Prepare.......

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Minimum wage isn’t scary, either. It doesn’t make much sense to me. This will put a squeeze on small business and the net affect will be lost jobs and fewer part-time workers. Any study shows that very, very, very few full-time wokers make minimum wage. Most are school age kids.

That’s just not true. There are a lot of adults working for minimum wage. And low minimum wage is an anchor on low wages across the board. And there is no proof that small businesses will change their hiring practices based on a shift in the minimum wage. Small businesses hire based on need, not on what the minimum wage is.

A raise in the minimum wage is overdue.

Right from the talking points. Nice.

No proof? I guess you’ll see it. Check back in with some economic numbers in a few years, numbnuts. We’ve been through all this shit before but you dispshits always forget that your economic policies do not work. [/quote]

Uhmm…see 90’s, states w/ higher minimum wage, reality, etc.

Democrats still better at economy, than republicans in every category. Again please consult reality.

62

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

What’s scare about Stem-cell research is that it has not produced anything. And having the Government sink billions into something with no reasonable requirement for outcomes and no substantiated outcomes to date is very, very, very poor use of our money. But again, Dem’s never care where the money comes from, just that it doesn’t come from them.

[/quote]
Dems?
Idiot.
Bi-partisan.

Please,for the love of god.
Stop making s–t up.

63

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I don’t know if I can speak for the “right wing”, but I know that the main reason I don’t ‘care’ about Darfur is that there’s nothing the U.S. can do short of a military invasion to stop it.[/quote]

Is it a moral imperative or not? I guess not.

[quote]Considering the left has just spent nearly four years trying to convince voters that we shouldn’t use our military to police the world, why is Darfur any different?
[/quote]

This is a very cheap shot and a mischaracterization to boot. The left wants to stop throwing away lives in what seems to be an unwinnable strategy. The lack of strategy shift has been driven either by ego or political purposes, at the expense of American and Iraqi lives.

That, too, is unconscionable… and goes against the sanctity of life stance so often lauded.

On this planet, life has generally been held pretty cheap. However, I think the living and sensing should be given higher priority than the potentially viable.

The sanctity of life shouldn’t suddenly evaporate once it is actually born… because if it does then it never was.

64

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I agree that this would only impact poor parents. But the issue is why anyone would not think it a good idea for a teenage girl to first talk with her parents before having any surgery?[/quote]

She’s not prevented from talking to her parents if she wants to, right?

You yourself agree that the situation will impact mostly bad parents. Maybe the girl is afraid to talk to her bad parents about her bad situation; maybe getting a beating from her drunk dad is not what she wants.

Basically, it gives her the choice to talk to her parents about it, but the choice not to, if she feels it’s not in her best interest.

In a perfect world, 13 years old girls would be skipping rope with their friends and wouldn’t have to deal with these kinds of situation, but unfortunately, we live in this one.

You can argue for the daughters rights to privacy. Like I said, she still has the choice to inform the parents if she wants to.

It’s about the parent’s rights to know, vs. the daughter’s rights to choose to disclose that information.

But, like I said: if, as a parent, you didn’t pick up on the fact that your daughter has been pregnant for nine months, you’re not exactly parent of the year.

Why expect parental rights if you’re not acquitting yourself of your parental duties?

65

A higher mininum wage, means more laborers working for lower than mininum wage.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2754

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5409

66

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
And now in California your 13-year-old daughter can go get an abortion without you even knowing about it. Aren’t the Dem’s great!

If your 13-years old daughter is out getting pregnant and aborted without your knowledge, you’re a fucking lousy parent.

But blaming someone else for your failures is so much easier, right?

I agree that this would only impact poor parents. But the issue is why anyone would not think it a good idea for a teenage girl to first talk with her parents before having any surgery? That is the issue. Why do dem’s want to remove parental rights? The right for a parent to just get a call from the clinic before an abortion is preformed. That seems very reasonable and very unreasonable that some people oppose that. It’s not about abortion, it’s about parental rights.

[/quote]

Not all parents are good parents. There is a real fear of abuse and beatings, etc…, with some of these parents. The same applies with adult women and their husbands. There’s also parents who would force the girl to have the baby.

Though I had thought there was a Supreme Court decision that allowed a pregnant teenager to get a judicial determination if disclosure would be dangerous and she had to tell the parents and get consent if not. That seems reasonable to me. But I don’t know what the deal with it is, exactly. Have to look through my con law book again when I get a chance,

67

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A higher mininum wage, means more laborers working for lower than mininum wage.

I’m sure there are a lot of ceos snorting coke off hookers’ asses with all the millions they’ve stolen from America’s workers.

68

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:

Obviously stem-cell research is not scary. It’s legal. It’s happening now. Did you know that? If you watch Fox and limosine liberals you’d think it was banned by the Geneva Convention. No. No one will perform EMBYOTIC STEM CELL research unless the government pays for it because it’s been a bust so far.

You are a half-wit. China spends billions on embryonic stem cell research. Go choke.

69

[quote]Skystud wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A higher mininum wage, means more laborers working for lower than mininum wage.

I’m sure there are a lot of ceos snorting coke off hookers’ asses with all the millions they’ve stolen from America’s workers.

[/quote]

I’m for the legalizaton of drugs, legalization of prostitution, and theft is a crime. If a CEO has actually STOLEN, he should be charged with theft. Now, what does your comment have to do with what I presented?

70

Ok, the whole stem cell thing keeps coming up. What exactly is special about embryonic stem cells compared to umbilical blood stem cells? This isn’t something I’ve really kept up with. However, haven’t they recently discovered how to change umbilical blood stem cells into target cells? Such as the British scientists who grew a specific organ, a liver.

Am I missing something? It’s an honest question.

71

I think I’ve found an answer to my own question.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06081804.html

UK Researcher: Cord Blood Real Potential for Cures, Not Embryonic Stem Cells - Part 1

By Peter J. Smith

UNITED KINGDOM, August 18, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) ? A prestigious UK researcher says that scientists have made great advancements in treating and curing diseases from stem-cell therapies obtained from umbilical cord blood, a science that he says renders unnecessary any embryonic stem-cell research.

In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Dr. Peter Hollands, Chief Science Officer of the UK Cord Blood Bank and an early pioneer of (non-human) embryonic stem-cell research, spoke about the great strides being made for patients suffering from cancer and disease through stem-cell therapies using the morally acceptable cord blood.

?Cord blood stem cells have currently been transplanted just over 6000 times worldwide in the treatment of 45 different diseases,? stated Dr. Hollands. ?These diseases are currently blood disorders and also the repair of the bone marrow following high dose chemotherapy for cancer.?

?The most dramatic cord blood transplant is perhaps that of Patrizia Durante who developed leukemia during pregnancy and was transplanted with her own babies? cord blood stem cells,? said Dr. Hollands. (See http://www.cellsforlife.com and the Victoria Angel Registry of Hope section for the complete story.)

Stem-cells from cord blood come from blood in the placenta and umbilical cord. Once the cord is cut and both mother and child are well taken care of, a simple procedure collects the cord blood into a special collection bag, which is then processed, frozen and stored in a special laboratory. However, Dr. Hollands laments that cord blood is discarded too often as biological waste in approximately 98% of deliveries.

?This is a massive waste of life saving stem-cells on a daily basis which we must all work to resolve.?

Dr. Hollands revealed that researchers at the Laurentian University in Ontario (http://www.nhor.net) are preparing the next breakthrough in stem-cell research through a clinical trial testing the ability of cord blood stem cells to treat Multiple Sclerosis (MS), a debilitating disease which affects 400,000 Americans and 2.5 million persons worldwide.

?If successful this trial will revolutionize cord blood stem cell technology worldwide,? said Dr. Hollands, who is Scientific Advisor to the project supported by Cells for Life.

According to Dr. Hollands, the secret of cord blood?s success lies with very adaptable cells found in cord blood called ?mesenchymal stem cells.? These stem-cells - found also in the umbilical cord itself - have an immature quality, which make them very flexible and adaptable in transplants, and can have at least a 50% donor-mismatch.

?These stem cells can produce a whole range of tissue types making cord blood stem cells capable of repairing such things as nerve tissue, muscle (skeletal and cardiac), connective tissue and endocrine cells such as insulin secreting cells. This means that in cord blood we have ? just as much potential as embryonic stem cells but without all of the related objections and technical concerns.? Dr. Hollands indicated that the process has an 80% success rate and not one of the 6000 cord blood recipients have ever developed transplant related tumors, a lethal reality in embryonic stem-cell therapies.

?Our research in Manchester UK is focused on the creation of neuronal, muscular and endocrine stem cells for transplant from cord blood stem cells.? Soon a new state of the art lab in Manchester UK will open this fall and will be used for the processing and storage of cord blood and more ground breaking stem cell research.

?My current role with UK Cord Blood Bank enables me to work on cord blood stem cell technology which I believe is the realistic future of stem cell technology,? said Dr. Hollands, who maintains that only when the great accomplishments of cord blood are massively publicized will human embryonic stem-cell researchers begin to lose their mesmerizing hold on the public?s support.

Reporter?s Note: A researcher in the stem-cell biology/clinical embryology field for over 25 years with a PhD from Cambridge University, Dr. Peter Hollands has worked on all types of stem cells with the exception of human embryonic stem cells. He worked as a clinical embryologist with the team that created the first ever ?test-tube? baby at Bourn Hall Clinic, trained under Prof. Robert Edwards (the IVF co-inventor), and even set the groundwork for embryonic stem-cell research through the mouse-model. However, it was during his mouse-model research that Dr. Hollands realized the impossibility of transferring this technology to human beings, besides the violations of human life in destroying human embryos. Dr. Hollands left his Cells for Life work in Markham, Ontario in Canada almost two years ago to return to England to engage in his current responsibilities. He has been a frequent consultant to LifeSiteNews on the issue of stem cells.

This is the first part of an interview with Doctor Peter Hollands this past week. The second part will address why Dr. Hollands finds embryonic-stem cell research unnecessary, and what important steps can bring a stop to the destruction of human embryos in stem-cell research.

72

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
…to embrace the horror that is speaker Pelosi. This is not a good turn of events for the U.S. IMHO. But one thing is for sure, the GOP did this to themselves. Wreckless spending, scandel, lousy immigration policies, and an open embrace of the bible thumping religious right.

I find myself getting farther and farther away from the GOP. I’m also starting to think that America’s answer isn’t going to be found in either major political party. All that being said, a democrat majority scares the living piss out of me.[/quote]

You forget the increasingly unpopular war! Which I believe is the biggest of reasons.

I was once a tried-n-true conservative republican. I listened to Rush, belonged to the Conservative Book Club, donated to the RNC and Heritage Foundation. I had subscriptions to The American Spectator and National Review. Skipped Sunday football to watch The Firing Line. I, like you, became disillusioned with the Republicans(about 6 years ago) and moved towards more libertarian principles. I voted that way whenever possible.

Since I’ve gravitated towards a social/libertarian political philosophy and voted Green party.

You needn’t worry about the dems screwin up any more than the reps do. All either party worries about is thier self-serving power. Thier ends are the same but the means may be slightly different.

Whatever you decide to do I surely hope you give up on those two cancerous parties and vote for someone who you truly believe will represent your convictions.

73

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, the whole stem cell thing keeps coming up. What exactly is special about embryonic stem cells compared to umbilical blood stem cells? This isn’t something I’ve really kept up with. However, haven’t they recently discovered how to change umbilical blood stem cells into target cells? Such as the British scientists who grew a specific organ, a liver.

Am I missing something? It’s an honest question.[/quote]

The british scientists grew tissues of a liver, or as they call in “mini-livers.” An actual human liver is decades away, and yes, they used umbilical stem cells.

Basic differences:

Embryonic - Harvested from fertilized eggs, have the potential to become any of the cells we find in the human body.

Umbilical - collected from the umbilical cord of a recently born baby. Some stem cells harvested this way can be grown into any kind of cells, some can’t.

Adult - Harvested from adults. Replicate slower than the other 2, and have shown some hope of being able to change into other kinds of cells.

Here is the thing, at least in my opinion. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any kind of cell, basically the building blocks of the human body, since this is what we all started out as. If we can decipher exactly how these cells replicate and grow into stable versions of other cells, we can better understand both umbilical and adult stem cells.

Think about it, if you know how an embryonic stem cell grows into an adult stem cell, it is feasable that we can use that knowledge to decipher how we can change adult stem cells into other cells, something which has had some, but limited success.

But you have to look at it this way, real world application for any stem cell findings is still decades away on most fronts, we are dealing with a brand new science that is still in its infancy. I don’t think you can just toss one type of research out simply because you have moral objections over it.

Now I understand people have worries that embryonic stem cells could become a cottage industry where they are just harvested for research, and I don’t have a problem with disallowing that. But why not allow embryos that would be slated for destruction (you don’t think they keep those things forever do you?) to be used by federal scientists for stem cell research?

Now I am sure some of the anti-embryonic stem cell guys are gonna come out and they that the research shows no promise yet blah blah or whatever. But its kinda of hard to make breakthroughs when you have limited funds, and even adult stem cell research isn’t getting ridiculous amounts of private capital (decades away from real world applications remember?).

Edison went through 10,000 attempts at getting a working lightbulb, do you think he could have gotten some VCs to fund him after failed attempt #5,429?

74

oh yeah, the decades thing is about growing organs and such. Adult and embryonic stem cells have been shown to merge and replicate cell in the bodies of both human and mice to some degree, in some cases repairing damaged tissue.

But like I said earlier, if scientists can figure out how embryonic stem cells morph into other cells, it is VERY likely that they could do the same to adult stem cells, thus eliminating the need for embryonic stem cells completely.

That is my hope at least, but I am sure alot of people think that is a stupid idea and that using cells headed for the trash in the first place is immoral.

75

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m for the legalizaton of drugs, legalization of prostitution, and theft is a crime. If a CEO has actually STOLEN, he should be charged with theft. Now, what does your comment have to do with what I presented?

[/quote]

Bringing this discussion full circle, we will need to make abortion illegal to keep up with the demand for hookers if we legalize prostitution.

76

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
All either party worries about is thier self-serving power. Thier ends are the same but the means may be slightly different.

Whatever you decide to do I surely hope you give up on those two cancerous parties and vote for someone who you truly believe will represent your convictions.[/quote]

BINGO!! DING! DING! frickin’ DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

My thoughts exactly. NO- and I mean NO politician has ever done ANYTHING in MY best interest, and I can’t remember the last time I voted for someone that I TRULY believed in (rather lesser of 2 evils).

The problem is that most people feel that a vote for anything other than Dem or GOP is “throwing away their vote”. So there is a very slim chance of anyone outside the Demorat and Republican’t parties getting elected. If anyone that would side with most of the people ever decided to run within the parties, they would never make it through the primary because they won’t toe the “party line”. So we get stuck with a polarized and divided country. It only seems to be getting worse, too.

77

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t see or hear any Republicans screaming ‘Fraud!’ and vote suppression. I don’t see them acting as if Congress was theirs by right, like the Dems did.
[/quote]

You mean like George Allen is doing right now? He refuses to concede the election even though all the votes are in and he lost by a small margin. HE just wants to make sure all the votes are counted, NOT because he feels Congress is his by right. Yeah, that’s it! {sarcasm, in case you were too stupid to get it!}

I’m sorry, the post was intended for those people who are shouting doom and gloom (because the repubs no longer have control) and actually HAVE a sac. Since you are shouting doom and gloom, but have proven time and time again that you do NOT have a sac, you don’t qualify. Move along. Nothing here for you.

Yes, all the problems of the world are the fault of women. Up to and including the fact that you exist to spread your unique brand of insanity. For that alone, they should lose any rights. You are a textbook case in for extending abortions to at least 60 years after birth.

Most sane people realize that this is a normal change in the political winds and it will shift in a few years when the democrats screw up again. But then again, no one has ever accused you of being sane.

The democrats did not lose control in 1994 because of anything the republicans did. They lost control because they self-destructed and the republicans were there to pick up the pieces. The republicans did not lose control in 2006 because of anything the democrats did. They lost control for the same reason. It is one of the good things about our system. So long as it is run fairly, things will balance themselves out.

78

[quote]mica617 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
All either party worries about is thier self-serving power. Thier ends are the same but the means may be slightly different.

Whatever you decide to do I surely hope you give up on those two cancerous parties and vote for someone who you truly believe will represent your convictions.

BINGO!! DING! DING! frickin’ DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

My thoughts exactly. NO- and I mean NO politician has ever done ANYTHING in MY best interest, and I can’t remember the last time I voted for someone that I TRULY believed in (rather lesser of 2 evils).

The problem is that most people feel that a vote for anything other than Dem or GOP is “throwing away their vote”. So there is a very slim chance of anyone outside the Demorat and Republican’t parties getting elected. If anyone that would side with most of the people ever decided to run within the parties, they would never make it through the primary because they won’t toe the “party line”. So we get stuck with a polarized and divided country. It only seems to be getting worse, too.[/quote]

You also have to add the fact that there is no money available for a third party to be a viable choice. All of the money for campaigns has been tied into either R or D camps. No one puts money in third party because there is no return on investment. Maybe Lieberman (sp?) being elected might change that mindset, but I doubt it.

79

I don’t think it had shit to do with the religous right, but if you want to use that as your whipping boy you go right ahead. I think its more a vote based on desperate hope. The Bush administration was/is just out of control. More balance of power has been restored and now hope the democrats can make things better. That’s the way I’m looking at it anyways. At what point do we tire of trotting out the the same old tired talking points? There’s enough goons/losers/morons/freaks on both tickets to go around.

80

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
…to embrace the horror that is speaker Pelosi. This is not a good turn of events for the U.S. IMHO. But one thing is for sure, the GOP did this to themselves. Wreckless spending, scandel, lousy immigration policies, and an open embrace of the bible thumping religious right.

I find myself getting farther and farther away from the GOP. I’m also starting to think that America’s answer isn’t going to be found in either major political party. All that being said, a democrat majority scares the living piss out of me.

You forget the increasingly unpopular war! Which I believe is the biggest of reasons.

I was once a tried-n-true conservative republican. I listened to Rush, belonged to the Conservative Book Club, donated to the RNC and Heritage Foundation. I had subscriptions to The American Spectator and National Review. Skipped Sunday football to watch The Firing Line. I, like you, became disillusioned with the Republicans(about 6 years ago) and moved towards more libertarian principles. I voted that way whenever possible.

Since I’ve gravitated towards a social/libertarian political philosophy and voted Green party.

You needn’t worry about the dems screwin up any more than the reps do. All either party worries about is thier self-serving power. Thier ends are the same but the means may be slightly different.

Whatever you decide to do I surely hope you give up on those two cancerous parties and vote for someone who you truly believe will represent your convictions.[/quote]

I have been drifting towards more libertarian principals for a little while now, but this last year has really made me question whether the GOP truly reflects my values or not.

I long for a party which espouses true conservatism.