ParanoiA

Or, here's a thought..how about no benefits for anybody?

Bascule you're letting your republican hatred get the best of you. Quote? I have no quote. I was listening to the program when he said all of this stuff, and I didn't hear anything quote worthy. He's on the radio for 3 hours a day. You think your little quote (probably snagged from CNN, the american terrorist support network) is the only thing he said in an entire 3 hour show? C'mon, don't be so naive. He said everything you quoted. He ALSO said, that he understands and agrees with the benefit of not using his meds to show the effects of the disease in certain situtations, but that this shameless ad is NOT one of them. There's nothing diametrically opposite about that point. It would be just as shameful if they got a starving Ethiopian child standing knee deep in a mud hole pleading to elect Clair McCaskill because she "cares about the poor". And don't align me with spin. You're coming into this as an outsider. You weren't listening to the program when Rush said this overblown crap and you apparently don't live in Missouri where these MJF ads run over and over again, and you haven't been inundated with "spin" from all sides of the stem cell ballot initiative for weeks on end. Those of us who live here are well versed in this tug of war and we see this stuff in context, as opposed to Youtube soundbites. Rush is a hypocrite. And so are you. And so am I. What else is news? This has long been a pet peeve of mine. If a fat guy says don't eat too many donuts because they might make you fat - do you call him a hypocrite or someone who's been there and knows? He's both. I don't agree with about half of what Rush says and his own ideology contradicts itself on many levels. But I also understand that virtually every ideology contradicts itself to some extent. You'd be a fool to write his intellect off. There's a reason why his ratings make him number one, and why he's a target for the liberal elite. I will post the disinformation proof when I get more time. I've got 2 mins to jump in the shower and an hour drive to work to get through first.

No, like I said in an earlier post, I heard exactly what he said on the radio. It was nothing. He clearly stated that he understood and expected MJF to ditch the meds for awareness ads, speeches and etc - that it was important to show the effects of the disease in that capacity. His problem, and mine, is using it to spread disinformation. Albeit not as bad as I originally thought, but still disingenuous. It's disturbing to see him do the bidding of a trashy liberal politician. The stem cell amendment is a voter issue. It doesn't matter who gets elected to the senate, it's a ballot initiative. I'm not even sure why he's doing the ads. Jim Talent has stated he has no intention of seeking to criminalize or change the current legal status of this research. And he's an incumbent, so he's already had an opportunity to do that and has not.

Thanks. Excellent answer. Personally, I don't have a problem with all of this stuff. They can even clone a human to full term for all I care. But I'm curious how the language can be interpreted legally. Since you have fertilization before blastula, I can see how it could be considered a human - therefore contradicting the first line of the amendment that clearly states no person shall clone a human being.

Ok, I just read up on somatic cell nuclear transfer (which is the "language" referred to as allowing human cloning) and as usual, politicians are playing semantics. This really pisses me off too, because both sides have done nothing beyond repeating themselves over and over again. And I literally had to seek out this technicallity to find it, when it should have been forthcoming from the Yes Vote seekers when it was first challenged by the religious elite. If you don't know, apparently somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process of replacing the nucleus of a donor egg cell with the nucleus of a body cell, or somatic cell (from the patient) so that it will form a blastocyst with virtually identical DNA to the patient. This will generate stem cells that are genetically identical to the patient, avoiding complications from immune system rejection. This is the same technique used to clone Dolly the sheep. So, they appear to be correct that it is cloning - but it is not intended to clone a human being to full term. I believe this is the purpose for the first line of the amendment that reads: (1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being. So, basically both sides are being disingenuous at best. The Yes Vote crowd doesn't want to call this cloning, which it clearly is and the No Vote crowd doesn't want to admit that the first line cancels any chance of cloned humans beyond a blastocyst. I'm officially confused though, because isn't a blastocyst a human being? Or is that another subjective debate about when a fetus is developed enough to earn a right to live?

True, but I'm not a single issue guy. I will likely vote libertarian as usual, if there is one to vote for. I need to get started looking into who all is available. They can't afford commercials as it's hard to run for office on 15 bucks...

I agree with that, but fats and oils? I think we can learn that. And I think we have, actually. But you're not advocating anything to suggest "let's bother with education". What you're advocating doesn't require any education and implies disinterest. The fundamental difference is that there is no practical way to chase everything down that has the capability to kill me in twenty years. Therefore it introduces bias and tramples on others rights to ingest such things anyway. You get laws that want to ban trans-fats, but could care less about Alcohol. I would say that if any poison or ingredient serves no nutrional or flavor value would be a fair partition. Trans-fats keep my Oreo's from turning to sludge in the cabinet. I like that. I don't eat a ton of trans-fats so why should I do without just because half the country is obese and can't control their gorging and killing themselves with food? At the same time, I can't agree with your secret poison that doesn't add any nutrion or flavor / texture. However, if it makes my ice cream taste better, then I'm all for it. Actually I am. I believe in the right to commit suicide. And I'm pissed about it because I could be completely incapacitated and bedridden, condemned to a life akin to a carrot and I'm not allowed to kill myself. I should also be able to ingest any drug I want. To me, it would make more sense to divert all of these resources being blown on legislating victimless behavior (like the DEA) and direct them to real law enforcement. Like fighting violent crime. But that's a whole other debate...

Yes, and both of them are despicable. They both embody everything I can't stand about politicians. It's Clair McCaskle vs Jim Talent. Clair McCaskle ran as state auditor and "vowed" to clean up the corrupt Nursing Homes and blah blah blah. So, she audited two or three of them and then married one of the owners and suddenly the auditing came to a stop. She's your typical money grubbing democrat that uses the spite and ignorance of the poor and blue collar workers to get in office and then shucks all of the responsibility and promises. Jim Talent is your typical oil loving god promoting good ole boy republican. The one or two ads I've seen of him that aren't trashing McCaskle try to paint him as a "patriot" who "loves his family" and wants to "fight for the american way of life" around the world and blah blah blah. He would sell his own grandmother to get in office. He looks like a car salesman. Both of them have run far more smear ads than positive ones. I'd like to see how that would work for the rest of us trying to get a job. Try that next time you go to a job interview. When they start asking about your qualifications, just say "Well, I don't know but that guy you just talked to is a real piece of crap. He called in sick for two days in a row in his last job only to find out he was out fishing. He also divorced his wife for a younger woman" I wonder how well that would help you get the job...

Well, I'm going to have to eat some crow here because it's not as bad as I was making it out to be. It's arguably a bit disinformative, but it's certainly not blatant. He does say it expands the current stem cell research methods rather than suggest that it allows it ( thereby implying it's not allowed presently ). I'm not nearly as upset with him, but as Pangloss points out it's also about tax payer money. Here's a link to the amendment 2 contents if anyone is interested: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp And here's the MJF ad on youtube:

And they'll never get educated as long as you do all of the thinking for them. That's my point. You're basically saying that they're stupid, so let's not bother with education, just pass a few laws to protect the american sheep. That's how we get thousands of pages of laws and bureaucracy to wade through. The more you perpetuate that mentality, the stupider and more ignorant people become. I would argue that's why they're so stupid now. I can't believe you don't see the sense in that. When you make the argument that we're ignorant to nutrition, in support of establishing dietary laws to protect us, then you're perpetuating keeping us stupid and ignorant. This is the same reason why marijuana is still illegal. Nobody bothers to learn the truth because the great "government" that cradles our little lives said that it's bad. Never mind the same great government has no problem with letting people kill themselves with alcohol in about 20 different ways - including killing people that never took a drink. Well, if you can do it today but then you can't do it tomorrow - then that is a right that has been taken away. I'm not really sure what you're point is here. With all due respect, you're the one who said it would kill me. And so now you're saying there IS arsenic in my food so what exactly is your point? Apparently we have all kinds of poisons and toxins in our food, yet you're all hung up on trans-fats? It's been awhile since I've read this thread, so maybe I'm forgetting all of the dynamics we're discussing here. They put up with it because of the temporary euphoria of a nicotine serving. If your magical slow poison can do the same thing, you might be onto something. What about my other questions? How would a law prevent that anyway? If it doesn't exist yet until you invent it, then how would anyone stop it regardless?

Nice observation. I agree. This is that nasty gut feeling I get when I hear conservatives talk about "spreading" democracy and romanticizing our freedoms. I blame the fear of terrorism on the effectiveness of the conservative political machine. It used to be the liberal machine that had all of the power. But it seems like either Clinton or Osama pushed us the other way.

Because it's already legal to do stem cell research in Missouri. There's nothing stopping them from doing it. There are some added bonuses to the Amendment 2 though and I'm trying to figure out what they are. It's hard to find information on it that isn't biased one way or another and doesn't toy around with the language. I've read the amendment, but it's hard to tell what it changes since I don't know the status quo.

You know, I thought about that after I posted that. Because I read that a simple change in direction is acceleration - which makes sense - so you can obviously tell who is accelerating. And I also remember reading that you can feel acceleration, whereas "force-free" motion is relative. The thing is, the book makes a point in one example where Slim is in a car traveling 120 miles per hour and passes Jim standing on the side of the road and they point out that Jim is in relative motion to Slim. That from Slim's perspective, Jim is passing him at 120 miles per hour. That has me all messed up because that isn't "force-free" motion, which is how Greene explained the relative motion in space. But is that considered acceleration because of the friction of gravity even though he's traveling at a constant speed?

-If you really believe 85% of all liberals are christians -If you're a democrat but your quotes sound like Al Quada recruitment points -If you believe the president controls oil prices -If you believe we went to war in Iraq to get Haliburton rich...or richer -If you believe that oil is a never ending resource that's perfectly ok to murder for -If you believe that a politician earns his pay -If you believe in the concept of an honest politician, yet 10 times as much money is spent on getting the job than what the job pays (thanks LivinLiberal) -If you believe this post is really about you and everyone is criticizing your beliefs Seriously though..I can't believe you guys started a post about me...

I had a feeling that would have to do with it. But I figured even the acceleration could be considered relative. I'll follow your advice and see if I can find any threads on it.

Thank you. To be honest, I really didn't think that would have to be explained to anyone. Of course, I listen to talk radio from time to time, so maybe that's why. They really challenge patriotism when it comes to not supporting the Patriot Act and the NSA wire tapping program. I disagree with this ascertion, but I think that's more political positioning than anything else. But, when you listen to democrats berate our actions, it comes across quite anti-american. Rush played this little game on the radio where he would quote a mystery person and you had to guess if the quote was from a democrat or an Al Quada leader. It was quite startling how many quotes were from democrats. But I don't think they're really anti-american, I think it's just pinheaded idealism mixed with political maneuvering. This is why I can't stand the party system.

I was listening when Rush Limbaugh made that claim and it wasn't what everyone makes it out to be. MJF needs to put the medication away when he needs folks to see the effects - that's perfectly valid and Rush went to the trouble to say that several times, that he doesn't criticize Fox for doing that. He criticizes Fox only for doing it on a political ad, using it to tug people's emotions in the disinformation game. Personally, I rank Fox up there with the rest of the sleazy disinformative political ads. He's joined the ranks of the sleazeball politicians. I don't care how sick he is, it doesn't make it ok to basically lie and cheat people into voting for something. He has plenty of company down there in the sludge of politicians, lobbyists, liars, theives..etc. That said, I'm all for amendment 2 to pass. However, I would rather it pass on its own merit, rather than distorting all of the facts to get it passed. It's election season, and I'm disgusted as usual....

Ok, well I thought myself into another conundrum.... Ok, if I leave earth in a spaceship traveling 80% of the speed of light and come back in 5 years my time, then I have aged 5 years, while the earth and everyone on it has aged several decades. So, here's my question: If motion is all relative, then why do I age less and everyone else ages more? We both see our clocks running slower, however I'm the only one that time slows down for. If motion is relative, then shouldn't this be the same as the earth traveling 80% of the speed of light and coming back to me in 5 years their time?

So perpetuating the ignorance is the answer? I don't understand the mentality behind this statement. Again...Americans are stupid, so you advocate keeping them stupid and trample on their freedoms. I will never agree with that. Because I can eat SOME trans-fats, artificial cheese sandwiches and etc - but arsenic will kill me the first time. Actual poisons serve no purpose in flavor or nutrition, so I hardly see any need to really point out the distinction to you. Whereas fatty foods taste great. Just because something is bad for you, doesn't mean you should NEVER have it. My parents are health nuts, and there's virtually no sugar, fat or sodium in their diet and they work out religiously and have for decades now. But they still reward themselves ever now and then with a big ole bowl of Dove ice cream or some other fatty, trans-fat infested treat. You appear to be advocating treading on their right to do this because other people are too stupid for their own good. What's to stop that from happening today? Yet it doesn't. Probably because of the check and balance properties inherent in capitalism. Since businesses have to earn our commerce, there's not a lot of reward in just poisoning everyone. Once they found out about it, you'd be out of business. Besides, how would a law prevent that anyway? If it doesn't exist yet until you invent it, then how would anyone stop it regardless?

Not to mention the additional time involved waiting for them all to catch up. I couldn't stand the snail's pace in the lab while the morons I was grouped with read and re-read and re-read again stuff they already should have read and so consequently needed babysitting throughout the entire class period. I basically taught little pieces of the material to small groups of people that didn't apparently really want to learn it and I didn't get paid for it...isn't that basically a public high school teacher?

Yeah, and I would believe Colin Powell over GWB any day. Actually, I'd probably believe a bum on the side of road over GWB, come to think of it. I wish Powell would have run for president. I would have actually voted non-libertarian...unless of course he ran as a libertarian - which I'm sure he wouldn't have.

Makes me cringe too actually. I can't help but to feel like a victim of propaganda when I watch the news. Everyone killed is either an american soldier or a "terrorist" / "insurgent". They talk about these "battles" going on here and there. I shudder to think how many innocent civilians are being slaughtered and tagged "terrorist". And with the republicans challenging everyone's patriotism upon questioning, it has a strange, manipulative feeling to me. I don't have any real intellect to support any of that - just an ugly gut feeling.

I misread your post. Sorry. How would we really know? I know that Bush wanted to do something about Iraq before Sept 11 happened, so I'm sure it's plausible that he only listened to those who said what he wanted to hear. Do you know something I apparently don't?

Not really. Because as Skye pointed out, sometimes the strategy is still somewhat of a loss, but less of a loss - and necessary. We would all post opinions about how stupid they are when we really don't understand the pragmatism necessary for the situation. We also don't realisticly understand the capabilities of our military. Each branch has a lot of toys and manpower, most of which we don't really understand enough to make an accurate comment about much of anything militarily. Of course, I also realize this is a government answerable to the people and so perhaps we should understand, but I don't think anybody really does.