81 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

This is not something the federal government should be spending money on. Liberals need to understand, the government cannot solve all of life's problems. That's not their job.

Nobody is asking government to solve everything, I am only asking that they address a problem that is killing half a million people a year.

But ok let's say for arguements sake that I agreed with you, and we all voted to reduce the size of government to its bare minimum. How would college labs make enough money to afford conducting research? Increase already high tuitions costs, ask for donations or both?

If I'm not mistaken, the majority of research is already funded privately. Obviously if businesses were less encumbered by the government they could afford deeper funding of university research.

edit:

In the OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government, although in poorer countries such as Portugal and Mexico the industry contribution is significantly less. The US government spends more than other countries on military R&D, although the proportion has fallen from around 30% in the 1980s to under 20%[1]. Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S. The government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities.
http://en.wikipedia....esearch_funding

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 02:03 PM.

[elwalvador]

Just to get a read on the political landscape in this thread let me ask a few questions.

Savage, luv2increase, biknut and any body else
Sarah Palin wants to make conducting research on embryos illegal. This has nothing to do with funding it she just wants to flat out ban it do you support that idea?

Do you believe that when we die we seize to excists or is there is an afterlife where we continue to live for ever? Are we temporary beings or are we immortal?

Do you believe that everything we was brought into excistance by some intelligent creator? Were we created by some one for some reason, or did we come into excistance for no reason?

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry each other?

[RighteousReason]

Just to get a read on the political landscape in this thread let me ask a few questions.

Savage, luv2increase, biknut and any body else
Sarah Palin wants to make conducting research on embryos illegal. This has nothing to do with funding it she just wants to flat out ban it do you support that idea?

Do you believe that when we die we seize to excists or is there is an afterlife where we continue to live for ever? Are we temporary beings or are we immortal?

Do you believe that everything we was brought into excistance by some intelligent creator? Were we created by some one for some reason, or did we come into excistance for no reason?

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry each other?

1. doesn't matter.
2. doesn't matter, but no.
3. possible, but there is no evidence. the fact that you even ask about 2 and 3 shows you are missing the point (whatever point it is)
4. no. homosexuals don't want to get married like their parents. Gay marriage is about the destruction of society, not about freedom. I don't care and don't want to know what people do in the bedroom. I'm against all the degenerates running around publicly announcing their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness. But this is a topic for a different thread.

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 02:12 PM.

[elwalvador]

If I'm not mistaken, the majority of research is already funded privately. Obviously if businesses were less encumbered by the government they could afford deeper funding of university research.

I would be in favor of eliminating all taxes on biotech and pharmaceutical companies. That would bring drug prizes down. Besides churches don't pay any taxes and they're mainly community organizers, practiacally useless. So why not untax people who actually help society and not just pray (hope) for a better world.

[elwalvador]

1. doesn't matter.
2. doesn't matter, but no.
3. possible, but there is no evidence. the fact that you even ask about 2 and 3 shows you are missing the point (whatever point it is)
4. no. homosexuals don't want to get married like their parents. Gay marriage is about the destruction of society, not about freedom. I don't care and don't want to know what people do in the bedroom. I'm against all the degenerates running around publicly announcing their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness. But this is a topic for a different thread.

So you would make embryonic stem cell research illegal, and put those scientist in jail?
I'm not sure if you were saying no to "no there is no afterlife" or "no we are not temporary"
You admitt that we don't know why were here.
But you hate gay people.

Ok, now I know where you're comming from.

[biknut]

This is not something the federal government should be spending money on. Liberals need to understand, the government cannot solve all of life's problems. That's not their job.

But ok let's say for arguements sake that I agreed with you, and we all voted to reduce the size of government to its bare minimum. How would college labs make enough money to afford conducting research? Increase already high tuitions costs, ask for donations or both?

First of all that's their problem, not the governments. However, if taxes were a lot lower people would have more money to pay higher tuition's. There also would be more money to donate to colleges and university's. The government could have a impact on this by offering additional tax incentives for people to do so. This also would have the effect of making the colleges and university's improve their product in respect to toning down the liberal indoctrination.

I wouldn't have a problem with state governments supporting schools. State governments are a lot more responsive to their citizens concerns than the federal government, and when they're not it's a lot easier for voters to remedy the situation.

[elwalvador]

First of all that's their problem, not the governments. However, if taxes were a lot lower people would have more money to pay higher tuition's. There also would be more money to donate to colleges and university's. The government could have a impact on this by offering additional tax incentives for people to do so. This also would have the effect of making the colleges and university's improve their product in respect to toning down the liberal indoctrination.

I wouldn't have a problem with state governments supporting schools. State governments are a lot more responsive to their citizens concerns than the federal government, and when they're not it's a lot easier for voters to remedy the situation.

Yeah but "they're problem" would very quickly become your problem if, god forbid, you were ever diagnosed with cancer. Why does it have to be either or, can't we both implament tax incentives and also fund one of the most succesful government agencies ever, the NIH. I mean I agree that many of our government agencies like the FCC for example, sensoring everthing, and the Federal Reserve should be abolished, but the NIH has been wildly succesful. The human genome for example was largely fueled by the NIH. It funds thousands of research projects every year, at hundreds of universeties, and has never, as far as I can remember, been embroiled in any corruption scandals.

[biknut]

Just to get a read on the political landscape in this thread let me ask a few questions.

Savage, luv2increase, biknut and any body else
Sarah Palin wants to make conducting research on embryos illegal. This has nothing to do with funding it she just wants to flat out ban it do you support that idea?

Do you believe that when we die we seize to excists or is there is an afterlife where we continue to live for ever? Are we temporary beings or are we immortal?

Do you believe that everything we was brought into excistance by some intelligent creator? Were we created by some one for some reason, or did we come into excistance for no reason?

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry each other?

Palin said she doesn't want to force her personal views on everyone. I never heard her say she'd make it illegal. Can you support that statement? My guess is she said that's her personal opinion. She believes in creationism. She never tried to force anyone else to believe in it. She doesn't believe in abortion, but she did say that's her personal opinion. It doesn't mean she'd take away the right to have one. She seems like a very reasonable person to me, and I think she knows a lot of people disagree with her beliefs. I don't believe she wants to force everyone to conform to her beliefs.

None of those things are essential to the future of America's well being. On the other hand Obama's beliefs are all socialist, and marxist. Those beliefs would have a very detrimental effect on life in America.

Nobody knows about an after life. I think there is one, but I don't pretend to know anything about it, and I don't believe anyone else does. So what?

Nobody knows why we're here. That's not a reason to not do you best and try to be kind to people.

Who cares. I a male lesbian. I think they should marry, and have to be just as happy as the rest of us married people. My personal belief is that people are born gay and they can't help it, but it's kind of like a birth defect. They shouldn't be punished.

[RighteousReason]

1. doesn't matter.
2. doesn't matter, but no.
3. possible, but there is no evidence. the fact that you even ask about 2 and 3 shows you are missing the point (whatever point it is)
4. no. homosexuals don't want to get married like their parents. Gay marriage is about the destruction of society, not about freedom. I don't care and don't want to know what people do in the bedroom. I'm against all the degenerates running around publicly announcing their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness. But this is a topic for a different thread.

So you would make embryonic stem cell research illegal, and put those scientist in jail?
I'm not sure if you were saying no to "no there is no afterlife" or "no we are not temporary"
You admitt that we don't know why were here.
But you hate gay people.

Ok, now I know where you're comming from.

hahaha. wow. you are a kind of asshole kid.

Being against the government giving money to stem cell researchers and *putting people in jail* (something out of the Obama camp more likely) is completely different. I think I've made my position clear that I do not support the national government funding anything other than national defense. And to add to that, I am in compete support of emryonic stem cell research.

No, there is no afterlife (that we have any evidence of- though I am signing up for cryonics very soon, if you count that).
I know exactly why I am here, and there is no evidence of intelligent Universe creators or any such other supernatural phenomena.
I do not hate anybody, especially not people with whatever (consensual, of-age, non-violent) sexual fetish. Read my position more carefully- accusing me of hate is an absurdity right out of the liberal play book. Next you are going to start threatening me, trying to silence me, take my comments out of context to spew your hatred, etc.

Your response was completely unreasonable.

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 04:19 PM.

[RighteousReason]

1. doesn't matter.
2. doesn't matter, but no.
3. possible, but there is no evidence. the fact that you even ask about 2 and 3 shows you are missing the point (whatever point it is)
4. no. homosexuals don't want to get married like their parents. Gay marriage is about the destruction of society, not about freedom. I don't care and don't want to know what people do in the bedroom. I'm against all the degenerates running around publicly announcing their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness. But this is a topic for a different thread.

So you would make embryonic stem cell research illegal, and put those scientist in jail?
I'm not sure if you were saying no to "no there is no afterlife" or "no we are not temporary"
You admitt that we don't know why were here.
But you hate gay people.

Ok, now I know where you're comming from.

hahaha. wow. you are a kind of asshole kid.

Being against the government giving money to stem cell researchers and *putting people in jail* (something out of the Obama camp more likely) is completely different. I think I've made my position clear that I do not support the national government funding anything other than national defense. And to add to that, I am in compete support of emryonic stem cell research.

No, there is no afterlife (that we have any evidence of- though I am signing up for cryonics very soon, if you count that).
I know exactly why I am here, and there is no evidence of intelligent Universe creators or any such other supernatural phenomena.
I do not hate anybody, especially not people with whatever (consensual, of-age, non-violent) sexual fetish. Read my position more carefully- accusing me of hate is an absurdity right out of the liberal play book. Next you are going to start threatening me, trying to silence me, take my comments out of context to spew your hatred, etc.

Your response was completely unreasonable.

Why do I say embryonic stem cell research "doesn't matter"?

Safe Stem Cells Produced From Adult Cells - Slashdot Sunday September 28, @11:51AM
"Wired, citing a paper published in Science magazine, reports that Harvard scientists may have found a safer way of giving a flake of skin the biologically alchemical powers of embryonic stem cells by turning adult cells into versatile, embryonic-like cells without causing permanent damage. The technique involves 'adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses, a type of virus that infects cells without affecting their DNA.' Four-month trails on mice demonstrated that the resulting stem cells are free from unpredictable cancer-inducing mutations. This is definitely a breakthrough in stem cell research."

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 04:25 PM.

[elwalvador]

Palin said she doesn't want to force her personal views on everyone. I never heard her say she'd make it illegal. Can you support that statement? My guess is she said that's her personal opinion. She believes in creationism. She never tried to force anyone else to believe in it. She doesn't believe in abortion, but she did say that's her personal opinion. It doesn't mean she'd take away the right to have one. She seems like a very reasonable person to me, and I think she knows a lot of people disagree with her beliefs. I don't believe she wants to force everyone to conform to her beliefs.

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research, as she said in a 2006 gubernatorial debate: "stem cell research would ultimately end in the destruction of life. I couldn’t support it."
http://blogs.abcnews...the-fact-3.html

Yeah, I know, "ABC is a liberal news orgnization, yada yada yada" so I got you 3 more links.
http://www.newsmax.c.../25/134490.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4305.html
http://www.nationall...272622776.shtml

Palin apposes abortion, even in the case of incest and rape, because it causes the destruction of life. She also believes Embryonic Stem Cells are alive, therefore she apposes research which causes their destruction because it is incompatible with her pro-life views.

It's no secret that religious conservatives like, Palin, would overturn Roe V. Wade, making abortion illegal, in a heart beat. Let's not pretend like that isn't the case.

And I know you're going to say that if RVW was over turned it would leave the decision up to the states. Ofcourse, but it is the main road block in the way of making abortions illegal, once RVW is gone that's where they want to take this country. To a land where abortions are illegal.

[elwalvador]

Being against the government giving money to stem cell researchers and *putting people in jail* (something out of the Obama camp more likely) is completely different. I think I've made my position clear that I do not support the national government funding anything other than national defense. And to add to that, I am in compete support of emryonic stem cell research.

No, there is no afterlife (that we have any evidence of- though I am signing up for cryonics very soon, if you count that).
I know exactly why I am here, and there is no evidence of intelligent Universe creators or any such other supernatural phenomena.
I do not hate anybody, especially not people with whatever (consensual, of-age, non-violent) sexual fetish. Read my position more carefully- accusing me of hate is an absurdity right out of the liberal play book. Next you are going to start threatening me, trying to silence me, take my comments out of context to spew your hatred, etc.

This is what I asked,
"Sarah Palin wants to make conducting research on embryos illegal. This has nothing to do with funding it, she just wants to flat out ban it, do you support that idea?"
My question had nothing to do with funding it, your answering somebody else's question.

As for the gays. You are accussing them of being "degenerates" who want to "Destroy society". So, yeah I am accussing you of hating them because it's kind of obvious that you do, or you are at least extremely homophobic. And for God sakes could you stop using Limbaugh's lines for 1 second? I feel like I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh through the internet.

Yes, I listen to him on my way back from the University everyday. The man is a genius, it is pure brilliance listening to a political operator of his callibur. The way he weaves in his lies, and does logical jumping jacks to frame issues in a way that benefits republicans. I can only hope that one day, we on the left, could find such an effective liar to spew propaganda for our causes.

[RighteousReason]

Being against the government giving money to stem cell researchers and *putting people in jail* (something out of the Obama camp more likely) is completely different. I think I've made my position clear that I do not support the national government funding anything other than national defense. And to add to that, I am in compete support of emryonic stem cell research.

No, there is no afterlife (that we have any evidence of- though I am signing up for cryonics very soon, if you count that).
I know exactly why I am here, and there is no evidence of intelligent Universe creators or any such other supernatural phenomena.
I do not hate anybody, especially not people with whatever (consensual, of-age, non-violent) sexual fetish. Read my position more carefully- accusing me of hate is an absurdity right out of the liberal play book. Next you are going to start threatening me, trying to silence me, take my comments out of context to spew your hatred, etc.

This is what I asked,
"Sarah Palin wants to make conducting research on embryos illegal. This has nothing to do with funding it, she just wants to flat out ban it, do you support that idea?"
My question had nothing to do with funding it, your answering somebody else's question.

As for the gays. You are accussing them of being "degenerates" who want to "Destroy society". So, yeah I am accussing you of hating them because it's kind of obvious that you do, or you are at least extremely homophobic. And for God sakes could you stop using Limbaugh's lines for 1 second? I feel like I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh through the internet.

Yes, I listen to him on my way back from the University everyday. The man is a genius, it is pure brilliance listening to a political operator of his callibur. The way he weaves in his lies, and does logical jumping jacks to frame issues in a way that benefits republicans. I can only hope that one day, we on the left, could find such an effective liar to spew propaganda for our causes.

Again you are twisting my words, and here you are spewing a load of crap once again. I didn't generally accuse a group of people (e.g. gays) of being degenerate or wanting to destroy society. I said gay marriage is not about freedom, it is about the destruction of society. I said I'm against the degenerate mobs who parade around flaunting their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness. I don't hate anybody, although you really, really want that to be true for some reason, and I'm not against any consensual, of age, nonviolent sexual fetish of your choosing. Also, I have never listened to Limbaugh once in my entire life.

Secondly, you have no evidence that Sarah Palin wants to make research on embryos legal. Not supporting government funding is nowhere near making something illegal. So unless you have evidence of the latter... stfu!

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 07:34 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Is it just me, or does this topic no longer appear under "Active topics"?

Figures. Silence the opposition!

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 10:20 PM.

[luv2increase]

It's no secret that religious conservatives like, Palin, would overturn Roe V. Wade, making abortion illegal, in a heart beat. Let's not pretend like that isn't the case.

It's no secret that what you said is impossible. It would have to go through the Supreme Court rather than the VP.


One serious question for you elwalvador; are you originally from the US and are you now a US citizen? It seems you don't know how the US Gov't functions very well. This is indicative from each and every one of your posts.



Besides, isn't abortion basically stripping possible future life-extensionists from living in this world which is something we all love? Why rob them the opportunity of contributing their possible ingenuity? Why not just use some sort of the many options of contraceptives available??? Why not just make it a priority in teaching people to be responsible? There are many Pro-Choice men and women who are stout activists against hunting, yet they think killing something (whether it is alive or not doesn't matter IMO) that will without a doubt turn into human life.

Edited by luv2increase, 28 September 2008 - 08:30 PM.

[elwalvador]

Come on I don't need you to lecture me on how a Vice President is basically useless.
And yea it seems our little discussion has been removed from the active topics list.

Well gentlemen I don't know that any minds have been changed or if any common ground has been reached. We've been going at it, back on forth for the last 24 hours, I think I need a break!

PS, I just became a citizen last year after waiting nearly 16 years going through the beurocratic nightmare they call the INS. Many people who were born here would not be able to pass that citizenship test. I came to the US when I was 4 years old, and now at 22 I'm finally going to be able to vote. By the way my first pick was Ron Paul but now that he is out of the picture, I have to pick the lesser of two evils.

[RighteousReason]

By the way my first pick was Ron Paul but now that he is out of the picture, I have to pick the lesser of two evils.

This is the most non-sensical thing yet... Ron Paul would probably agree with my somewhat "extreme" small-government-ness

[RighteousReason]

It seems as though the Politics and Law forum has been removed entirely from active topics. watever.

[biknut]

It seems as though the Politics and Law forum has been removed entirely from active topics. watever.

It's still readily accessible. You just have to go through the forums page. Politics does have a way of bringing out peoples passion.

[Iam Empathy]

http://rogerebert.su...09289997/-1/RSS

Roger Ebert is capable of ascertaining meaning within a single frame of film. Since film is primarily an examination of the human condition - and entertaining as well, if done correctly - he is by proxy also an incredibly astute judge of character.

Roger Ebert's take on the debate:

BY ROGER EBERT / September 28, 2008

I do not like you, John McCain. My feeling has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with common courtesy. During the debate, you refused to look Barack Obama in the eye. Indeed, you refused to look at him at all. Even when the two of you shook hands at the start, you used your eyes only to locate his hand, and then gazed past him as you shook it.

Obama is my guy. If you are rude to him, you are rude to me. If you came to dinner at my house and refused to look at or speak with one of my guests, that would be bad manners and I would be offended. Same thing if I went to your house. During the debate, you were America's guest.

What was your problem? Do you hold this man in such contempt that you cannot bear to gaze upon him? Will you not even speak to him directly? Do you think he doesn't have the right to be running for President? Were you angry because after you said you wouldn't attend the debate, he said a President should be able to concern himself with two things at the same time? He was right. The proof is, you were there. Were you angry with him because he called your bluff?

During the debate, Jim Lehrer repeatedly called upon both candidates to speak directly to each other. Obama looked at you. He addressed you as "John," which as a fellow senator is his privilege. His body language was open. You stared straight ahead, or at Lehrer, or into space. Your jaw was clinched. You had a tight little smile, or a grimace, or a little shake of your head.

I had to do two things at once while watching the debate. I had to listen to what was being said. And I had to process your rigid and contemptuous behavior. If you were at a wedding and the father of the groom refused to look at or speak to the bride, how would that make you feel? Especially if you were the father of the bride?

You made a TV commercial showing the moments Obama agreed with you. Everybody knows he did. Did his agreement show honesty, or weakness? It is significant that you said it proved he was not ready to lead. What is the better leadership quality: (1) Willingness to listen to your opponent, and keep an open mind? (2) Rigidly ignoring him? Which of the two of you better demonstrated the bipartisan spirit you say you represent? Was there anything he said that you agreed with? Could you have brought yourself to say so?

I'm not the only one who noticed your odd, hostile behavior. Just about everybody did. I'm sure many of your supporters must have sensed the tension. Before the debate, pundits were wondering if you might explode in a display of your famous temper. I think we saw that happen, all right, but it was an implosion. I have instructed my wife to exclude you from any future dinner parties.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 29 September 2008 - 07:42 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Since film is primarily an examination of the human condition he is by proxy also an incredibly astute judge of character.

You must be completely out of your mind. My god...

Edited by Savage, 29 September 2008 - 01:24 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Being against the government giving money to stem cell researchers and *putting people in jail* (something out of the Obama camp more likely) is completely different. I think I've made my position clear that I do not support the national government funding anything other than national defense. And to add to that, I am in compete support of emryonic stem cell research.

No, there is no afterlife (that we have any evidence of- though I am signing up for cryonics very soon, if you count that).
I know exactly why I am here, and there is no evidence of intelligent Universe creators or any such other supernatural phenomena.
I do not hate anybody, especially not people with whatever (consensual, of-age, non-violent) sexual fetish. Read my position more carefully- accusing me of hate is an absurdity right out of the liberal play book. Next you are going to start threatening me, trying to silence me, take my comments out of context to spew your hatred, etc.

This is what I asked,
"Sarah Palin wants to make conducting research on embryos illegal. This has nothing to do with funding it, she just wants to flat out ban it, do you support that idea?"
My question had nothing to do with funding it, your answering somebody else's question.

As for the gays. You are accussing them of being "degenerates" who want to "Destroy society". So, yeah I am accussing you of hating them because it's kind of obvious that you do, or you are at least extremely homophobic. And for God sakes could you stop using Limbaugh's lines for 1 second? I feel like I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh through the internet.

Yes, I listen to him on my way back from the University everyday. The man is a genius, it is pure brilliance listening to a political operator of his callibur. The way he weaves in his lies, and does logical jumping jacks to frame issues in a way that benefits republicans. I can only hope that one day, we on the left, could find such an effective liar to spew propaganda for our causes.

Again you are twisting my words, and here you are spewing a load of crap once again. I didn't generally accuse a group of people (e.g. gays) of being degenerate or wanting to destroy society. I said gay marriage is not about freedom, it is about the destruction of society. I said I'm against the degenerate mobs who parade around flaunting their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness. I don't hate anybody, although you really, really want that to be true for some reason, and I'm not against any consensual, of age, nonviolent sexual fetish of your choosing. Also, I have never listened to Limbaugh once in my entire life.

Secondly, you have no evidence that Sarah Palin wants to make research on embryos legal. Not supporting government funding is nowhere near making something illegal. So unless you have evidence of the latter... stfu!

"Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out."

"These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."

http://www.sfgate.co...c...PGV.DTL&o=0

from MichaelSavage.com

Edited by Savage, 29 September 2008 - 11:06 PM.