81 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

[Savage posts a McCain Campaign instant response commercial]

That was a series of snippets taken totally out of context, so misleading that I would characterize it as a lie. Let's not start posting official campaign commercials here, OK? Don't make ImmInst step in and take action on this.

Priceless typical liberal response. SILENCE THE OPPOSITION! You should run for office.

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
http://www.kmov.com/...id=285793&shu=1

Edited by Savage, 27 September 2008 - 03:09 PM.

[luv2increase]

MSNBC is a popular news site that is *mainstream* and essentially *centrist,* Drudge is a sample of a group that is already on one side of the issue.

Apparently Lazarus, you have not been paying attention as of late. MSNBC has gone way off the deep end when it comes to being pro-Obama. All Independent voters and Republicans know this. The way they in the past (which was still quite left leaning I might add) has no relevance to how they have become for this particular election. One literally cannot watch MSNBC and see any positive comment given on anything about McCain/Palin. They can't even give anything positive to the Obama/Biden campaign either unless you call constant 100% bashing of McCain/Palin positive for Obama...

It really got out of control for MSNBC when Palin was nominated by McCain as his VP choice. MSNBC had words on the bottom of the screen with something like "How Many Houses Does Palin Add To The McCain Campaign" or something like that! That was the "first" thing they said, and it was completely out of line. Ever since then, the majority of MSNBC viewers have been Democrats. Believe me, I don't know any Republicans or Independents that would even view the MSNBC website after the election. They know what they saw, and they can think for themselves.


Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but 90% or more of the comments on the MSNBC website about the debate are positive in the Obama direction as if he won the debate flat-out. Were these people watching the same debate as myself? Why weren't there any positive McCain comments? I know they have to be reviewed before posted; I wonder if they are being censored??????????? HMMMMM...



EDIT: In fact, I just checked to see if my comment was on http://firstread.msn...26/1457015.aspx (Hot Off The Presses II) and it was never posted up. Wow!!! I will post for you my exact comment, and you tell me if it should have been censored or not....

I can see all comments must be approved; I assume that is why there is only "one" good comment towards McCain so far yet close to 40% on NBC believe McCain won the debate. Isn't this a tad odd. Anyways, I being an Independent voter was pleased with McCain tonight. Obama doesn't have the money to fund his massive spending programs, and he didn't really acknowledge that. There won't be enough money for National HealthCare, so throw that one out of the blueprints. Also, Obama's immature, condescending demeanor expressed by his body language and speech tonight was a grave turn-off. He doesn't have the stature and humbleness of that of a President. He is still too young and obviously wouldn't be good for our country due to his cockiness and lack of experience in any and all matters.

He wants to add more troops into Afghanistan; don't you think that will offset his proposed savings from the troop withdrawal in Iraq? I think people missed this point, and McCain should have caught it. Obama contradicts himself left and right, and I am dumbfounded how anyone can believe him in anything he says.

Obama is a naive, conceited, demeaning, condescending, inexperienced, and dishonest individual. Sadly, these are not the attributes we should be looking for within a President, and I can't fathom the reason why none of you can see this.

God Bless America! We truly need His blessings in the dire times which we are now unfortunately in!

Edited by luv2increase, 27 September 2008 - 03:20 PM.

[elwalvador]

Guess what industry is hopelessly dependent on government earmarks?

The biotech and pharmaceutical industry. The vast majority of research and developement into potential new drugs and treatment therapies is funded by the government through agencies like the NIH. The private sector will never put money into basic research because 9 out of 10 potential drug candidates fail duing clinical trials. Additionaly, on avarage it takes 10-15 years to take a drug from pre-clinical studies to the market where patients can buy them. So, the time it would take to get a return on the investment is prohibatively to long for most venture capitalist. Sadly, basic research is hopelessly dependent on government funding.

If this forum truely has people in it who are mainly interested in new life extending biotech therapies, then the only question that really matters should be, "which one of these candidates is going to increase federal funding into basic research?" Which has been the party that appossed embryonic stem cell research?

The reality is that neither one of these candidates has talked about science at any great length or in any great detail. They almost never get questions about cancer, aging, infecteous diseases, genetics, ext. My "2 cents", I have heard Obama on two occations say that he would double the R&D budget, on basic research. So he's got my vote.

[RighteousReason]

Guess what industry is hopelessly dependent on government earmarks?

The biotech and pharmaceutical industry. The vast majority of research and developement into potential new drugs and treatment therapies is funded by the government through agencies like the NIH. The private sector will never put money into basic research because 9 out of 10 potential drug candidates fail duing clinical trials. Additionaly, on avarage it takes 10-15 years to take a drug from pre-clinical studies to the market where patients can buy them. So, the time it would take to get a return on the investment is prohibatively to long for most venture capitalist. Sadly, basic research is hopelessly dependent on government funding.

This should tell you something: fix the FDA to put research back into the private sector.

If something is not feasible in the private sector and relies on the government for funding, it's either a waste of money or its because the government screwed something up in the first place.

America is not great or powerful because of the government. You put too much faith in the government.

Edited by Savage, 27 September 2008 - 04:31 PM.

[inawe]

I find it amazing how the republicans are panicking and making all kinds of wild and unsubstantiated assertions to try and sway the simple minded.

One thing is sure though, that after the election whoever wins will be working with who ever loses to cope with the mess that 8 years of Bush and 16 years of a Republican dominated congress have yielded, or perhaps the selective memory that the Dem's only got the house and senate back two years ago escapes you.

The current economic and security debacle that this nation finds itself can be squarely laid upon Republican and perhaps more specifically *Neo-Conservative* policy makers.

So now the pendulum swings and in classic American fashion it might swing too far but swing it will nonetheless.

Great post.
Much at fault can be find in the Democratic party. I wish a better candidate would have emerged from its midst. However, the biggest
tragedy in our 2 party system was the hijacking of the Republican party by the neocons, religious fundamentalists and financial crooks like Gramm.

[luv2increase]

My "2 cents", I have heard Obama on two occations say that he would double the R&D budget, on basic research. So he's got my vote.

This disgusts me. People voting for a candidate because of one single issue regardless of how that candidate feels on other issues. You should vote on the candidate that will be the best for our country, period. This can't be concluded from a single issue, especially on the one you mentioned elwalvador; that is pathetic.

[RighteousReason]

My "2 cents", I have heard Obama on two occations say that he would double the R&D budget, on basic research. So he's got my vote.

This disgusts me. People voting for a candidate because of one single issue regardless of how that candidate feels on other issues. You should vote on the candidate that will be the best for our country, period. This can't be concluded from a single issue, especially on the one you mentioned elwalvador; that is pathetic.

Agreed. What good is basic science research if our economy or national security are compromised?

[luv2increase]

sway the simple minded

Your whole post is that of a simple minded individual. This is a complex issue Lazarus, and you have to realize that the blame should be placed on both the Republicans and Democrats. Although, that too is being too broad and simple minded. I guess the real blame can be placed on big insurance corporations, the politicians who voted and brought about the bills which allowed this crisis to blossom, the American people for taking on mortgages which they weren't confident they would be able to pay, and Wall Street for their crazy, reckless trading practices.

You placing the blame solely on Republicans is irresponsible and ignorant.

For instance:

8 years of Bush and 16 years of a Republican dominated congress have yielded

You most certainly have failed the accountability test here Lazarus Long.

Edited by luv2increase, 27 September 2008 - 05:09 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Your whole post is that of a simple minded individual. This is a complex issue Lazarus,

hehehe... Lazarus Long is more complex than you think... careful with that one

[inawe]

Guess what industry is hopelessly dependent on government earmarks?

The biotech and pharmaceutical industry. The vast majority of research and developement into potential new drugs and treatment therapies is funded by the government through agencies like the NIH. The private sector will never put money into basic research because 9 out of 10 potential drug candidates fail duing clinical trials. Additionaly, on avarage it takes 10-15 years to take a drug from pre-clinical studies to the market where patients can buy them. So, the time it would take to get a return on the investment is prohibatively to long for most venture capitalist. Sadly, basic research is hopelessly dependent on government funding.

If this forum truely has people in it who are mainly interested in new life extending biotech therapies, then the only question that really matters should be, "which one of these candidates is going to increase federal funding into basic research?" Which has been the party that appossed embryonic stem cell research?

The reality is that neither one of these candidates has talked about science at any great length or in any great detail. They almost never get questions about cancer, aging, infecteous diseases, genetics, ext. My "2 cents", I have heard Obama on two occations say that he would double the R&D budget, on basic research. So he's got my vote.

Not only that. The religious fundamentalists will push McCain/Palin into adopting the creationist ideology. Without a basis in evolution
ideas no meaningful research in biology is possible.

[RighteousReason]

Guess what industry is hopelessly dependent on government earmarks?

The biotech and pharmaceutical industry. The vast majority of research and developement into potential new drugs and treatment therapies is funded by the government through agencies like the NIH. The private sector will never put money into basic research because 9 out of 10 potential drug candidates fail duing clinical trials. Additionaly, on avarage it takes 10-15 years to take a drug from pre-clinical studies to the market where patients can buy them. So, the time it would take to get a return on the investment is prohibatively to long for most venture capitalist. Sadly, basic research is hopelessly dependent on government funding.

If this forum truely has people in it who are mainly interested in new life extending biotech therapies, then the only question that really matters should be, "which one of these candidates is going to increase federal funding into basic research?" Which has been the party that appossed embryonic stem cell research?

The reality is that neither one of these candidates has talked about science at any great length or in any great detail. They almost never get questions about cancer, aging, infecteous diseases, genetics, ext. My "2 cents", I have heard Obama on two occations say that he would double the R&D budget, on basic research. So he's got my vote.

Not only that. The religious fundamentalists will push McCain/Palin into adopting the creationist ideology. Without a basis in evolution
ideas no meaningful research in biology is possible.

hahahaha

[luv2increase]

Your whole post is that of a simple minded individual. This is a complex issue Lazarus,

hehehe... Lazarus Long is more complex than you think... careful with that one

I said this issue is complex. I didn't say Lazarus isn't comlex.... I said he was the one being simple minded when he accused everyone of being simple minded; he then gave broad, horribly ignorant statement to back up his claim; that all this is to blame on the Republicans and Bush. lol


He may be complex yet surely didn't elude to that in this regard.

Guess what industry is hopelessly dependent on government earmarks?

The biotech and pharmaceutical industry. The vast majority of research and developement into potential new drugs and treatment therapies is funded by the government through agencies like the NIH. The private sector will never put money into basic research because 9 out of 10 potential drug candidates fail duing clinical trials. Additionaly, on avarage it takes 10-15 years to take a drug from pre-clinical studies to the market where patients can buy them. So, the time it would take to get a return on the investment is prohibatively to long for most venture capitalist. Sadly, basic research is hopelessly dependent on government funding.

If this forum truely has people in it who are mainly interested in new life extending biotech therapies, then the only question that really matters should be, "which one of these candidates is going to increase federal funding into basic research?" Which has been the party that appossed embryonic stem cell research?

The reality is that neither one of these candidates has talked about science at any great length or in any great detail. They almost never get questions about cancer, aging, infecteous diseases, genetics, ext. My "2 cents", I have heard Obama on two occations say that he would double the R&D budget, on basic research. So he's got my vote.

Not only that. The religious fundamentalists will push McCain/Palin into adopting the creationist ideology. Without a basis in evolution
ideas no meaningful research in biology is possible.

hahahaha

Actually, McCain admitted in a Republican debate that he believes in Evolution. How could he then take it out of schools? Hmmm...

[RighteousReason]

Rasmussen Markets data shows Obama is now given a 57.1% chance of winning in November. The Saturday morning figures were little changed from the day before suggesting that the initial conclusion is that the debate was not a game changing event (see market results for key states).

Rasmussen Reports

Most Voters say Debate Moderators are Biased - Rasmussen Reports

[RighteousReason]

Media bias:

(August 13, 2008)

A full 55 percent of likely American voters think that media bias is more of a problem than campaign contributions in the presidential race, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday.

This poll follows another Rasmussen poll conducted July 19 which revealed that 57 percent of likely voters think Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has received the best treatment from the media so far, while 21 percent or respondents think Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has received the best media treatment.

Additionally, 49 percent think reporters will try to help Obama win the presidential campaign, while 14 percent think reporters will help McCain.

[elwalvador]

This should tell you something: fix the FDA to put research back into the private sector.

If something is not feasible in the private sector and relies on the government for funding, it's either a waste of money or its because the government screwed something up in the first place.

America is not great or powerful because of the government. You put too much faith in the government.

The military, fire departments, and police stations are all government funded. Are you saying that our military is a "waste of money"? Don't make broad, all or nothing, generelizations. Subscribing to these kind of rigid ideological beliefs is what kills otherwise good ideas. "Hard and fast rules", that in certain sitations don't even make sense, are what underpins most of the red tape in our beurocrcies. Following every single rule, or in this case ideology, in every single situation, is somtimes a terrible idea.

Cancer alone kills nearly 500,000 people a year in this country, aging kills another couple of hundred thousand. These people are dying as a direct result of our lack of effective medical treatments. Privately owned biotech and pharmaceutical companies are speding money on basic research, but the government should also fund our colleges and national labs as well. I would hardly consider government funding for cancer research to be a waste of money.

[RighteousReason]

This should tell you something: fix the FDA to put research back into the private sector.

If something is not feasible in the private sector and relies on the government for funding, it's either a waste of money or its because the government screwed something up in the first place.

America is not great or powerful because of the government. You put too much faith in the government.

The military, fire departments, and police stations are all government funded. Are you saying that our military is a "waste of money"?

suck my balls niner.

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 10:19 PM.

[elwalvador]

This disgusts me. People voting for a candidate because of one single issue regardless of how that candidate feels on other issues. You should vote on the candidate that will be the best for our country, period. This can't be concluded from a single issue, especially on the one you mentioned elwalvador; that is pathetic.

Cancer is killing 500,000 people every single year in this country, that's 1,369 people every day or three 9/11's per week. The fact that this is not issue #1 is hard to believe. Seriously, you are more likely to die of cancer than from terrorism or the invading army of another country. We spend 700 billion dollars a year on our defense budget but only spend a measely 28 billion on medical research. The NIH gets a tiny 28 billion to fund life saving medical research but we spend 25 times more money on weapons research trying to figure out new a better ways to kill people. If were going to spend 700 billion on war and weaponry we should atleast spend just as much funding our NIH.

I say increase NIH funding to 700 billion dollars, or cut our defense budget in half and spend 350 billion of both. Our priorities are completely unbalanced. If we did this we could find a cure to aging much faster.

[elwalvador]

You are a douche bag.

Hahaha, hey Savage don't take it personally. I'm just trying to convince you that government funding on medical research is not a waste of money. Can we at least agree on that? Or do you propose that government stop funding the NIH?

[RighteousReason]

The government takes money from people at the point of a gun, and then uses it foolishly.

If something is actually worth being funded, it should be done privately, with exception of the only purpose for which our government was founded, according to the Constitution: to provide for the common defense.

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 02:07 AM.

[RighteousReason]

do you propose that government stop funding the NIH?

America is not great or powerful because of the government.
Stop funding EVERYTHING except national defense and eliminate all taxes on business and income.

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 02:19 AM.

[RighteousReason]

The national election was NEVER supposed to matter this much. The vast majority of government belongs at the local level.

[biknut]

The liberal CBS polled 481 people. Probably most of them Democrats no matter what they say.

The Communist News Network polled 524 people.

Here's a real poll with 263,429 people polled so far. You can still vote in it if you'd like to try to change the results.

http://www.drudgereport.com/#plutonium


{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

MCCAIN.......67% 176,817

OBAMA........31% 80,565

NEITHER........2% 6,047

Total Votes: 263,429

And here is a poll with almost three times as many polled from a far less *biased* sample biknut. It also appears to parallel the majority of the electoral polling around the country. Personally I think the actual debate was one of the better ones in many a year and not particularly decisive for either candidate but the majority seem to think Obama won. I would say they both acquitted themselves responsibly but neither was able to yet step out of the role of politico into that of a true leader, neither said anything particularly decisive nor insightful.

Let me get this straight Lazarus, you're contending MSNBC is far less biased than Drudge???? I really can't believe that you of all people, would make such a ridiculous statement.

All I can conclude is that to a liberal any news that's not left biased is right wing. I guess liberals just don't understand the concept of fair, non biased reporting.

MSNBC is the most biased of all major news networks.

[biknut]

Cancer is killing 500,000 people every single year in this country, that's 1,369 people every day or three 9/11's per week. The fact that this is not issue #1 is hard to believe. Seriously, you are more likely to die of cancer than from terrorism or the invading army of another country. We spend 700 billion dollars a year on our defense budget but only spend a measely 28 billion on medical research. The NIH gets a tiny 28 billion to fund life saving medical research but we spend 25 times more money on weapons research trying to figure out new a better ways to kill people. If were going to spend 700 billion on war and weaponry we should atleast spend just as much funding our NIH.

I say increase NIH funding to 700 billion dollars, or cut our defense budget in half and spend 350 billion of both. Our priorities are completely unbalanced. If we did this we could find a cure to aging much faster.

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.

[Iam Empathy]

http://economistsvie...mccains-bi.html

Edited by Iam Empathy, 28 September 2008 - 06:19 AM.

[luv2increase]

Liberals need to understand, the government cannot solve all of life's problems. That's not their job.

Actually, the citizens need to realize the government can't solve all their problems. That is why we need to prepare for the worst and have backup plans when crisis strikes. I think one important way in doing this would be to invest in bullion into of risky stocks. One thing is for sure; no matter what happens, gold and silver will always have purchasing power even if every single country's economy in the world defaults!

I think this crisis will change people's minds on investing in mutual funds and most importantly risky stocks because they've just got even more riskier!

[RighteousReason]

[Savage posts a McCain Campaign instant response commercial]

That was a series of snippets taken totally out of context, so misleading that I would characterize it as a lie. Let's not start posting official campaign commercials here, OK? Don't make ImmInst step in and take action on this.

Priceless typical liberal response. SILENCE THE OPPOSITION! You should run for office.

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
http://www.kmov.com/...id=285793&shu=1

Law enforcement threats, intimidation likened to 'police-state tactics,' by Missouri governor

Missouri governor: 'Obama using police-state tactics'
Blunt issues official statement calling abuse of law enforcement 'scandalous beyond words'
--Office of Gov. Matt Blunt

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 01:38 PM.

[biknut]

In the Debate, the one thing lord Obama said that was true, is that loop holes in the tax code allow some people (rich) to not pay taxes. This is something I've pointed out myself.

That's not going to be a reason to vote for him however. Rich crooks like Obama, and his friends use those same loop holes to full advantage so there's zero chance he'll do anything about it.

Why would I think this? Because look at all of lord Obama's associations. They're all crooked land developers, domestic terrorists, extreme black racists, and rich liberal politicians (crooks). A zebra can't change his stripes.

[RighteousReason]

[Savage posts a McCain Campaign instant response commercial]

That was a series of snippets taken totally out of context, so misleading that I would characterize it as a lie. Let's not start posting official campaign commercials here, OK? Don't make ImmInst step in and take action on this.

Priceless typical liberal response. SILENCE THE OPPOSITION! You should run for office.

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
http://www.kmov.com/...id=285793&shu=1

Law enforcement threats, intimidation likened to 'police-state tactics,' by Missouri governor

Missouri governor: 'Obama using police-state tactics'
Blunt issues official statement calling abuse of law enforcement 'scandalous beyond words'
--Office of Gov. Matt Blunt

Obama Threatens To Silence Radio Stations
Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial [was run on] by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

more

Edited by Savage, 28 September 2008 - 01:50 PM.

[elwalvador]

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?

[biknut]

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.

The problem for lord Obama is that just telling the truth about him is bad enough.