Athletes and Actors from St.Lou and KC respond to M. Fox add.

[MarcBulger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw

In case it did not copy its on Drudge now.

[MarcBulger]

I do not have speakers at work so I do not know what was said. Somebody please let me know.

[SBK]

They said that the bill would make human cloning legal, allows woman to sell their eggs. Talked about women that have died or been seriously injured, and they asked why they needed to spend $28,000,000 to convince the voters of MO that the bill was a good idea.

[memyselfI]

It worked.

Kurt Warner. Wow. Pulling out all the stops. :rolleyes:

[Sully]

So what would be the Athlete's version of F.A.G.?


http://www.cineol.net/images/noticias/Cameos/TeamAmerica_10.jpg

[MarcBulger]

So you don't call $28,000,000 pulling out all of the stops.

[Adept Havelock]

So you don't call $28,000,000 pulling out all of the stops.

In a midterm election where combined spending is well over 2 and a half Billion...no, I don't.

"Ya gotta catapult the propaganda, see". ;)

[Logical]

What utter bullshit, I am sure there are plenty of stupid hicks in Mo who will buy this lock stock and barrel.

[dirk digler]

That ad is just plain BS.



http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot/

Plain Language Explanation:
This amendment will allow Missouri patients and researchers access to any method of stem cell research, therapies and cures permitted under federal law. It also will set limits on any stem cell research, therapies and cures, including banning human cloning or attempted cloning. Violators will be subject to criminal and civil penalites.
Official Ballot Title:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:

*

ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
*

ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
*

require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;
*

impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
* prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures?

The proposed constitutional amendment would have an estimated annual fiscal impact on state and local governments of $0-$68,916.

Fair Ballot Language excerpt:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:

* ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
* ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
* require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of any stem cell research;
* impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
* prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures.

A “no” vote would not ensure that stem cell research permitted under federal law is allowed to be conducted in Missouri and that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law.

This measure will have no impact on taxes.

[KCWolfman]

In a midterm election where combined spending is well over 2 and a half Billion...no, I don't.

"Ya gotta catapult the propaganda, see". ;)
You do realize this the most money ever spent on a single campaign issue in the state of Missouri?

[KCWolfman]

What utter bullshit, I am sure there are plenty of stupid hicks in Mo who will buy this lock stock and barrel.
And I am sure there are pandering liberals and disabled people nationwide who will gullibly believe that the research into stem cells is a viable piece to their abilities to walk once more - even though there is no proof to the concept whatsoever.

I find more bullshit in the fact that the libs are actually getting up false hope of those permanently disabled in an attempt to further divide the political parties.

[Mark M]

You know, I keep reading that "false hope" line all over the place. But as someone who is holding out hope due to my back, I find it insulting.

First of all, embryonic stem cells weren't even discovered until 1981. The human part of the equation (isolating and growing the cells when derived from human blastocysts) didn't start until 1998.

(http://www.answers.com/topic/embryonic-stem-cell-1)

In other words, it's been a very short time. To sit there and say it's a "false hope" or that there's "no proof" is awfully shortsighted and completely ignores the way medical research works.

As a way of comparison, organ transplants -- at least in theory and in very bad practice -- took centuries to develop. Using the logic of some folks, they should've just given up when they didn't get it right within the first few years (or even decades).

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying stem cell research is the magic bullet that will cure all that ails us. It's crazy expensive and, even if something is found, only the rich will be able to afford it initially (as is the case with most medical breakthroughs).

But to simply discount it because it's not moving fast enough it ridiculous. The truth is that no one knows for sure what they hold -- perhaps they are the panacea that some wish for, perhaps it's a total waste of time. But one cannot simply discount it out of hand because it isn't working fast enough for them.

For millions of us, the notion of taking an option -- even one that may only have a 1% chance of working -- off the table is putting their religious/moral hangup in front of our lives. It's a way for some to divert criticisms of it away from their religious beliefs and onto some false notion of "So sorry; doesn't work. Move on."

And, sorry KCWolfman, but if you projected any more you'd be a PowerPoint presentation. Please double check your wedge issue handbook and note that the GOP is the writer, printer and publisher.

MM
~~:shake:

[Bowser]

And I am sure there are pandering liberals and disabled people nationwide who will gullibly believe that the research into stem cells is a viable piece to their abilities to walk once more - even though there is no proof to the concept whatsoever.

Well on the bright side, it wouldn't be considered a failure if we never tried.

I'm suprised you're so closed minded on this issue.

[patteeu]

You know, I keep reading that "false hope" line all over the place. But as someone who is holding out hope due to my back, I find it insulting.

First of all, embryonic stem cells weren't even discovered until 1981. The human part of the equation (isolating and growing the cells when derived from human blastocysts) didn't start until 1998.

(http://www.answers.com/topic/embryonic-stem-cell-1)

In other words, it's been a very short time. To sit there and say it's a "false hope" or that there's "no proof" is awfully shortsighted and completely ignores the way medical research works.

As a way of comparison, organ transplants -- at least in theory and in very bad practice -- took centuries to develop. Using the logic of some folks, they should've just given up when they didn't get it right within the first few years (or even decades).

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying stem cell research is the magic bullet that will cure all that ails us. It's crazy expensive and, even if something is found, only the rich will be able to afford it initially (as is the case with most medical breakthroughs).

But to simply discount it because it's not moving fast enough it ridiculous. The truth is that no one knows for sure what they hold -- perhaps they are the panacea that some wish for, perhaps it's a total waste of time. But one cannot simply discount it out of hand because it isn't working fast enough for them.

For millions of us, the notion of taking an option -- even one that may only have a 1% chance of working -- off the table is putting their religious/moral hangup in front of our lives. It's a way for some to divert criticisms of it away from their religious beliefs and onto some false notion of "So sorry; doesn't work. Move on."

And, sorry KCWolfman, but if you projected any more you'd be a PowerPoint presentation. Please double check your wedge issue handbook and note that the GOP is the writer, printer and publisher.

MM
~~:shake:

It's already legal isn't it? Is there really a need for a constitutional amendment?

[banyon]

It's already legal isn't it? Is there really a need for a constitutional amendment?

Did you object this way to the anti-gay marriage amendments?

[patteeu]

Did you object this way to the anti-gay marriage amendments?

If anything, I objected more confidently (primarily because I'm not up to speed on Amendment 2 yet).

The only "anti-gay marriage amendment" that I'd support would be an amendment that clarifies the Equal Protection clause so that judges can't use it as a basis for judicially imposed gay marriage. It shouldn't be necessary, but alas we can't count on judges to faithfully interpret the constitution in the way it was intended (which, in this particular case, surely wasn't to make gay marriage a constitutionally protected institution). I've opposed all anti-gay marriage amendment proposals that I've read because they would go beyond clarifying the EP clause and actually prohibit gay marriage.

[Baby Lee]

What utter bullshit, I am sure there are plenty of stupid hicks in Mo who will buy this lock stock and barrel.
While you pinkie raisers in Whale's Vagina say "well, Alex P. Keeton told me grindin' up little lives and runnin' 'em through the curemaker 5000 might make his own life more comfortable, and that's good enough for me?"

Just askin; ;)

[Logical]

While you pinkie raisers in Whale's Vagina say "well, Alex P. Keeton told me grindin' up little lives and runnin' 'em through the curemaker 5000 might make his own life more comfortable, and that's good enough for me?"

Just askin; ;)

I live in San Diego which is the Silicon Valley for genetic research. I guess we have the privelage of being informed of the realities of the potential of Stem Cell research across the spectrum vs. listening to ridiculous wives tales spread by ignorant athletes.

[Iowanian]

Well, if the guy who drives the Delorian into the future says so....it must be a fact.

I live in San Diego which is the Silicon Valley for genetic research. I guess we have the privelage of being informed of the realities of the potential of Stem Cell research across the spectrum vs. listening to ridiculous wives tales spread by ignorant athletes.

[Baby Lee]

Well, if the guy who drives the Delorian into the future says so....it must be a fact.
Ummm, I think Logisad drives a Jaguar. ;)
Our is it, has the 'privelage' to drive a Jag?

[Logical]

Ummm, I think Logisad drives a Jaguar. ;)
Our is it, has the 'privelage' to drive a Jag?

That is what I get for posting in a hurry, sorry about the mispelling. It does not change the fact that we have a huge amount of information coming out on the potential benefits for stem cell research here in the Silicon Valley of genetic research. If Mo wants to stay backwards it just helps our area grow bigger and faster.

[banyon]

If anything, I objected more confidently (primarily because I'm not up to speed on Amendment 2 yet).

The only "anti-gay marriage amendment" that I'd support would be an amendment that clarifies the Equal Protection clause so that judges can't use it as a basis for judicially imposed gay marriage. It shouldn't be necessary, but alas we can't count on judges to faithfully interpret the constitution in the way it was intended (which, in this particular case, surely wasn't to make gay marriage a constitutionally protected institution). I've opposed all anti-gay marriage amendment proposals that I've read because they would go beyond clarifying the EP clause and actually prohibit gay marriage.

How do you not understand that the bolded part of your quote is exactly what the proponents of this measure are saying?

[patteeu]

How do you not understand that the bolded part of your quote is exactly what the proponents of this measure are saying?

What are they saying? All I'm hearing about is how much potential the research has.

[MGRS13]

where as I believe these athletes have every right to speak their opinion (and actually commend them for having a cause) where are all the republican voices yelling about celebrities in political ads. Republicans are always the first to attack any famous person speaking out for a democratic cause and yet are suspiciously quiet when its the other way around.

[Sully]

Matt Damon!!!!

[Baby Lee]

Maybe it's because it's Wednesday, but I keep seeing this thread and thinking, what exactly did Jack Shepard say!!??

[Adept Havelock]

where as I believe these athletes have every right to speak their opinion (and actually commend them for having a cause) where are all the republican voices yelling about celebrities in political ads. Republicans are always the first to attack any famous person speaking out for a democratic cause and yet are suspiciously quiet when its the other way around.

:clap:

[Baby Lee]

:clap:
Are we now required to post in particular threads?!?
;)

[KCWolfman]

Well on the bright side, it wouldn't be considered a failure if we never tried.

I'm suprised you're so closed minded on this issue.
I am not close minded at all. I just don't understand why it needs to be government funded. If this is 30 million dollars worth of fantastic in the state of Missouri alone - why aren't private companies attempting to garner the profits?

Research all you want, just don't waste my tax dollars on it.

Follow the money trail. It is simple. When one side is spending an exponential amount of money as the liberals are on this issue, it is not over something cut and dried as you and many others make it out to be.

[KCWolfman]

I live in San Diego which is the Silicon Valley for genetic research. I guess we have the privelage of being informed of the realities of the potential of Stem Cell research across the spectrum vs. listening to ridiculous wives tales spread by ignorant athletes.
Potential....

Yeah, I got those Popular Mechanics magazines as a kid as well. Evidently we had the potential for flying cars in 1977. I wonder why that never happened either?

[KCWolfman]

You know, I keep reading that "false hope" line all over the place. But as someone who is holding out hope due to my back, I find it insulting.

First of all, embryonic stem cells weren't even discovered until 1981. The human part of the equation (isolating and growing the cells when derived from human blastocysts) didn't start until 1998.

(http://www.answers.com/topic/embryonic-stem-cell-1)

In other words, it's been a very short time. To sit there and say it's a "false hope" or that there's "no proof" is awfully shortsighted and completely ignores the way medical research works.

As a way of comparison, organ transplants -- at least in theory and in very bad practice -- took centuries to develop. Using the logic of some folks, they should've just given up when they didn't get it right within the first few years (or even decades).

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying stem cell research is the magic bullet that will cure all that ails us. It's crazy expensive and, even if something is found, only the rich will be able to afford it initially (as is the case with most medical breakthroughs).

But to simply discount it because it's not moving fast enough it ridiculous. The truth is that no one knows for sure what they hold -- perhaps they are the panacea that some wish for, perhaps it's a total waste of time. But one cannot simply discount it out of hand because it isn't working fast enough for them.

For millions of us, the notion of taking an option -- even one that may only have a 1% chance of working -- off the table is putting their religious/moral hangup in front of our lives. It's a way for some to divert criticisms of it away from their religious beliefs and onto some false notion of "So sorry; doesn't work. Move on."

And, sorry KCWolfman, but if you projected any more you'd be a PowerPoint presentation. Please double check your wedge issue handbook and note that the GOP is the writer, printer and publisher.

MM
~~:shake:
Mark - The National Institute of Stem Cell research admits the research began FOURTY years ago, not ten. Researchers discovered that rats bone marrow created two explicit different types of stem cells.Stem Cell Research began in the 60s (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp)

What you are speaking of is the general agreement by scientists that stem cells were in adults finally agreed upon in the 90s.

If you are going to carp on me about reading and becoming more informed, please do so yourself.

[KCWolfman]

where as I believe these athletes have every right to speak their opinion (and actually commend them for having a cause) where are all the republican voices yelling about celebrities in political ads. Republicans are always the first to attack any famous person speaking out for a democratic cause and yet are suspiciously quiet when its the other way around.
I have never complained about celebrities speaking out. I have mentioned how stupid some of them are for their opinions (See Alec Baldwin). But honestly, I believe the celebs speaking out for the dems hurts them more than it helps them. It helps purvey an aloofness and superiority that is undeserved by them.

IMO, they should continue to get the Paris Hilton's and Anna Nicole's to continue to speak up for them. The process insures more of the silent conservatives to come out and vote against them.

[CHIEF4EVER]

What utter bullshit, I am sure there are plenty of stupid hicks in Mo who will buy this lock stock and barrel.

People who disagree with you and vote against a bill you support even though you are not a resident of the state they are in are 'HICKS', right Jim?

[KCWolfman]

where as I believe these athletes have every right to speak their opinion (and actually commend them for having a cause) where are all the republican voices yelling about celebrities in political ads. Republicans are always the first to attack any famous person speaking out for a democratic cause and yet are suspiciously quiet when its the other way around.
Actually, MGRS, I find it more vulgar that those who dare to speak their opinion on the topic are lambasted by the left such as Jim and Mark on this thread for not being informed or having the potential to understand the topic.

I understand perfectly. The process has great potential. The potential has not had a single yield in 40 years. The pharmaceuticals and other private companies don't want to spend their billions in research even though there is huge potential for unbelievable returns. Since they won't waste their money, you want me to waste mine - without my permission I might add. And if I have the audacity to mention the above, your side has the nerve to allude to the idea that I am ignorant on the topic.

I wonder why something like that doesn't bother you?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

People who disagree with you and vote against a bill you support even though you are not a resident of the state they are in are 'HICKS', right Jim?

As a Missouri native, I feel comfortable in saying that anyone who takes the word of names who are completely ignorant to the implications of this research as the gospel truth could easily fall into the "dumb hick" category. Although I don't agree with his blanket statement, there is *a small* element of truth in it.

[CHIEF4EVER]

As a Missouri native, I feel comfortable in saying that anyone who takes the word of names who are completely ignorant to the implications of this research as the gospel truth could easily fall into the "dumb hick" category. Although I don't agree with his blanket statement, there is *a small* element of truth in it.

So if someone who lives in this state (such as me) disagrees with this on moral grounds, they are ignorant hicks in your book? Please clarify.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So if someone who lives in this state (such as me) disagrees with this on moral grounds, they are ignorant hicks in your book? Please clarify.

Read the post, dude. if you take the words of 'names' as the gospel truth without any sense of the true implications of the research you are being a dumbass.

You know Joe Namath wears pantyhose, maybe I should go buy some too :spock:

[CHIEF4EVER]

Read the post, dude. if you take the words of 'names' as the gospel truth without any sense of the true implications of the research you are being a dumbass.

You know Joe Namath wears pantyhose, maybe I should go buy some too :spock:

You evidently didn't read the 2 previous posts I made to the one you replied to. I am against EMBRYONIC stem cell research on moral grounds. So, am I a 'HICK' in your book?

[KCWolfman]

As a Missouri native, I feel comfortable in saying that anyone who takes the word of names who are completely ignorant to the implications of this research as the gospel truth could easily fall into the "dumb hick" category. Although I don't agree with his blanket statement, there is *a small* element of truth in it.
You mean like actors who are not physicians or researchers, right?

[Boyceofsummer]

Nancy Reagan

[Logical]

People who disagree with you and vote against a bill you support even though you are not a resident of the state they are in are 'HICKS', right Jim?Backwards religious dumbass would be my classification for you and your type.:p

[Logical]

Actually, MGRS, I find it more vulgar that those who dare to speak their opinion on the topic are lambasted by the left such as Jim and Mark on this thread for not being informed or having the potential to understand the topic.

I understand perfectly. The process has great potential. The potential has not had a single yield in 40 years. The pharmaceuticals and other private companies don't want to spend their billions in research even though there is huge potential for unbelievable returns. Since they won't waste their money, you want me to waste mine - without my permission I might add. And if I have the audacity to mention the above, your side has the nerve to allude to the idea that I am ignorant on the topic.

I wonder why something like that doesn't bother you?

Actually to be factual the government just needs to get out of the way and quit blocking the availability through legislation. If the government would fund research that would be a great bonus but trust me at least in the San Diego area that is not needed.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You mean like actors who are not physicians or researchers, right?

Somehow, I imagine that a man afflicted by a disease that has the potential to be cured through ESCR would have researched it to a far greater extent than Kurt f*cking Warner who is just reading off a goddamned teleprompter.

Secondly, MJF is just a face of this issue, his word is not the gospel truth, but it is indicative of possible advancements that could not will, but could, be made. I don't believe the argument because he says it. People who will buy into the counterargument b/c Warner tells them to are delusional simpletons. But I'm sure you already knew that :rolleyes:

[Ultra Peanut]

So if someone who lives in this state (such as me) disagrees with this on moral grounds, they are ignorant hicks in your book? Please clarify.Someone who objects to something based on "moral grounds" when they're really just completely uninformed sounds like a pretty strong candidate for the "ignorant" label, yes.

[KCWolfman]

Somehow, I imagine that a man afflicted by a disease that has the potential to be cured through ESCR would have researched it to a far greater extent than Kurt f*cking Warner who is just reading off a goddamned teleprompter.

Secondly, MJF is just a face of this issue, his word is not the gospel truth, but it is indicative of possible advancements that could not will, but could, be made. I don't believe the argument because he says it. People who will buy into the counterargument b/c Warner tells them to are delusional simpletons. But I'm sure you already knew that :rolleyes:
So you assume that someone who is ill knows more about research regarding their illness than someone else? That is hardly based upon any fact at all, is it?

Again, the words POSSIBLE, and COULD. I have not seen so much pie in the sky in my entire lifetime as I have the last three months on this topic. Again, nothing factual here either.

People who buy into either side of the argument because Warner OR Fox tells them to are simpletons - That is the only fact that I can agree upon from your statement.

[KCWolfman]

Actually to be factual the government just needs to get out of the way and quit blocking the availability through legislation. If the government would fund research that would be a great bonus but trust me at least in the San Diego area that is not needed.
There are no laws against research at all, Jim. I wonder why these great companies you allude to haven't had that magic breakthrough over the course of 40 years? I wonder why they aren't spending billions on it?

[KCWolfman]

Someone who objects to something based on "moral grounds" when they're really just completely uninformed sounds like a pretty strong candidate for the "ignorant" label, yes.
As much as the idiot who backs a project solely because they see a man in a wheelchair at a National Convention.

[Logical]

There are no laws against research at all, Jim. I wonder why these great companies you allude to haven't had that magic breakthrough over the course of 40 years? I wonder why they aren't spending billions on it?

Actually they are, however there are laws blocking them from getting fresh Embryonic Stem Cells and like any tissue the old stuff loses its versatility and utility for quality research, but I suspect you know that.

[KCWolfman]

Actually they are, however there are laws blocking them from getting fresh Embryonic Stem Cells and like any tissue the old stuff loses its versatility and utility for quality research, but I suspect you know that.
Jim, the only viable advances made in the field have been from ADULT stem cells

Adult Cells Trained to Develop as Designed by Scientists (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/30/84930.shtml)

Adult Stem Cells Show as Much Potential As Embryonic (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/21/australia.stemcell/)

Also note, I know of no laws against stem cell research, however many states are considering laws banning the federal and state funding of such projects. If you can give me a specific law BANNING stem cell research, I would love to research it further.

[TenLap]

Actually, MGRS, I find it more vulgar that those who dare to speak their opinion on the topic are lambasted by the left such as Jim and Mark on this thread for not being informed or having the potential to understand the topic.

I understand perfectly. The process has great potential. The potential has not had a single yield in 40 years. The pharmaceuticals and other private companies don't want to spend their billions in research even though there is huge potential for unbelievable returns. Since they won't waste their money, you want me to waste mine - without my permission I might add. And if I have the audacity to mention the above, your side has the nerve to allude to the idea that I am ignorant on the topic.

I wonder why something like that doesn't bother you?

Why would a pharmaceutical company want to develop and sell a product that generates no recurring revenue after the disease has been cured? Governments would also mandate price caps so it could be accessible by poor folks.

It's a much better business model to focus on long-term treatments of conditions rather than cures.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Someone who objects to something based on "moral grounds" when they're really just completely uninformed sounds like a pretty strong candidate for the "ignorant" label, yes.

And someone like myself who is informed and still objects on moral grounds isn't a candidate for such a label. People who label others simply because they believe differently than oneself are eligible for the intolerant bigoted dumbass label.

[skye22f]

KCWolfman,

You (and these athletes in the ad) would seem a lot less disengenuous if you would just come out and admit the real reason you are against any kind of stem cell research.

It's not that "it's not viable science" (you don't know anything about science, you're the guy that thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't happen.) It's not that "taking eggs can hurt a lot." It's got nothing to do with government funding.

There's 1 reason, and only 1 reason at all that any of you care about this and that reason is totally unrelated to any logical arguments. It's everyone's favorite imaginary friend!

<img src='http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8814/jesusliberal1164x295td5.jpg'>

So just admit that you're not actually using (or listening to) logic. You don't know the difference between totipotent and pluripotent, hell, you don't know anything at all about science. It's all about the big J, that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

So do us all a favor and just come out of the closet. Thx.

[CHIEF4EVER]

KCWolfman,

You (and these athletes in the ad) would seem a lot less disengenuous if you would just come out and admit the real reason you are against any kind of stem cell research.

It's not that "it's not viable science" (you don't know anything about science, you're the guy that thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't happen.) It's not that "taking eggs can hurt a lot." It's got nothing to do with government funding.

There's 1 reason, and only 1 reason at all that any of you care about this and that reason is totally unrelated to any logical arguments. It's everyone's favorite imaginary friend!

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8814/jesusliberal1164x295td5.jpg

So just admit that you're not actually using (or listening to) logic. You don't know the difference between totipotent and pluripotent, hell, you don't know anything at all about science. It's all about the big J, that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

So do us all a favor and just come out of the closet. Thx.

Read the post just prior to yours. The label mentioned there fits you perfectly.

[patteeu]

KCWolfman,

You (and these athletes in the ad) would seem a lot less disengenuous if you would just come out and admit the real reason you are against any kind of stem cell research.

It's not that "it's not viable science" (you don't know anything about science, you're the guy that thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't happen.) It's not that "taking eggs can hurt a lot." It's got nothing to do with government funding.

There's 1 reason, and only 1 reason at all that any of you care about this and that reason is totally unrelated to any logical arguments. It's everyone's favorite imaginary friend!

<img src='http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8814/jesusliberal1164x295td5.jpg'>

So just admit that you're not actually using (or listening to) logic. You don't know the difference between totipotent and pluripotent, hell, you don't know anything at all about science. It's all about the big J, that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

So do us all a favor and just come out of the closet. Thx.


My money is on the proposition that you don't know anything beyond what you can google about totipotent and pluripotent either.

Wolfman is a pretty sharp fellow. I wouldn't underestimate him. It may be true (I don't know) that his opposition to ESCR in general and this amendment in particular is based on his personal religious beliefs, but that shouldn't limit his participation in other parts of the debate. If he wants to win the hearts and minds of swing voters who aren't moved by religious arguments, it's perfectly reasonable for him to address the practical implications of ESCR (and the grandiose claims of proponents).

[CHIEF4EVER]

My money is on the proposition that you don't know anything beyond what you can google about totipotent and pluripotent either.

Wolfman is a pretty sharp fellow. I wouldn't underestimate him. It may be true (I don't know) that his opposition to ESCR in general and this amendment in particular is based on his personal religious beliefs, but that shouldn't limit his participation in other parts of the debate. If he wants to win the hearts and minds of swing voters who aren't moved by religious arguments, it's perfectly reasonable for him to address the practical implications of ESCR (and the grandiose claims of proponents).

Congratulations on your 13000th post. And a good one it was, sir. :clap:

[skye22f]

Read the post just prior to yours. The label mentioned there fits you perfectly.

You don't object because you're informed you don't object because of any of the facts or any good reasons.

You object because you think the imaginary man that lives in the sky thinks that a sperm + an egg = a whole human being and he told you this in a book written by bronze age goat herders.

You know this is silly, so you say stuff like "it's not viable scientific research" or "it can hurt women."

Why should I respect that? If I told you I made up my mind because the invisible elephant in my garage told me abortion is murder, would you respect that? I wouldn't expect you to!

[Mr. Kotter]

KCWolfman,

You (and these athletes in the ad) would seem a lot less disengenuous if you would just come out and admit the real reason you are against any kind of stem cell research.

It's not that "it's not viable science" (you don't know anything about science, you're the guy that thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't happen.) It's not that "taking eggs can hurt a lot." It's got nothing to do with government funding.

There's 1 reason, and only 1 reason at all that any of you care about this and that reason is totally unrelated to any logical arguments. It's everyone's favorite imaginary friend!

So just admit that you're not actually using (or listening to) logic. You don't know the difference between totipotent and pluripotent, hell, you don't know anything at all about science. It's all about the big J, that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

So do us all a favor and just come out of the closet. Thx.

Russ is a fundamentalist? :spock:

That's news to me. And I've been here long enough that I would think I would know....because true fundies (as opposed to mainstream Christians, and even principaled and devout religious conservatives, who are not fundies....but only classified as such by moonbats looking to disparage them) even scare me. :eek:

[skye22f]

My money is on the proposition that you don't know anything beyond what you can google about totipotent and pluripotent either.

BZZZZZZZ WRONG thx tho

Wolfman is a pretty sharp fellow.

He thinks evolution didn't happen. I would think that that is enough of a demonstration that his finger isn't quite on the pulse of the scientific issues of today.

It may be true (I don't know) that his opposition to ESCR in general and this amendment in particular is based on his personal religious beliefs,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT MAY BE TRUE????

it MAY be true?

Cut the crap, man.

[Mr. Kotter]

You don't object because you're informed you don't object because of any of the facts or any good reasons.

You object because you think the imaginary man that lives in the sky thinks that a sperm + an egg = a whole human being and he told you this in a book written by bronze age goat herders.

You know this is silly, so you say stuff like "it's not viable scientific research" or "it can hurt women."

Why should I respect that? If I told you I made up my mind because the invisible elephant in my garage told me abortion is murder, would you respect that? I wouldn't expect you to!


Interesting perspective.

And impressive. Impressive only in the sense that such 'tolerance' (from someone who surely espouses open-minded acceptance of the beliefs, values, and moral conviction of others.....when those beliefs, values, and moral convictions are rooted in secular humanism, hedonistic nihilism, or arrogant narcissism) exposes the narrow-minded hypocrisy that you so loathe in others.

[patteeu]

Congratulations on your 13000th post. And a good one it was, sir. :clap:

Thx. :)

[skye22f]

Interesting perspective.

And impressive. Impressive only in the sense that such 'tolerance' (from someone who surely espouses open-minded acceptance of the beliefs, values, and moral conviction of others.....when those beliefs, values, and moral convictions are rooted in secular humanism, hedonistic nihilism, or arrogant narcissism) exposes the narrow-minded hypocrisy that you so loathe in others.

So if you tell me you decide your political viewpoints based on what leprechauns from your basement tell you, I'm supposed to respect that? "I make up my mind based on what supernatural beings tell me!"

I DO tolerate it, though. I'm not saying you should be exterminated or anything, you can think and say what you want, but I'm sure not going to take anything you have to say seriously.

EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT POLITICS AND SCIENCE I LEARNED FROM BRONZE AGE GOAT HERDERS.

[CHIEF4EVER]

You don't object because you're informed you don't object because of any of the facts or any good reasons.

I suppose you know better than I do if I am informed or not.:rolleyes:

Dumbass.

You object because you think the imaginary man that lives in the sky thinks that a sperm + an egg = a whole human being and he told you this in a book written by bronze age goat herders.

I won't even respond to this type of fishing. Not that any response I would give would be even remotely intelligible to a dumbass like you.

You know this is silly, so you say stuff like "it's not viable scientific research" or "it can hurt women."

I KNOW this is silly? What is silly and why? Whatever YOU say is silly and because YOU said so? Let me help you.....I never said "it's not viable scientific research" or "it can hurt women", YOU said I did. Learn how to read dumbass.

Why should I respect that? If I told you I made up my mind because the invisible elephant in my garage told me abortion is murder, would you respect that?

Actually, yes. I may disagree with your belief but I would respect it.

Intolerant bigoted dumbass.

[skye22f]

I suppose you know better than I do if I am informed or not.

I don't know anything about you. Seriously. Don't know your username, don't know your political beliefs. But because of your rather goofy stance on this hot-button issue I would lay 3-1 at minimum that you are into the whole Jesus thing.

Am I right?

Because almost everyone on one side of this issue is Christian. They didn't make up their minds because of anything logical.

What, do you think Kurt Warner or Jeff Suppan know jack shit about scientific research? Are the reasons they spout off in that ad they made the reasons they are REALLY against this? That was my original point- that they can say reason after reason, but that's disingenuous- the real reason is a mythical being.

Why can't they just come out and say it?

Actually, yes. I may disagree with your belief but I would respect it.

No you wouldn't. You would think it's silly and delusional, because it obviously is.

[patteeu]

BZZZZZZZ WRONG thx tho

Don't expect me to take your word for it. :rolleyes:

He thinks evolution didn't happen. I would think that that is enough of a demonstration that his finger isn't quite on the pulse of the scientific issues of today.

Link? KC Wolfman seems to be a pretty devout Catholic. No less an authority than Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution is not incompatible with Catholic faith.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA IT MAY BE TRUE????

it MAY be true?

Cut the crap, man.

I don't doubt that Wolfman has moral problems with ESCR. It MAY be true that these are his ONLY real objections (but I do doubt that).

I'm starting to think that the only reason you (presumably) support ESCR is to stick it in the eye of religious folks who have moral objections to it.

[CHIEF4EVER]

I'm starting to think that the only reason you (presumably) support ESCR is to stick it in the eye of religious folks who have moral objections to it.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

[skye22f]

Link? KC Wolfman seems to be a total retard. No less an authority than Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution is not incompatible with Catholic faith.

Read this fun thread
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111792

"Really? So one cell decided to become a fish and another decided to stay a single cell? And there is proof of this?"

Later he basically busts out the brilliant "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?"

Thank Jebus for tiptap saving the day later in that thread, guy is very bright and has some patience.

[Logical]

I don't know anything about you. Seriously. Don't know your username, don't know your political beliefs. But because of your rather goofy stance on this hot-button issue I would lay 3-1 at minimum that you are into the whole Jesus thing.

Am I right?

Because almost everyone on one side of this issue is Christian. They didn't make up their minds because of anything logical.

What, do you think Kurt Warner or Jeff Suppan know jack shit about scientific research? Are the reasons they spout off in that ad they made the reasons they are REALLY against this? That was my original point- that they can say reason after reason, but that's disingenuous- the real reason is a mythical being.

Why can't they just come out and say it?



No you wouldn't. You would think it's silly and delusional, because it obviously is.

You nailed it

[Mr. Kotter]

So if you tell me you decide your political viewpoints based on what leprechauns from your basement tell you, I'm supposed to respect that? "I make up my mind based on what supernatural beings tell me!"

I DO tolerate it, though. I'm not saying you should be exterminated or anything, you can think and say what you want, but I'm sure not going to take anything you have to say seriously.

EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT POLITICS AND SCIENCE I LEARNED FROM BRONZE AGE GOAT HERDERS.

If you really believe Christians think like that....seriously, you really believe that....

You are truly....and I do mean, truly....a complete moron.

[irishjayhawk]

I thought with any form of Stem Cell Research the only way we have to go is up.

Is this not the case?

[patteeu]

Read this fun thread
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111792

"Really? So one cell decided to become a fish and another decided to stay a single cell? And there is proof of this?"

Later he basically busts out the brilliant "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?"

Thank Jebus for tiptap saving the day later in that thread, guy is very bright and has some patience.

I scanned through the thread you linked. I didn't read it completely because of it's length so maybe I missed the smoking gun. I'm not sure your characterization of what Wolfman was saying is accurate. It sounds to me like he was countering the argument that evolution is known fact, not that he believes that all forms of evolution are fantasy. He's expressing skepticism, but he doesn't appear to be taking the position that he knows that evolution did not occur. I'll leave it up to him to clarify if he wants to.

[irishjayhawk]

If you really believe Christians think like that....seriously, you really believe that....

You are truly....and I do mean, truly....a complete moron.
It may not be to his extreme, but you would be hard pressed to say political and scientific views are NOT, by any means, influenced by the Church, belief in God, or otherwise influenced by religion. Am I wrong?

[patteeu]

It may not be to his extreme, but you would be hard pressed to say political and scientific views are NOT, by any means, influenced by the Church, belief in God, or otherwise influenced by religion. Am I wrong?

That's true, but it's just as true of secularists as it is of religious people. In both groups, there are some devout extremists and some who are less influenced by their respective "dogmas."

[Mr. Kotter]

It may not be to his extreme, but you would be hard pressed to say political and scientific views are NOT, by any means, influenced by the Church, belief in God, or otherwise influenced by religion. Am I wrong?

Influenced? Depends on what you mean I suppose.

Kinda like how some moonbat liberals are "influenced" by utopian visions of equality and brotherhood that are rooted in ignorant and misguided notions of human nature that have been, and are, discredited everyday by millions of people.

[Ultra Peanut]

EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT POLITICS AND SCIENCE I LEARNED FROM BRONZE AGE GOAT HERDERS.I need that on a bumper sticker.

[irishjayhawk]

Can someone please tell me if I am wrong in assuming that the only way we can go, in terms of stem cell research, is up. I mean, we can only explore possibilities even if they're remote? Right.

Someone please fill me in.

[Pitt Gorilla]

ROFL

Wow, Kurt Warner and Mike Sweeney don't want us to be fooled. Yet, they have no problem fooling their employers into giving them billions of dollars to do nothing. These guys must be pretty slick salesmen. Then again, their targets might just buy anything.

[Mr. Kotter]

Can someone please tell me if I am wrong in assuming that the only way we can go, in terms of stem cell research, is up. I mean, we can only explore possibilities even if they're remote? Right.

Someone please fill me in.I'd try to help you....except, I agree with you mostly. The only real point I'd offer is it shouldn't be funded by government...but rather entirely by private business. :shrug:

Of course, sky and others just assume all Christians oppose it--and that they do so on religious grounds. However, people who aren't sure of the benefits of a proposal tend to oppose it--it's the nature of the beast.

Most of the opposition has as much (or more) to do with government involvement, the uncertain prospects for success, and the ambiguity and public ignorance on the issue---rather than religious objections. Yet many supporters of the proposal (who are ignorant themselves) just assume that opposition is religiously based: that is an assupmption that sky, and others, are wrongly making.

[patteeu]

I need that on a bumper sticker.

You're gonna need a Pacer for that one.

[skye22f]

Yet many supporters of the proposal (who are ignorant themselves) just assume that opposition is religiously based: that is an assupmption that sky, and others, are wrongly making.

Every single person in that response ad is a devout Christian. Jesus Caviezel, Jeff Suppan (Catholic), Kurt Warner (fundie), Patricia Heaton (Catholic), Mike Sweeney (fundie.)

Coincidence? I don't think so. These people aren't objecting because of "poor women being seduced into egg sales" (which I think is a right they should have if they want to sell their eggs it's not my business), they aren't objecting because "the science just won't work" (because they don't know anything about science.) They're objecting because of their imaginary sky friends!

Why can't they just say so?

[Logical]

Every single person in that response ad is a devout Christian. Jesus Caviezel, Jeff Suppan (Catholic), Kurt Warner (fundie), Patricia Heaton (Catholic), Mike Sweeney (fundie.)

Coincidence? I don't think so. These people aren't objecting because of "poor women being seduced into egg sales" (which I think is a right they should have if they want to sell their eggs it's not my business), they aren't objecting because "the science just won't work" (because they don't know anything about science.) They're objecting because of their imaginary sky friends!

Why can't they just say so?

Simple, because the cannot deceive the public like Christians have been doing for centuries to get what they want. Christians are master manipulators and liars. They are not bad when it comes to being killers either.

[Mr. Kotter]

Simple, because the cannot deceive the public like Christians have been doing for centuries to get what they want. Christians are master manipulators and liars. They are not bad when it comes to being killers either.There was a time when you appeared to be a reasonable and rational guy, Jim--even when we disagreed.

The irony of your screen name grows every time you post glittering generalities, or similar such propagandizing bull shit, like that.

It's become quite sad, actually. :shake:

[Logical]

There was a time when you appeared to be a reasonable and rational guy, Jim--even when we disagreed.

The irony of your screen name grows every time you post glittering generalities, or similar such propagandizing bull shit, like that.

It's become quite sad, actually. :shake:


Do you see the word ALL in my post? No, that is because my statement is true of a great many Christians but not all. You made the assumption of generality, I did not.

[Mr. Kotter]

Do you see the word ALL in my post? No, that is because my statement is true of a great many Christians but not all. You made the assumption of generality, I did not.When you use the word "Christians" without ANY qualifier, the implication is clear to people who speak English....you mean most, if not all.

In any event, it doesn't change much. You wish to attribute regrettable actions and qualities of a lunatic fringe....to, in your words, "a great many"....which is nearly as ridiculous as saying "all."

Yet, I suspect you'd be one of the first to condemn anyone doing the same thing with Muslims... :rolleyes:

[Mark M]

So let me get this straight --

The Christopher Reeves Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, American Diabetes Foundation, Lupus Foundation, and all <a href="http://www.missouricures.com/coalition.php">the others</a> are now "liberal" organizations, according to KCWolfman.

Also, since they haven't found a breakthrough yet, we should give up. I guess we shouldn't use tax dollars to fund cancer research, ALS, diabetes, or other such diseases either, since they've been trying to cure those longer but have had no success.

And if we get to pick and choose where our tax dollars go in terms of funding, then I guess I should be able to tell them to stop using mine for reasearching a ricockulous missle defense shield.

Did I miss anything?

MM
~~:rolleyes:

[Mark M]

I have a degenerative spinal disorder. Part of that includes disks that dry up, causing the vertebrae to mash together. There really is no way to explain the pain one feels when you've had three vertebrae crunched together and pinching (and, in my case, severing) several nerves.

This condition is the reason I have six titanium screws and twelve titanium rods in my back. Part of that also includes what is -- for now, at least -- irreversible nerve damage. Currently, there's a strip across my lower back and upper ass that's completely numb. While that may come in handy if I'm ever sent to prison, it's not such a great thing right now, mainly because if I sit too long, I don't realize how much pain I'm in until I stand up.

It also causes a few other things, like waking up in the morning feeling as though someone's beaten me in my back with a baseball bat, repeatedly, for several hours. It's why I don't know if a 45-minute trip to the grocery store will end up with me feeling as though a red-hot chainsaw is cutting my left leg open from the inside out. It's why a trip to a Chiefs game ends not with the usual disappointment at the team's crappy play, but with the sensation of being stabbed through my right hip with a spear the size of an oil drum.

And it's also why I have to look into <a href="http://www.thoushallnotsuck.com/wp-content/redeyerangerwithhistoy.jpg">this face</a> and tell him that, "No, Dada cannot play airplane, or pick you up, or put you to bed, or give you a bath, or, in the future, show you how to hit a curveball, or push you on your bike, or even guarantee that I won't show up for your high school graduation in a wheelchair, assuming I can even get out of bed."

So when I keep reading and hearing people saying that embryonic stem cell research is giving people "false hope," or that we should just give up because it hasn't worked yet, the first response I can come up with is, "**** you."

To take even the option off the table is an insult to millions of us, even if it only has a small chance of working. And to do so because of some religious hangup, rather than on scientific grounds, is even more insulting.

There simply aren't enough options out there for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and a host of other maladies that affect countless Americans to start picking and choosing which ones we should or shouldn't fund. So when some group (read: the religious right) wants to take even one of those options away, all they are doing is crushing what for some may be the only hope they have.

Is it a false hope? Again, no one knows. And anyone who claims they do is lying.

But if the likes of Jim Talent, some of the people on this thead, and every single church I pass every single day have their way, we'll <em>never</em> know.

And that's just not right.

MM
~~:shake:

[Mr. Kotter]

So let me get this straight --

The Christopher Reeves Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, American Diabetes Foundation, Lupus Foundation, and all the others (http://www.missouricures.com/coalition.php) are now "liberal" organizations, according to KCWolfman.

Also, since they haven't found a breakthrough yet, we should give up. I guess we shouldn't use tax dollars to fund cancer research, ALS, diabetes, or other such diseases either, since they've been trying to cure those longer but have had no success.

And if we get to pick and choose where our tax dollars go in terms of funding, then I guess I should be able to tell them to stop using mine for reasearching a ricockulous missle defense shield.

Did I miss anything?

MM
~~:rolleyes:I haven't read all of KCWolf's posts on the topic....so I don't know....I can't imagine he begrudges responsible government efforts and funding of reasearch that has been proven to be promising. I'm not sure we can lump stem cell research in with the "other" stuff you've mentioned; at least not yet.

I think many people just want more of a private effort, first, before we involve too much effort and money from the government. If such research becomes more promising than it is, currently....then will be the time to consider more of a concerted effort and expenditure on research that many consider very speculative, even if possibly promising....at this point.

EDIT:
I'm truly sorry for your condition, and hope with you that we will soon be able to better treat your condition. The question is, at what point does such research deserve money and effort of limited government resources....at the expense of other worthy causes. There no easy answer to that question--at least until the research becomes more promising that it seems to be presently.

[Mark M]

I'm truly sorry for your condition, and hope with you that we will soon be able to better treat your condition. The question is, at what point does such research deserve money and effort of limited government resources....at the expense of other worthy causes. There no easy answer to that question--at least until the research becomes more promising that it seems to be presently.

First of all, thanks.

To be honest, I wish I had an answer.

I would LOVE for the private sector to be able to pay for ALL research for ALL diseases. Gawd knows one-half of one fiscal quarter's worth of Exxon's profits could come close to funding all stem cell research for years.

But the big pharma seems more interested in hawking medicine for bouncy legs and dry eyes than they do in providing the money needed to find truly life altering cures. And that's the problem, IMHO.

When these companies main concern is their shareholder's equity, then everything else seems to take a back seat -- they want to find the next hot pill with the highest profit margin. That's why federal funding for this type of research is so vital.

Again, IMHO.

MM
~~:shrug:

[Logical]

When you use the word "Christians" without ANY qualifier, the implication is clear to people who speak English....you mean most, if not all.

In any event, it doesn't change much. You wish to attribute regrettable actions and qualities of a lunatic fringe....to, in your words, "a great many"....which is nearly as ridiculous as saying "all."

Yet, I suspect you'd be one of the first to condemn anyone doing the same thing with Muslims... :rolleyes:
Where do you see the words "a great many" in my post?
Simple, because the cannot deceive the public like Christians have been doing for centuries to get what they want. Christians are master manipulators and liars. They are not bad when it comes to being killers either.
You don't, you put that in the meaning yourself. Only in defense of being accused of the generality did I add a great many and over history that statement is certainly true. Feeling guilty about your cohorts Rob?

[Logical]

Mark,

I think you presented the case very elegantly and with incredible clarity. I truly hope for the best for you by the way and think that you have hope. Best to you and your family.

[Mr. Kotter]

Where do you see the words "a great many" in my post?

You don't, you put that in the meaning yourself. Only in defense of being accused of the generality did I add a great many and over history that statement is certainly true. Feeling guilty about your cohorts Rob?Okay.... :spock:

My. I guess you are tired....it was in your follow-up post....Do you see the word ALL in my post? No, that is because my statement is true of a great many Christians but not all. You made the assumption of generality, I did not.That you included it in your follow-up speaks clearly of your intentions.

Provocation and mischief I've come to expect from you--and I actually enjoy it sometimes. This disingenuous evasion and transparent squirming, on the other hand.....not so much. It's not becoming.

EDIT:
FWIW, if you had simply said...."I meant, some Christians have, in the past...." or "I should have qualified that...."

But, of course, then you'd have to admit you misspoke. Heaven, forbid! Er....eh, you know what I mean. Heh. :)

[PunkinDrublic]

Science is da debil.

[KCWolfman]

Why would a pharmaceutical company want to develop and sell a product that generates no recurring revenue after the disease has been cured? Governments would also mandate price caps so it could be accessible by poor folks.

It's a much better business model to focus on long-term treatments of conditions rather than cures.
You mean like the vaccines they produce?

[KCWolfman]

KCWolfman,

You (and these athletes in the ad) would seem a lot less disengenuous if you would just come out and admit the real reason you are against any kind of stem cell research.

It's not that "it's not viable science" (you don't know anything about science, you're the guy that thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't happen.) It's not that "taking eggs can hurt a lot." It's got nothing to do with government funding.

There's 1 reason, and only 1 reason at all that any of you care about this and that reason is totally unrelated to any logical arguments. It's everyone's favorite imaginary friend!

<img src='http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8814/jesusliberal1164x295td5.jpg'>

So just admit that you're not actually using (or listening to) logic. You don't know the difference between totipotent and pluripotent, hell, you don't know anything at all about science. It's all about the big J, that's where it starts and that's where it ends.

So do us all a favor and just come out of the closet. Thx.

Sky - I love people like you who post for the left. You make the intolerant idiots look like social geniuses at a rainbow mixer.

When have I ever stated the world is 6,000 years old? When have I mentioned Christianity at all regarding this topic? Believe me, if discarded fetal cells would make Michael Fox stop shaking or Steven Hawkins walk, or you use more vision than your blinders have allowed, then I would support the process.

Until you know what you speak of, you need to mature before you speak. Thanks

[KCWolfman]

I scanned through the thread you linked. I didn't read it completely because of it's length so maybe I missed the smoking gun. I'm not sure your characterization of what Wolfman was saying is accurate. It sounds to me like he was countering the argument that evolution is known fact, not that he believes that all forms of evolution are fantasy. He's expressing skepticism, but he doesn't appear to be taking the position that he knows that evolution did not occur. I'll leave it up to him to clarify if he wants to.
Thank you. Sky has obvious clarification issues - his attitude is proof enough.

I have stated that macroevolution is simply not proven. I believe microevolution has occured and does occur today. When there is definitive proof of MACROevolution, then I will gladly take it as a fact.

Sky can handle shades of gray, either you are an extreme liberal wacko or you are Christian fundamentalist to him. There is no inbetween.

[KCWolfman]

Can someone please tell me if I am wrong in assuming that the only way we can go, in terms of stem cell research, is up. I mean, we can only explore possibilities even if they're remote? Right.

Someone please fill me in.
Sure, I just don't want my tax dollars wasted on pie in the sky research - such as the impending ice age that was foretold when I was a kid and the government funding for that research.

I don't want stem cell research to be banned. I want it left in the hands of private companies, where it belongs. If they believe it is viable, they will find a way long before the government.

I recommend you google Dr. Suk and stem cell research. He convinced his nation to think like you do. Then he scammed 30 million from his country for bogus research.

[KCWolfman]

ROFL

Wow, Kurt Warner and Mike Sweeney don't want us to be fooled. Yet, they have no problem fooling their employers into giving them billions of dollars to do nothing. These guys must be pretty slick salesmen. Then again, their targets might just buy anything.
Yeah, because people like Michael J. Fox have a vested interest in the state of Missouri. He is no salesman, is he?

[KCWolfman]

So let me get this straight --

The Christopher Reeves Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, American Diabetes Foundation, Lupus Foundation, and all <a href="http://www.missouricures.com/coalition.php">the others</a> are now "liberal" organizations, according to KCWolfman.

Also, since they haven't found a breakthrough yet, we should give up. I guess we shouldn't use tax dollars to fund cancer research, ALS, diabetes, or other such diseases either, since they've been trying to cure those longer but have had no success.

And if we get to pick and choose where our tax dollars go in terms of funding, then I guess I should be able to tell them to stop using mine for reasearching a ricockulous missle defense shield.

Did I miss anything?

MM
~~:rolleyes:
Yup, it looks as though you missed a great deal.

First of all, you failed to acknowledge your initial mistake in stating the research has only been ongoing for a decade.

Secondly, I never stated research should stop

Third, there have been cures and treatments for cancers, you are wrong there as well

Fourth, a new pill is being introduced and approved by the FDA for diabetes - Guess what, some people will never have to take another shot.

Fifth - You mention diseases, not supposed cures like stem cells. What would have been more appropriate would have been to say "I guess we should stop research in bleeding for infections, and stop funding people to sleep in good air instead of bad to cure their pneumonia. We should also stop paying barbers to be physicians". These are more of the supposed cures that never worked either.

This can go on and on, Mark. I am sorry you suffer, truly. But with no net results to show for 40 years of research, aren't you the least little bit skeptical about the supposed cure?

[KCWolfman]

I have a degenerative spinal disorder. Part of that includes disks that dry up, causing the vertebrae to mash together. There really is no way to explain the pain one feels when you've had three vertebrae crunched together and pinching (and, in my case, severing) several nerves.

This condition is the reason I have six titanium screws and twelve titanium rods in my back. Part of that also includes what is -- for now, at least -- irreversible nerve damage. Currently, there's a strip across my lower back and upper ass that's completely numb. While that may come in handy if I'm ever sent to prison, it's not such a great thing right now, mainly because if I sit too long, I don't realize how much pain I'm in until I stand up.

It also causes a few other things, like waking up in the morning feeling as though someone's beaten me in my back with a baseball bat, repeatedly, for several hours. It's why I don't know if a 45-minute trip to the grocery store will end up with me feeling as though a red-hot chainsaw is cutting my left leg open from the inside out. It's why a trip to a Chiefs game ends not with the usual disappointment at the team's crappy play, but with the sensation of being stabbed through my right hip with a spear the size of an oil drum.

And it's also why I have to look into <a href="http://www.thoushallnotsuck.com/wp-content/redeyerangerwithhistoy.jpg">this face</a> and tell him that, "No, Dada cannot play airplane, or pick you up, or put you to bed, or give you a bath, or, in the future, show you how to hit a curveball, or push you on your bike, or even guarantee that I won't show up for your high school graduation in a wheelchair, assuming I can even get out of bed."

So when I keep reading and hearing people saying that embryonic stem cell research is giving people "false hope," or that we should just give up because it hasn't worked yet, the first response I can come up with is, "**** you."

To take even the option off the table is an insult to millions of us, even if it only has a small chance of working. And to do so because of some religious hangup, rather than on scientific grounds, is even more insulting.

There simply aren't enough options out there for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and a host of other maladies that affect countless Americans to start picking and choosing which ones we should or shouldn't fund. So when some group (read: the religious right) wants to take even one of those options away, all they are doing is crushing what for some may be the only hope they have.

Is it a false hope? Again, no one knows. And anyone who claims they do is lying.

But if the likes of Jim Talent, some of the people on this thead, and every single church I pass every single day have their way, we'll <em>never</em> know.

And that's just not right.

MM
~~:shake:
Who said anything about taking it off the table. Private research can continue with no problem.

More importantly, when you attempt to attach emotions to laws, you have lost the battle.

Fo example: You don't want just want research to continue, you want to take money from me and MY CHILDREN (all six of them) to gamble on a product that has shown no dividends whatsoever.

[Logical]

Okay.... :spock:

My. I guess you are tired....it was in your follow-up post....That you included it in your follow-up speaks clearly of your intentions.

Provocation and mischief I've come to expect from you--and I actually enjoy it sometimes. This disingenuous evasion and transparent squirming, on the other hand.....not so much. It's not becoming.

EDIT:
FWIW, if you had simply said...."I meant, some Christians have, in the past...." or "I should have qualified that...."

But, of course, then you'd have to admit you misspoke. Heaven, forbid! Er....eh, you know what I mean. Heh. :)
I guess you don't read if things are not in bold or emphasized with color.
Originally Posted by Logical
Where do you see the words "a great many" in my post?

You don't, you put that in the meaning yourself. Only in defense of being accused of the generality did I add a great many and over history that statement is certainly true. Feeling guilty about your cohorts Rob?

[irishjayhawk]

Sure, I just don't want my tax dollars wasted on pie in the sky research - such as the impending ice age that was foretold when I was a kid and the government funding for that research.

I don't want stem cell research to be banned. I want it left in the hands of private companies, where it belongs. If they believe it is viable, they will find a way long before the government.

I recommend you google Dr. Suk and stem cell research. He convinced his nation to think like you do. Then he scammed 30 million from his country for bogus research.

I tend to still be on the fence, but when I see many tax dollars being wasted on pork, the (pointless) war in Iraq, and many other stupid things, I tend to wonder whether the money couldn't be going to a better cause. You know, say medical research or space funding.

However, with our current President running us into more and more debt, I don't think any of this is feasible in a long while.

[Logical]

I tend to still be on the fence, but when I see many tax dollars being wasted on pork, the (pointless) war in Iraq, and many other stupid things, I tend to wonder whether the money couldn't be going to a better cause. You know, say medical research or space funding.

However, with our current President running us into more and more debt, I don't think any of this is feasible in a long while.
Certainly Stem Cell research is more promising than the occupation in Iraq. At least there is some hope of success.

[patteeu]

Simple, because the cannot deceive the public like Christians have been doing for centuries to get what they want. Christians are master manipulators and liars. They are not bad when it comes to being killers either.

Were you molested by a priest when you were a kid? Just wondering.

[patteeu]

Where do you see the words "a great many" in my post?

Only in defense of being accused of the generality did I add a great many...?

ROFL

[Mark M]

Yup, it looks as though you missed a great deal.

First of all, you failed to acknowledge your initial mistake in stating the research has only been ongoing for a decade.

Secondly, I never stated research should stop

Third, there have been cures and treatments for cancers, you are wrong there as well

Fourth, a new pill is being introduced and approved by the FDA for diabetes - Guess what, some people will never have to take another shot.

Fifth - You mention diseases, not supposed cures like stem cells. What would have been more appropriate would have been to say "I guess we should stop research in bleeding for infections, and stop funding people to sleep in good air instead of bad to cure their pneumonia. We should also stop paying barbers to be physicians". These are more of the supposed cures that never worked either.

This can go on and on, Mark. I am sorry you suffer, truly. But with no net results to show for 40 years of research, aren't you the least little bit skeptical about the supposed cure?

First of all, for you to criticize someone else for not admitting when they are wrong is pretty funny.

Second of all, in the post you supposedly corrected, I said embryonic stem cells. The research you are discussing is stem cells in general.

I could go on, but I have to get to work. I could point out that ALS still has no cure, nor does the common freakin' cold. Yet they've been trying for years, so my point still stands -- just because you don't find a cure in a few decades doesn't mean you stop trying.

Anyway, I'll try to come back later tonight.

MM
~~:)

[Mr. Kotter]

ROFL
Yeah, only a "master" debater would see a distinction between what he said, and what he claims to have meant....in other words, someone who's far removed from reality.

For me (and most logical folks) the difference isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. :shake:

[tiptap]

Just to get this straight.

The admendment is unambiguous about the source of blastulas would be the surplus donated blastulas of infertility medical processes. That is couples seeking to have a baby have blastulas that will not be introduced to a women.

The admendment forbids the production of blastulas for research alone.

The minimal cost to the couple for infertility process is in the neighborhood of 29,000 dollars. This cost is prior to any involvement of request for donation for research. It is only after the donation is made of the blastula that compensation of expenses going forward can be made. They are not guaranteed just allowed for. That would be the expenses of the parents signing legal document including the time taken away from their jobs to do so, the expense from then on for the maintanence of the blastula and the transfer of the material. The donor is no longer responsible for the financial burden going forward.

I just don't see how any compensation going to the donor will even approach the expense of the original infertility process.

The arguments for seeing the private industry do this research is the inpetus for the admendment. The industry wants a fair and clear atmosphere for such studies before they can proceed. And they know the atmosphere in purely political venues such as Jefferson City on such a hot issue can lead to untimely delays and even non action.
They need a firm status to justify the investment.

Here is a straight up or down vote on whether you will allow the climate for such research to go forward in Missouri. The limits where embryonic stem research material can come from. That source is assured to be one that can not see any financial gain. It is the conviction of the donor to the merits of the research that such material is gained.

[patteeu]

Just to get this straight.

The admendment is unambiguous about the source of blastulas would be the surplus donated blastulas of infertility medical processes. That is couples seeking to have a baby have blastulas that will not be introduced to a women.

The admendment forbids the production of blastulas for research alone.

The minimal cost to the couple for infertility process is in the neighborhood of 29,000 dollars. This cost is prior to any involvement of request for donation for research. It is only after the donation is made of the blastula that compensation of expenses going forward can be made. They are not guaranteed just allowed for. That would be the expenses of the parents signing legal document including the time taken away from their jobs to do so, the expense from then on for the maintanence of the blastula and the transfer of the material. The donor is no longer responsible for the financial burden going forward.

I just don't see how any compensation going to the donor will even approach the expense of the original infertility process.

The arguments for seeing the private industry do this research is the inpetus for the admendment. The industry wants a fair and clear atmosphere for such studies before they can proceed. And they know the atmosphere in purely political venues such as Jefferson City on such a hot issue can lead to untimely delays and even non action.
They need a firm status to justify the investment.

Here is a straight up or down vote on whether you will allow the climate for such research to go forward in Missouri. The limits where embryonic stem research material can come from. That source is assured to be one that can not see any financial gain. It is the conviction of the donor to the merits of the research that such material is gained.

If you want to "get this straight," you're gonna have to try again.

[skye22f]

If you want to "get this straight," you're gonna have to try again.

Great rebuttal! You really addressed his points!

[patteeu]

Great rebuttal! You really addressed his points!

I've already addressed his point about the limitations he claims are in this amendment (in tiptap's "Stem Cell Research" thread). He just chose not to accept it. The language of the amendment clearly opens loopholes in those limitations that effectively nullify them.

On a different topic, I haven't seen you on either of the Harold Ford, Jr. ad threads, but I think about you when I see the bit about taking money from porn producers:

"So he took money from porn movie producers. I mean, who hasn't? Hahahaha"

[skye22f]

I've already addressed his point about the limitations he claims are in this amendment (in tiptap's "Stem Cell Research" thread). He just chose not to accept it. The language of the amendment clearly opens loopholes in those limitations that effectively nullify them.

On a different topic, I haven't seen you on either of the Harold Ford, Jr. ad threads, but I think about you when I see the bit about taking money from porn producers:

"So he took money from porn movie producers. I mean, who hasn't? Hahahaha"

Dude, I agree with him too. I like money and I like naked women.

One of those ugly asian chicks, the fat goth one, is now a dominatrix in Chicago. She just did some centerfold for some magazine and is doing really well for herself prancing around naked and beating up married 40 year old men (I think that's what they do, **** I don't know.) I think I made a mistake on that one, but honestly that's a big shock to me. Maybe I should have picked up my option.

[patteeu]

Dude, I agree with him too. I like money and I like naked women.

One of those ugly asian chicks, the fat goth one, is now a dominatrix in Chicago. She just did some centerfold for some magazine and is doing really well for herself prancing around naked and beating up married 40 year old men (I think that's what they do, **** I don't know.) I think I made a mistake on that one, but honestly that's a big shock to me. Maybe I should have picked up my option.

It was actually "football and women," but for the record, I agree with both of you. I like money, football, and women, especially naked women.

I'm sure you'll have other opportunities, but I can't blame you for passing on that one. Who'd have thunk it.

[tiptap]

Yup, it looks as though you missed a great deal.

First of all, you failed to acknowledge your initial mistake in stating the research has only been ongoing for a decade.

Secondly, I never stated research should stop

Third, there have been cures and treatments for cancers, you are wrong there as well

Fourth, a new pill is being introduced and approved by the FDA for diabetes - Guess what, some people will never have to take another shot.

Fifth - You mention diseases, not supposed cures like stem cells. What would have been more appropriate would have been to say "I guess we should stop research in bleeding for infections, and stop funding people to sleep in good air instead of bad to cure their pneumonia. We should also stop paying barbers to be physicians". These are more of the supposed cures that never worked either.

This can go on and on, Mark. I am sorry you suffer, truly. But with no net results to show for 40 years of research, aren't you the least little bit skeptical about the supposed cure?


Stem cell cures for the treatment of bone marrow transplants of radiation and chemotherapy patients has been around since 1950s so there are stem cell therapies. But there are no Embryonic Stem Cell therapies because it is only in the 1990's that these materials could be grown in culture.

The pill for the treatment of diabetes is for type 2 diabetes. It is a treatment for the effects of diabetes and not a cure or to say a replacement for unresponsive Isle of Langerham cells in the pancreas. Embryonic stem cells have been 'engineered' to form cells that can produce insulin and have a promise of treating both type 1 and 2. There is still a need for these cells to be responsive to sugar levels in producing their insulin. That is the need for continued research.

The work by the way for this tissue IS a company that is seeking additional investment. The industry does think there is promise.

[Ultra Peanut]

But there are no Embryonic Stem Cell therapies because it is only in the 1990's that these materials could be grown in culture.Science is complicated and takes time?

**** THAT DUTCH NOISE!

[Logical]

Stem cell cures for the treatment of bone marrow transplants of radiation and chemotherapy patients has been around since 1950s so there are stem cell therapies. But there are no Embryonic Stem Cell therapies because it is only in the 1990's that these materials could be grown in culture.

The pill for the treatment of diabetes is for type 2 diabetes. It is a treatment for the effects of diabetes and not a cure or to say a replacement for unresponsive Isle of Langerham cells in the pancreas. Embryonic stem cells have been 'engineered' to form cells that can produce insulin and have a promise of treating both type 1 and 2. There is still a need for these cells to be responsive to sugar levels in producing their insulin. That is the need for continued research.

The work by the way for this tissue IS a company that is seeking additional investment. The industry does think there is promise.

I am glad you addressed this, I have my doubts Russ will accept it but others will be properly informed.

[CHIEF4EVER]

The work by the way for this tissue IS a company that is seeking additional investment. The industry does think there is promise.

Well, then they won't mind getting funding from those who hold so much promise for their work and not leverage it from unwilling American taxpayers, right?

[Logical]

Well, then they won't mind getting funding from those who hold so much promise for their work and not leverage it from unwilling American taxpayers, right?

Are you a willing taxpayer on every issue that your tax money is used, if not this is a pointless argument.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Are you a willing taxpayer on every issue that your tax money is used, if not this is a pointless argument.

Yes Jim, I am. I would have the same position on how my tax moneys are spent regardless of the cause. I have a vested interest in how my money (which is stolen from me IMO) is spent. If not in accordance with how I will it to be spent, I have the right to bitch about it.

[Logical]

Yes Jim, I am. I would have the same position on how my tax moneys are spent regardless of the cause. I have a vested interest in how my money (which is stolen from me IMO) is spent. If not in accordance with how I will it to be spent, I have the right to bitch about it.

Bitch about it yes, but that does not mean that Congress should not fund the research.

[chiefqueen]

And I am sure there are pandering liberals and disabled people nationwide who will gullibly believe that the research into stem cells is a viable piece to their abilities to walk once more - even though there is no proof to the concept whatsoever.

I find more bullshit in the fact that the libs are actually getting up false hope of those permanently disabled in an attempt to further divide the political parties.

Russ, nice to hear from you, and I just want you to know that disabled person will be voting




No

[Logical]

Russ, nice to hear from you, and I just want you to know that disabled person will be voting




No

It might be just the way you wrote this but it sounds like you are implying all disabled people will be voting no. I doubt that was your intent.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Fo example: You don't want just want research to continue, you want to take money from me and MY CHILDREN (all six of them) to gamble on a product that has shown no dividends whatsoever.I think I'd rather it go there than be wasted by Homeland Security ($364 million dollars in the TSA hiring program).

[KCWolfman]

Stem cell cures for the treatment of bone marrow transplants of radiation and chemotherapy patients has been around since 1950s so there are stem cell therapies. But there are no Embryonic Stem Cell therapies because it is only in the 1990's that these materials could be grown in culture.

The pill for the treatment of diabetes is for type 2 diabetes. It is a treatment for the effects of diabetes and not a cure or to say a replacement for unresponsive Isle of Langerham cells in the pancreas. Embryonic stem cells have been 'engineered' to form cells that can produce insulin and have a promise of treating both type 1 and 2. There is still a need for these cells to be responsive to sugar levels in producing their insulin. That is the need for continued research.

The work by the way for this tissue IS a company that is seeking additional investment. The industry does think there is promise.
Fantastic.... Then the industry should fund itself. There is a potential for exponential profit over expense. I am sure they won't mind at all.

[KCWolfman]

I think I'd rather it go there than be wasted by Homeland Security ($364 million dollars in the TSA hiring program).
Bring up the funding issue for homeland security, and I agree with you 100%. If a federal funding amendment comes up for it, I would heartily vote against it.

[chiefqueen]

It might be just the way you wrote this but it sounds like you are implying all disabled people will be voting no. I doubt that was your intent.

No, it wasn't I'm sorry. First off I think the state is going too far by making it a constitutional amendment. Second, the states definition of cloning is too narrow IMO from the full text of the pettition it defines cloning as:

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

Hpwever, the pettition talks about cell division, which sounds similar to cloning and defines it as:

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

According to the pettition cells can be used from blastocust if used within 14 days unless it was frozen in which case no time limit exists. (Isn't cloning really dividing cells so one would have duplicates?)

Here's a link to the full text:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

Mark M, please accept my apology, I did not mean to be or sound callous but I can not support the measure, even if it means always having cerebral palsy and never satisfying my need for speed by getting behind the wheel of a car.

[Mr. Kotter]

It might be just the way you wrote this but it sounds like you are implying all disabled people will be voting no. I doubt that was your intent.What blatant fuggin' hyposcrisy..... ROFLROFLROFL

Check posts 81-90 of this VERY thread.....ROFL

[Logical]

What blatant fuggin' hyposcrisy..... ROFLROFLROFL

Check posts 81-90 of this VERY thread.....ROFLNo it was the grammar. He said

I just want you to know that disabled person will be voting

No



I am pretty sure he meant:



I just want you to know that this disabled person will be voting



No


Rob your poor ability to discern grammar and textual context based on it, makes it amazing to me they ever allowed you to pass the teaching exams.:rolleyes:

[tiptap]

Fantastic.... Then the industry should fund itself. There is a potential for exponential profit over expense. I am sure they won't mind at all.

And admendment 2 does not discuss funding for the research. It does discuss protecting the private investment in such research by a measured and respectful process to allow Embryonic Stem Research to go forward without the interference of the government in Jeff City.

[Mr. Kotter]

No it was the grammar. He said

I just want you to know that disabled person will be voting

No



I am pretty sure he meant:



I just want you to know that this disabled person will be voting



No


Rob your poor ability to discern grammar and textual context based on it, makes it amazing to me they ever allowed you to pass the teaching exams.:rolleyes:You have lost your GD mind. :shake:

That, or your comprehension really sucks.


I'm sorry about that. Seriously. :(

That is all....

FWIW, I maxed the "test." Yes, MAXED the fugger. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jim....:)

[irishjayhawk]

Yes Jim, I am. I would have the same position on how my tax moneys are spent regardless of the cause. I have a vested interest in how my money (which is stolen from me IMO) is spent. If not in accordance with how I will it to be spent, I have the right to bitch about it.

Then what do you say about pork barrel legislation? Is it just a myth or do you condone it?

[Logical]

You have lost your GD mind. :shake:

That, or your comprehension really sucks.


I'm sorry about that. Seriously. :(

That is all....

FWIW, I maxed the "test." Yes, MAXED the fugger. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jim....:)

No wonder educators in the US suck.ROFL

[Mr. Kotter]

No wonder educators in the US suck.ROFL

People who Jim needs to demean this week, in order to make himself feel better about himself:


Christians? Check....

Teachers? Check....

Who's next? Mother Teresa?


:rolleyes:

[Logical]

People who Jim needs to demean this week, in order to make himself feel better about himself:


Christians? Check....

Teachers? Check....

Who's next? Mother Teresa?


:rolleyes:Are you saying Mother Theresa is not a Christian?:p

[CHIEF4EVER]

Then what do you say about pork barrel legislation? Is it just a myth or do you condone it?

Oh, goody, multiple choice. j/k

No, I don't condone pork barrel legislation. Our government, whether Dem or Rep controlled, has grown into a 10,000,000 headed hydra that is out of control. I blame incumbency for that (but that is just my personal opinion). Most of the asshats in Washington DC have been there for waaaaaaaaay too long and have forgotten why they were sent there and who their employers are. Many of them are going to be reminded in a harsh way this November 7th.

End of rant.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Bitch about it yes, but that does not mean that Congress should not fund the research.

And who decides how the money should be spent if it is on the ballot Jim? That's right, you guessed it, people like me...the taxpayers. So not only do I have the right to bitch about it being spent on something I don't want it spent on, I have a voice to deny it being spent where I don't want it to be spent. If I happen to be in the majority on this issue in Missouri, then NO, the money SHOULD NOT be spent by our gubment.

Democracy in action, eh?

(At least in Missouri and NOT in the Peoples Republic of California) :p

[chiefqueen]

It might be just the way you wrote this but it sounds like you are implying all disabled people will be voting no. I doubt that was your intent.

It is amazing what a good night's sleep will do. You are right, I forgot to add the word "this". I did not notice it until now.

Sorry about that.

[patteeu]

No it was the grammar. He said

I just want you to know that disabled person will be voting

No



I am pretty sure he meant:



I just want you to know that this disabled person will be voting



No


Rob your poor ability to discern grammar and textual context based on it, makes it amazing to me they ever allowed you to pass the teaching exams.:rolleyes:

In defense of the teacher, the normal, English-language implication of your statement in post 80 was exactly what Mr. Kotter said it was. You may have been thinking "some" but what you implied was "all" or at least "enough of a majority to make it a rule."

Chiefqueen's post was obviously missing something, but your interpretation is the less reasonable interpretation, IMO. At best (from your POV) Chiefqueen was going for a nonstandard usage of the language (either a Jim Romish "disabled person" as in the plural or a nonstandard "persons" with a typo leaving off the "s"). The more reasonable interpretation both because of the context and because of the use of the standard singular "person" is that Chiefqueen left out a word like "this" or "a" in front of "person."

[patteeu]

You have lost your GD mind. :shake:

That, or your comprehension really sucks.


I'm sorry about that. Seriously. :(

That is all....

FWIW, I maxed the "test." Yes, MAXED the fugger. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jim....:)

You owned him in this thread on the grammar issue, Mr. Kotter.

[KCWolfman]

And who decides how the money should be spent if it is on the ballot Jim? That's right, you guessed it, people like me...the taxpayers. So not only do I have the right to bitch about it being spent on something I don't want it spent on, I have a voice to deny it being spent where I don't want it to be spent. If I happen to be in the majority on this issue in Missouri, then NO, the money SHOULD NOT be spent by our gubment.

Democracy in action, eh?

(At least in Missouri and NOT in the Peoples Republic of California) :p
PRC? Very nice. Thank you for vocalizing my thoughts and intent.

One thing I am truly amazed about with this topic is the length that people from other states - such as Jim and Michael J. will go to in order to demand how we run our own.

[CHIEF4EVER]

One thing I am truly amazed about with this topic is the length that people from other states - such as Jim and Michael J. will go to in order to demand how we run our own.

No kidding brother. It amazes me as well. You would think that those folks actually pay taxes in Missouri (judging by the way they talk). I love how people who don't live here are presumptous enough to tell us what is right for us to believe in and what to spend our money on.

[Mark M]

Mark M, please accept my apology, I did not mean to be or sound callous but I can not support the measure, even if it means always having cerebral palsy and never satisfying my need for speed by getting behind the wheel of a car.

Oh ... no apology needed whatsoever! We do live in a democracy and I can take whatever the voters decide on this issue. :)

I don't have time to read through the whole thread, but I really, really do hope it didn't degrade into an insultfest. This issue -- like so many others -- can easily degrade into nastiness because it touches several nerves:

1. Is a clump of cells smaller the period at the end of a sentence on this thread a human or just a clump of cells?

2. What role does taxpayer $$$ play in funding research?

3. Does the research even work or not?

Whether or not Amendment 2 will pass is still up in the air -- one poll I found (taken on the 10-26) had it leading, but 18% were undecided. That's a pretty huge chunk. To be honest, I'm not holding my breath that it will simply because I know the power churches have in this state. :)

I guess we'll see what happens.

MM
~~:shrug:

[banyon]

I have a degenerative spinal disorder. Part of that includes disks that dry up, causing the vertebrae to mash together. There really is no way to explain the pain one feels when you've had three vertebrae crunched together and pinching (and, in my case, severing) several nerves.

This condition is the reason I have six titanium screws and twelve titanium rods in my back. Part of that also includes what is -- for now, at least -- irreversible nerve damage. Currently, there's a strip across my lower back and upper ass that's completely numb. While that may come in handy if I'm ever sent to prison, it's not such a great thing right now, mainly because if I sit too long, I don't realize how much pain I'm in until I stand up.

It also causes a few other things, like waking up in the morning feeling as though someone's beaten me in my back with a baseball bat, repeatedly, for several hours. It's why I don't know if a 45-minute trip to the grocery store will end up with me feeling as though a red-hot chainsaw is cutting my left leg open from the inside out. It's why a trip to a Chiefs game ends not with the usual disappointment at the team's crappy play, but with the sensation of being stabbed through my right hip with a spear the size of an oil drum.

And it's also why I have to look into <a href="http://www.thoushallnotsuck.com/wp-content/redeyerangerwithhistoy.jpg">this face</a> and tell him that, "No, Dada cannot play airplane, or pick you up, or put you to bed, or give you a bath, or, in the future, show you how to hit a curveball, or push you on your bike, or even guarantee that I won't show up for your high school graduation in a wheelchair, assuming I can even get out of bed."

So when I keep reading and hearing people saying that embryonic stem cell research is giving people "false hope," or that we should just give up because it hasn't worked yet, the first response I can come up with is, "**** you."

To take even the option off the table is an insult to millions of us, even if it only has a small chance of working. And to do so because of some religious hangup, rather than on scientific grounds, is even more insulting.

There simply aren't enough options out there for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and a host of other maladies that affect countless Americans to start picking and choosing which ones we should or shouldn't fund. So when some group (read: the religious right) wants to take even one of those options away, all they are doing is crushing what for some may be the only hope they have.

Is it a false hope? Again, no one knows. And anyone who claims they do is lying.

But if the likes of Jim Talent, some of the people on this thead, and every single church I pass every single day have their way, we'll <em>never</em> know.

And that's just not right.

MM
~~:shake:\

:clap:

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but I admire your courage on posting this personal info on the board, especially considering that Kotter posts here. :D

[Logical]

In defense of the teacher, the normal, English-language implication of your statement in post 80 was exactly what Mr. Kotter said it was. You may have been thinking "some" but what you implied was "all" or at least "enough of a majority to make it a rule."

Chiefqueen's post was obviously missing something, but your interpretation is the less reasonable interpretation, IMO. At best (from your POV) Chiefqueen was going for a nonstandard usage of the language (either a Jim Romish "disabled person" as in the plural or a nonstandard "persons" with a typo leaving off the "s"). The more reasonable interpretation both because of the context and because of the use of the standard singular "person" is that Chiefqueen left out a word like "this" or "a" in front of "person."

Actually unklike Kotter I did not assume his intent but posted an opportunity for clarification first.

It might be just the way you wrote this but it sounds like you are implying all disabled people will be voting no. I doubt that was your intent.

Kotter on the other hand decided my intent for me and and was incorrect. People that know me and I count Kotter as one, know I try to be precise so if I don't say all I don't mean all.

[StcChief]

NO.

[Logical]

And who decides how the money should be spent if it is on the ballot Jim? That's right, you guessed it, people like me...the taxpayers. So not only do I have the right to bitch about it being spent on something I don't want it spent on, I have a voice to deny it being spent where I don't want it to be spent. If I happen to be in the majority on this issue in Missouri, then NO, the money SHOULD NOT be spent by our gubment.

Democracy in action, eh?

(At least in Missouri and NOT in the Peoples Republic of California) :p

Actually California was the first state to use the proposition method to take issues directly to the people. Now it has become extremely common. I think there are about 15 matters for direct decision on this Novembers ballot. As usual we lead the way and others follow.

[patteeu]

Actually unklike Kotter I did not assume his intent but posted an opportunity for clarification first.

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in both cases. It's not that big of a deal. We all make mistakes. I only spoke up because of the your baseless criticism of Kotter's command of the English language.

[Logical]

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong in both cases. It's not that big of a deal. We all make mistakes. I only spoke up because of the your baseless criticism of Kotter's command of the English language.

I don't agree with you but see no point in arguing it with you, I found that you are inflexible and never change your opinion so I am not going to waste my time on your opinion.

[mmaddog]

Every once in a while I make a trip over here to remind me of the following:

1) Well-informed, intellectual and respectful discourse between people of differing opinions is a thing of the past...

2) The chasm between the so-called Blue states and Red states is growing ever wider....

mmaddog
*******

[Logical]

Every once in a while I make a trip over here to remind me of the following:

1) Well-informed, intellectual and respectful discourse between people of differing opinions is a thing of the past...

2) The chasm between the so-called Blue states and Red states is growing ever wider....

mmaddog
*******

We do get carried away once in a while but for the most part we debate without anger becoming involved. It does take a thick skin to be involved but real debate is like that as well.

Item 2 is true.

[StcChief]

Every once in a while I make a trip over here to remind me of the following:

1) Well-informed, intellectual and respectful discourse between people of differing opinions is a thing of the past...

2) The chasm between the so-called Blue states and Red states is growing ever wider....

mmaddog
*******
1) True.

2) Another misconception is their are BLUE and RED STATES
actually their are Blue and Red COUNTIES.

Which really shows where the Blue is.

[mmaddog]

We do get carried away once in a while but for the most part we debate without anger becoming involved. It does take a thick skin to be involved but real debate is like that as well.

I respectfully disagree....

Both sides seem intent more on the "dagger thru the heart" rebuttal rather than the good discourse.

I see both sides of the issue and can fully appreciate each persons argument. But on this thread, at one point it seemed to degenerate into religious and regional bashing rather than respecting a persons point of view and discussing merits.

I guess in my older age I have gotten soft. Or maybe I've just spent most of my life hell-bent on beating my opinion into someone so much that I've grown a little more tolerant and enlightened since someone close pointed out how little tolerance I had for those who differ from my beliefs.

I know this much....I have a Father dying of Lung Cancer and heart problems....and his wife suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's.....my own mother is living in a full-care nursing home in another state a victim of debilitating strokes....and I have a son afflicted with Aspergers Autism. You would think that if anyone would be a supporter of Stem Cell Research I'd be the guy banging the drum loudly for all my relatives.

But I am one of the undecided....and IMO neither side is doing any favors for themselves with the rhetoric that is being blasted about when it comes to trying to sway those of us who are still undecided.

There are days when it comes to Political Candidates I wish I could vote for "None of The Above".....and when it comes to the issues I wish I could vote for "Best of Both Sides".

But I can't....so I will do the one thing that will turn off some and make me a target for others. I will study (as I have been) and I will pray (sorry but my religious beliefs are part of my foundation) and make my decision based on those principles.

And I hope and trust that when all is said and done, both sides will respect that I made a well-informed decision for myself, no matter the outcome.

mmaddog
*******

[Mr. Kotter]

1) True.

2) Another misconception is their are BLUE and RED STATES
actually their are Blue and Red COUNTIES.

Which really shows where the Blue is.

I love that map. ROFL

Shows where the GD communists live all right. Too bad somebody reversed the damn colors; commie deserve the Red.....although as a Chief's fan, I guess I shouldn't complain. :hmmm:

[Pitt Gorilla]

I love that map. ROFL

Shows where the GD communists live all right. Too bad somebody reversed the damn colors; commie deserve the Red.....although as a Chief's fan, I guess I shouldn't complain. :hmmm:Interesting post, Kotter. A democratic vote is a vote for communism (I figure you should have a good understanding of the term)? I can't imagine why people don't believe you when you claim to be a Democrat.

[Logical]

1) True.

2) Another misconception is their are BLUE and RED STATES
actually their are Blue and Red COUNTIES.

Which really shows where the Blue is.

What those maps really show (especially the 2000 map) is that we have a ton of very sparsely populated areas left in this country. Because the 2000 vote could not have been closer.

[patteeu]

I love that map. ROFL

Shows where the GD communists live all right. Too bad somebody reversed the damn colors; commie deserve the Red.....although as a Chief's fan, I guess I shouldn't complain. :hmmm:

I am certain that they used to have the colors the other way around. When I was young I know I watched elections (or at least one election) where Republican states were blue and democrat states were red. I remember thinking that it made sense because of the socialist flavor to democrat positions.

[Mr. Kotter]

I am certain that they used to have the colors the other way around. When I was young I know I watched elections (or at least one election) where Republican states were blue and democrat states were red. I remember thinking that it made sense because of the socialist flavor to democrat positions.

Yup. That is the way I remember it as well....

I suppose somewhere along the way the mainstream media reversed the colors, because they realized that Red for Democrats did make too much sense....:hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

Interesting post, Kotter. A democratic vote is a vote for communism (I figure you should have a good understanding of the term)? I can't imagine why people don't believe you when you claim to be a Democrat.The Moonbat faction of the Democratic party is as close to open embracing of communist values as we have in America. As long as the Moonbat faction continues to control the party apparatus....I will continue to vote split ticket: bluedog and DLC Democrats, along with Republicans (as the lesser of two evils.)

Split ticket voting based on candidates and issues, or what poli sci folks call psychological factors in voting....does not make me less of Democrat than Yellow Dog Democrat types--who blindly vote straight ticket, or something close.

It just makes me a thinking man, and moderate-to-conservative Democrat....who doesn't buy into ideological extremism--even if it comes from my own party.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ger. :p

[Logical]

The Moonbat faction of the Democratic party is as close to open embracing of communist values as we have in America. As long as the Moonbat faction continues to control the party apparatus....I will continue to vote split ticket: bluedog and DLC Democrats, along with Republicans (as the lesser of two evils.)

Split ticket voting based on candidates and issues, or what poli sci folks call psychological factors in voting....does not make me less of Democrat than Yellow Dog Democrat types--who blindly vote straight ticket, or something close.

It just makes me a thinking man, and moderate-to-conservative Democrat....who doesn't buy into ideological extremism--even if it comes from my own party.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ger. :pBur reactionary posting labeling blue counties GD communists certainly does harm your claim of impartiality. Trust me that there are a ton of middle of the road Dems in those blue strongholds, just as the red counties also have many left of center social conservatives. Labeling either with perjorative labels does no one any good.

[Mr. Kotter]

Bur reactionary posting labeling blue counties GD communists certainly does harm your claim of impartiality. Trust me that there are a ton of middle of the road Dems in those blue strongholds, just as the red counties also have many left of center social conservatives. Labeling either with perjorative labels does no one any good.If you are unable to perceive my somewhat TIC/somewhat truthful accounting of the BLUE strongholds (Please cite evidence the BLUE strongholds are NOT more communistic than the RED)......afterall, they are BLUE for a reason....then I can understand your seeing my characterization as a pejorative, even if that was not my intent. Fair enough, for the perceptively challenged I suppose.



:shrug:


;)

[Logical]

If you are unable to perceive my somewhat TIC/somewhat truthful accounting of the BLUE strongholds (Please cite evidence the BLUE strongholds are NOT more communistic than the RED)......afterall, they are BLUE for a reason....then I can understand your seeing my characterization as a pejorative, even if that was not my intent. Fair enough, for the perceptively challenged I suppose.



:shrug:


;)

I find it hard to believe you really think even our strong Democrats come close to communism. Socialists maybe, but that is far from a centrally planned system where all give up their assets to the community and are controlled in their thought process by group control of a set standard. Our most radical liberals rebel against central authority far more than our RWNJs who seem willing to give over their autonomy for safety against a perceived terroristic threat.

[Mr. Kotter]

I find it hard to believe you really think even our strong Democrats come close to communism. Socialists maybe, but that is far from a centrally planned system where all give up their assets to the community and are controlled in their thought process by group control of a set standard. Our most radical liberals rebel against central authority far more than our RWNJs who seem willing to give over their autonomy for safety against a perceived terroristic threat.
Eh, well then....our difference is merely semantic: I consider Socialists as close to Communists as we have/or will come.

(Besides, it's more FUN to call them Communists, because it evokes more of a reaction.....surely YOU understand that. :p)

If you are saying that radicals and reactionaries have much in common, I agree; I'm not so sure we'd agree on who the reactionaries in America today are though....I'm not sure anyone really knows who they are, or if they even exist...

Radicals on the other hand; THEY exist....


;)

[banyon]

1) True.

2) Another misconception is their are BLUE and RED STATES
actually their are Blue and Red COUNTIES.

Which really shows where the Blue is.

It's "there". and:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/election04/wins.jpg

[Adept Havelock]

1) True.

2) Another misconception is their are BLUE and RED STATES
actually their are Blue and Red COUNTIES.

Which really shows where the Blue is.

:rolleyes:

Here's a more intellectually honest map, with red/blue scaled for percentage of the respective vote, proving that regardless of what Red/Blue fanatical partisans would have us believe, the majority of the country is varying shades of purple.

That, and most of the "deep red" parts are among the more sparsely populated, telling me most people have enough sense they don't want to live there. ;)

[BucEyedPea]

Eh, well then....our difference is merely semantic: I consider Socialists as close to Communists as we have/or will come.

(Besides, it's more FUN to call them Communists, because it evokes more of a reaction.....surely YOU understand that. :p)
I think a good way of stating it is that the most Democrats ( particularly liberal and progressive), and liberal/progressive Republicans too ( they must be included today) "sense of property" is "communistic." IOWs a "share the wealth" mentality" along with central planning (including today's trade/globalism)...IOWs having more govt making choices, including economic ones, instead of individuals. Ultimately, it leads to the same end more control, not less over our lives. When it goes beyond the half-way mark ( balance between individual and society's rights) you've entered the territory of socialism/communism. At least that's how I see it.

As far as there being a real difference between communism and socialism...there really ISN'T one. They lead to the same end ultimately.

Socialism may sound more socially acceptable, and to many it is but it's semantic dishonesty when we look at reality.

The only difference is that communism is the phase where the state withers away, which comes after the socialist phase ( a dictatorship via revolution or via the tyranny of the majority which is democracy) where all property is either owned outright by the state for the collective good or completely controlled by the state ( ownership just means the right to control and direct). Since govts never release such power communism has never existed. So in reality, despite, intellectual phases it never comes about. It has only existed in religious communities or order which are voluntary.

Don't forget Marx said democracy is the road to socialism and it is via the vote.
What did he write? The Communist Manifesto.

Both result in control of the major means of production—this is you and I.

Hence there is no real difference between to two except the absence of the state.

And when govt solutions permeates so many areas of our lives expect more political fighting and polarization. It's a symptom of too much govt.

[BucEyedPea]

As far as the blue/red states go regarding urban centers being more heavily populated versus the more rural red states. It really is irrelevant for electing a president.

The president is supposed to represent the union, as a WHOLE—not heavily populated urban centers to the exclusion of rural areas. That's unfair.

This formula balances out the populated areas and the rural areas so that certain states would not be excluded for this branch.

Since the president was not originally envisioned as a strong office and mainly dealt with foreign policy, being commander-in-chief of our armed forces to defend the nation and conducting war as a whole this office MUST include all the people of all the states. It's truly a national office.

The other branches are not.

We have the House of Reps for representing the people directly on the basis of population. Now with direct election of Senators, that gives even more weight to the people as opposed to representing each state's interests itself.

To take this any further in the direction of basing a Chief Executive's office on population alone, would be the last dagger in destroying the balance of power of our "Republic" so carefully thought out by our Framers. It would turn us more and more into a direct democracy.

IMO that will lead to more largesse and bankruptcy since all democracies result in this. It simply does not work. Our Constitutional formula is not just a check horizontally on the branches of govt but also a vertical check on the people.

[banyon]

As far as there being a real difference between communism and socialism...there really ISN'T one. They lead to the same end ultimately.



Please. Would you rather live in Sweden or the CCCP?

[Logical]

Socialism may sound more socially acceptable, and to many it is but it's semantic dishonesty when we look at reality.

Anybody who says this has not truly studied communist governments vs socialist governments. Government is much more than its economic foundation.

[Adept Havelock]

Please. Would you rather live in Sweden or the CCCP?


Oh, I'm sure the glorious peoples revolutionary movement in Sweden will begin the collectives and blood soaked purges any day now. ;)

[BucEyedPea]

Anybody who says this has not truly studied communist governments vs socialist governments. Government is much more than its economic foundation.

Are you sure about that?

I'm gonna have to disagree with ya' here, Logical. I have studied socialism, and communism more than the average person, outside of committed Marxists. It's been an area of intense interest. I also have two friends on other BB's that are admitted communists or socialist who admit the same principles. I even dated a communist too. (didn't know he as one at first) I make a clear distinction between a Marxist-Leninist and just a Marxist.( who I believe is a good person if misguided) The difference is method of implementation.

I have the Communist Manifesto on my bookshelf, have read Sowell's Marxism and analysis by various economists, in particular Ludwig Von Mises who is credited with blasting the holes in Marx's labor-theory-of-value which is a falsehood. Marx, according to this source, gained a foothold into the world of ideas because some errors by Adam Smith actually. Nearly a third of my bookshelves are studies on Marxism. And btw, he wasn't just about economics he was seeking the fullfillment of humans and is just as much about social values as economics. Hence the emphasis on "free love" destruction of the "bourgeouis" family unit ( traditional family) including freeing women from the bondage of the home. Aka "Cultural Marxism", much of what we see going on today in our so-called "culture war."

Tell me what the name of the old Soviet Union was?
It was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
Why wasn't it called a "Communist" republic?

I ask you how a person can call themself a Marxist because they support the ideas of Marx, but Marx, himself, wrote Communist Manifesto?

It all hangs up on the use and misuse of definitions.
Then compare them to what actually takes place.
BTW in the 19th century these guys used communism/socialism as synonyms.

It's all still Marxism though. Ends up in the same state. It's just that there is Marxism-Leninism, which implements the same socialist state via violent revolution, as a dictatorship, instead of gradually through the democratic vote. So this came to be known as the communist movement. The western countries put the same socialist system in via democracy or what we call democratic-socialism. Aka "Fabian socialism" or creeping socialism...ya' know their coat of arms is a sheep in a wolf's skin.

“Democracy is the road to socialism.”—Karl Marx

"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly”—Norman Thomas

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America would be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.—Norman Thomas

Norman Thomas was the Socialist Party's candidate in every national election from 1928-1948 and one of the original founders of the ACLU.

We are, as a guess-estimate imo, at least a third of the way there if not a bit more.

It's no wonder that ALL democracies result in profligate spending which led to bankruptcy and their own demise. (Greece and Rome) It is not the longest lasting form of govt because the people vote themselves largesse and they become contentious. I believe it was Adams who made similar statements. But democracy has historically gone this way and we have been going this way for some time ourselves.

[patteeu]

Good post, BucEyedPea. :thumb:

[patteeu]

Did anyone see This Week with George Stephanopolous where Michael J. Fox admitted that he hadn't even read Missouri's Amendment 2? WTF?

[BucEyedPea]

Columns: Swedens Welfare State: A Paradise Lost (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=524)

I wouldn't want to live there either.

Sweden's welfare-state ( a form of socialism done via wealth transfers)is actually having trouble despite past glowing reports. It has had advantages other countries did not have: covers a small area, has had a homgeneous population, has had an uninterrupted peace for 150 years, it's economy did not suffer the ravishes of two world wars and so had little debt. But it is catching up with them.


"The creators of the Swedish Welfare State in the 1930s were Marxists of sorts, but they allowed a pragmatic attitude of gradualism to modify the radical ideological demands of state ownership. But if socialism means control over the results of production, there is no doubt that Sweden is a socialist nation; and the prime means of government control over the results of production is through taxes—now the highest in the world for the 8.3 million Swedish people. "

[banyon]

Tell me what the name of the old Soviet Union was?
It was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
Why wasn't it called a "Communist" republic?

This is an example of what is normally called the "naturalistic fallacy".

Go excercise your freedoms then in the People's Democratic Republic of the Congo, since it's got such a swell name.

[BucEyedPea]

This is an example of what is normally called the "naturalistic fallacy".

Go excercise your freedoms then in the People's Democratic Republic of the Congo, since it's got such a swell name.
In your opinion. I'd say you're in denial.

[banyon]

Columns: Swedens Welfare State: A Paradise Lost (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=524)

I wouldn't want to live there either.

Sweden's welfare-state ( a form of socialism done via wealth transfers)is actually having trouble despite past glowing reports. It has had advantages other countries did not have: covers a small area, has had a homgeneous population, has had an uninterrupted peace for 150 years, it's economy did not suffer the ravishes of two world wars and so had little debt. But it is catching up with them.

With the exception of "it covers a small area" throw in "it's bordered by two oceans" and you've described the USA.

You also somehow forgot to mention that it rates at or near the top of every quality of life index that's been developed. I don't think the USSR fared so well on those indices.

[banyon]

In your opinion. I'd say you're in denial.

No, it's not an opinion, it's a logical fallacy.

[patteeu]

With the exception of "it covers a small area" throw in "it's bordered by two oceans" and you've described the USA.

You also somehow forgot to mention that it rates at or near the top of every quality of life index that's been developed. I don't think the USSR fared so well on those indices.

Homogeneous population?

[BucEyedPea]

You also somehow forgot to mention that it rates at or near the top of every quality of life index that's been developed. I don't think the USSR fared so well on those indices.

It's beginning to go into decline with a burgeoning underground economy which most socialist countries wind up having, even Poland had one.

And that article was written 1980.

I know a Swedish businessman who is now in the USA and he said they can't do anything. There is no freedom for people like him.

[banyon]

BEP, why do you condemn Marxism so completely, but wholeheartedly adopt Marx's belief in historical materialism?

You act as if the whole thing's just one slippery slope, when history has repeatedly shown that regulation, antitrust enforcement, and other safeguards can slow, stop, or reverse the "creeping socialism" you complain about.

[banyon]

Homogeneous population?

I don't feel like having any red herring for breakfast. Maybe lunch.

[BucEyedPea]

BEP, why do you condemn Marxism so completely, but wholeheartedly adopt Marx's belief in historical materialism?

You act as if the whole thing's just one slippery slope, when history has repeatedly shown that regulation, antitrust enforcement, and other safeguards can slow, stop, or reverse the "creeping socialism" you complain about.
I make no bones about being anti-socialist or anti-Marxist. When I was in London went to visit his grave, even, just so I could spit on it. LOL! Gosh! It says on his tomb, iirc, "workers of the world unite."

And I actually do not believe in "historical materialism"--far from it.
That's a hell of an assumption. Why don't you ask me. I am anti-materialist. But I will admit to using a sort of reverse dialectical-materialism if only to shift things back to the right or what I deem the balanced center. But that's a created thing, a deliberate human action...not materialism.

Do you know what this man's personal life was life. He was anti-social and known to be a complete monster in personality. I know one of his children died of malnutrition and I even read 2 more died from lack of proper care. He lived off the money from Engels son of a wealthy industrialist family. Heck! He even ratted out his own fellow revolutionaries for a buck. He was a criminal and a bum.

[banyon]

I make no bones about being anti-socialist or anti-Marxist. When I was in London was to visit his grave just so I could spit on it. LOL! Gosh! It says on his tomb, iirc, "workers of the world unite."

And I actually do not believe in "historical materialism"--far from it.
That's a hell of an assumption. Why don't you ask me. I am anti-materialist. But I will admit to using a sort of reverse dialectical-materialism if only to shift things back to the right or what I deem the balanced center. But that's a created thing, a deliberate human action...not materialism.

Do you know what this man's personal life was life. He was anti-social and known to be a complete monster in personality. I know one of his children died of malnutrition and I even read 2 more died from lack of proper care. He lived off the money from Engels son of a wealthy industrialist family. Heck! He even ratted out his own fellow revolutionaries for a buck. He was a criminal and a bum.

So, you don't have any basis to show that a "socialist state" necessarily devolves into a Communist state, but you do have some irrelevant personal attacks on the propagator of a theory. Should we throw the Declaration of Independence in the toilet because Jefferson owned slaves too?

If it's deliberate action and not materialism, then there is nothing to show that Sweden--->USSR, because deliberate action can easily preserve the status quo or reverse trends.

[BucEyedPea]

So, you don't have any basis to show that a "socialist state" necessarily devolves into a Communist state,

Where did I say that?

You misunderstand what I wrote.

I said earlier or in another post in another thread that true communism in actuality never really comes about...hasn't existed at a state/country level but in religous groups/orders. That this is the theory held by Marx—not an actual reality. States rarely relinquish that much power. It's a sophistry.

but you do have some irrelevant personal attacks on the propagator of a theory.

Huh? It think it's entirely relevant. He lived off of others and advocate the same. I consider this a criminal mind. He wasn't a hypocrite at least.

Should we throw the Declaration of Independence in the toilet because Jefferson owned slaves too?
At least some of the Founders had misgivings about slavery and thought about the idea of it being wrong. Jefferson still had other redeeming qualities...Marx had none imo. Uh...wait...he was not a hypocrit. Except when he ratted out his fellow revolutionaries for a buck that is. This is not an attack but a fact.

If it's deliberate action and not materialism, then there is nothing to show that Sweden--->USSR, because deliberate action can easily preserve the status quo or reverse trends.

Well if you want to change my words, even if slightly to avoid the nuance of what I wrote, that would be the case. But that's your own extrapolation or opinion.

[BucEyedPea]

Government is much more than its economic foundation.
I forgot this part. As a libertarian, classical liberal ( libertarian) I don't believe govt has any significant economic foundation. I don't feel it belongs much in govt except to keep it's own books balanced like any household or business. Other than that I don't believe govt should have much say in economics. Govt's job, to me, is primarily to protect rights.

I am not opposed to it taking some of the hard or rough edges off on aspects of economic activity ( such as level playing field, enforcement of contracts etc.) to keep things fair as in a promote the general welfare sense....but not provide the general welfare except where the Constitution enumerates such authority as in roads, interstate commerce, post offices and defense. Things that everybody uses but not an egalitarian society in such activity. JMO.

[patteeu]

I don't feel like having any red herring for breakfast. Maybe lunch.

Oh, OK. I guess you were wrong when you said she could have been describing the US then.

[banyon]

Where did I say that?

You misunderstand what I wrote.

I said earlier or in another post in another thread that true communism in actuality never really comes about...hasn't existed at a state/country level but in religous groups/orders. That this is the theory held by Marx—not an actual reality. States rarely relinquish that much power. It's a sophistry.



Huh? It think it's entirely relevant. He lived off of others and advocate the same. I consider this a criminal mind. He wasn't a hypocrite at least.


At least some of the Founders had misgivings about slavery and thought about the idea of it being wrong. Jefferson still had other redeeming qualities...Marx had none imo. Uh...wait...he was not a hypocrit. Except when he ratted out his fellow revolutionaries for a buck that is. This is not an attack but a fact.

Ad hominem attacks are never relevant when discussing ideas. The ideas either have merit or they don't no matter how cretinous or noble the espouser of the idea is.



Well if you want to change my words, even if slightly to avoid the nuance of what I wrote, that would be the case. But that's your own extrapolation or opinion.

These were your exact words:

As far as there being a real difference between communism and socialism...there really ISN'T one. They lead to the same end ultimately.
Socialism may sound more socially acceptable, and to many it is but it's semantic dishonesty when we look at reality.

If that isn't materialist, then I don't know what is. You clearly described it in fatalistic terms.

Anyone can see, based on the historic and current examples available that you overreached on this one, they are distinct systems and your attempt to create some sort of literal or practical identity relationship between the two fails.

[banyon]

Oh, OK. I guess you were wrong when you said she could have been describing the US then.

Those were necessary, but not sufficient descriptors. Those words like I said, could be used to describe the US, but would not constitute an exhaustive list of the qualities of our country, nor did I assert that they would.

[patteeu]

Those were necessary, but not sufficient descriptors. Those words like I said, could be used to describe the US, but would not constitute an exhaustive list of the qualities of our country, nor did I assert that they would.

I don't think "homogeneous population" is a good fit in a description of the US. It has nothing to do with whether the list was exhaustive or not.

[BucEyedPea]

Ad hominem attacks are never relevant when discussing ideas. The ideas either have merit or they don't no matter how cretinous or noble the espouser of the idea is.

Ad hominem attacks, as I understand, is when you argue the person personally with whom one is debating. It means literally to the person instead of the merits. It is not pointing out character flaws of an originator of an idea or philosophy, when those flaws contribute to a mindset that is an extension of ones personality ( criminal mind) and thus influenced their thinking. (a, imo, criminal philisophy). I feel they are related in this case upon examination of the facts of his life and his beliefs.

You've done the same with Bush. It is no different here.

Absolutes are unobtainable so there are exceptions to rules so long as there are qualifying features. No doubt the fact that our Framers did not address slavery when they argued the merits and de-merits of our Constution certainly had something to do with it being omitted. The same is true of Evangelicals wanting to save Israel due to their views on salvation and end-times prophesy.
It's no different with Marx. It's relevant in those cases.

I agree to disagree with ya' though.

These were your exact words:
That's not what I meant by the "same end" if you take that line in context to the whole. This is where there is no meeting of our minds. The same end is socialism, not communism. True communism has never existed.

If that isn't materialist, then I don't know what is. You clearly described it in fatalistic terms.
Again, what I wrote was not taken as intended.

Anyone can see, based on the historic and current examples available that you overreached on this one, they are distinct systems and your attempt to create some sort of literal or practical identity relationship between the two fails.

Yes they are distinct system but not wholly. One is a theoretical world, a utopia where people just have what they need and share voluntarily ( but never really exists in reality, is just an idea) without a state.The other uses the state
( force) to ensure that sharing come about by a vote of the people with no checks as in a direct democracy or a dictorship.

I am not alone in my view though. I did not formulate this on my own. It comes from readin. There are scholars that hold the same.

Gonna have to end this with an agree-to-disagree as well, banyon.
It's hard to debate such ideas when there is an no understanding of what I'm saying let alone any disagreement from that point.

[banyon]

Ad hominem attacks, as I understand, is when you argue the person personally with whom one is debating. It means literally to the person instead of the merits. It is not pointing out character flaws of an originator of an idea or philosophy, when those flaws contribute to a mindset that is an extension of ones personality ( criminal mind) and thus influenced their thinking. (a, imo, criminal philisophy). I feel they are related in this case upon examination of the facts of his life and his beliefs.

You've done the same with Bush. It is no different here.


No, it is different. Bush is not the progenitor of a theory of anything, we were discussing theory and you started bringing up personal details about the man's life in an attempt to discredit the theory. Ad hominem does not require that you personally take shots at who you're debating.



That's not what I meant by the "same end" if you take that line in context to the whole. This is where there is no meeting of our minds. The same end is socialism, not communism. True communism has never existed.

Ok, now you're going to say you weren't talking about Soviet-style Communism and you were discussing idyllic humanistic pure communism?

:BS: Why then would you spend several posts defending the idea that you were equating Soviet Communism with socialism only to then take the other reading now that it's all over? :shake:


Yes they are distinct system but not wholly. One is a theoretical world, a utopia where people just have what they need and share voluntarily ( but never really exists in reality, is just an idea) without a state.The other uses the state
( force) to ensure that sharing come about by a vote of the people with no checks as in a direct democracy or a dictorship.

Unless you're making some kind of absolutist "there are no perfect circles" claim here, then kibutzes would be a real-world example of pure communism.

I am not alone in my view though. I did not formulate this on my own. It comes from readin. There are scholars that hold the same.

Gonna have to end this with an agree-to-disagree as well, banyon.
It's hard to debate such ideas when there is an no understanding of what I'm saying let alone any disagreement from that point.

Readin' eh? :p shucks, I never done read no books.

[BucEyedPea]

I edited while you were posting. See above first section.

readin---> just a typo. Now who is being irrelevant here and using ad hominem?

[BucEyedPea]

Correction: I said real communism has never existed at a nation state level. I did say it existed in religious orders and groups. That would include Israeli kibbutzes which I understand are only 2.5 percent of Israel's population. For that matter the first Pilgrims, another religious group, under Miles Standish in their first winter were communistic—and nearly starved to death. Jesuits are another. This is done under voluntary agreement and one can leave.

Israel is also rigidly socialist, not communist. The kibbutzes are remnants of European socialism circa 1900.

[banyon]

I edited while you were posting. See above first section.

readin---> just a typo. Now who is being irrelevant here and using ad hominem?

Since when did you become smilie- impaired? :shrug:

No need to take what was a nit-picky argument and turn it into a personal one. :)

[BucEyedPea]

Since when did you become smilie- impaired? :shrug:

No need to take what was a nit-picky argument and turn it into a personal one. :)
Sorry if I did not get the emotion. I was clarifyin' that it was just a typo as opposed to a conscious spelling error. I perceived it as nit-picky as well, whether it was meant in makin' fun or not.

[StcChief]

The whole truth about Amendment #2 is coming out....

I don't see it passing.

[patteeu]

The whole truth about Amendment #2 is coming out....

I don't see it passing.

The truth converted me from a tenative supporter to a confirmed opponent.

[Logical]

I forgot this part. As a libertarian, classical liberal ( libertarian) I don't believe govt has any significant economic foundation. I don't feel it belongs much in govt except to keep it's own books balanced like any household or business. Other than that I don't believe govt should have much say in economics. Govt's job, to me, is primarily to protect rights.

I am not opposed to it taking some of the hard or rough edges off on aspects of economic activity ( such as level playing field, enforcement of contracts etc.) to keep things fair as in a promote the general welfare sense....but not provide the general welfare except where the Constitution enumerates such authority as in roads, interstate commerce, post offices and defense. Things that everybody uses but not an egalitarian society in such activity. JMO.

In other words you prefer to ignore reality and bask in theory?

[BucEyedPea]

In other words you prefer to ignore reality and bask in theory?
No, I'm basking in reality as opposed to theory.

The communists were implementing socialism ww via revolution.
The Fabian socialists, socialist-democracies were implementing socialism via the vote. The only game was socialism in reality.

[Logical]

No, I'm basking in reality as opposed to theory.

The communists were implementing socialism ww via revolution.
The Fabian socialists, socialist-democracies were implementing socialism via the vote. The only game was socialism in reality.
No you are not, all governments maintain control through economics and the manipulation therein. Dictators fall for economics far more often than for injustice. Government and economics are always intertwined, that is realism.

[BucEyedPea]

No you are not, all governments maintain control through economics and the manipulation therein. Dictators fall for economics far more often than for injustice. Government and economics are always intertwined, that is realism.
Well, unfortunately I never claimed they didn't. I simply stated my preference and opinion that they don't:

I don't believe govt has any significant economic foundation. I don't feel it belongs much in govt except to keep it's own books balanced like any household or business. Other than that I don't believe govt should have much say in economics. Govt's job, to me, is primarily to protect rights.

That govt does to the great degree it does today has been the path of the 20th century govts and post Enlightenment. I don't agree with it. And as a classical liberal aka in the vein of our Framers they did not envision the same for our govt either.

[Logical]

Well, unfortunately I never claimed they didn't. I simply stated my preference and opinion that they don't:



That govt does to the great degree it does today has been the path of the 20th century govts and post Enlightenment. I don't agree with it. And as a classical liberal aka in the vein of our Framers they did not envision the same for our govt either.

But surely you see that is theoretical and has no practical foundation historically. At least as far back as the Roman empire.

[BucEyedPea]

But surely you see that is theoretical and has no practical foundation historically. At least as far back as the Roman empire.

It does for our govt which was a product of the Enlightenment.This was a break with the old world way of thinking about govt. So much so that they were considered radicals to have so little govt and it was considered a great experiment by many. Many predicted it would fail.

Most of the economic regulation came about when big business arose. This was post Enlightenment and into the 20th century. Don't know if there was such business in the ancient world.

Rome became more and more socialistic (bread and circuses) over time as I understand. Still most past systems were based on a ruler's law.

[BIG_DADDY]

It does for our govt which was a product of the Enlightenment.This was a break with the old world way of thinking about govt. So much so that they were considered radicals to have so little govt and it was considered a great experiment by many. Many predicted it would fail.

Most of the economic regulation came about when big business arose. This was post Enlightenment and into the 20th century. Don't know if there was such business in the ancient world.

Rome became more and more socialistic (bread and circuses) over time as I understand. Still most past systems were based on a ruler's law.

Their downfall.

[Logical]

It does for our govt which was a product of the Enlightenment.This was a break with the old world way of thinking about govt. So much so that they were considered radicals to have so little govt and it was considered a great experiment by many. Many predicted it would fail.

Most of the economic regulation came about when big business arose. This was post Enlightenment and into the 20th century. Don't know if there was such business in the ancient world.

Rome became more and more socialistic (bread and circuses) over time as I understand. Still most past systems were based on a ruler's law.

Sorry, but our government was based on economic revolution against England, your argument makes little practical sense. Yes some of the founders espoused a theoretical nice to have, but they did not create a practical government that could mimic the theory.

[Chiefnj]

Sorry, but our government was based on economic revolution against England.

Is that the PC way of saying a bunch of slave owning white artistocrats that didn't want to pay taxes?

[Logical]

Is that the PC way of saying a bunch of slave owning white artistocrats that didn't want to pay taxes?I suppose to a degree.

[BIG_DADDY]

Is that the PC way of saying a bunch of slave owning white artistocrats that didn't want to pay taxes?

NICE!!!! Those damn whities. :cuss: THeir everything that'w wrong with this world. :cuss: LMAO

[BucEyedPea]

Sorry, but our government was based on economic revolution against England, your argument makes little practical sense. Yes some of the founders espoused a theoretical nice to have, but they did not create a practical government that could mimic the theory.
Well, actually I agree that economics, as in England's mercantilist trade policies were part of that Revolution along with taxation issue and political independence.

It was not all just theoretical. It took root as remarked upon by Alexis de Tocqueville when he wrote about early America. You sound like a Hamiltonian who espoused the mercantilist system of England, prevalent at that time, which was objected to by Jefferson and his followers. They were however, protectionists as they had tariffs which was the primary way of funding the govt. But that wan't intervention in the economy for the purposes of egalitarianism.

They knew about socialists...they were called "levelers" then. They despised them. They were opposed to the Federal govt having too much money so it would not have the power to extend it's tentacles into the people's lives.

I'm saying limited govt, not no govt.
There was no Federal Reserve, no social security, no progressive income tax.
There were only 5 Cabinet Depts under Washington. There was no Dept Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior,Labor, Transportation,and Veterans' Affairs.

I mean how many pages is the Constitution? 2? Yeah I think so. The EU's is over 400!

And I am not speaking for the states...but the Federal govt.

[BucEyedPea]

BTW Logical the post you quoted of mine I took to mean was referring on all previous posts regarding socialism/communism, not on what I prefer for govt or what our Framers established.

Do you have any examples of our original govt or even before the 20th century of stimulating the US ecomomy via deficit spending?

[banyon]

I mean how many pages is the Constitution? 2? Yeah I think so. The EU's is over 400!

And I am not speaking for the states...but the Federal govt.

Damn, I knew Bush had been hard on our civil liberties, but he's already got the Constitution down to 2 pages?

[BucEyedPea]

Damn, I knew Bush had been hard on our civil liberties, but he's already got the Constitution down to 2 pages?
He!He! You're joking...am I getting it right this time?

I believe they wrote on large sheets compared to today, even if it was in longhand which takes up more room. Even at that there were more liberties in there.

Bush is left-wing as far as I'm concerned...even left of Clinton. Did you know that Clinton was even thinkin' of abolishing three depts?

[Logical]

BTW Logical the post you quoted of mine I took to mean was referring on all previous posts regarding socialism/communism, not on what I prefer for govt or what our Framers established.

Do you have any examples of our original govt or even before the 20th century of stimulating the US ecomomy via deficit spending?

Why is deficit spending needed to state that economics is the foundation of government? I do not see the correlation.

[Logical]

He!He! You're joking...am I getting it right this time?

I believe they wrote on large sheets compared to today, even if it was in longhand which takes up more room. Even at that there were more liberties in there.

Bush is left-wing as far as I'm concerned...even left of Clinton. Did you know that Clinton was even thinkin' of abolishing three depts?

I think you mean fiscally conservative, by any stretch of the imagination I cannot call Bush left wing. Hi is just not a fiscal conservative.

[BucEyedPea]

Why is deficit spending needed to state that economics is the foundation of government? I do not see the correlation.

Just tryin' to find an actual example of govt intervention in the economy back then if that was the foundation. I may have misunderstood.

If you feel it's the foundation of our govt ( I meant the Revolution, in my earlier post, not the actual document that forms our govt and how it's the established and run) then where does the foundation of our govt say this. The foundation of our govt would be the US Constitution if we trying to establish theory from reality, would it not? Where does it mention economics? I mean I haven't read it lately but I thought the preamble said it was to form a more:

"...perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote ( not provide) the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[BucEyedPea]

I think you mean fiscally conservative, by any stretch of the imagination I cannot call Bush left wing. Hi is just not a fiscal conservative.
No I mean left-wing. As in left of center with no govt at all on the right (anarchy) and total govt on the left. Just to clarify that I speak from a different scale. Total lump sum of his govt puts him minimally left of center, IMO.

He's what called in some circles as a hard Wilsonian who wanted to spread democracy. Wilson is one of our well known progressives. Perhaps it's just his NeoCon advisors though.

[BucEyedPea]

Logical I enjoyed debating this with you but I have to be somewhere. I will even miss the start of the Pat's game. Gonna have to take it up some other time. I see this ones gonna be a long one. :)

[Logical]

Just tryin' to find an actual example of govt intervention in the economy back then if that was the foundation. I may have misunderstood.

If you feel it's the foundation of our govt ( I meant the Revolution, in my earlier post, not the actual document that forms our govt and how it's the established and run) then where does the foundation of our govt say this. The foundation of our govt would be the US Constitution if we trying to establish theory from reality, would it not? Where does it mention economics? I mean I haven't read it lately but I thought the preamble said it was to form a more:

"...perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote ( not provide) the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Try Section 8

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Sure sounds like the basis of a Capitalistic economic government to me.

[BucEyedPea]

Try Section 8 Sure sounds like the basis of a Capitalistic economic government to me.
I'm baaaack! I haven't forgotten this. Bear with me because I feel a need to sort out some confusion in our communications. So it will have to be long. I broke into two posts.

Pretty good Logical, your above post #216, but that’s not exactly what I was referring to as in “the” “foundation” per se, defined as something all else rests upon. I’d say it’s liberty. Those clauses are some of the specific and enumerated powers of the Federal government.

I want re-orient you to what I was posting about when you first said I was "basking in theory." That was solely regarding what socialism and communism really were in "reality" as opposed to what was written in "theory" by it's alleged founder, Marx. I wasn't operating on the popularly understood terms—uneducated terms. That's what I was first remarking to you about.

(1) Then the argument went off in the direction beginning with first your post #166 (quoted below) about govt being "more than it's economic foundation." I don't disagree with that. No problem there.

(2) Then Post #198 (below) I agree and disagree: That govts have historically done this is true for the most part. ( Mercantilism, Feudalism, various Socialisms) Again, I was stating this was NOT my preference. Nor was that “willed” to us by our Framers. Our govt WAS a radical break, considered an experiment, with the old world. You are a libertarian right? I would think you'd understand—even agree.

(3) I say our govt’s foundation is liberty, thru limited govt. This liberty allows/allowed, if you prefer,and includes free-enterprise or economic liberty. Pursuit of happiness if you will—not economic control aka over regulation, redistribution—nor am I talking about "some" power to promote the general welfare or for domestic tranquility.

(4) In reality our govt did not participate in economic activity, defined as production, distribution and consumption of wealth. Nor should it. It merely greased the wheels for such as per the clauses you posted in #216 including protection of property rights (intellectual property too). The closest it comes is regulating interstate commerce etc. That area has been abused. [more on later] It no longer coins money anyway. That was outsourced to a private organization called the Federal Reserve.

Some of the others deal with our own govts managing it’s own fiscal activities which I stated earlier I was not against. All organizations, even a home, have to keep their financial house in order. Ours does not even do that. LOL!

There are only 20 “specific & enumerated” powers for our govt, some of which were/are designed to "promote the general welfare" and 4 relate to economic activity ( your last post #216 applies) which is still pretty limited. It’s a restraint on the Fed govt not a granting of expanding power and involvement economically. The rest mainly protects rights.

This liberty as it relates to economics was the practiced in reality within our Republic's early days, mainly the 19th Century. It still does to some degree today. Even if Americans have run away from their own revolution in the 20th century.

So this is not “theory.” It’s a fact.

(5) When did this change? I went to check my facts and I am correct. This limited role of our govt began to change with the rise of big business such as railroads. It went further by abusing the commerce clause which did not result in promoting the general welfare. Then it went further with a progressive income tax, Federal Reserve, SS, welfare and various resdistribution schemes ad nauseum in the 1930s and continued to grow throughout the 20th century. It is in these areas where I disagree as they are participating in economic activity by distributing wealth for egalitarian purposes. Just to clarify what I was referring to.

(6) I’d say “pursuit of happiness” covers the ground. That’s in the Bill of Rights which aligns with what I posted earlier about our govt’s main function being the protection of rights. Taking the wealth of others is NOT a right. Pursuit of happiness means the right to pursue economic activity freely, including amassing wealth, ( this is a right) as well as others activities that make one happy.

BTW, ftr, “capitalism” is a problematic term for me. Marx coined it and never defined it. It has different meanings to different people. And the Framers precede Marx. I surely do not support “capitalism” as we know it today. I do support free-enterprise and a private property order.

Conclusion The foundation of the US Republic, is liberty.

[BucEyedPea]

Review of applicable posts by Logical
• Post #166: Anybody who says this has not truly studied communist governments vs socialist governments. Government is much more than its economic foundation.
Agreed on italic part.

• Post #198:...all governments maintain control through economics and the manipulation therein. Dictators fall for economics far more often than for injustice. Government and economics are always intertwined, that is realism.
True in reality but not always in America. But I was professing my disagreement with this including that America has run away from it’s own Revolution. Understand?

• Post #200: But surely you see that [ my post on not believing a govt should a "significant economic foundation." #183] is theoretical and has no practical foundation historically.
It was the foundation of ours as “willed” by our Framers though and as practiced at one time—that's a reality. It should remain the practical foundation imo. BTW, are you a libertarian or not?

• Post #211: Why is deficit spending needed to state that economics is the foundation of government? I do not see the correlation.
Because as I posted earlier I was: Just tryin' to find an actual example of govt intervention in the economy back then [earlier Republic] if that was the “foundation.” [ because you said it was the foundation...not I] but also said earlier that govt was more than it’s economic foundation too. Confused

[Logical]

BEP


I don't deal well with those gigantic posts. Thanks for your effort, but pardon me for not responding.

[BucEyedPea]

Yah, I kinda figured it wouldn't fly with you on your earlier posts about long ones/

So I'll shorten it:
The foundation of our govt is liberty, which includes economic liberty in the pursuit of happiness. It is not about economic control and management of wealth. There's only 4 clauses that deal with some related economic activity, as you posted. Those points grease the wheels of economic activity for the producers; govt itself does not participate in the actual economic activity.

It does today but in an earlier time it was left to the people...as they were free. This was reality...it is no longer the reality.