before, and I would have to be starting from utter ground zero given that you have absolutely no knowledge on this subject, I will simply leave you to a Google site search. For example you can use the terms:

site:http://tnation.tmuscle.com “Bill Roberts” “stem cells”

to see other things I’ve written, rather than me having to write them again.

However, without background knowledge it’s possible they won’t do any good for you either.

You should of course find sources going into these matters at more length, which your “basis” source does not.

I will give you a one-paragraph statement which you can go research for yourself: There is no tissue known that has been successfully produced from embryonic stem cells that has not been achieved with adult stem cells, thus disproving your claim.

Beyond that, go learn, young grasshopper. :wink:

34

I have only repeated what I was taught in sixth form (high school senior for you) biology re: stem cells. What the link, which you have dismissed, said was what we are told. And as for the google search, it uncovered that embryonic stem cell research has only been allowed in the USA for one year in one state.

I feel that any more and we will be dragged into an argument so I will say you have your opinion and I have mine

35

And as it happens that my opinion comes with a degree in microbiology and cell science, and yours comes from what you were taught in sixth form (which you say is equivalent to the senior year of high school) then if you choose to think your opinion has as much basis to it, then that’s an interesting show of judgment. But feel free to maintain your opinion of course.

I will close with the fact that your Google search has failed you just as much as your sixth form education. It simply is not true that embryonic stem cell research has:

A) Been allowed in the US for only one year,
B) Ever NOT been allowed in the US,
C) Ever been allowed in only one state, or
D) Ever NOT been allowed in ANY state.

You simply couldn’t be more wrong in your postings on this matter.

36

By the way, as what is intended to be helpful advice:

It’s necessary to be aware when issues are politicized and then when that is the case, to be extra-careful with what one reads. Many times statements will be misleading or even false due to the writer being either outright dishonest or due to being biased and having more care about promoting their agenda than they do with truth.

From 2001 to 2009, and to some extent even today, the American left was consumed with hatred for George W Bush. Pretty much any time a statement could be biased to make Bush look bad or even better yet evil, pretty much anyone who was quite partisan and who was on the left would so bias his statement. Or would even flat out lie. This is particularly true if seeing themselves in a position of power to influence the public, as “journalists” do.

Thus, when the actual situation is that Bush stopped taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research except on lines that already existed, you will indeed find, with your Googling efforts, countless examples of false claims that Bush banned embryonic stem cell research in the United States.

Which is a lie. Not only did free-enterprise research – which produces almost everything of value – continue freely, but taxpayer-funded research continued as well on the existing lines.

However, the web page you found claiming it was legal in the US for only one year and in only one state reached a new level of lying.

Anyway, you would do well to weigh your sources with some more consideration into these other factors that may be involved, whenever that may be the case.

37

So I can’t tell if you’re disagreeing that embryonic stem cells are true or not, nor did you breach the concept of where those cells are harvested from.

They’re harvested from ‘unused’ embryo’s that are going to be incinerated.

Yeah adult stem cells have more direct links in therapy at this point, but that’s where research has been focused thus far. The pluripotency issue is just too much to ignore. Even in adult stem cells, the issue of telomeric instability has not been completely breached. Embryonic ones are the only ones that have those capabilities.

I’m not saying that it’s not feasible to mutate adult stem cells to gain the same effect, but we’re not sure what long term consequences our actions will have in terms of us doing things like that.

This is a really poor example, but you must recall what happened with dolly the sheep after the cloning took place with adult cells, right?

38

For those of you who think blaming Obama is unappropriate, consider the policies HE is implementing himself. Not what Bush did, but what he is doing now. Payoffs to Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson, Bush’s fault right? Cash for Clunkers, more Bush? Global Fooling? Bush Bush Bush ! The Jobs Bill (which creates government jobs) will send the country into the fast lane to bankruptcy. Think I am joking? Take a look at Greece, 1/3 of the country’s population works for the government, and it went bankrupt. It had a debt that is more than 4 times what is within acceptance of the EU standards. The government cannot create wealth, only the free-enterprise market can.

39

[quote]ridethecliche wrote:
So I can’t tell if you’re disagreeing that embryonic stem cells are true or not, nor did you breach the concept of where those cells are harvested from.

They’re harvested from ‘unused’ embryo’s that are going to be incinerated.

Yeah adult stem cells have more direct links in therapy at this point, but that’s where research has been focused thus far. The pluripotency issue is just too much to ignore. Even in adult stem cells, the issue of telomeric instability has not been completely breached. Embryonic ones are the only ones that have those capabilities.

I’m not saying that it’s not feasible to mutate adult stem cells to gain the same effect, but we’re not sure what long term consequences our actions will have in terms of us doing things like that.

This is a really poor example, but you must recall what happened with dolly the sheep after the cloning took place with adult cells, right?[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re replying to me or another person, as there isn’t much relation to my posts.

On the chance that you meant me:

  1. I don’t know what you mean with regard to the question on whether “embryonic stem cells are true” or not. This like asking me if the Moon is true or not. Strange question.

Are you asking if I disagree that they exist? Of course not.

Are you asking if I disagree with the claims that they offer advantages? Yes I do.

  1. As to whether I “breached the concept” of the origin of embryonic stem cells and whether they were going to be incinerated or not, I have no idea how that is relevant to the question of whether embyronic stem cells can do anything that adult stem cells cannot (besides trigger immunity problems due to differing DNA.)

  2. Your claim that research hasn’t been focused on embyronic stem cell research is untrue or misleading. A tremendous amount of money and time has gone into research with embryonic stem cells.

  3. Your description of the difference in therapeutic utility as adult stem cells “having more direct links in therapy” is biased and misleading, though not technically false. It’s not a question of simply “more,” but of the one having multiple successes and the other having ZERO, and not a question merely of “links” but actual uses.

  4. Your statement that “the pluripotency issue is just too much to ignore” is ironic because adult stem cells can now be made pluripotent, which you’re ignoring.

  5. Your use of the term “mutated” is biased. Again not technically false, but it’s choosing a word that ordinarily has entirely different meaning and gives a negative emotional impresssion, rather than using a technically precise expression that has no emotive impact such as “inserting genes,” and these being genes normally present in the genome, rather than mutated genes.

  6. Yes that is a really poor example that shows nothing relevant to this question.

Considering that there isn’t a single practical (meaning, proven able to work therapeutically) advantage that’s been demonstrated for embryonic stem cells, AND pharmaceutical and biotech companies remain and have always been fully free to do as much research with them as they want, AND embryonic stem cell therapies will ALWAYS have the disadvantage of being at best equivalent to transplanted tissues from another person and therefore posing immune system problems, what exactly is it that you have a problem with?

Exactly who was being wronged and how, that the taxpayers weren’t being made to have their money funneled into embryonic stem cell research on new lines?

40

Well I got comprehensively owned on this debate. Thanks Bill for the advice anyway :slight_smile: