Some thoughts on obama's jobs summit and the economy

MirariNefas · Post by **MirariNefas** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:01 am

Betruger wrote: Anyway, this isn't worth arguing over. It's off topic anyway. I've made my point and you understood it; agree or not.

Not.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:50 am

How in the heck do you tell that embryonic stem cells are not good vehicles for research unless you research them?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:31 am

You know, for somebody who insists that everyone else be more informed about things, you are illinformed yourself. You might want to fact check yourself before repeating the ravings of a lunatic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

Especially when you might just run into somebody who grew up in Greenwich CT, and has heard the lie about Prescott Bush so many times that he knows how to look up the truth. After all it's one of your important points.

Alright, I might have gotten that one wrong. I cant back this up right now. I am not fully convinced though. The story I read went even a little further than just Nazi- ties...

You want to use my money to build your planetarium. That's what Obama does. The problem is that there are other things that won't be done, businesses that won't be started, products that won't be made because of Obama's planetarium. And we will be paying for it for a long time. that is why a planetarium is foolish.

First of all, it was not about building a whole new planetarium, it was about keeping it alive by buying a new projector (it was one of the oldest planetaria in the US and the projector was that old and breaking). So it was either investing in maintaining a piece of educational value (!) or leaving it to die.
The decision had to be made quickly. You can only keep a planetarium with a broken projector running for so long before you have to close it.
Then the people working there will be out of a job and that will cost money too. It is a bad situation.

My problem and I say that again, was that McCain was clearly badly informed.
For one, he did not understand the educational value of a planetarium (just like you, it seems).
Then he did not understand what the money was used for. He called it an overhead projector. Ok, as I said, maybe he just called it that. It is over head somehow after all. I give him the benefit of the doubt once here.
But then, he also called them "planetariums". The plot thickens, you see and he already got the benefit of the doubt from me once. So that is used up now.
Point is, he made an idiot out of himself, by being badly informed and then he did that multiple times on different occasions.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/24/ob ... so-sue-me/

So the conservative media called him a whackjob. I am impressed.
Can I have something beyond that, please?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/second ... -life-yes/

In regards to the first paragraph that was quoted:
First, the paragraph was not very clear as to how it should be interepreted. Second, even if it was to be, you can always pay for treatments beyond the socially guaranteed, all by yourself, as many in the US do now already anyway (like I would have to, e.g.).
So you will at least get some of your treatments paid for, versus none.
Pretty good deal.

Again, I dont see what the problem is. Some health care services should be socially guaranteed, others the person in question has to pay for himself. E.g. I wont pay someones sex change, no matter how "psychologically necessary" that may seem. This is what happens in my country. People get unnecessary treatments for non life threatening conditions paid for by the government! I dont care if that dude finally gets his tits, I just dont want my money to pay for it.
And age discrimination is sometimes a medical question:
E.g. giving a chemo therapy to a 90 year old is pointless. If you are old, cancer spreads much more slowly (and I am talking years here) and the chemo therapy would be so hard on you that it would most likely kill you before the cancer does.
Here in Austria, you still get the choice to take it, if you want it (yeah they are giving expensive chemo therapy to 90 year olds here), but the doctors will not try to sell it to you for the money. They will tell you as it is.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:39 am

It's hard to beat a meme where it's holders are willing to blow themselves up for Allah. Unless we convince them that we will blow ALL of them up for Allah.

The problem with this solution is that the people that dont mind themselves getting blown up for Allah, also dont mind if ALL of them get blown up for Allah.
So nope, not working.

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

I do study the history. I did talk to people that lived through it first hand, on both sides.
But, I do not necessarily share your understanding of history.
There is a big difference. I dont want to discuss this anymore than this. It leads to nowhere.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The real issue is that his facts are wrong.
Yes and not only that. They were wrong because he was not well informed. Not well informed about a topic that he had made an important point in his campaign.

Planetariums were a campaign issue? An important campaign issue?

I though it was honest government, drilling for oil, and keeping the Islamic Jihadis in line.

JohnSmith · Post by **JohnSmith** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:50 pm

Simon, are you serious? What one person cares about is not necessarily what another will care about. And besides, all politicians lie about campaign issues. Why pay attention to the lies?

Jccarlton, you're asking why we should use your money to build something that doesn't help you, yes? Same logic applies to roads and schools on the other side of the country. That money could go to businesses!

MirariNefas · Post by **MirariNefas** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:59 pm

MSimon wrote:How in the heck do you tell that embryonic stem cells are not good vehicles for research unless you research them?

I like that view. Actually, even if we do make the shift to completely using induced pluripotent adult stem cells, research into embryonic stem cells has been a key enabler for that technology. We wouldn't have gotten here without it, or at least, we'd be a decade or two behind.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:30 pm

Planetariums were a campaign issue? An important campaign issue?

hey, I did not make it a campaign issue, McCain did.
He mentioned them multiple times. I know it for sure. I remember it so well, because it drove me insane every time he said "planetariums" and "overhead projector".

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:45 pm

Obama, the watermelons and what they want to do to the economy:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... xists.html

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:24 pm

Skipjack wrote:
Just on this issue ? I challenged you on several issues, and this is the one you want to argue ?
Not just on this one, I thought I had all the others pretty much covered as well. Did I miss something?

I've slept since then.(And had the most awful case of flu i've ever had in my life. ) All I can recall is that it doesn't feel like you addressed (or responded to ) some of my most pertinent points. ( At least pertinent to me.)

Skipjack wrote:
Someone just taught me an appropriate response.
Glad you share my sense of (admittedly sometimes a little infantile)humor.
Nothing better to get a little more fun into an otherwise heated discussion (political discussions are always so heated and serious )

I love humor. Sometimes I even like to believe i'm capable of it.

Skipjack wrote:
The mindset among employees of the New York and Los Angeles based media empires are pretty monolithic.
CNN is based out of Atlanta, I thought.

Your response does not refute my statement, but I know what you mean. Yes, CNN is based in Atlanta, and it was Created by Ted Turner. One of the most personally liberal Media moguls in the Nation. He's so liberal he married Jane Fonda! (Not sure if you understand the significance of that or not. Here, let me help you out a bit.)

She's so liberal, that during the Vietnam War SHE was on the other SIDE!

CNN is also a cable news network. It isn't a broadcast network, and it hasn't been readily available to a large swath (rural) of the American public until Cable and Satellite systems became so popular.

Apart from that, it's made up of the same tools they hire in New York and Los Angeles. Nowadays, you are very unlikely to be employed by any Network but Fox, unless you are already a liberal.

I have for years suggested that conservatives file class action lawsuits against all the Media companies alleging they discriminate on the bases of ideology. We need an "Affirmative Action" program for conservatives in media. Seeing as how the Liberals have always been big supporters of Affirmative Action, they ought to be happy to have the same standards applied to themselves.

Skipjack wrote:
The story doesn't mention if it was embryonic stem cells, but given that it was in China it most likely was.
It was. There are more reports on treatments for blindness caused by this particular kind of nerve damage. This is not the only one. I guess that this one is particularily easy to fix with stem cell treatment for some reason.
It still seems very weird to me as to how that works. I am familiar with gene therapy, but I cant follow how this particular treatment works.
Fact is that these reports do seem genuine. There are several, independent reports from different parts of the US and Europe and also several different TV- channel reports with different people getting treatments.

While there is no disputing that the treatment may work, and the technology may be beneficial, a lot of people will see it no differently from China's willingness to use organs harvested from prisoners. It was always a question of ethics, never one of utility.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:32 pm

MSimon wrote:"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen…

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
--W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
--Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
--Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
--Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country….
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
--Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

MSImon, That's not fair. Your using their words against them! In order for it to be fair, you need to make it into hundreds of news stories with video to show how wrong they were, then broadcast it constantly for several years. You know, like they did to George Bush.

The way the meme looks today, the Democrats who believed that Sadam had WMD are now pretending that the whole thing was a dirty lie told to them by George W. Bush, and they never believed it anyway.

If the Media employees were former members of the US armed forces, (instead of liberal Journalism school graduates.) that point would have been made. Just more evidence that we need "balance" in journalism. Meaning we need to throw out 50% of what we've currently got, and put in that many conservatives. (Or even libertarians. John Stossel does a pretty good job.)

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:46 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The real issue is that his facts are wrong.
Yes and not only that. They were wrong because he was not well informed. Not well informed about a topic that he had made an important point in his campaign.

I dispute this. This was not an important point in the campaign. Fiscal sanity, Strong Defense, and Energy independence were strong points in his campaign. Planetaria don't even get on the list in my opinion. It was, and is, trivial compared to the Fiscal Crisis and the Crisis that Iran represents.

I don't want or need a President that knows how nuclear reactors work. (Jimmy Carter. God what a catastrophe!) I want a President that knows When, Where, and How, to use them.

I find your argument about the Projectors in Planitaria peculiar. To me they appear more like rationaria.

(Multiple rationalizations.)

(Rationalization in terms of thinking up reasons to not do something you don't want to do anyway. In this case, to like McCain.)

By the way, what part of the United States is your wife from ? New England perhaps ? (Very Liberal section of the country.) She would obviously be unlikely to affect your objectivity on partisan politics.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:04 pm

MirariNefas wrote:
Diogenes wrote: My point is that I'm hearing (reading) very little developments in the area of embryonic stem cell research, but I am hearing (reading) all sorts of advances in the area of Adult stem cell research. I've recently heard of breakthroughs on Adult stem cell research in Japan and France. If I am missing news about breakthroughs in the area of Embryonic stem cell research, it might be due to the fact that the websites I frequent probably are posting about Adult Stem cell research, and might not be covering any information on Embryonic stem cell research.

Due to the variety and due to the massive scope of the news covered by these websites, I find it unlikely that I am missing developments. It is NOT one of my pet issues, so it's possible I just haven't been paying enough attention.
You are missing developments. Of course you are. You're reading the news.

I can't fault you for not being a scientist, but honestly, do you really think the news is all there is? If you read the primary literature, you'd see new developments monthly.

But to give you some basic news, human embryonic stem cell treatments for acute spinal injury have been approved for clinical trials, due to start within a matter of months. Few of us will know more than that for the next few years, as corporations are tightlipped about these things. But compared to adult stem cell treatments, I call that a win. No adult stem cell treatment is anywhere near to restoring movement in the paralyzed.

I make no pretense of being an expert or being involved in the field. It is simply one more thing among many, that I find interesting. Obviously someone who's job involves knowing the latest and greatest will have far more incentive to keep current. With that being said, I think I'm far better informed than the average. Likewise, it would be reasonable to presume that the stories that make it into the mainstream of science news, ought to be the more significant breakthroughs in the industry.

I recall reading of the Japanese scientist who managed to convert Adult stem cells into Plura Potent stem cells, which are roughly equivalent to embryonic stem cells, to the best of my understanding. If this is indeed the case, then what benefit (over and above that of Plura Potent stem cells) would embryonic stem cells be?

Even if there is a benefit, why is it that the 10 existing embryonic stem cell lines that Bush agreed to allow research on, are not sufficient to make these same advances with ? (I have to believe that Bush was advised by knowledgeable scientists in this industry before he came to his decision. The time it took to make his decisions argues for this. )

On a separate but related issue, I recall reading a story about Israeli scientists developing a treatment for spinal cord injury that utilizes white blood cells injected directly into the injured part of the spinal cord. My recollection is that it prevents the scaring that normally prohibits the regrowth of the damaged nerve tissue.

Perhaps embryonic stem cells will do this better, but I understand these Israeli scientists have been having some significant successes in restoring function in spinal damaged patients.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:08 pm

Jccarlton wrote: It's hard to beat a meme where it's holders are willing to blow themselves up for Allah. Unless we convince them that we will blow ALL of them up for Allah. That was the Mongol solution to the Allah problem as my good Polish friend Art puts it.

The Mongols did solve the Assassin (martyrs) Problem didn't they ?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:11 pm

MSimon wrote:How in the heck do you tell that embryonic stem cells are not good vehicles for research unless you research them?

By theory. Apart from that, they are being researched. MirariNefas indicated that they are solving or have solved the issue of rejection. That was one of the most obvious hangups with Embryonic stem cell research.