Jump to content

George Bush And Stem Cells


Recommended Posts

Am I right to assume you are a socialist? Because you sound like Noam Chomsky.... no doubt a hero of yours.
If you've read Chomsky, you'd know he's definitely not a socialist, he's an anarchist.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know, you're not an idiot. I feel like I have to point this out....You've made some pretty decent points, even if they run contrary to MY beleifs, but...It is 100% impossible to take someone seriously when he says stuff like that. I love good political discourse- and I'll admit plenty of liberals here are more than willing to appeal to the lowest common denominator- but what DannyG said was just dumb.What you said was disappointing. You KNEW that was silly when you said it, right? Just like you knew DannyG's comments about the US being a warmongering blah blah blah country were silly. I was all set to lambast him for that- and I still think, DannyG, that your comments are irresponsible at best- but it is incredibly frustrating to see stupidly generic insults about Noam Chomsky from someone I expected to be an intelligent conservative.Wang
Point taken, although what he said came out of Noam's mouth almost verbatim on Bill Maher, so I felt it was pretty relevant.
adult stem cells arent the same thing as embryonic stem cells. the adult cell is already differentiated; it would only repair and replenish cells of the organ it was found in. embryonic stem cells are undetermined and therefore could be the ultimate sources of tissue regeneration. embryonic stem cell research is also very promising because these cells have been successfully cloned; this means that the handful of cells recovered from a single destroyed embryo can be amplied many fold to produce hundreds, possibly thousands of unspecified stem cells. also, adult stem cells are not as genetically "pure" as embryonic cells. they have gone through countless mitosis replications which leads to lost dna and mutatations that could affect the effectiveness of the stem cell
While adult cells might not be "pure" as you say, the entire point of my post was that in many studies they haven't been able to reproduce a different result with the two different cells. If one day there is proof that there is a difference I doubt I would be opposed to using embryonic stem cells that were going to be discarded by fertility clinics anyway. Although I would still be opposed to producing stem cells directly for research, just as I would be opposed to growing clones for research and organ harvesting.
on a seperate note, and what's wrong w/ noam chomsky again?
Nothing is wrong with him... especially if you are also a communist and hate America. On the other hand, if you think that America helps more countries and more people than the far majority of the rest of the countries of the world COMBINED, then he would be someone that you wouldn't look to highly at.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing is wrong with him... especially if you are also a communist and hate America. On the other hand, if you think that America helps more countries and more people than the far majority of the rest of the countries of the world COMBINED, then he would be someone that you wouldn't look to highly at.
Credibility: bye-bye.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you've read Chomsky, you'd know he's definitely not a socialist, he's an anarchist.
To date, I've only read one half of one book... that was enough."He describes himself as a libertarian socialist"Also, one of my favorite democratic gay bloggers, not that there's more than one, Andrew Sullivan would disagree with you. Chomsky is a communist, there's no point in arguing it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
am i the only person who posts on message boards who actually knows more than what CNN tells you?
Pompous much? Or just trying to make a point?GWB has an issue with embryonic stem cells being harvested while the embryo is still alive. It really is more an issue of cloning than of protecting embryos...because he DOES support harvesting them from destroyed ones. So for me, the debate (which I haven't seen an answer to yet) is whether there are ENOUGH stem cells that can be harvested between adults and destroyed embryos, or that we NEED to clone embryos in order to get the number we need.We have enough pwns cloning. Not having enough < cloning.
Link to post
Share on other sites
To date, I've only read one half of one book... that was enough."He describes himself as a libertarian socialist"Also, one of my favorite democratic gay bloggers, not that there's more than one, Andrew Sullivan would disagree with you. Chomsky is a communist, there's no point in arguing it.
1.) From an interview, May 1994: Interviewer: Dr. Chomsky, why do you call yourself a "libertarian anarchist" rather than a plain "anarchist"? Noam Chomsky: The term I usually use is "libertarian socialist," which is fairly standard usage in the anarchist tradition. Anarchism covers a pretty broad range. One major sector in Europe regarded itself as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" has a different usage in the United States, which departs from the tradition. Here the term "libertarian" means anarcho- capitalist. 2.) Andrew Sullivan is a conservative and is deeply hypocritical on so many counts that he cannot be taken seriously. The most recent and obvious example, of course, is his position on the war in Iraq. When it began, he criticized those who opposed the war as "America haters", despite the fact that he now parrots the exact same talking points that they discussed even before the war began. 3.) From an interview in the NYT, November 2003: Interviewer: Have you considered leaving the United States permanently? Chomsky: No. This is the best country in the world. Interviewer: How do you think Thomas Jefferson would react to contemporary American government? Chomsky: With utter disgust, and profound sorrow that the democratic experiment had reached such depths. We don't have to speculate. 200 years ago his friend James Madison warned of something similar, and Jefferson too was much concerned about people like those now in Crawford and Washington.
Link to post
Share on other sites
am i the only person who posts on message boards who actually knows more than what CNN tells you?
I think this guy thinks he's better than us.brvheart - you've made some solid points. Just know that from a purely scientific standpoint, adult stem cells are not even close to being as usefull as embryonic stem cells. This is a fact, even though Bush may be clinging to hope that it is just a bunch of scientists and democrats wanting to kill babies.I'm glad you agree that we should be able to use embryos that would have been discarded anyways. Now please go talk to your ultra religious/conservative friends that don't understand the process, and think stem cell research is supplied by doctors who prematurely rip otherwise healthy babies from their mothers' wombs so they can torture and kill them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this guy thinks he's better than us.
Awesome Av/custom member name combo.For all you logisticians out there, if it is pointed out as irony that war is supported while abortion/embryo destruction is opposed, isn't the reverse also ironic?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awesome Av/custom member name combo.For all you logisticians out there, if it is pointed out as irony that war is supported while abortion/embryo destruction is opposed, isn't the reverse also ironic?
No. All mothers are females.Is the reverse of this true?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No. All mothers are females.Is the reverse of this true?
No but the statements are not equal. One of your terms is a state of the other, while mine are independent.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The war isn't about killing people for research... it isn't the movie 'Coma'. The war is about defending ourselves and trying to make our word worth something. I'm not ranting at you here... but WTF is the point of the UN. They make a resolution that says, don't do this or we will remove you. Then said person/country does it, since the UN is just a big piece of ****. This of course makes the UN cry like a little girl... "HEY!! WE SAID DON'T DO THAT! IF YOU DON'T STOP WE WILL BE FORCED TO MAKE ANOTHER RESOLUTION!!" The UN did this 12 times, and finally the US said enough is enough. Thank goodness Bush got elected in 2000 and then reelected in 2004.
Do you want to know who stripped the U.N. of its power, forcing it to "cry like a little girl?" It was your stupid president who ignored the UN and then humiliated it on the world stage by not allowing the inspections to continue. By having the most powerful country in the world thumb its nose at the UN, we showed all the other countries that they didn't have to listen either. So, yeah, how helpful has that been?Okay, here's my questions for all the conservatives weeping over the embryos -- would you rather they just get thrown away?Because that's what happens to them now. These embryos all come from in vitro fertilization and are "leftovers" that people don't want. These leftovers are now simply disposed of, so somehow that's better than using them to actually save lives? I don't get this at all. If they really want to get mad at people, then they better stop the in vitro fertilization that's creating all these disposable embryos. And no, adult stem cells aren't nearly as effective as embryonic stem cells because embryonic stem cells can be manipulated to grow into whatever tissue is necessary. One of you stated that there is no scientific basis for this but there is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you want to know who stripped the U.N. of its power, forcing it to "cry like a little girl?" It was your stupid president who ignored the UN and then humiliated it on the world stage by not allowing the inspections to continue. By having the most powerful country in the world thumb its nose at the UN, we showed all the other countries that they didn't have to listen either. So, yeah, how helpful has that been?Okay, here's my questions for all the conservatives weeping over the embryos -- would you rather they just get thrown away?Because that's what happens to them now. These embryos all come from in vitro fertilization and are "leftovers" that people don't want. These leftovers are now simply disposed of, so somehow that's better than using them to actually save lives? I don't get this at all. If they really want to get mad at people, then they better stop the in vitro fertilization that's creating all these disposable embryos. And no, adult stem cells aren't nearly as effective as embryonic stem cells because embryonic stem cells can be manipulated to grow into whatever tissue is necessary. One of you stated that there is no scientific basis for this but there is.
The UN sucked before GWB. And will after. Come on SBriand, you know better than that. Like saying terrorism wasn't around before GWB. The embryos that will be discarded anyway certainly should be used for stem cells and research. If Congress had (or did?) discerned between those and cloned ones in the bill that was vetoed, then I think GWB was in the wrong.Many, many conservatives who oppose abortion and embryonic stem-cell research also oppose invitro, so your argument with them won't hold much water either way.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the decider, not the UN. You see, I understand stem cells, and I understand embryos. I used to be an embryo. And an embryo is not a stem cell. An embryo is a living being. As a living being, I respect embryos. Don't forget to catch my speech to the NAACP tonite. You'll see what a bad rap I've taken, considering how much I love black people. Pass that watermelon, will ya?

Link to post
Share on other sites
here's my questions for all the conservatives weeping over the embryos -- would you rather they just get thrown away?Because that's what happens to them now. These embryos all come from in vitro fertilization and are "leftovers" that people don't want. These leftovers are now simply disposed of
I'd like to say a few words, since I was in full-on Gray Davis Brownout mode last night; I vaguely remember posting here, and my Polluted Brain didn't afford me the ability to be as rational or comprehensive as I would have liked. This is probably going to be an ultra rant.1) First and foremost, I'm sick and tired of all the fallacious arguments that have become the norm in political discourse. Look, comparing me to Noam Chomsky is absolutely NOT a valid argument. Neither is suggesting the United States is "murderous," "warmongering," "etc." If you're looking to identify a reason for the pathetic state of politics- especially in America- start right there. The use of inflammatory language and (pointless!) ad hominem attacks just muddies the waters, and drives an absurdly counterproductive and unnecessary wedge between opposing camps that would otherwise be able to agree on some issues.2) (or 1a) In my limited political experience on this board, MK (just the first that comes to mind) is a perfect example of how these debates should be conducted. He doesn't make baseless accusations. He doesn't resort to ad hominem attacks when he's not sure what else to do. He makes fair, rational, and stunningly incisive points, all the while maintaining a level of respect that keeps the discourse elevated. His posts in this thread are a great exampe. I'm sure there are conservatives who are the same way, I just happen to rest pretty near MK on the political spectrum, so he's the first person who comes to mind.3) SBriand makes a fantastic point. At this point, GWBush's policy almost seems like a war of attrition, spiteful even. He'd rather unwanted embryos be thrown in the garbage than used for research that- on the surface- harms nobody, and has the potential for world-changing medical windfalls. (I am not even addressing the philosophical reservations my conservative counterparts have, here, and may do so later if I see the need.)Oh, and the world needs Noam Chomsky's. Whether you agree or not with his super-radical politics (and I don't, for the most part) he's at least challenging conventional thought. You must have SOMEONE arguing from radical perspectives, or the people in power (and those looking to obtain power) become complacent.Wang
Link to post
Share on other sites
While adult cells might not be "pure" as you say, the entire point of my post was that in many studies they haven't been able to reproduce a different result with the two different cells. If one day there is proof that there is a difference I doubt I would be opposed to using embryonic stem cells that were going to be discarded by fertility clinics anyway. Although I would still be opposed to producing stem cells directly for research, just as I would be opposed to growing clones for research and organ harvesting.
embryonic stem cells are totipotent, ie. they can for ANY cell in the body as well as dividing to clone the entire individual adult stem cells are multipotent, ie. they can only for cells similar to their lineage. stem cells found in our blood can only form blood cells; liver stem cells can only form cells found in our liverit's really unfortunate that funding in this area didnt get expanded. america became the world power it is today on the back of scientists; however it's been stagnant in the last century or so as government backed scientific research has dried up, driving many scientists and engineers to fields such as investment banking or consulting because of the higher wages. now the rest of the world has caught up with the united states in the scientific field; bush had a great oppurtunity to curb this trend, but he chose otherwise...--and noam chomsky is one of the foremost authorities in linguistics. he is one of the most educated men in america when it comes to foreign policy, and while he is highly critical of the united states, the man is not fanatical as some on this board have made him out to be. on the contrary, the man is very soft spoken and backs all his claims up with specific examples and facts. imo, he's much better than the loudmouth men we hear on conservative radio stations who preach patriotism without any concept of the global social-economic-political scheme.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm so surprised that you said this 76... and way to back up your argument. nh.
Brvheart, I don't dislike you, I don't think your stupid, but I just totally disagree with you. Bush has completely fucked up at every chance hes gotten. I just can't understand how he still has 33% of the population or whatever.
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The war in Iraq might have some reasonable root causes, but one of the prime factors in making war there is ECONOMIC EXPEDIENCY. Nothing jump starts an economy like a war. Just ask Bechtel and Halliburton, etc.2. The difference between embryos and soldiers in Iraq are that the soldiers MADE A CHOICE. They consciously enlisted in the Army, while embryos are simply glorified eggs. (sw?)3. There will always be disagreements about stuff like this, hebce war will always be an alternative, at some point or another. Stupid, stupid humans.PS: Yes, Bush is a ****wit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The war in Iraq might have some reasonable root causes, but one of the prime factors in making war there is ECONOMIC EXPEDIENCY. Nothing jump starts an economy like a war. Just ask Bechtel and Halliburton, etc.
this is a common myth about warshere's the only article i could find online about it:http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/l/aa032003a.htmthe us economy was great before wwi, and was already rising 3-4 prior to wwii.also, w/ the current war in iraq, our standing military and reserves were sufficient that a new economic shift to a war society was not needed. if war truly stimulated the country into economic growth, the value of the us dollar would be gaining ground compared to countries at peace... on the contrary, the dollar has been losing steady value to most asian and european currencies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
this is a common myth about warshere's the only article i could find online about it:http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/l/aa032003a.htmthe us economy was great before wwi, and was already rising 3-4 prior to wwii.also, w/ the current war in iraq, our standing military and reserves were sufficient that a new economic shift to a war society was not needed. if war truly stimulated the country into economic growth, the value of the us dollar would be gaining ground compared to countries at peace... on the contrary, the dollar has been losing steady value to most asian and european currencies.
Well, I'm skimming that stuff and it's a pretty dry read, but it does illustrate that my premise regarding wars being good for the economy is inaccurate, so I thank you for the clarification.However...the fact that some companies that are closely tied to US government leaders, such as the two names, are making piles of money from their contract they "won". I guess my point was more along the lines of >> Someone is making money, but it won't be the "man in the street". Now, nobody can ever say that profiteering was meant to be widely distributed. So, who benefits? Those who's contract bids are approved, which most people seem to blindly accept as "above-board", but I would contend that such is not now, nor was it ever, the case. Money is moving in smaller and smaller concentric circles, in an upward kind of way.Anyway, I'm no expert, but I'm no dummie.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...