Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[UnAmericanYOU]

Most important, first....

What a thoughtful suggestion. Is your complete lack of civility something you worked to achieve or are you just naturally gifted?

Whoa, I was trying to advocate against killing you, I only used you as an example of extreme utiliatarianism. The Gump person directed me to your posts to answer a question, so it had to be you.

On the other hand, I can see how my comment is offensive, so I'll apologize.

A State is not athiest. It has no religious beliefs at all unless there is a state religion (which is prohibited in this country by the first amendment) or is a theocracy.

There is still freedom to express a religion, the good thing about here is you have relgious freedom. A total suppression of religion is an athiest state. North Korea. Mainland China.

Freakish to save lives? Now THAT'S freakish... There have been a myriad of links to the NIH site and to medical articles which document the promise of ESC Research. You're simply ignoring it because you choose to... just as you are ignoring the reasons stated by onedomino with respect to the need for government payment for this research and the length of time ESC R & D will take.

NOOOOOOO...it's freakish to experiment on human embryoes, one step closer to human cloning, Sweet Jesus.

Missing the boat there, too. You want "something in between", go live someplace with a state sanctioned religion where they aren't governed by a F
First Amendment or Constitution which protects the minority from the majority

I think the US pre-Warren Court will suffice.

Absurd. The clinical trials alone would take years and that is after the years that the R&D itself would take.

But, but, but, just compare ESCR with ASCR, one owns the other. ASCR has grown by leaps and bounds, I could hit my head repeatedly against a brick wall and all it'll accomplish is more brain damage.

The US has federally funded cancer and heart research for decades and yet associated disease rates are increasing.

Wait, you're making a counterargument. But okay, yeah, there has been breakthroughs in leukemia treatments, but the general population is really obese.

Research works far better in the private sector.

Maybe we should just give up because a highly qualified molecular biologist on this message board thinks that "eight years is a long, long time in medical research."

Who? Me? No, I thought about becoming a doctor years ago but decided medical school would make me sick.

It's an ethical issue, there's only so much governmental funds availiable for anything, why go Dr. Frankenstein over it?

 

[Mr.Conley]

There is still freedom to express a religion, the good thing about here is you have relgious freedom. A total suppression of religion is an athiest state. North Korea. Mainland China.

That's why the goal isn't an athiest state, but one that doesn't associate with any religion.

NOOOOOOO...it's freakish to experiment on human embryoes, one step closer to human cloning, Sweet Jesus.

Not necessarily anymore. Plus, you have to admit that by not funding this line of research we are effectively condemning anyone who would otherwise be saved by it. Either way, lives or lost, it's just a matter of magnitude.

I think the US pre-Warren Court will suffice.

Too bad we have to live with the US as is.

But, but, but, just compare ESCR with ASCR, one owns the other. ASCR has grown by leaps and bounds, I could hit my head repeatedly against a brick wall and all it'll accomplish is more brain damage.

Studying mouse pluripotent stem cells carrying disease-causing mutations has already greatly enhanced scientific and medical knowledge of how genetic diseases develop. The hope is that a similar knowledge explosion will take place by studying human pluripotent stem cell lines carrying mutations found in such genetic disorders as cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, adult and juvenile diabetes, autoimmune diseases, allergic disorders, and early onset heart and cardiovascular disease.

By studying stem cells that carry DNA with disease-causing mutations, researchers might learn more about how these mutations cause the cell to become diseased. They may also learn how the proteins made by the mutated genes fail to function properly, leading to an understanding of the molecular basis of the disease. This may enable researchers to generate drugs or therapies that make up for the genetic defect and treat the disease. Although this work has great promise, at this time only mouse pluripotent stem cell lines exist that carry disease-causing mutations.

See the link for more details, the basic difference is that ESC are much more variable than ASC. ASC can only be used for certain types of tissue, ESC can be used for all body tissues. As such, they could potentially cure many more diseases. The reason ASC is ahead right now is because ASC are a hell of a lot easier to manipulate. ASC's are already formed or forming into their predetermined cell type. ESC are still undifferentiated, and controlling them to produce the desired cell type is difficult. Plus, ESC hasn't exactly been getting the adequate level of funding to progress as quickly as ASC (unfortunately, the research is too early for private companies to properly fund, as was the case with nuclear power, spaceflight, antibiotics, pre-computer math, genetic engineering, even Einstein's work).

Wait, you're making a counterargument. But okay, yeah, there has been breakthroughs in leukemia treatments, but the general population is really obese.

That's because most Americans are fat, lazy, and stupid.

Research works far better in the private sector.

Generally yes, but basic research and long-term development are best sustainable in the hands of the government and universities.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Very interesting, if wrong and unsubstantiated theory.... I would start by pointing out that our Constitution has a First Amendment for a reason... and that's to protect us from people who want to establish a State religion and insert their religious beliefs into law.

Iit.

You know, you really need to research the first amendment a bit more dear.

It is not even debatable that the purpose of the first amendment was that CONGRESS, as in the FEDERAL CONGRESS, shall make no law establishing a religion. THEY WANTED THAT POWER RESERVED FOR THE STATES. Thats what the Constitution was mainly about, STATE POWERS VS CENTRAL GOVT POWERS. The founding fathers feared too powerful of a central govt. thats why the original doc's had to be revised to come to our current constitution which wasnt ratified until, what? 1789? because the old govt wasnt working because there wasnt ENOUGH power to the federal govt and it wasnt working too well.

In fact, those guys didnt even consider themselves Americans. They presented themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers and the like, declaring themselves according to the STATE they came from.

Now, again, the simple proof is that the States did have legal, official STATE sponsored religions.

 

[sitarro]

Ummmmmmmmm....actually, they played Limbaugh's idiotic statements on normal news shows so we were all able to see how braindead he is. :halo:

Chased any ambulances lately jilli? Judging from your posts, not only does Mr. Limbaugh know and understand an infinite more about politics than you, he has a much better handle on human nature as well. He could wipe the floor with your sorry attorney ass in a debate on anything and I'm sure that would include law. Hell, take that joke twin of yours...gump and that other quack bully and that little high school clown charles in charge, he would make all of you sit their sucking your thumbs. You illiterates can't even grasp the difference between the Federal government's not funding of bogus research and a ban on said research. If you want to pay for second rate "scientist" to play with their little test tubes, go for it, you can put your name on all of those patents that you're so sure will materialize. I'm guessing that you are sniffing out some kind of lawsuit that can make you a shitload of money, maybe getting together a bunch of scared, diseased people to defend against the Government. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find a lawsuit somewhere.

Oh and by the way, I'm not the least bit religious, I am just not as naive as you dolts.

 

[sitarro]

Idiotic ideas like science? And fairness? And freedom for everyone to worship or not worship as they please?

Yeah... must really suck being you. Tell us again what you're not allowed to do, other than genuflect in a state building.....

What church can't you attend?

Oh right... there isn't one.

Do you really hold scientist" in so high a regard? Meteorologist consider themselves scientist and we see daily just how wrong they can be.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Do you really hold scientist" in so high a regard? Meteorologist consider themselves scientist and we see daily just how wrong they can be.

OMG, please come on. Don't tell me your being serious. I'm mean really. Your being sarcastic, right?

 

[sitarro]

OMG, please come on. Don't tell me your being serious. I'm mean really. Your being sarcastic, right?

Of course I am, just because someone has "scientist" on their business card, it doesn't mean they are infallible or aren't easily prostituted for grant money. Why should their profession be different than any others. There are plenty of artists that suck even though they are acknowledged by some to be great. Plenty of engineers that over design to cover their asses because they don't know enough to do a better job. Many horticulturist that kill plants everyday, veterinarians that kill dogs anesthetizing them, doctors who kill patients by misdiagnosing and of course lawyers that lose cases that destroy innocent lives.

 

[sitarro]

OMG, please come on. Don't tell me your being serious. I'm mean really. Your being sarcastic, right?

Of course I am, just because someone has "scientist" on their business card, it doesn't mean they are infallible or aren't easily prostituted for grant money. Why should their profession be different than any others. There are plenty of artists that suck even though they are acknowledged by some to be great. Plenty of engineers that over design to cover their asses because they don't know enough to do a better job. Many horticulturist that kill plants everyday, veterinarians that kill dogs anesthetizing them, doctors who kill patients by misdiagnosing and of course lawyers that lose cases that destroy innocent lives.

 

[Stephanie]

OMG, please come on. Don't tell me your being serious. I'm mean really. Your being sarcastic, right?

I don't think he is so far off base........


We're all idiots because we DON'T LIVE AND BREATH, and kiss their ass....
Of THE SCIENTIST...
Who all of a sudden, have become the new God of the liberals today..........

 

[dilloduck]

Of course they do....

Yet you begrudge spiritual people that right. They have ideas regarding what would be best for our country just as secularists do. The "separation of church and state" is merely a strawman argument you throw out as a truism that you believe prevents spiritualists from taking part in governmental decision making.

The spirit that resisted the Church of England lives on in modern spiritualism and I have yet to see anyone advocate a theocracy. People can be against abortion, homosexual marriage and ESC research for reasons that have nothing what so ever to do with religion yet you choose to lump them all together to create the illusion that spiritual people are all out trying to ruin your fun. It's just not true. They are trying to do what they think is best. You want to deny them that right.

 

[jillian]

You know, you really need to research the first amendment a bit more dear.

It is not even debatable that the purpose of the first amendment was that CONGRESS, as in the FEDERAL CONGRESS, shall make no law establishing a religion. THEY WANTED THAT POWER RESERVED FOR THE STATES. Thats what the Constitution was mainly about, STATE POWERS VS CENTRAL GOVT POWERS. The founding fathers feared too powerful of a central govt. thats why the original doc's had to be revised to come to our current constitution which wasnt ratified until, what? 1789? because the old govt wasnt working because there wasnt ENOUGH power to the federal govt and it wasnt working too well.

In fact, those guys didnt even consider themselves Americans. They presented themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers and the like, declaring themselves according to the STATE they came from.

Now, again, the simple proof is that the States did have legal, official STATE sponsored religions.

I do wish you folk who insist on opining about our Constitution would actually have read and understood it. The Constitution, and all its amendments, are binding on the States. States are not, by virtue of the supremacy clause, allowed to give fewer rights than those provided by the Feds, though they can give greater rights, and many states do.

You're about 1,000% wrong about the State sponsored religion thing. The Staes are not premitted to abbrogate the First or any other amendment.

There has never been a state sponsored church under our Constitutional system. Please feel free to live somewhere where such a system exists if that is more to your liking than the U.S.

As for the central government vs. state government issue... there's a reason the Articles of Confederation were supplanted by the Constitution.

 

[MGB]

States are not, by virtue of the supremacy clause, allowed to give fewer rights than those provided by the Feds, though they can give greater rights, and many states do.


Precisely so. In the areas where the Constitution speaks, it IS the law of the land. Later on, it states that any powers NOT granted to the federal government are reserved "to the states, or to the people."

There has been much debate in this area, but it seems that the founders were best described as "deists." That is, they recognized a "higher authority" but probably would not describe that higher power as a really old white guy with a long flowing beard. Certainly, the photos provided to us by the Hubble telescope should have expanded our concept of God as a force or presence or power or however you choose to describe it that is FAR more complex and infinite than the feeble minds of mankind can possibly grasp. I am troubled by any person who can view those photos and tell me he or she understands all there is to know about God. Religion is another matter. Religion is just another variation of how we divide ourselves into clans, just as we did back in the days when we huddled in caves. Somethings never change.

 

[dilloduck]

States are not, by virtue of the supremacy clause, allowed to give fewer rights than those provided by the Feds, though they can give greater rights, and many states do.


Precisely so. In the areas where the Constitution speaks, it IS the law of the land. Later on, it states that any powers NOT granted to the federal government are reserved "to the states, or to the people."

There has been much debate in this area, but it seems that the founders were best described as "deists." That is, they recognized a "higher authority" but probably would not describe that higher power as a really old white guy with a long flowing beard. Certainly, the photos provided to us by the Hubble telescope should have expanded our concept of God as a force or presence or power or however you choose to describe it that is FAR more complex and infinite than the feeble minds of mankind can possibly grasp. I am troubled by any person who can view those photos and tell me he or she understands all there is to know about God. Religion is another matter. Religion is just another variation of how we divide ourselves into clans, just as we did back in the days when we huddled in caves. Somethings never change.

Do you find it odd that people who think alike (and look alike) tend to hang out together?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Screw it, I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you all. It's not worth the effort.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I do wish you folk who insist on opining about our Constitution would actually have read and understood it.

There has never been a state sponsored church under our Constitutional system. Please feel free to live somewhere where such a system exists if that is more to your liking than the U.S.

As for the central government vs. state government issue... there's a reason the Articles of Confederation were supplanted by the Constitution.

Now this is going to be interesting!

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until she replaced her colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment; and local official establishments of religion persisted even later.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

 

[MGB]

Do you find it odd that people who think alike (and look alike) tend to hang out together?


No, not at all. I think it is a genetic imperative left over from the days when having the neighbors for dinner had a rather different meaning than it does today.

However, I DO think that the key to creating a civilization here on earth as envisioned by Jesus is learning how to overcome our genetic coding and reach beyond it to a new understanding of humanity. Hey, at least its a goal and one suspects He has all the time in the world to wait for His plan to come to fruition. Not gonna happen in my lifetime, that's for sure.

We are all members of multiple gangs throughout our lives. Right now I am a member of THIS gang - at least until I get locked out of the clubhouse.

I suppose I won't pick up any points in this group if I admit to driving a Prius, will I? :halo:

 

[Dr Grump]

Chased any ambulances lately jilli?

Got past the "point-and-click" stage in your career yet Shitty? My little toe nail has shown more creativity in the past five seconds than you have in your whole miserable life...

He could wipe the floor with your sorry attorney ass in a debate on anything and I'm sure that would include law.

He couldn't even wipe his arse....

You illiterates can't even grasp the difference between the Federal government's not funding of bogus research and a ban on said research.

How do you know its bogus? Where's your evidence? Oh, that's right, you have none. Hot air isn't evidence..

I am just not as naive as you dolts.

That is in the eye of the beholder. "naive" isn't the word I would use to describe you - far too nice of a word...

 

[Dr Grump]

Yet you begrudge spiritual people that right. They have ideas regarding what would be best for our country just as secularists do. The "separation of church and state" is merely a strawman argument you throw out as a truism that you believe prevents spiritualists from taking part in governmental decision making.

The spirit that resisted the Church of England lives on in modern spiritualism and I have yet to see anyone advocate a theocracy. People can be against abortion, homosexual marriage and ESC research for reasons that have nothing what so ever to do with religion yet you choose to lump them all together to create the illusion that spiritual people are all out trying to ruin your fun. It's just not true. They are trying to do what they think is best. You want to deny them that right.

No i do not begrudge those spiritual people any right. I begrudge ANY religion trying to impose laws based on their religion. Take Ireland, a Catholic country. Up until recently contraception was against the law. That was a law based soley on religion. Nothing else.

You are right, people can be against those things, but the vast majority of those against it on these boards (and most others I have been on) are against those things because they are very religious. Wanna to a quick poll?

I am against homos in principle. Difference is, I see it as NONE of my business what two consenting ADULTS do together in their own time. I am against abortion, but not because I see the fetus as human, but because the potential life it might create. And I am the least religious person you'd probably fine. I have never said otherwise, but to say, on this board at least and any other I've been on, that those against those things are NOT heavily influenced by religion is untrue. There are literally thousands of posts on this board that back me up.

 

[dilloduck]

Do you find it odd that people who think alike (and look alike) tend to hang out together?


No, not at all. I think it is a genetic imperative left over from the days when having the neighbors for dinner had a rather different meaning than it does today.

However, I DO think that the key to creating a civilization here on earth as envisioned by Jesus is learning how to overcome our genetic coding and reach beyond it to a new understanding of humanity. Hey, at least its a goal and one suspects He has all the time in the world to wait for His plan to come to fruition. Not gonna happen in my lifetime, that's for sure.

We are all members of multiple gangs throughout our lives. Right now I am a member of THIS gang - at least until I get locked out of the clubhouse.

I suppose I won't pick up any points in this group if I admit to driving a Prius, will I? :halo:

I agree re overcoming genetic coding and that we have a long way to go but I won't condemn those who try and fail. A Prius is fine if you don't get smug ( South Park joke)

 

[dilloduck]

No i do not begrudge those spiritual people any right. I begrudge ANY religion trying to impose laws based on their religion. Take Ireland, a Catholic country. Up until recently contraception was against the law. That was a law based soley on religion. Nothing else.

You are right, people can be against those things, but the vast majority of those against it on these boards (and most others I have been on) are against those things because they are very religious. Wanna to a quick poll?

I am against homos in principle. Difference is, I see it as NONE of my business what two consenting ADULTS do together in their own time. I am against abortion, but not because I see the fetus as human, but because the potential life it might create. And I am the least religious person you'd probably fine. I have never said otherwise, but to say, on this board at least and any other I've been on, that those against those things are NOT heavily influenced by religion is untrue. There are literally thousands of posts on this board that back me up.

What laws based soley on religion do you fear will be enacted ? Don't you think this "theocracy" hyperbole makes you sound a bit hysterical. I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that we have a State that is controlled by any type of clergy and cannot imagine religions agreeing on anything long enough to sustain one.