John Edwards announces his run for Office
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Monday, January 8, 2007 01:17
VIEWED: 6407
PAGE 6 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
[ The private sector is free to spend to its hearts content. States are free to spend their own $$ on ESC research , as is the case in California.
And we all know how eager the private sector is to jump on cures for things. Give me the last major medical cure that came from the private sector, not through gov't grants and research.
Quote:
Ever hear of Abu Abbas?
“Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport….
Yes I have - have you? Abbas was a hijacker of the Achille Lauro over what, 20 years ago? How's he relevant to the terrorist threat now in Iraq? How was he even relevant to anything involving Islamic fundamentalism in the "post-9/11 world" that you get so worked up over. Your terrorist proof is Abbas? That's the biggest grasp at straws I've ever seen...no wait, here comes another...
Quote:
Saddam also paid the fammilies of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.
Wow. He paid some widows off. That's some HUGE terror support right there. Oh, you're right, paying off widows is just ghastly.
Quote:
Go back to grade school and learn the definition of the word before you use it, and then learn about CONTEXT. In different situations and under differnt arguments, the issue of hypocrisy is irrelevent.
I'd say the issue is pretty relevant. You threw a high and mighty fit about the value of people. Now you're trying to weasel out of it with "situational ethics." Context is irrelevant. If you've ever said in any thread (and I bet you have) that Saddam is a symbol of oppression, you're a hypocrite.
Quote:
equivolent
Equivalent.
Quote:
Moron.
Right back at you.
Quote:
I was referring to Edward's remark that a vote for him and Kerry would lead to find a cure for those like Reeves, and allow for him to stand up and walk out of that chair.
Yes, you were. And nowhere did they say that he would magically walk from the chair. That was your twist. They said that voting for them would be a big push for that issue. You don't like Edwards so you twisted the meaning of his words. Then, you got bent out of shape because Reeves died, like Edwards could see that coming when he spoke.
Quote:
THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE, pin head. Stop trying to bob and weave.
The only one bobbing and weaving, jackass, is you. You've put up strawman after strawman in this thread, and brought up terrorists from the 80's to defend a weak position on Islamic fundamentalism (and Abbas' goals were, IIRC, political, not religious, which makes his appearance in your post ludicrous, at best).
Quote:
And btw, it was citizen who dragged you back in here, w/ his post. Not me.
And in a juvenile fashion, you took his "bait." No smile here.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Context is irrelevant. If you've ever said in any thread (and I bet you have) that Saddam is a symbol of oppression, you're a hypocrite.
Why don't you just have this discussion w/ yourself? You seem quite comfortable at making up positions that others haven't taken to make your arguments. Context is imparitive, and not irrelevent. If Saddam murdered 10,000's of innocent Iraqis, then yes, HE is the focus those crimes. If you're talking about who should walk or wheel their way through life, then YOU are playing God. Because you feel Chris Reeves was an 'icon', you'd play favorites with him over anyone else ? You truly are delusional.
Quote:
And nowhere did they say that he would magically walk from the chair. That was your twist. They said that voting for them would be a big push for that issue. You don't like Edwards so you twisted the meaning of his words.
That's bullshit, and you know it! You're intentionally twisting MY words and then saying I'm the one who twisted Edward's words! Unfuckingbelievable! I never claimed THEY said anyone would 'magically' walk, but Edwards DID promise that which he knew he could not offer. THEY were the ones who were pandering here, you fucking moron, NOT ME!!
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe he thought they could deliver - not in a year, or four, but seven or ten. How do you know what he was thinking?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Iraq was such a wonderful place back in those days. No one was ever terrorized in Iraq.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The difference is I'm smart enough to realize that Islamic terrorists weren't in Iraq before we got there.
But on the embryonic stem cell stuff: I like embryonic stem cell research. It doesn’t seem to be panning out at the moment, but it might some day. And there are ways to get new embryos. Fetuses die or abort naturally, what if a would-be mother felt that the tragic and natural demise of her fetus should be used for research? I could probably imagine that most women would not want that, but some might, and it would only take a few to fuel the research. The problem with that is that I get the feeling some abortion advocates are just drooling over harvesting of human embryos, and that just makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
Contrary to the fantasies of people who think there were no Islamic terrorist in Iraq there is, in fact, embryonic stem cell research being conducted in the United States. A lot of it, actually. Embryonic stem cell research is not banned in the US, and to my knowledge never has been, but because of lies and intentionally misleading statements by some in the media and some politicians, people seem to believe Bush banned stem cell research in 2001. Stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, unregulated, with private and state funding, furthermore Stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, continues with federal funding, but limited to the existing 72 lines. So, embryonic stem cell research is continuing unregulated. The so-called “ban” didn’t affect private or state-funding and federally funding research hasn’t run out of stem cell lines yet, so their going just fine too.
The reason why no miracle cures have come out of embryonic stem cell research is because that’s fantasy: there is no such thing as a miracle cure. Research takes time, and it’s probably just way too soon to see any results. But it’s also true that embryonic stem cell research doesn’t look as promising as adult stem cell research. So there may never be the kind of benefit emerging from embryonic stem cells that has already been found with adult stem cell research.
So what’s the issue with embryonic stem cell research? Part of it is Abortion! It’s driven, to some degree, by abortion advocacy and the desire to give abortion some moral legitimization by equating it with crazy medical miracles, in the hopes that it will make the Pro-choice argument more acceptable. The other part has to do with scientists promoting their research to get funding, and I think the public has interpreted this as a far greater affirmation of embryonic stem cell research then is probably realistic.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It’s driven, to some degree, by abortion advocacy and the desire to give abortion some moral legitimization by equating it with crazy medical miracles, in the hopes that it will make the Pro-choice argument more acceptable."
How strange of you to think that. And what a strange idea that is.
I have a fairly young family member whose brain was seriously damaged by a stroke. Lots of neurons were wiped out. And neurons (as you know) don't generally replace themselves. So looking around for future potential, nothing seems like it will fix that except stem cell research - transplanting cells to replace the dead ones and have them grow into place and function. Validating abortion isn't even a consideration.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But I did, the fact that you are too partisan to admit that, or indeed objectively analyse a quote from the man you love is hardly my problem, and does, indeed, prove me right. I've won, you admitting that fact is hardly required, but would stop you looking like the petty minded child you manage to portray yourself as so often.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But the fact that you didn't find a quote from Bush or ANY OTHER politician which sank to the level of Edward's and his pandering only shows I was right after all.
Quote:Because you didn't read my post because you are not interested in anything anyone has to say, indeed you are only interested in silencing anyone who doesn't have a carbon copy of your own opinions. Trolling seems to be the way you go about that.
And yes, you did offer up a Bush quote, one which I admitted to having missed.
Quote:You asked for a quote where Bush was exaggerating or lying, I provided one, you can't handle the fact you are wrong, I get that.
But that quote was so inane and meaningless w/ respect to the discussion we were having, it simply doesn't count.
Quote:Not really, you did lie, so did Bush. As for the Edwards quote all you've managed to show is that you judge the other side far more harshly than your own and that when exposed you'll lie and personally attack people in a transparent attempt to wriggle out of it.
As for me 'lying' , that's an even farther reach than the Bush quote equating to what Edwards said.
Quote:I know the difference, Bush was lying, Edwards may very well have been wrong. But because you are the biggest partisan it has ever been my misfortune to meet you'll never admit it. As someone else said, you'd have no problem with Bush lying while clubbing baby seals, as long as it was Bush doing it.
Please, learn the difference between being wrong and intentionally lying. I doubt you're so dense that you can't comprehend such a basic difference between the two.
Also you let Bush off the hook because 'other people said it too'. Since other people besides John Edwards have said that ESC research will make people walk again it is merely your partisanship, dirty debating tactics, double standards and idiocy that allows you to apply lopsided standards.
Quote:Just because you say it doesn't make it true. And in fact you saying it probably makes it false, that's just how things work with you. I'd hate to make this assertion about you though, we're just five days into 2007, so there's lots of time for you to make a bigger twat of yourself.
That might stand as the most ridiculous and inane quote of yours for the entire year. And that's saying a lot.
Fact is what I said is very true, your inability to recognise or admit to it are your own problems.
Quote:Well obviously you thought it meant something to the discussion, which is why you brought it up. Funny how when it suits you you change tack huh, guess you don't have much problem lying.
I wasn't aware I needed to answer anything from 7%. Guess I'll go look up his last post. What does knowing the US political system have anything to do w/this discussion? Oh, nothing.
Quote:But then it doesn't mean I can't tell when you're blatantly twisting a quote through partisanship, you attempted to silence me because I apparently "know nothing about the US political system", remember, or do you only remember those facts that are convenient?
That's right. If 7% does know more about the political system, then jolly good for him. But that doesn't make him more informed or 'right' on this issie.
It is far from surprising that your verbal attacks aren't even internally consistent.
Quote:And 7% wins too. Now if you could go away and have your temper tantrum elsewhere that would be oh so nice.
THEY were the ones who were pandering here, you fucking moron, NOT ME!!
Have you ever wondered why even those who share your political affiliation distance themselves from your arguments? Why
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, of course, and then there is the late Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, etc. There are lots of people for which it is believed that treatments from embryonic stem cell could hypothetical cure or help treat, and I tend to also believe that that’s a possibility. The reality however is different from what we believe and what we hope to be true. The reality is that we can’t even make use of the plupotency of embryonic stem cells yet, to my knowledge, and it’s not clear to me that we ever will. So we can all sit around and dream for the future, but as it stands right now maybe adult and child stem cells may be the best hope for your family member.
However, none of that explains to me the craze behind embryonic stem cells, and the only thing that seems to make sense to me is that it has somehow been tied into the abortion debate. Some of the people who tend to be the most irrational on this issue also tend to be those who are very pro-abortion. That is those who insist that there is a “ban” on embryonic stem cells, or that insist upon pleas to emotion or petty. While I’m not without sympathy for people who suffer from conditions that could hypothetically be helped by embryonic stem cells, I’m also leery of creating a society where viable human life is cannibalized. I’m not against cannibalizing embryos that have been naturally rejected for pregnancy, but we need to go forward with this carefully, understanding that there are political and legal issues that must be dealt with.
And in all honesty, I’m not sure how to do that. And for what it’s worth, my heart and prayers go out to your family member as well as others who might hypothetically be helped by embryonic stem cells, and I really do hope that embryonic stem cells becomes all that some claim it will or might be, but none of that means anything to me, if we can’t work out the legal and political issues. What if embryonic stem cells do pan out? What happens when there is actually a real reason for all this wild politics? That probably doesn’t bother people who think an embryo is no more important then a scab or a toenail clipping, but to others, there is a serious moral conflict in the exchanging of one human life for another.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As I'm sure you are the most moral person here and undoubtedly have the moral high ground, maybe you can tell us how using an embryo that is to be thrown away, such as the ones used in IVF treatments, is a worse use than just disposing of it?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That probably doesn’t bother people who think an embryo is no more important then a scab or a toenail clipping, but to those with a higher degree of compassion for human life, there is a serious moral conflict in the exchanging of one human life for another.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I certainly agree with you on the moral high ground part, considering the callous disregard you’ve displayed for a human embryo.
Originally posted by citizen:
As I'm sure you are the most moral person here and undoubtedly have the moral high ground, maybe you can tell us how using an embryo that is to be thrown away, such as the ones used in IVF treatments, is a worse use than just disposing of it?
As for the rest of it, maybe I didn’t make myself clear, I don’t think I would have any problem using “an embryo that is to be thrown away” for medical research or treatment. The problem I have is in how we decide what constitutes an “embryo that is to be thrown away,” and I don’t think people who have no compassion for the conception of human life or it’s prenatal byproduct are really in a moral position to make that decision.Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have a fairly young family member whose brain was seriously damaged by a stroke. Lots of neurons were wiped out. And neurons (as you know) don't generally replace themselves. So looking around for future potential, nothing seems like it will fix that except stem cell research - transplanting cells to replace the dead ones and have them grow into place and function. Validating abortion isn't even a consideration.
The best hope for medical advances which may yield benfitial to those suffering from similar type situations as your family member are adult stem cell research. All indications are that stem cells from the patient themselves will provide the best treatment/ cure.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME