|
Post by jdd on Mar 25, 2009 7:03:14 GMT -5
And the gov't and big pharma are already deeply in be with each other. Obama is not going to create socialized big gov't medicine, he's just going to change the game board.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 25, 2009 7:04:15 GMT -5
The research should be done, and the RTL folks can just stuff it. That's the Obama position, although you state it more concisely.
|
|
|
Post by jdd on Mar 25, 2009 7:24:44 GMT -5
That's what I'd say, or think that anyone should say, but I'm not running for office.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 25, 2009 7:30:57 GMT -5
Here's the problem : Aren't Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, etc also experiencing this economic crisis, and in some cases experiencing it far worse? How is it that, for example, a national health insurance policy will insulate the US from future crises, but hasn't similarly insulated those countries? I wish someone would ask Obama that question. Depends on what you mean by "experience." Sure, they're feeling it, their stock markets have gone down. But I don't think that they have the same effects on their mortgage markets, so they don't have the levels of foreclosures that Americans do. And since they have nationalized health insurance, few if any will go bankrupt due to unexpected medical crises. And even when companies in those countries go under, the unemployment benefits and health insurance mean that ordinary people can weather the crisis longer and better. Those "socialist" countries you name have more resources committed to protecting their people from this type of temporary downturn. As I recall, the banks in Canada are much more stable than those int he US, precisely because they have built the kind of system Obama is talking about, not just health insurance, but regulation of the financial sector.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 25, 2009 7:59:08 GMT -5
Seeing that stem cell research to help multiple sclerosis has been set back eight years by the previous administration, thus making Kelly wait eight years longer than she might otherwise have had to for a cure, I really don't give a rat's ass whether the White House or the NIH provides the guidance. Pick that nit all you want if it makes you happy. Her Doctor is doing cartwheels over the change in policy because ther already are stem cell treatments being used for MS that will only get better with more research. Research that has been plodding along with both arms tied behind its back for eight years because people can't see a difference between a frozen 5 year old and a frozen embryo. One is a child. One isn't.
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Mar 25, 2009 8:48:58 GMT -5
The one thing I can say about Obama is that he seems to have a real grasp of all the facts, he can express himself well on all these topics and it's just such a relief to listen to him vs Dubbya.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 9:03:24 GMT -5
Seeing that stem cell research to help multiple sclerosis has been set back eight years by the previous administration, thus making Kelly wait eight years longer than she might otherwise have had to for a cure, I really don't give a rat's ass whether the White House or the NIH provides the guidance. Pick that nit all you want if it makes you happy. Her Doctor is doing cartwheels over the change in policy because ther already are stem cell treatments being used for MS that will only get better with more research. Research that has been plodding along with both arms tied behind its back for eight years because people can't see a difference between a frozen 5 year old and a frozen embryo. One is a child. One isn't. I'd be curious to know what my cousin thinks of this -- that stem cell research's hands have been tied for the past eight years. That is, after all, what he does. As I understand it, 1. embryonic stem cell research has been done all along -- the ONLY question (though clouded in order to score political points) has been whether the government should pitch in on paying for some more embryonic stem cell research. 2. a HUGE advance was made in the past 1 1/2-2 years that has made it possible to make any stem cell act the same as an embryonic stem cell -- thereby making the point moot (and even more simply political) 3. useful treatments have been developed from adult stem cells. No such treatments have come from embryonic stem cells -- even though, as pointed out, embryonic stem cell research has been going on all along. yeah, and the ones who can tell the difference judged that Loopy's now three-or-four-year-old son wasn't human when he was born.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 25, 2009 9:19:56 GMT -5
The one thing I can say about Obama is that he seems to have a real grasp of all the facts, he can express himself well on all these topics and it's just such a relief to listen to him vs Dubbya. He is obviously far more articulate than Bush, but I don't see that being the same thing as having a better grasp of the facts. He may in fact have a better grasp, but simply being articulate isn't an expression of that fact one way or another. I will say this: Back when Bush first announced his embryonic stem cell policy, he gave a national address that was very heavy on the nuances of the ethical considerations involved. Obama has never spoken on the subject with similar depth. You may like Obama's policy better, but that's a separate question.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 25, 2009 9:27:38 GMT -5
- His answer on stem cells was evasive, bordering on dishonest. He flatly stated that his executive order provided ethical guidelines: I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test. What we have said is that for embryos that are typically about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson’s or for Alzheimer’s or for, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that — that it is the right thing to do. And that’s not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion. When in reality all the executive order does is punt those questions to the director of the NIH: Within 120 days from the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Director of NIH, shall review existing NIH guidance and other widely recognized guidelines on human stem cell research, including provisions establishing appropriate safeguards, and issue new NIH guidance on such research that is consistent with this order. The Secretary, through NIH, shall review and update such guidance periodically, as appropriate. But he didn't say that the Executive Order itself was the entire guidance that the Oval Office gave, he said they had provided some guidelines. None of these large initiatives is a surprise to the agencies affected, nor are they designed without agency input. Obama has already laid out some broad guidelines: that Federal funds will not be used for human cloning for reproduction, and that Federal funds will not be used, directly, in the destruction of embryos to create new human embryonic stem cell (HESC) lines. I'm sure there are other guidelines that have been communicated to people far above my pay grade that haven't been publicly discussed. Under the Bush rules, no Federal funds could be used to support research using HESCs in amy way. This meant that non-Federal funds for HESC research and Federal funds had to be kept strictly sequestered. Some Universities interpreted this to mean that equipment such as incubators and freezers for HESC work sat side-by-side with incubators and freezers for non-HESC work. This was done right down to the smallest tools of the trade, pipettes and microscopes, duplicating everything. Other Universities simply built entire buildings with non-Federal funds and kept all Federal support out. This created a huge cost in additional excess infrastructure and accounting to keep it all straight. Now, those restrictions are gone. If private companies develop HESC lines on their own and make them available to Federally-funded researchers, they can. Indeed, Universities could set up their own small, non-Federal laboratories to create the HESC lines, then distribute them to their scientists without restriction. The next step will be to repeal the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which shouldn't take long.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 9:30:50 GMT -5
Obama has never spoken on the subject with similar depth. . I wouldn't either if I were him. It's a can of worms he doesn't need to open right now.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 9:33:35 GMT -5
The next step will be to repeal the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which shouldn't take long. Yeah, then we could actually start creating embryos for the express purpose of experimentation. Then fetuses.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 25, 2009 9:36:09 GMT -5
But he didn't say that the Executive Order itself was the entire guidance that the Oval Office gave, he said they had provided some guidelines. Where in the executive order are the guidelines? I've read it. All I saw was the part where he directed the NIH to come up with guidelines. I didn't find any in the order itself, contrary to what Obama claimed last night. Technically, the Bush order restricted federal funding to certain lines of stem cells. It didn't ban such funding entirely. Anyway, it was an exercise in (to use a horribly inappropriate metaphor) executive baby-splitting that served Bush very poorly. In the end, neither the pro-life community nor the pro-ESC research community was impressed.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 25, 2009 9:43:24 GMT -5
The fact that I think that he's right on stem cell stuff doesn't change the fact that I think he's wrong on most of the other stuff.
More government is not the answer, in economics, or in health care. More socialism is not the answer. Living like the slaves in socialist countries is not the answer.
Pig story.
'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.
One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!
Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 10:16:44 GMT -5
Don't forget the "circuses" part of the "bread and circuses"... taxpayer-subsidized digital TV boxes (the opiate of the masses)...
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Mar 25, 2009 10:32:28 GMT -5
Best line of the night: when a reporter asked him why it took a couple of days before he responded about the AIG bonuses.
"It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 10:37:10 GMT -5
Best line of the night: when a reporter asked him why it took a couple of days before he responded about the AIG bonuses. "It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." That was a great bit of theater. It's like that Bentson putdown of Quayle. You know they had the line memorized and stored up and at the ready...all they had to do was wait for the perfect entry for the jab. Of course, it didn't answer the question asked, but it was such a masterful jab that nobody'd be able to come back from against the ropes -- especially when it was already the "answer" to the follow-up question.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Mar 25, 2009 10:39:10 GMT -5
< Bentsen >
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 25, 2009 10:39:12 GMT -5
Not to mention that he through about 98% of house democrats under the bus in the process.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Mar 25, 2009 10:39:42 GMT -5
Not to mention that he through about 98% of house democrats under the bus in the process. < threw >
|
|
|
Post by knobtwister on Mar 25, 2009 10:39:58 GMT -5
Where they belong. Decisions based on science instead of superstition are a welcome change.
Don
|
|