Some thoughts on obama's jobs summit and the economy

[Jccarlton]

I'm going to add this little piece about the laws of unintended consequences or the Mafia employment act:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell041709.php3

Seeing the world as you think it ought to be rather than as it is.

[Betruger]

Skipjack it could just as well be that he stripped the non-essential things from the problem, kinda like engineers do, and worried only about the functional bits. Not the packaging. A planetarium fills a purpose, economically and culturaly, that's independent of exactly what type of circuit boards it uses or what software version it's running on.. See what I mean?

It isn't analogous to saying fusion reactors always blow up. It's akin to expecting a president to know the intricate advanced physics, or knowing all about guns when they don't deal with them everyday. Unlike those legislators harping on about "assault rifles" do. There's only so much the human brain can stock, and someone in those politicians' position will have a huge amount to know. So even more than the average.. what's the word for someone enthusiastically interested in anything and everything.. even more than for that kind of average guy, such a high level politician will understandably have to whittle almost everything down to the bare essentials.

You can't call a politician who treats something obscure like a black box, and who set the black box boundaries right (not too large, not too small), negligent. No doubt it's curious that not a single person who dealt with reviewing the speech hadn't caught that. Or maybe McCain is just a folksy old fart with old habits. There's too little evidence to cut either way.
darn that's a lot of yappin over semantics

[Skipjack]

You know, considering the history of the last century, we should know that taking the moral point of view that KILLING BABIES is a good thing is in any way the right thing to do is a big mistake. You might start out KILLING BABIES FOR SCIENCE, but somehow it always ends up that you start killing other people too. Look up Margaret Sanger. or ask any of the Jews in your neighborhood. Oh wait, they all were killed in the '40's. For SCIENTIFIC reasons.

This comparison is exactly what a true christian rightwinger would do, exactly my point. Thanks for making it more clear. It is the same point that GW Bush made. Killing babies, hahaahahaha!
Can you please get any more lame! You can let this stuff loose on Sunday in church, but please leave it out of a serious discussion, OK?
It is a single stem cell. It has the genetical makeup that it might become a baby, but it is not yet. The cells are not even differentiated yet (that is why it is a stem cell). It is nothing more than a single cell, almost like any other human cell.
Besides, the jews generally were not killed for scientific reasons (maybe a few were for dubious reasons), but for racism. That is a big difference. But thanks for bringing that up. GW Bushs grandfather was part of a conspiracy to tobble Rosewelt and join Hitler, LOL.

And embryonic stem cell research has been largely a dead end anyway.

ROFL. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!
It is among the fastest advancing parts of life sciences.

I think you would be amazed by what the US produces. I work in the making stuff area and even I am amazed at some of the stuff. But it doesn't happen in huge multi acre assembly plants and places with great big belching smokestacks, so it isn't as evident as it once was.

Yes the US still produces a lot, but if you keep outselling your production, for how much longer? Chevy, Hummer, Levi's, etc. All traditionally US produced products, are now produced in China.
Heck, Bush even outsold your harbor security to the fracking Saudies. He might have just as well asked Osama himself to do the security. Awesome job, really!

[Diogenes]

What planet have YOU been living on ? First of all Bush is hardly a right winger. He was a fiscal spendthrift. The only right wing position that he put forth was strong support for the military, but when it came to spending, he spent like a drunken democrat. (edit. I take that back. At the top of his Insane spending, he only spent 1/4th of what the new guy is spending.)

Oh come one...
Stem Cell research.
Tax cuts for the very rich.
Trying to ban abortion.
One of his main councellors was a pastor, the other one was praying to god every morning to get the right ideas...
A lot of his decisions were religiously motivated.

Bush's decision to give the green light to existing lines of stem cell research did not endear him to the Pro-life right. The decision was objected to vociferously. By not expanding existing stem cell research, he angered the left. A lot of people thought this was a pretty well thought out middle of the road decision.

Tax Cuts for the very rich ? Really ? Whom ? What act of congress is it that he signed that you are referring to?
Ban Abortion ? Again, how did he try to do this ?
Religious motivation ?
The Civil war was triggered by the political activism of abolitionists. They were religiously motivated to believe that slavery was evil and should be abolished. (They formed the Republican Party in Ripon Wisconsin in 1854.)
Was this religiously motivated movement wrong to abolish slavery ?

How exactly did Bush do this ? Please explain. I am all ears.

1. Starting a pointless war in Iraq, that cost money that nobody has and that has not brought any of the investment returns that he had promised.
A lot of that he did to give HB a reason to exist.

I guess you missed the part where I pointed out that the new guy is spending 4 X the amount that Bush did, and Bush's spending was insane.

The war in Iraq was not pointless. Current evidence indicates Saddam made every effort to convince the world (especially Iran) that he either had, or would soon have nuclear weapons. The motivation, (discovered too late.) was to convince Iran that his country was too dangerous to attack. Enough fake evidence (including Radio transmissions discussing how to transport and handle the "devices." ) had been leaked to the various spy services to convince everyone paying attention that Saddam either had or was very close to having a nuclear weapon.

As i've asked before (when discussing this subject) what does one do with ONE nuclear weapon ? You hit Te Aviv and start World war III. Given the evidence and the possible horrors that could have resulted, the ONLY reasonable course of action would be to make certain that this would not happen. I would have done exactly the same thing.


On the Halliburton thing, a lot of people may not be aware that Halliburton's only serious competitor is a company called Schlumberger. Schlumberger is the Democrat version of Halliburton. They have massive Democrat connections, and their political contributions go to Democrats. Much of the vileness heaped upon Halliburton is the result of angst from Schlumberger at not getting those lucrative contracts in Iraq. My understanding is that Schlumberger wasn't able to perform the required work, (they aren't nearly as big or as competent as Halliburton, which wasCreated by Erle Halliburton from Duncan Oklahoma. )

Since of course, the Media and the Democrats have a completely inbred relationship. (90% of the Media is liberal democrat.) Then of course Schlumbergers sour grapes and the Media Hatred of Bush combine to create the appearance of Nefarious doings.

2. Doing nothing to prevent the outselling of US production and technology to other countries, especially China.

If you are making the argument that he didn't STOP it, and if one accepts your premise, you may have a point. However, you are making the point that he CAUSED it, and that is simply ridiculous. The same events would have occurred regardless of who the President was.

You can not, you can not run an economy that does not produce any value. You cant. You are just circulating money inside your country and then you are sending money abroad, but you have very little money coming in in return. The only value that the US has with no production in the country is in Know How and that is quickly copied by your "partners" abroad.
Leading to point 3...

I agree, you can't run an economy by just circulating dollars around. (like the current President is attempting to do.) I would point out that here in the USA, it is considered to be the duty of Businesses to produce goods and services, and the President is simply supposed to manage the Federal Government. We don't want a "Command Economy", and we don't feel a President is qualified to instruct Businesses in how to produce goods and services. (especially if he's never produced a good or service in his entire life. At least Bush ran an oil company.)

3. Religiously motivated regulations that caused the US to fall behind in one of the most promising fields of medical science: Stem Cell research.
GW Bush did very little to improve the creation of new Know How in the US. That means Education and Science. I have never seen a President more adverse to science than he was (mostly religiously motivated).

As someone else mentioned, it looks like embryonic stem cell research is turning out to be as valuable to humanity as Global Warming research. All the advances that *I'M* hearing about seem to be coming from the areas of Adult Stem cell research. (Which always made sense to me. How can anyone's stem cells but their own be made to safely integrate into their bodies tissues ? Foreign DNA gets rejected, or the immune system must be maintained in a suppressed mode. )

All of the above direclty caused the USD to plummet to its lowest level ever, which in return caused loans that some ruthless US bankers had shifted abroad to rise to unpayable levels. One problem is that the US does not even have a government regulated national bank. Who is printing your money?

The stuff you mentioned is trivial compared to the stuff i'm talking about. Borrowing and Spending by the Feds, (usually under the Democrats, but from 2009-2006 under Republicans.) Government interference in the housing market creating artificially high housing prices and values, and Government pushing of Liar loans. Resulting in a housing collapse, which led to bank collapses, etc.

Yes, we have idiots running the country. The reason for this is that they control the media (who is on their side) and every election they manage to convince the most gullible 50% of the electorate to keep voting for them.

Finally he failed to give the government and non government banks and agencies any rules to prevent the hedge fund and credit catastrophy.
He just let wallstreet do their stuff regardless of how bad it was. It was all a bubble that burst.

I think I mentioned that the President is not a dictator. If I didn't make that clear, let me make that clear now. The President is not a Dictator. He cannot order people hither and thither and to do this and that.

The Regulation of which you speak is properly the domain of Congress. Concerning the Housing bubble and the Freddy Mac Fannie Mae crisis, the President DID try to urge congress to take actions several times. That is as much as he is legally able to do.

Btw, the new government should not have approved the bailout plan.
I would have let those banks die after the crash btw and would have rather given the people tax cuts and small amounts of cash so they can pay their debts to the banks instead. The bankers deserved nothing, definitely not the fat bonuses they paid themselves from the bailout money.
Oh and Chevy and some of the others did not deserve any bailout money either. They produce almost everything in China, you might just as well send the money directly there.
These libertarians got themselves into this mess, let them get out of it themselves, or die.

Some of what you say makes sense, but other things seem to be the result of a lack of information. Given that the media simply WILL not report stuff injurious to their side, and given that they make every effort, up to and including making things up, to damage Republicans, it is understandable why you are not able to get better information.

The Climate Gate Scandal is STILL being ignored by the Media. The Acorn Scandal is Also being ignored by the media. Same thing with Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, etc.

If the media reports on a horse race between Republicans and Democrats, they will say the Republican horse came in second to last, and the Democrat horse came in second to first. Make no mistake. The Media in the USA are partisans. They are all hired from and employed in the most Anti-Republican regions of the country,(New York, Los Angeles) and their personal biases affect every single thing they put on the air.

Here, let me show you.
Red indicates Republican. (More media bias. The Democrats should be red because their positions are much closer to communists. Republicans should be blue, because their positions are much closer to Royalists. You know, God and Country, etc. )




Oh, and it wasn't the libertarians who created the mess. Given what has been happening so far, i'd rather have had libertarians. It is the "Statists" that have been screwing things up.

Check out this video. It covers a lot of what i'm trying to explain. It's not as good as the original. YouTube keeps banning the original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

[Skipjack]

It's akin to expecting a president to know the intricate advanced physics, or knowing all about guns when they don't deal with them everyday.

Yeah, but he was also talking about an "overhead projector".
And he clearly did not understand the purpose of the projector and probably not even the planetarium, or otherwise he would not have made such a fuss about it.

[Skipjack]

A lot of people thought this was a pretty well thought out middle of the road decision.

It was not, it was silly and in no way reasonable.
Period!

Enough fake evidence (including Radio transmissions discussing how to transport and handle the "devices." ) had been leaked to the various spy services to convince everyone paying attention that Saddam either had or was very close to having a nuclear weapon.

Maybe it was leaked by someone else who would profit from a war against Iraq. I know who I am suspecting.

You hit Te Aviv and start World war III.

Really? I would not bring the end of the world about, over that.
Maybe you guys would, but some of you are so eager to die a hero (sometimes for nothing), it is hard to believe, really. I got news for you: There is no afterlife! There is not eternal reward for dying a hero. You will simply cease to exist. Thats it. Good night. Bye, bye.
I know, I went and checked myself.

Since of course, the Media and the Democrats have a completely inbred relationship.

Depends on what channel you watch. If I watch Fox news, I have the feeling I am watching the Church channel or something. There is more born again christians spreading ultra right antiscience there than my stomack can take.

If you are making the argument that he didn't STOP it, and if one accepts your premise, you may have a point.

He did not only not stop it, he encouraged it. See the harbor security that he basically donated to the Saudies. As I said, you might just as well let Osama do the security there. Same difference.

We don't want a "Command Economy", and we don't feel a President is qualified to instruct Businesses in how to produce goods and services.

Nothing a high punishment toll on goods from China cant solve.

At least Bush ran an oil company

Yeah with money that he had gotten from dady. And strangely enough, until he became president, that company did not go tooo well, did it?

As someone else mentioned, it looks like embryonic stem cell research is turning out to be as valuable to humanity as Global Warming research.

We will see about either, OK? I am a little skeptic of AGW (maybe not as much as others here, but I still am), but IMHO that does not make the entire field of science pointless. Heck what if it got colder? I would like to know about that!
There are US citizens going to China now to get treatment with embryonic stem cells there. So far they seem to work rather well. Again China.... Hmm, I am starting to see a pattern there.

[Diogenes]

This comparison is exactly what a true christian rightwinger would do, exactly my point. Thanks for making it more clear. It is the same point that GW Bush made. Killing babies, hahaahahaha!
Can you please get any more lame! You can let this stuff loose on Sunday in church, but please leave it out of a serious discussion, OK?
It is a single stem cell. It has the genetical makeup that it might become a baby, but it is not yet. The cells are not even differentiated yet (that is why it is a stem cell). It is nothing more than a single cell, almost like any other human cell.
Besides, the jews generally were not killed for scientific reasons (maybe a few were for dubious reasons), but for racism. That is a big difference. But thanks for bringing that up. GW Bushs grandfather was part of a conspiracy to tobble Rosewelt and join Hitler, LOL.

I think perhaps his point is that the kind of people who support abortion, (Margaret Sanger) are the same kind of people who supported the Nazis and the Communists.(Margaret Sanger, Roger Baldwin et al.)

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

And that the people who oppose abortion, are the same kind of people who opposed Slavery. Religious nutjobs.

Were they right about Slavery but wrong about Abortion, or were they wrong about Slavery too ?


Oh, by the way, Mengele was an abortionist. You know, one of those Nazi guys.

(and from the New York Times to boot !)

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/11/world ... ele&st=nyt

[Skipjack]

The people that do this and the people that do that, blah, blah, blah.
Stupid way of arguing.
Mengele and the Nazis are long dead, there is no point in digging them out over and over again.
Besides, whenever the word Nazi falls somewhere, I get sick to the stomack and my ears get a weird sound in them all of a sudden and I cant follow the conversation anymore.

I am NOT in favor of abortion. My personal opinion is that if you made, you take care of it!
BUT, there are situations where abortions are perfectly justifyable even to my morals.
E.g. in case of rape and incest. I also see them justified if there is a medical implication for it, e.g. the life of the mother is in danger. I also see it quite justifyable if the baby would be handicaped, e.g. mentally. Yeah look down on me for that, but I would rather spend my money on two healthy kids than on one healthy and one unhealthy kid.
Sorry, if that does not match your christian morale, or sense of political correctness, but I dont give a frack about either such.

[Diogenes]

A lot of people thought this was a pretty well thought out middle of the road decision.

It was not, it was silly and in no way reasonable.
Period!

Well I guess we're open minded about this! You think allowing continuing research on 10 available existing embryonic stem cell lines is unreasonable ? What would be the magic number to be reasonable ? 20? 100? 1000?

Like the old joke says, "We know what kind of girl you are, Now we're just haggling over the price."

You hit Te Aviv and start World war III.

Really? I would not bring the end of the world about, over that.
Maybe you guys would, but some of you are so eager to die a hero (sometimes for nothing), it is hard to believe, really. I got news for you: There is no afterlife! There is not eternal reward for dying a hero. You will simply cease to exist. Thats it. Good night. Bye, bye.
I know, I went and checked myself.

I have read that the Polish Cavalry attacked German tanks during Germany's invasion of Poland. They were slaughtered. When asked later, why they had done such a thing, the Poles claimed that they were told the tanks were fake and made of cardboard.

The moral to this point is that it DOES NOT MATTER what the truth is. It only matters what people THINK the truth is. If people believe in an afterlife, they will behave as though they believe in an afterlife. This is why I believe nuclear armed Iranians are completely intolerable. Athiest Russians at least know that a nuclear exchange means game over for them too. Religious nut jobs would be perfectly willing to take the chance that their after life will be better.


Now it is my opinion that the only reason the most Christianized portions of the World were the first to develop high technology was because they had a belief system which encouraged them to behave well enough to create a society capable of producing scientific advances.

Obviously, some people are willing to cut off this supporting pillar of civilization without verifying that it's actually holding something up. If they are right, nothing will happen when religion is discredited and morality is based on habit. If I am right, it will start a massive cycle of death and destruction, and the Islamic Religious fanatics will eventually force Islam on everyone, and kill the A-thiest troublemakers.

My point is, you are either going to get a relatively benevolent Christian based religious society, or a less tolerant Islam based religious society. You don't get a different choice. True believers cannot be beaten by persuasion and scientific method. They can only be opposed by another form of faith.

Since of course, the Media and the Democrats have a completely inbred relationship.

Depends on what channel you watch. If I watch Fox news, I have the feeling I am watching the Church channel or something. There is more born again christians spreading ultra right antiscience there than my stomack can take.

I know this meme keeps getting repeated ad infinitum ad nauseum. Fox is the only News channel with conservative news casters. Strangely enough, it is by far and wide, the most popular of all the broadcast news channels. *I*, of course, have never noticed any particularly churching from Fox News. I perceive that you are hyper sensitive to it. Pray tell, does this hyper sensitivity extend to any OTHER religion than Christianity ? Let us hear you loudly denounce some other religion as intolerant. What do you think of Islam ?

If you are making the argument that he didn't STOP it, and if one accepts your premise, you may have a point.

He did not only not stop it, he encouraged it. See the harbor security that he basically donated to the Saudies. As I said, you might just as well let Osama do the security there. Same difference.

Are you talking about Dubai World Ports deal ? Yeah, that caused the economic collapse alright.

We don't want a "Command Economy", and we don't feel a President is qualified to instruct Businesses in how to produce goods and services.

Nothing a high punishment toll on goods from China cant solve.it, and if one accepts your premise, you may have a point.

Protectionism is what it's called. Most of the Right wing is against it. So are most of the left, if you measure opposition by how many foreign TV sets, Cars, household products, etc. that they have.
Of course the left wing preaches in favor of Protectionism in public. Privately they still buy their Volvos, their Sony's, their Samsungs, etc.


To be fair, Pat Buchanan said one of the most intelligent things i've ever heard regarding protectionism. (Yeah, a lot of people HATE Pat Buchanan, but give the devil his due.)

He points out that American Factories, and American Workers have to comply with a multitude of requirements and regulations. (OSHA, EPA, Social Security, etc.)

As a result, this puts them at an unfair disadvantage compared to foreign companies and workers who do not have to comply with American standards of regulation and pay.

Pat Buchanan proposed that a tarrif should be added to any goods manufactured over seas that are produced in such factories, and the tarrif should be the equivalent cost of complying with American standards of regulation and pay. This would in effect, Level the playing field and allow Americans to compete on an equal level with their foreign counterparts.


The idea actually seems reasonable to me. It might stop factories from relocating overseas just to avoid regulations.
Of course, the consumer is the looser in this scenario.

At least Bush ran an oil company

Yeah with money that he had gotten from dady. And strangely enough, until he became president, that company did not go tooo well, did it?

To paraphrase sampson "How would you know this without plowing with my heifer ?"

In other words, who told you that ? And what makes you think it's true ? Another example of Media Bias. You have got to do more of your own research, and quit believing rumors.

As someone else mentioned, it looks like embryonic stem cell research is turning out to be as valuable to humanity as Global Warming research.

We will see about either, OK? I am a little skeptic of AGW, but IMHO that does not make the entire field science pointless.
There are US citizens going to China now to get treatment with embryonic stem cells there. So far they seem to work rather well. Again China.... Hmm, I am starting to see a pattern there.

No one disputes that the Scientific Data that the Nazis collected by experimenting on the Jews wasn't valuable. Most of the objections were that we shouldn't be using it because it is unethical.

Many people feel the same way about embryonic stem cells.

Russian scientists tried to implant human females with gorilla sperm. One cut off dog's heads and kept them alive for hours. Obviously not being squeamish has certain scientific advantages. Being A-thiest has advantages over being a thiest. To an A thiest, tissue is just tissue, and genes are genes. With that perspective, there is nothing wrong with tampering with fetuses or mixing animals and humans. After all, we're all just animals here aren't we ?

[Diogenes]

The people that do this and the people that do that, blah, blah, blah.
Stupid way of arguing.
Mengele and the Nazis are long dead, there is no point in digging them out over and over again.
Besides, whenever the word Nazi falls somewhere, I get sick to the stomack and my ears get a weird sound in them all of a sudden and I cant follow the conversation anymore.

The Original Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ) is gone, but it's meme's and it's legacy live on. I see echos of Nazism in any authoritative government.

I am NOT in favor of abortion. My personal opinion is that if you made, you take care of it!
BUT, there are situations where abortions are perfectly justifyable even to my morals.
E.g. in case of rape and incest. I also see them justified if there is a medical implication for it, e.g. the life of the mother is in danger. I also see it quite justifyable if the baby would be handicaped, e.g. mentally. Yeah look down on me for that, but I would rather spend my money on two healthy kids than on one healthy and one unhealthy kid.
Sorry, if that does not match your christian morale, or sense of political correctness, but I dont give a frack about either such.

Most people feel the same way. However, the people who keep up with this issue knows that the exceptions amount to just a few percent of all abortions. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience.

For what it's worth, I feel exactly the same way. I would rather abort a retarded child than keep it.


This issue is very much like the AIDS issue. The vast majority of people getting AIDS in the First world countries are Homosexuals and Drug addicts. However, the AIDS proponents use the extremely rare exceptions (Ryan White) as the hood ornament for their efforts to justify the huge expenditures on AIDS research.

People see a young boy who got AIDS from a blood transfusion and they feel pity. People see grown men getting AIDS from homosexual activity, or sharing needles, and they feel disgust.

Guess which argument opens the purse strings ?



Emotion beats logic any day of the week.

[Skipjack]

and the Islamic Religious fanatics will eventually force Islam on everyone, and kill the A-thiest troublemakers.

Careful here.
First, most of the atheists like me are for strict secularismn. Most of the Christian right in the US are against it, weanting to force bullcrap like "Intelligent Design" to be tought at schools.

Further, I am with you here. Islam is a problem, a problem that will spread and that must not be underestimated. However, I do think we have different opinions on the means to fight it with.
You e.g. are trying to fight it with denouncing the very people that are about to fall victim first. The germans. Within the next two generations they will be gone, over, out, bye. They have fallen victim to the WW2- winner- prescribed mental self castration. As I posted before, there are schools in Germany where up to 90% of the students dont speak german anymore. They are either Turks or Arabs.
The only thing that makes me happy about it is that it will backfire at those that prescribed the German people to commit this mental self castration. It is already starting. When Turks are rioting in the German streets, then the German jews are forced (by turkish- heritage German police forces) to take down their flags. Jews are getting singled out again in Germany, not by the Germans, they are powerless by now, by the Turks. When German German police forces have to go make a single arrest in a Turkish quarter. they have to come with 20, 30 cars, because they will emmediately be surrounded by just as many turks. A single car is without chance and has to leave the field to the Turkish mob. Such is Germany these days!
It will only get worse. Germany is still sitting on a few thousand US nukes and the fools from the US are lobbying for Turkey to join the EU. You guys are so clueless it is hillarious!

[Skipjack]

The Original Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ) is gone, but it's meme's and it's legacy live on. I see echos of Nazism in any authoritative government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNFmR6SC30o

[MirariNefas]

As someone else mentioned, it looks like embryonic stem cell research is turning out to be as valuable to humanity as Global Warming research.

Do you know something I don't? The recent clinical trials are going badly?

All the advances that *I'M* hearing about seem to be coming from the areas of Adult Stem cell research.

Most of those "advances" don't really add up to much, but the reprogramming thing shows promise. Alas, ten years in the future, as always.

(Which always made sense to me. How can anyone's stem cells but their own be made to safely integrate into their bodies tissues ? Foreign DNA gets rejected, or the immune system must be maintained in a suppressed mode. )

Look up induced tolerance. Check out Geron's line on the subject - funny, eh? For many cell types they won't even need to take any special efforts inducing tolerance at all. Good times for all, no immune suppression.

[MirariNefas]

No one disputes that the Scientific Data that the Nazis collected by experimenting on the Jews wasn't valuable.

There's a fair amount of dispute over this, actually. Mostly only the hypothermia data is considered valuable, but there are arguments all over the place.

[MSimon]

I solve the problem the American way. Add an "S".

I really hate it when people do that. Look, if you hate the english language so darn much, get on the reformist train of thought and campaign for standardization and simplification. Get rid of synonyms, all plurals could be handled in the same way, remove capitalization because, frankly, that's a whole lot of alphabet for very little information, make everything phonetic and so on. Might as well just throw it all out and call it American.

I'm going with the wiki spelling. And yes. American and British are definitely different.

I think you have been overtaken by the French disease. Americans by and large are not too fussy. The question is: is communication taking place. If it is mistaking "to" for "too" from time to time is tolerable.