fatassbastard

I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate HellbentForLeather for being the most open-minded Republican I've ever met. After all, how many other Republicans have a gay man as their hero?


Not to mention that username. Jesus, this guy is so deep in the closet he's got mothballs up his ass.

I hope Hatch dies from something that stem cell research could have cured if we had already done it.

The bards?

knobmaker: Do you oppose funding for the war in Iraq through the taxation of people who may have a moral objection to it?

Yes.

As an individual of strong libertarian leanings, I have to come in here and point out that the libertarian argument does not apply here. We are not debating whether the government is going to fund scientific research. It does, and will continue to do so. As with so many issues, we need to grow up, accept the fact that Galt's Gulch exists nowhere outside the pages of Atlas Shrugged, and do what we can to get the best of our ideas incorporated into government, when and where we can convince our fellow citizens that they are good ideas.
What is being debated here is whether one particular, and very promising branch of scientific research can be singled out for defunding at the behest of a subset of Americans who wish to have their religious views exercised through the power of the state. And as long as that is the debate, my position is a resounding NO!

spelunking_defenestrator: Why "secular-minded" billionaires? I'm sure out of the five of them, one of them must be a religious man and not necessarily donating his money in order to prove some point about the separation of church and state. Is Forbes pushing an agenda here, that stem cell funding should not be provided by the government?

My apologies. The quote came from an article that cited Forbes.

If you're against stem cell research and abortion you are:

a) a Dumbass
b) someone who has never opened up a biology book.

Listen con-tards let the libs and other educated people work with science and you can just go join the military where other dumbass conservatives reside.

Why do you pro-government funded stem-cell research hate America?

"If you're against stem cell research and abortion you are:

a) a Dumbass
b) someone who has never opened up a biology book.

Listen con-tards let the libs and other educated people work with science and you can just go join the military where other dumbass conservatives reside."


Don't you have a flight to Canada to catch?

I wanted to thank everyone for an entertaining thread.

I've never seen someone, like HellbentForLeather, crash and burn so badly...

/epic failure on a Hindenburg scale...
//oh the humanity....

I think HellbentForLeather is a Liberal in disguise, and he does this for sh*ts and giggles.

HellbentForLeather

If you really want somebody to "suck it" so badly, why don't you just talk to your mincing friend here?

HellbentForLeather

That was very sweet of you to tell whidbey that you loved him. Will you take some pics and post them of the make-up sex session?

HellbentForLeather: However, you lefties ignore the fact that this experimentation is morally repugnant to a great many people and, unlike national defense, the federal government's role (i.e. funding at the point of a gun) is questionable.


How is the war in Iraq an instance of "national defense?"



HellbentForLeather:

I have to ask you, drawing on your personal experience, is it good to be the village idiot?

Though it's been said before, your handle really should be: knobgiver


More proof, were any needed. Hey, maybe BentLeather is HappyDaddy's latently homosexual and not-too-bright alter ego? The smug quotient is alarmingly similar.

Please don't be too tough on the poor guy. He's a poster child for a lot of what's wrong with our once-great nation. It can only help to have him spouting off his gibberish. Folks with any common sense are bound to feel a little creeped out any time they find themselves on the same side of an issue as BentLeather.

im confused here. Someone help me out with this. It appears that some people have a problem with using tax dollars to fund SCR. SCR is widely recognized as the most promising means to cure many fatal ailments. Correct? Ok, so that means if SCR progresses over the years AMERICA BENEFITS A A WHOLE. Right?

Ok, now the researchers want to use surplus embryos set for destruction. These are leftover from in-vitro fertilization. Correct? So these embryos are going to be incinerated anyway, all the scientists want is funding to use them for research instead of just trashing them.

Here is what I don't get. There are countless republican conservatives who don't want money to be spent on embryonic SCR, even though it would benefit many millions of sick people in the US. But these same people don't mind spending hundreds of millions dollars a month in Iraq, WHICH HAS NO MEASURABLE BENEFIT WHATSOEVER TO ANY US CITIZEN. Are we safer because of Iraq? No. Are there less terrorists because of Iraq? No. Is the middle east more stable because of Iraq? Laf.

I don't get it. I am relatively young, and new to politics and the whole left/right thing. I have voted in one presidential election and a few midterms. But what am I missing here? How is it possible to support the war in Iraq, and not SCR? Are people in this country that retarded and blind? Wtf is going on here?

Anarchangel

I think HellbentForLeather is a Liberal in disguise, and he does this for sh*ts and giggles.

I have never seen anybody on Fark ever do such a thing. You are giving him way too credit.

HotandWetLeather

Are you a good b*tch or a bad b*tch?


Wow. The evidence is really piling up.

HotandWetLeather is

"im confused here. Someone help me out with this. It appears that some people have a problem with using tax dollars to fund SCR. SCR is widely recognized as the most promising means to cure many fatal ailments. Correct? Ok, so that means if SCR progresses over the years AMERICA BENEFITS A A WHOLE. Right?

Ok, now the researchers want to use surplus embryos set for destruction. These are leftover from in-vitro fertilization. Correct? So these embryos are going to be incinerated anyway, all the scientists want is funding to use them for research instead of just trashing them.

Here is what I don't get. There are countless republican conservatives who don't want money to be spent on embryonic SCR, even though it would benefit many millions of sick people in the US. But these same people don't mind spending hundreds of millions dollars a month in Iraq, WHICH HAS NO MEASURABLE BENEFIT WHATSOEVER TO ANY US CITIZEN. Are we safer because of Iraq? No. Are there less terrorists because of Iraq? No. Is the middle east more stable because of Iraq? Laf.

I don't get it. I am relatively young, and new to politics and the whole left/right thing. I have voted in one presidential election and a few midterms. But what am I missing here? How is it possible to support the war in Iraq, and not SCR? Are people in this country that retarded and blind? Wtf is going on here?"


A few years down the road, the middle east will be stabilized and terrorism will be eliminated despite what the liberal media tells you. That is a good thing.

Stem cell research has not cured anything and nor is there any evidence of a possibility of a cure from stem cell research. All the taxes that goes towards stem cell research could have went towards funding for our troops and speed up the process of spreading democracy in the middle east instead. It also doesn't help that supporting stem cell research makes you look like a baby killer.

You are either with America or you are against us.

I know this much: he sits on Fark and refreshes the same comments thread over and over to see who responds to his posts.

What a LIFE!

/bye, folks

OK, OK. I'll weigh in:

my big problem is that the guy never truly responds to points in any debate. Sure, he'll respond to maybe 1 in 5, but everything else he just ignores only to begin another argument or move the goal post further away.

Dishonest, contemptible, childish. He reminds me of an emotionally stunted uncle that's been ostracized by his in-laws (my uncles and aunts) because of his totally unacceptable behavior. For example,

Manfred Richthofen


HellbentForLeather

Manfred Richthofen

Constitution specifically states that the US can spend money for general welfare.

No it doesn't.

Read Article I Section 8 you cited at length above; it is right after "common Defense." "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare."


Sure, when you're going 60mph trying to maintain your idiot momentum, you're going to drop a few. But I have never ever seen this guy say "hey, you know what, I was wrong. In fact, I don't even know what I'm talking about." But, if you get that sort of honesty...

No, stem-cell research wasn't metioned when those articles were first written. Wonder why, asshat? However, one can attribute "general Welfare" to the the curing and prevention of disease. Not a big stretch there. That's the benefit of the Living Document you seem to deride.

Stem-cell research is a dividing issue. Maybe people will come around, like they have with gynecology, which was once perceived as distasteful, shameful, unecessary; in short, "morally repugnant"-- kind of like how you say people feel about stem-cell reseatch. The problems people had with gynecology were purely educational and in keeping with the puritanical Victorian ideals. We can see that that way of thinking survived the test of time.

Get Roud
It also doesn't help that supporting stem cell research makes you look like a baby killer.

So does, you know, killing babies. Something that seems to be popping up a lot. By U.S. forces.

You realize that the war itself is pointless; it's the effort that makes men rich, not the outcome.

Get Roud

It also doesn't help that supporting stem cell research makes you look like a baby killer.

Only to horrifically blind partisan right-wing Christian morons.

You are either with America or you are against us.

Ahh...I see now, carry on.

Anarchangel


Get Roud
It also doesn't help that supporting stem cell research makes you look like a baby killer.

So does, you know, killing babies. Something that seems to be popping up a lot. By U.S. forces.

You realize that the war itself is pointless; it's the effort that makes men rich, not the outcome.


Foul, tasteless comment
can't you think of something better
petty is not you(?)

Get Roud

A few years down the road, the middle east will be stabilized and terrorism will be eliminated despite what the liberal media tells you.

bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....

>>Get Roud

>>It also doesn't help that supporting stem cell research makes you look like a baby killer.


Only baby killers are the ones in iraq and afghanistan.

I guess Leatherman went off to yank his crank to the Rob Halford pics.

You'll be missed, Totalfark stud!

Dancin_In_Anson: No shiat? The government funds a wide range of shiat they have no business funding. What's your point?

Hmmm... Well I was going to try to make the argument that the government should fund things that work to the greater good of the populous, but other have done so before me more eloquently.

Where do you stand on government funding for roads, police, firemen or the military? I won't ask about Medicare, because I think I know where you stand on that, but as long as we have Medicare, wouldn't it be best to cure people rather than pay to maintain them all their lives?

Personally, I think taxes would go down if we find effective cures. Unless you want to make the argument that poor people should die.

TheFredSavages


No, stem-cell research wasn't metioned when those articles were first written. Wonder why, asshat? However, one can attribute "general Welfare" to the the curing and prevention of disease. Not a big stretch there. That's the benefit of the Living Document you seem to deride.


You say that the two words, 'general welfare', mean that the federal government can do anything about anything, anywhere and everywhere, anytime and all the time. After all, there's a 'general welfare clause', doncha know?

I say that those two words are the INTRODUCTION to the legitimate deliniated functions of the federal government. You say that those two words are the whole package. BTW, the people who wrote the god d*mned thing agree with me.

See: Federalist Papers

We disagree, because you are a libtard. You can also 'attribute' the thing you call the 'general welfare clause' to anything that you can dream up - anything at all. Where are the boundries?

Because you are a libtard, you imagine that people got together and wrote down the entire constitutuion for nothing. They did it for kicks.

All they REALLY had to do was sum it up in one sentence: 'The government can do whatever it wants in the name of the 'general welfare'. The end.



Good night, losers. Except for the noble The_Former_BV, I tire of your babble.

I will see 'some' of you tomorrow, when I begin to tear up TF. Oh yes, TF, I'm comin' in...


/suck it, ignorant libs
//ULTRA-HOT TotalFark stud
///glorious winner of the thread

"So does, you know, killing babies. Something that seems to be popping up a lot. By U.S. forces.

How dare those evil American soldiers strap bombs and dynamites around the babies and use it against the terrorists!

Please show a little more courtesy for our troops overseas. They are fighting for your right to spew your unpatriotic garbage over teh internet. They are fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here.


You realize that the war itself is pointless; it's the effort that makes men rich, not the outcome."

So in addition to liberating the middle east, we also provide additional jobs to people through companies that are reaping huge profits as a result of the war on terror. I can see how this outcome is a problem for a communist like you who would rather hand over our freedoms to the federal government.

Drew: Thanks for the fiver, HellbentForLeather.

*PLONK*

HellbentForLeather

Good night, losers. Except for the noble The_Former_BV, I tire of your babble.


Decided to 'cut and run', eh? I'm so glad to have scared you off.


///glorious winner of the thread

Why is it that when it comes to investing a modest amount of tax dollars to fund advanced medical research to help all man-kind, the neocons scream about what a complete waste it is? But when somebody brings up spending $900 billion to plunge Iraq into a hopeless, endless civil war, they applaud the idea and are more than willing continue to throw countless billions at something that brings nothing but harm, death and destruction?

Seriously, what in the holy fark is wrong with these people? You can't have it both ways.. you harp about smaller government, smaller expenditures, but you've walked lock-step with the most obscenely wasteful, big spending administration ever. You can't be ready to spend endless sums of money for vile neocon pet projects of hegemony and subjugation in the middle east, and then balk at positive things like investing in advanced medical research and alternative energy. Hypocrite much?

Get Roud


"im confused here. Someone help me out with this. It appears that some people have a problem with using tax dollars to fund SCR. SCR is widely recognized as the most promising means to cure many fatal ailments. Correct? Ok, so that means if SCR progresses over the years AMERICA BENEFITS A A WHOLE. Right?

Ok, now the researchers want to use surplus embryos set for destruction. These are leftover from in-vitro fertilization. Correct? So these embryos are going to be incinerated anyway, all the scientists want is funding to use them for research instead of just trashing them.

Here is what I don't get. There are countless republican conservatives who don't want money to be spent on embryonic SCR, even though it would benefit many millions of sick people in the US. But these same people don't mind spending hundreds of millions dollars a month in Iraq, WHICH HAS NO MEASURABLE BENEFIT WHATSOEVER TO ANY US CITIZEN. Are we safer because of Iraq? No. Are there less terrorists because of Iraq? No. Is the middle east more stable because of Iraq? Laf.

I don't get it. I am relatively young, and new to politics and the whole left/right thing. I have voted in one presidential election and a few midterms. But what am I missing here? How is it possible to support the war in Iraq, and not SCR? Are people in this country that retarded and blind? Wtf is going on here?"

Politics. You nailed it on the head. That is what is going on. The reason, ostensibly, for invading Iraq was:

-Iraq was responsible for 9/11
then,
-WMD
then,
-Liberating Iraq

predicated on,
-Faulty intel (bad CIA, bad!) (I'm pretty disgusted by the buck passing there)

but really predicated on the desire for
-war profits
-oil
-maybe for the appearance of national security (the terrorists are there! they are now, asshole), like we're are actually doing something. Nevermind the fact that effectively fighting terrorism is a combination of police work, internal security, and surgical military strikes.

and accomplishing
-the gradual disolution of the Constitution
-separation of governmental powers
-loss of civil liberties
-over-reaching of our military, leaving us less responsive to actual threats: North Korea, Iran, instance where we can hurt al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
-creation of deficit
-less money that can be spent on the above sketched platform for combatting terrorism


A few years down the road, the middle east will be stabilized and terrorism will be eliminated despite what the liberal media tells you. That is a good thing.

Wow. I love bedtime stories. Do the "Prince and the Pauper" next! (gets blankie)


Stem cell research has not cured anything and nor is there any evidence of a possibility of a cure from stem cell research.

"Hi, I'm talking out of my ass. It's never occured to me that this is a relatively new science. But please don't ask me reason, it makes my head ouchy!"

All the taxes that goes towards stem cell research could have went towards funding for our troops and speed up the process of spreading democracy in the middle east instead.

Sure, democracy by the barrel of a gun. I'm sure our founding fathers, particularly Washington, would heartily approve! Bravo!

It also doesn't help that supporting stem cell research makes you look like a baby killer.

Appearances and actuality are two different things. For example, it looks like you are a normal person, but I think you are a chimp with advanced typing skills. :)

/j/j about the chimp comment. :)

You are either with America or you are against us.

Hey, didn't that party slogan lose this most recent election?

fb-

the beauty of it is their faith requires them to simply preach the word, not actually live it. half the time, i don't think it even makes sense to them, but they hide it by yelling, "BOO!" every so often.

Get Roud

They are fighting for your right to spew your unpatriotic garbage over teh internet.

Not in Iraq, they're not.

They are fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

This is debatable, but within the realm of possibly of being an accurate statement, unlike the one I referred to previously.

D_I_A It's business...Like I said, hook up with the fetus mill on the corner and you have a vast, unlimited suplly. Get to work.

Cuz the cost of getting stem cells is the most significant expense of the entire thing.

Let me ask this. You like using a computer to Fark, right? You do realize that the government money paid for a huge chunk of the initial research into system automation and the first series of computer, right?

A few talking points, to support this:

The US Census Bureau funded a former employee (Herman Hallerith) to create an automated means for reading/sorting census data stored on punch cards. In 1911, Halleriths' company merged with a second company (the name of which escapes me) which was also supported by the Census Bureau, to form IBM. These two government funded companies provide the basis for the first generation of actual computers, not automated sorters / collaters.

In the 1940s, the Census Bureau purchased UNIVAC1, the design of which was based upon EDVAC, a government funded research endeavor lead by a university in Pennsylvania.

In the 1950s, federally funded projects (such as the USAF's SAGE program) led to key research and breakthroughs in creation and utilization of core memory and real time computing, both in mainframes. There's also the time share research that was performed under Project MAC, fully funded by DARPA.

On the subject of DARPA, let's not forget that they funded the research and development of the initial technology (packet switching, chief among them) that led to the predecessor of the internet (ARPANET).

Numerous projects that required the development of relational databases where funded by the NSF, DARPA, and the various armed forces.

I will concede the the initial concepts for relational databases came from an employee at IBM (Ted Cod). However, IBM stopped development on this as it competed with their existing product lines and was superior to their product line at the time. Cod spread word with professors at MIT (Or Harvard, can't remember 100%) who eventually helped establish federal funding from the NSF. This allowed Cod to form Ingres (named after the acronym for the database).

That's a few examples. Now, what does this have to do with you enjoying Fark? If the research into relational database hadn't been funded (which brought the technology into the mainstream), Fark's database would not be here.

If the ARPANet project hadn't occurred, the internet might not be here. Yes, AT&T was conducting their own tests into packet switching technology, but it was extremely small scale, in-lab testing. Of course, it's also possible that AT&T would have woken up and saw the potential, in which we'd be running on the ATTNet.

All those federally funded advances in computers provided a solid foundation to the advent of desktop computers.

Research builds upon other research. Unless the initial research is funded, or at the very least allowed to proceed unimpeded (a la IBM's cessation of R&D into relational databases), then progress will either be stopped or slowed down a tremendous amount.

As has been said, companies are beholden to their board and their stockholders. Why is a company going to spend money when the chance for a good RoI in the near-term is exceedingly small? Chances are, it isn't. And that will stifle innovation and new technologies.

fb-
Why is it that when it comes to investing a modest amount of tax dollars to fund advanced medical research to help all man-kind, the neocons scream about what a complete waste it is? But when somebody brings up spending $900 billion to plunge Iraq into a hopeless, endless civil war, they applaud the idea and are more than willing continue to throw countless billions at something that brings nothing but harm, death and destruction?

Seriously, what in the holy fark is wrong with these people?

They never wanted smaller government or less spending. They want as much money as they can get funneled into their pet projects. I remember a few years ago when the conservatives were all about State's Rights. They were concerned about the money and power being wielded by the executive branch. Since there hasn't been a massive exodus or extinction of conservatives, where are these guys now? They are still around, but once they got the reigns of power, they forgot about State's Rights.

The party out of power will always try to use 'fairness' and objective concern to leverage their point. But all they want, and all they ever want, is to get as much as they possibly can for themselves. They can couch it in pretty terms about what the role of government should be, or separation of powers, or checks and balances, or whatever, but in the end they will abandon all of it when they are in charge.

The conservatives coming into this thread and suddenly being concerned about federal spending and the role of government is proof enough of this. Go back a few months and look at some political threads, and see if you can find these same concerns.

Get Roud Yeah, politics suck. I hate them, and yet I am drawn to them. Wonder what Freud would say about that? Probably ask about my relationship with my mother.

As for You are either with America or you are against us.....

I'm gonna tweak that for you...

You are either with the 'American Moral Majority' or you are against us.

Bush paraded some "Snowflake Children" in front of the cameras as the reason to prevent discarded feti from being used for SCR. A 'snowflake child' is a child born adopted as a leftover, frozen fetus that was generated (yes, generated) by in-vitro fertilization. I realize that's a VERY cold and harsh way to put it, but that's what it comes down to.

However, what the President never said is that there is an average (varies by woman, clinic, etc) chance of roughly 16% that a snowflake child will be thawed and implanted successfully. Citation (pops)

Now, I'd be all for allowing a woman / couple to decide what should be done with the extra feti. It should be up to the woman / couple to decide whether the feti should be humanely destroyed, allowed to be adopted, or allowed to be used for SCR.

What the president did, in my mind, is legislate morality and a specific set of beliefs.

One tension I find in libertarianism is the tug between their arguments from economics, which is really grounded in utilitarianism, and their arguments from absolute rights. When one doesn't work, they switch to the other, without realizing the tension between them. I bet most libertarian arguments that proceed this way could be decimated just by bringing both viewpoints to their absolute conclusion -- a contradiction.

Has anyone else noticed this?

heap: it doesn't really enhance the other two items on the list very much...but the other two can lead to it.

well I'm sure being tazed while under the influence and hula hooping naked would have made for an interesting experience.

2006-11-24 04:31:12 PM Somacandra: In fact, the Federal government has done a nice job with the forest service and national monument system overall, as well as the Cold War project of the Interstate Highway system, and the Depression project of the WPA. Also, the U.S. Federal goverment, compared to other worldwide governments, has overall been fabulous in its management of the Federal Reserve and money supply ever since the breakup of the Bank of the United States. Smaller, local governments have had a number of successes in area or urban and environmental planning, as well as fire protection and safety. Many of the problems people see in government functioning are simply the byproduct of attempting to bureaucratically deal with every single singular instance of personal circumstance brought to it, as well as the balancing of competing agendas among special interest groups. That takes a lot of time and energy, and that's why its called "democracy." Moreover, greed and corruption, which also cause slowdowns in government function, are instances where people *refuse* to follow the common good, rather than contribute to it.

And that's the human nature. People look out for themselves. It is what they do.

In fact, if you and I were to go and personally interview those people who "refuse to follow the common good," I'm more than certain you'd get an education on perspective. Most of the time, you'll find those folks have a viewpoint according to which, what they did was in perfect harmony with the "common good." About the most powerful argument that can be made against their actions, other than that they failed, is that you personally don't like them. You'll find the "good" is a matter of opinion much more often than not.

And the people who chirp un-shut-uppably about "common good" are almost like High Priests -- what they know is what they know. The idea that there could be more than one opinion about it, is something to which they haven't been exposed, nor have they had to be. And where power is centralized into government of any form, those kinds of folks end up with all that power, every single time. Like Palpatine said, "UNLIMITED POWER!" The power of a private industry, on the other hand, is limited by design. They get to be about as big as Bill Gates, and then they get knocked down.

Government has to do things one way, by nature. It is antithetical to "diversity" and therefore has all the disadvantages one would expect it to have. Our liberals and left-wingers should be the first to oppose giving it more power.

rapid_eye_movement Can you give me an example?

/curious

Get Roud


OK, sorry, I lost the thread there. Some folks have alluded to the reasons why stem-cell research has not been more aggressively supported. Nope, scratch that. Why stem-cell research has been banned. It isn't profitable. There may actually be some congressmen who believe that using embryonic stem-cells actually takes the life of an unborn person. I think the actual reason is that those politicians realize that they would have weakened their voting base by endorsing such a program.

In contrast, the Iraq War is accessible, we were scared, it looked like something constructive was being done, it satisfied our sense of reciprocity and retribution. Win-win! Rah rah!

And there are the aforementioned economic benefits.

"All the taxes that goes towards stem cell research could have went towards funding for our troops and speed up the process of spreading democracy in the middle east instead."

But true conservatism does not advocate the spreading of democracy. I am fresh out of college and just recently studied politics, and nothing I have ever read would suggest that a goal of conservative politics is to spread democracy or liberate other countries. In the past, conflicts that are an attempt to spread democracy were done by liberal-progressive governments.

So according to the very basic tenets of conservative theory, if you advocate spreading democracy, that makes you a liberal. I could go on and on about states rights(terry schiavo) or smaller government (patriot act) or fiscal conservatism (Iraq? 900 Billion?) but what is the point? Every "conservative" i have talked to online actually seems pretty liberal too me.

AirForceVet: Hijacking the thread back to the original subject.

If stem cell research had been federally funded, Christopher Reeve would still be alive today!

possibly, but not definitely... research takes a long time and it could still take years before we make hard advances there, but the sooner they start.

Republicans never complain about Federal funding for military purposes, or point out that it would be much more efficiently done privately.

I think the whole argument behind it not being a role of government, constitutional or not, is a smokescreen. The funding of research that does not fit into their narrow world view is attacked in any way they can think of.

That's also a major difference between private and governmental thinking. Private organizations are incredibly focused, albeit narrowly, on generating profit, without wide ranging concern for most of what is around them. Governmental outlook, at its best, considers the nation (occasionally the world) when it comes to investing.

There really is a huge difference in comparing the two, private and public. To think that the two can successfully co-exist, for the benefit of each other, is not really all that hard.