[TooBad]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Not trying to fool anybody but when I hear the tired old myths about the sorry state of Canadian health care I do cry "Myth!"

I have camped in Mt. Tremblant and at close to 30 degrees C there was nary a trace of snow. I lived 20 plus years in Quebec and never saw snow in the summer months. But those damn Yankees were still up here, looking for the white stuff!

I won't pretend that there aren't stupid Americans that don't have a clue about Canada, or anywhere else for that matter. I grew up in northern states and have visited Canada many times. I know better, but I also know people that come to the US for medical care that they can't receive in a timely manner in Canada. Nothing is universally true, at least to our limited knowledge. I am sure that many people receive adequate care in Canada, but it is no utopian system.

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by TooBad

No one has blocked stem cell research! That is a huge myth. Conservatives have rightly blocked federal funding of embryonic stem cell research only. If it were a viable research path, there would be plenty of private money for the research. There is federal money researching adult stem cells which have proved very successful. You keep perpetuating myths that are designed to confuse the uninitiated. I am not one you can fool.

How have they "rightly blocked" federal funding? I don't see why politicians are deciding what is and is not viable research. Wouldn't it make sense for it to be allowed and let the scientists decide whether or not it is a viable research path.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by Fyzbo

How have they "rightly blocked" federal funding? I don't see why politicians are deciding what is and is not viable research. Wouldn't it make sense for it to be allowed and let the scientists decide whether or not it is a viable research path.

I would agree that we should "rightly block" all Federal funding of science as unConstitutional! I was simply replying to the myth that conservatives somehow "banned" stem cell research.

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by TooBad

I would agree that we should "rightly block" all Federal funding of science as unConstitutional! I was simply replying to the myth that conservatives somehow "banned" stem cell research.

Thank you for the explanation. Not sure how it can be proven unconstitution. I'd agree and say don't fund anything, also get rid of other unnecessary spending like the arts.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Fyzbo

Thank you for the explanation. Not sure how it can be proven unconstitution. I'd agree and say don't fund anything, also get rid of other unnecessary spending like the arts.

Cutting off funding for the arts is like cutting your head off - ok, you get a choice in the matter - which will it be, do you want to keep your head, or try and live without it?

We all know how this is going to turn out if you opt to lose your head!

The fact of the matter is that our country has no national priorities set, like the successful nations of the world. We let partisan politics run the country via the issue du jour. I want our nation to be run in a non-partisan way for the good of all of us - otherwise, how are we gonna make it out of this mess together - oh, you say you could give a flying squirrel about the together thing - well, guess what - we either make it out together, or we all go down together - either way we are stuck with each other? Let's not throw money at problems in the hope that they will just go away. Let's not give the commander-in-chief a blank-check to start wars that have no other goal than the pettiness of a messianic dumb-arse (Bush43) that lies to us and tries to make us believe in his utter crapola! And, for God's sake, let's never let the dumb-arses deregulate us again (whittle away the mechanisms that protect us financially after we get out of this mess - and it will take re-regulation to get things back on track).

-- Tom

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Cutting off funding for the arts is like cutting your head off - ok, you get a choice in the matter - which will it be, do you want to keep your head, or try and live without it?


-- Tom

What a load of crappola. Not funding the arts is cutting you head off??? Let shiite-for-brains George Soros fund the arts. Oops, he is only good for funding anti-American groups and politicians. The Constitution does not provide any authority to the Federal government to fund the arts, or any company and certainly prohibits the Fed from existing in its current format. Simply progressive BS!

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by TooBad

What a load of crappola. Not funding the arts is cutting you head off??? Let shiite-for-brains George Soros fund the arts. Oops, he is only good for funding anti-American groups and politicians. The Constitution does not provide any authority to the Federal government to fund the arts, or any company and certainly prohibits the Fed from existing in its current format. Simply progressive BS!

Hi TooBad,

We either progress or regress! Obviously, you and your ilk choose the later - good luck with all the real BS you have placed in your path as an obstacle to the ascension of the righty-tightys!

No one was attempting to make the case that the Constitution contains authority to fund the arts. The Fed was not created by the Constitution, but by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 signed by Woodrow Wilson.

Congratulations, once again you have proven how gnat-brained a person can be.

Progrssive BS, you say - much better than your crapola!

-- Tom

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi TooBad,

We either progress or regress! Obviously, you and your ilk choose the later - good luck with all the real BS you have placed in your path as an obstacle to the ascension of the righty-tightys!

No one was attempting to make the case that the Constitution contains authority to fund the arts. The Fed was not created by the Constitution, but by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 signed by Woodrow Wilson.

Congratulations, once again you have proven how gnat-brained a person can be.

Progrssive BS, you say - much better than your crapola!

-- Tom

The Federal Researve Act was and is unConstitutional!! Just because the morons on the court can't read, doesn't make it right. There is more than one way to progress, but you think becoming the USSR is progress. What a maroon!

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by TooBad

The Federal Researve Act was and is unConstitutional!! Just because the morons on the court can't read, doesn't make it right. There is more than one way to progress, but you think becoming the USSR is progress. What a maroon!

Just because it is not in the Constitution - does not make it unConstitutional! You wear you fears on your whiney sleeve, eh? And, just because you assert what is in the quote, does not make it so. Perhaps you need a lesson in reasoning, critical thinking, etc..

Your maroon comment reminds me of when I was taking a lunchtime walk around the lake near where I worked one day. Two rednecks drove by, and being natural born wiseacres one of them mouthed off an epithet meant to imply I was gay just because I happened to be wearing a "maroon" wind breaker. They apparently didn't know that they actually got the color wrong - i.e. its purple I believe. I happen to be straight, so they were doubly wrong.

Too bad you qualify for the real word - moron. Very sad indeed.

-- Tom

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Just because it is not in the Constitution - does not make it unConstitutional! You wear you fears on your whiney sleeve, eh? And, just because you assert what is in the quote, does not make it so. Perhaps you need a lesson in reasoning, critical thinking, etc..

Your maroon comment reminds me of when I was taking a lunchtime walk around the lake near where I worked one day. Two rednecks drove by, and being natural born wiseacres one of them mouthed off an epithet meant to imply I was gay just because I happened to be wearing a "maroon" wind breaker. They apparently didn't know that they actually got the color wrong - i.e. its purple I believe. I happen to be straight, so they were doubly wrong.

Too bad you qualify for the real word - moron. Very sad indeed.

-- Tom

Normally I would debate you, but it is patently unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by wacor

While we are not controlled by religion like some countries in the mideast there is no question the religious right have influence on the republican party. One only has to look at those that are pro choice in the party and how they are ostracized by the majority. On the left there is religion too but they are just hypocrites on this. If one is catholic I do not see how they can be a democrat and support abortion for example like Pelosi

I still insist that America is influenced by fundamentalist Christians and therefore not a true secular state. If it were, school boards wouldn't be allowed to ban Evoltion from schools and they certainly wouldn't be allowed to promote Intelligent Design. You see, the same religious mindset that opposes Evolution also opposes stem cell research. I don't buy the argument that it isn't a viable research avenue because it is not attracting private funding. The lay person isn't qualified to conclude whether it is viable or not. The reason it isn't funded privately is because 50% of Americans believe that Evolution is false, and that the human body is the temple of god and to violate it violates god. Christians represent 76% of the population. You said "No more than the homosexual lobby, the union lobby, the "progressive/ACLU" lobby, the AARP lobby (actually this is the biggest one). In fact, I would bet that the "religious lobby", whichever "religion" you are indicating, is probably the least influential as could be determined by the course of our laws for the past 50 years or more." Well, that is diversionary on your part because the topic is not homosexuals, unions or the AARP (whatever that is). My point is that there is a strong fundamentalist lobby that can, and does, influence politics. My point is that the reason stem cell research is being opposed is purely a religious one. I don't see homosexuals or unions opposing it.

[pyritechips]

I have a question. Is the objection to stem cell research because people don't want human embryos being used? Is this similar to the objection to abortion, that a fetus or embryo, no matter the age, is sacrosanct?

If so then what about the used of umbilical cord stem cells? That is certainly not a "life" to be violated.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

I have a question. Is the objection to stem cell research because people don't want human embryos being used? Is this similar to the objection to abortion, that a fetus or embryo, no matter the age, is sacrosanct?

If so then what about the used of umbilical cord stem cells? That is certainly not a "life" to be violated.

Are not the umbilical cords also considered in the same vein with the anti stem cell crowd??

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by wacor

Are not the umbilical cords also considered in the same vein with the anti stem cell crowd??

If so I'd to know why? I think the fundies are taking things way too far. Of course, they have no influence on policy, do they?

[wacor]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

If I'd to know why? I think the fundies are taking things way to far. Of course, they have no influence on policy, do they?

On some things the fundies do seem to have more impact than they should. Still don't believe that makes us secular.

On stem cell research I think the proponents have done a poor job of explaining exactly what they are doing and their expectations..