The Defeatocrat Party Agenda

[Hoyt]

Well' date=' well, we have some pretty defensive folks here, don't we?

 

For one thing, if you want to read only guitar posts, don't go into a thread that's about

politics, which you could tell clearly by the title of this guy's post.

 

If you want to debate, you might start by admitting that both parties have severe

problems.

 

In general, the Liberal stance is intelligent and progressive -we need progress.

At the same time, the Liberal thought doesn't know how far is too far, and they

are more dishonest (not EVERYONE, mind you-silly boy), in what they do to get their

own agenda passed.

 

In general, the Conservative thought is wise and traditional -we also need tradition.

At the same time, the Conservative thought is just too dang greedy (not EVERYONE,

mind you silly boy).

 

Both parties, if followed far enough, have egregious faults.

 

If you are the kind of person who sees name calling every time someone criticizes your side,

it's probably not name calling you object to, it's being challenged that you really don't like.

 

****as an aside though,.....Let me make you a bet. Those of you who have complained about this subject that the original poster brought up are liberals. (aren't you?) I'll bet not a darn one of you complainers is a Con.

 

I'm an independent.

Your parties are too ludicrous for me. [/quote']

 

 

Well, thanks Axuality. However, I think I made it clear I feel compelled to respond to right wing zealots' who start threads with their BS. Maybe they shouldn't post their vile crud. There are plenty of sites for them to flagellate with each other all they want. Heck, they can even climb in bed with each other and a cache of assualt weapons for all I care.

 

Clearly, all parties -- including so-called Indpendents -- have issues. I just think those parties who promote warmongering, bash the poor and minorities, caress their assualt weapons, can't stand a nickel to go to the infirmed and poor, etc., are the ones with the most problems/issues.

[FennRx]

hoyt,

 

what i love about you is how you handle those opposed to you. you claim they are degenerates and/or mentally deficient, but you constantly dodge any question thrown at you and dismiss it as stupid. you can like, dislike or even hate someone like neocon or ksg, but those guys can defend their arguments with sources you can personally check out/research. you on the other hand, just call your opponent psychotic. you really are no better than the sean hannity-s you try to fight so hard. you make statements but then offer no proof, instead resorting to simply raising your nose.

[surfpup]

I feel compelled to respond to right wing zealots' who start threads with their BS. Maybe they shouldn't post their vile crud. There are plenty of sites for them to flagellate with each other all they want.

 

And this is where you are wasting your time. You will not change their opinions. Nor, most likely, will they change yours. As for them posting politics elsewhere, that has been suggested quite often. I don't think they can help themselves! :) However, I believe most of the members you are referencing have frequently contributed helpful and insightful guitar-related information. I have learned much from them.

[Hoyt]

hoyt' date='

 

what i love about you is how you handle those opposed to you. you claim they are degenerates and/or mentally deficient, but you constantly dodge any question thrown at you and dismiss it as stupid. you can like, dislike or even hate someone like neocon or ksg, but those guys can defend their arguments with sources you can personally check out/research. you on the other hand, just call your opponent psychotic. you really are no better than the sean hannity-s you try to fight so hard. you make statements but then offer no proof, instead resorting to simply raising your nose.[/quote']

 

 

Did you even read NeoConMan's original post (the one that started this thread, unprovoked)?

 

I would hardly call "Look at that number m@therfxxxers . . . . ." as well researched, checked out, or truthful.

 

My "research" clearly indicates Obama's admin is doing a fantastic job, especially when compared to the last admin that screwed everyone but their own.

[vagabond]

hoyt' date='

 

what i love about you is how you handle those opposed to you. you claim they are degenerates and/or mentally deficient, but you constantly dodge any question thrown at you and dismiss it as stupid. you can like, dislike or even hate someone like neocon or ksg, but those guys can defend their arguments with sources you can personally check out/research. you on the other hand, just call your opponent psychotic. you really are no better than the sean hannity-s you try to fight so hard. you make statements but then offer no proof, instead resorting to simply raising your nose.[/quote']

 

Maybe he just calls it as he sees? If something is psychotic bullshit, then that's what you call it. So when someone, like the OP, posts that Obama's focus on scientific progress and his end on Bush's regressive and idiotic ban on certain areas of scientific research is laughable and will result in billions of dollars wasted, I will call it psychotic and dismiss it as such. That's what you do to something that is so ridiculous as some of the refuse certain people on these forums post.

 

What's funny, is just before I read that line about scientific research being a waste, I had just read an article on the BBC about a university in England manipulating stem cells to regrow targeted areas of bones and cartilage, with expected human trials within 5 years. As one of millions of people who suffers from arthritis, and a relatively young one at that being only 21 with rheumatoid arthritis, I have to ask you what exactly is wasteful about this research? It's just straight up absurd, yes, even psychotic, to say something like that, and I'm a firm believer that people who say incorrect things should be corrected.

 

Just to drive this point home, a quote from Medical News Today from an article printed a year ago:

 

"Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common autoimmune diseases and a leading cause of chronic pain affecting over three million people in Europe alone."

 

Again, what's so wasteful about funding research that could ultimately help, if not fully cure, this many people? Are you saying we shouldn't fund research because it might not yield helpful results? Then what's the point of any research? Whenever any team of researchers starts a project, in any field, they go into it knowing they might not develop anything with any particularly useful applications. Yes, that mindset seems psychotic to me, forgive me for calling bullshit as I see it. I forgot Republicans don't have a full appreciation for this concept called "honesty."

[FennRx]

did he say anything untrue?

 

for example, the quip about retirement. his editorial was something like "since when does the government owe people a retirement?" is that not a valid question? what is your rebuttal? why does the govt owe people a retirement? who's going to fund it? etc etc.

 

but all you say is something like "another rant...etc etc."

 

you say you have to respond to the BS, but you never really do. so its worth your time to call someone psychotic, but not worth your time to offer any counterpoints other than attacks on their sanity?

 

i am not being a smartass btw. its just that you clearly disagree, but you never expound on your reasoning, experiences, etc or any references to show us how you arrived at your conclusion.

[FennRx]

 

Yes' date=' that mindset seems psychotic to me, forgive me for calling bullshit as I see it. I forgot Republicans don't have a full appreciation for this concept called "honesty."[/quote']

 

so you are advocating the creationist position? its bullshit because it has to be, not because i have anything to back it up.

[FennRx]

and dont you think its kinda futile to label one party as stupid, unfeeling, slimy, dishonest, etc?

 

i can think of some stupid MFs in both parties....

[KSG_Standard]

 

Maybe he just calls it as he sees? If something is psychotic bullshit' date=' then that's what you call it. So when someone, like the OP, posts that Obama's focus on scientific progress and his end on Bush's regressive and idiotic ban on certain areas of scientific research is laughable and will result in billions of dollars wasted, I will call it psychotic and dismiss it as such. That's what you do to something that is so ridiculous as some of the refuse certain people on these forums post.

 

What's funny, is just before I read that line about scientific research being a waste, I had just read an article on the BBC about a university in England manipulating stem cells to regrow targeted areas of bones and cartilage, with expected human trials within 5 years. As one of millions of people who suffers from arthritis, and a relatively young one at that being only 21 with rheumatoid arthritis, I have to ask you what exactly is wasteful about this research? It's just straight up absurd, yes, even [i']psychotic[/i], to say something like that, and I'm a firm believer that people who say incorrect things should be corrected.

 

Just to drive this point home, a quote from Medical News Today from an article printed a year ago:

 

"Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common autoimmune diseases and a leading cause of chronic pain affecting over three million people in Europe alone."

 

Again, what's so wasteful about funding research that could ultimately help, if not fully cure, this many people? Are you saying we shouldn't fund research because it might not yield helpful results? Then what's the point of any research? Whenever any team of researchers starts a project, in any field, they go into it knowing they might not develop anything with any particularly useful applications. Yes, that mindset seems psychotic to me, forgive me for calling bullshit as I see it. I forgot Republicans don't have a full appreciation for this concept called "honesty."

 

If at least half of the country believes that taxpayer money should not be spent on research that they consider morally reprehensible should they be forced to spend their money on said research?

 

If scientists have been successful in developing working stem cell therapies derived from non-embryonic sources but have not been successful in ANY human trials using embrionic stem cell sources, is it wrong for tax payers to question the reasoning behind such research?

 

If companies that do such research stand to make BILLIONS of dollars in profits if they find a cure for a disease, and some taxpayers question why we would spend public money on said research when the companies won't share the profits from any success, is it wrong to question and protest said research?

 

There are at least two sides to every argument...

[The Mick]

I think the fact that they were not allowed to do research on embryonic stem cells may have something to do with the minimal results ? just say'n

[KSG_Standard]

 

 

Did you even read NeoConMan's original post (the one that started this thread' date=' unprovoked)?

 

I would hardly call "Look at that number m@therfxxxers . . . . ." as well researched, checked out, or truthful.

 

My "research" clearly indicates Obama's admin is doing a fantastic job, especially when compared to the last admin that screwed everyone but their own.[/quote']

 

Please enlighten us as to the sources of your research so that we can all share in your knowledge. Please tell us, in what area is Obama doing such a "fantastic" job in? I'm a registered independent and I made out like a freakin bandit during the last 8 years, so apparently some Americans who were not one of Bush's own did pretty good too. From another one of your posts, you talked about how "good" you were doing financially...obviously you were not one of the Bush or republican supporters...did they forget to screw you?

[KSG_Standard]

I think the fact that they were not allowed to do research on embryonic stem cells may have something to do with the minimal results ? just say'n

 

Embryonic stem cell research has been going on in Europe and Asia for years with public funding. It has also been taking place in the US for the last 8 years, with federal, state and private funding on EXISTING stem cell lines...no successful human trials ANYWHERE. There are however, successful therapies in place using Adult and cord blood stem cells today.

[FirstMeasure]

 

If at least half of the country believes that taxpayer money should not be spent on research that they consider morally reprehensible should they be forced to spend their money on said research?

 

If scientists have been successful in developing working stem cell therapies derived from non-embryonic sources but have not been successful in ANY human trials using embrionic stem cell sources' date=' is it wrong for tax payers to question the reasoning behind such research?

 

If companies that do such research stand to make BILLIONS of dollars in profits if they find a cure for a disease, and some taxpayers question why we would spend public money on said research when the companies won't share the profits from any success, is it wrong to question and protest said research?

 

There are at least two sides to every argument...[/quote']

Are your first two question Hypothetical? Cause over half the country supports Stem Cell Research.

 

If it "Might" save lives, is it moral to ask "What's In It For Me?" If you want a peice of the Profit Pie, then buy stock in the industry. If a Company makes a Breakthrough in Stem Cell Research, and that Company makes a profit from it......GREAT. It's not in anyones interest to keep the Healthcare Industry broke and struggling. I'd rather see reaserchers who look for cancer cures strike it rich that a Plastic Surgeon or an Investment Banker. Buit certainly you can see that "Because They Migh Make Money" is a poor reason to stop medical research.

[vagabond]

 

If at least half of the country believes that taxpayer money should not be spent on research that they consider morally reprehensible should they be forced to spend their money on said research?

 

If scientists have been successful in developing working stem cell therapies derived from non-embryonic sources but have not been successful in ANY human trials using embrionic stem cell sources' date=' is it wrong for tax payers to question the reasoning behind such research?

 

If companies that do such research stand to make BILLIONS of dollars in profits if they find a cure for a disease, and some taxpayers question why we would spend public money on said research when the companies won't share the profits from any success, is it wrong to question and protest said research?

 

Embryonic stem cell research has been going on in Europe and Asia for years with public funding. It has also been taking place in the US for the last 8 years, with federal, state and private funding on EXISTING stem cell lines...no successful human trials ANYWHERE. There are however, successful therapies in place using Adult and cord blood stem cells today.

 

There are at least two sides to every argument...[/quote']

 

Exhibit A of the scientific ignorance that the Bush administration and far right media has ingrained into the right wing party.

 

Did you know that a single embryonic stem cell can be used indefinitely by allowing it to continue to grow? What's more unethical? Using one embryo to save millions of lives? Or sacrificing millions of lives because you don't want to kill a cell? And it's amazing that Republicans can even keep a straight face while arguing against embryonic stem cell research from an ethical standpoint, because they so clearly violate ethics on any number of issues in the name of "tradition" (warmongering and torture practices, to name a few examples). You, along with your bafflingly biased media, make it seem like for each cure a million billion babies have to die. Yet for each "liberated" country we're still seeing the death toll rising (4,265 dead Americans, 31,153 wounded Americans, latest numbers, and still rising). So why is murder ethical for one cause but not ethical for another? Because we're protecting our citizens? Then why aren't we protecting them from the one thing that so much of the scientific community is sure is going to kill us? That being disease. You know, for being so afraid of terrorist attacks and eternal hellfire, I'm really surprised you aren't afraid of the more and terrifying global threat to humanity. Also, should this be funded publicly? Well, the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens has been funded and caused by our government, I don't why the cure for cancer shouldn't be. At least then what we'd be doing would be noble.

 

I know for a fact that that last part wasn't meant to give the impression that stem cell research, in American specifically, has been given the appropriate amount of scientific devotion it deserves. In terms of modern scientific discovery, eight years is not a long time. It takes time and money to make important discoveries, especially when the targets are obstacles as huge as cancer and AIDS. I also know for a fact that you definitely aren't saying that the develops European studies have made are not worthy of research in America with public funding. Nearly every week there's something in the news about stem cell research coming closer and closer to curing another new malady. I know these things for a fact because you'd be an idiot to try and proselytize your crap even while being so astoundingly wrong.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7974795.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7974795.stm

 

It took me two seconds on BBC to find two articles saying that European scientists are getting close to developing treatment for deafness and bone and cartilage treatments that can be applied to any number of autoimmune diseases. Maybe if you read something other than Faux News (see, we can make clever puns too) you'd know something about this.

 

Oh, and since you're so concerned about the money, just imagine how much money the British scientists and medical institutions will be making when the UK has cures for RA, cancer, etc and the US is still chugging along because some people seem to think a baby dies every time an embryo line is created.

[KSG_Standard]

Are your first two question Hypothetical? Cause over half the country supports Stem Cell Research.

 

If it "Might" save lives' date=' is it moral to ask "What's In It For Me?" If you want a peice of the Profit Pie, then buy stock in the industry. If a Company makes a Breakthrough in Stem Cell Research, and that Company makes a profit from it......GREAT. It's not in anyones interest to keep the Healthcare Industry broke and struggling. I'd rather see reaserchers who look for cancer cures strike it rich that a Plastic Surgeon or an Investment Banker. Buit certainly you can see that "Because They Migh Make Money" is a poor reason to stop medical research.[/quote']

 

Me thinks that you missed the point...Why should Taxpayers fund research, that has shown no human success, and that they find reprehensible, especially when there are OTHER alternatives that have been successful, and when there is a HUGE profit motive that does not require public money? Could it also be that there are some scientists that are chasing federal grants for their experiments? I suffer from a chronic, incurable disease, and I might benefit from a breakthrough in this field and I don't support it. Personally, I'd rather be sick than have a cure that is derived from embryonic stem cells. It is not illegal for scientists to pursue experimentation in the field. President Bush was the first US President to authorize the use of federal funds on embryonic stem cell research, he just limited it to existing lines of stem cells. California has spent over $3billion on funding for unlimited lines of embryonic stem cell research...other states have been funding the research as well.

 

There is a school of thought, shared by millions of Americans that believes that tax payer money should only be spent on "pure" science, in other words on things that do not show a large profit potential, and that those scientific endeavors that will lead to high profits, should be left up to private investment.

[AXE®]

When I woke up this morning my stomach had a slight pain, so I pushed a little and farted.

It made things feel better and didn't stink at all ...

 

crazy huh?

[Hoyt]

 

Please enlighten us as to the sources of your research so that we can all share in your knowledge. Please tell us' date=' in what area is Obama doing such a "fantastic" job in? I'm a registered independent and I made out like a freakin bandit during the last 8 years, so apparently some Americans who were not one of Bush's own did pretty good too. From another one of your posts, you talked about how "good" you were doing financially...obviously you were not one of the Bush or republican supporters...did they forget to screw you?[/quote']

 

 

 

I forgot that you are to the right of bush.

 

Unlike NeoCon, I will be glad to pay an extra $300,000 in new taxes on the next $10,000,0000 I make (incremental increase due to Obama's 3% tax increase made necessary to pay for bush's war and neglect of domestic issues).

 

Oh to be fair -- I do give bush credit for at least one thing. He said no to those who called for mass deportation of good people who came here years ago for a better life. That really ticked off some of the extremene right wingers. I suppose they call themsevles "Libertarians" -- believing "as long as I've got mine, screw everybody else."

[The Mick]

When I woke up this morning my stomach had a slight pain' date=' so I pushed a little and farted.

It made things feel better and didn't stink at all ...

 

crazy huh?[/quote']

 

I went through a similar thing this morning but I gaged

[heymisterk]

Bottom line, Neocon, and you can run but you can't hide:

You live on a desert compound.

You cling stubbornly to guns and religion.

You are proud of this.

Well.

We have a word to describe your brothers overseas.

and

it starts with a "T"...

And you are more dangerous

because you are here.

[FennRx]

Bottom line' date=' Neocon, and you can run but you can't hide:

You live on a desert compound.

You cling stubbornly to guns and religion.

You are proud of this.

Well.

We have a word to describe your brothers overseas.

and

it starts with a "T"...

And you are more dangerous

because you are here.[/quote']

 

and i think this now turn really ugly....

[AXE®]

I went through a similar thing this morning but I gaged

 

I know right... ? No left ?.... No ....

 

Oh wait ...

[KSG_Standard]

 

Exhibit A of the scientific ignorance that the Bush administration and far right media has ingrained into the right wing party.

 

Did you know that a single embryonic stem cell can be used indefinitely by allowing it to continue to grow? What's more unethical? Using one embryo to save millions of lives? Or sacrificing millions of lives because you don't want to kill a cell? And it's amazing that Republicans can even keep a straight face while arguing against embryonic stem cell research from an ethical standpoint' date=' because they so clearly violate ethics on any number of issues in the name of "tradition" (warmongering and torture practices, to name a few examples). You, along with your bafflingly biased media, make it seem like for each cure a million billion babies have to die. Yet for each "liberated" country we're still seeing the death toll rising (4,265 dead Americans, 31,153 wounded Americans, latest numbers, and still rising). So why is murder ethical for one cause but not ethical for another? Because we're protecting our citizens? Then why aren't we protecting them from the one thing that so much of the scientific community is sure is going to kill us? That being disease. You know, for being so afraid of terrorist attacks and eternal hellfire, I'm really surprised you aren't afraid of the more and terrifying global threat to humanity. Also, should this be funded publicly? Well, the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens has been funded and caused by our government, I don't why the cure for cancer shouldn't be. At least then what we'd be doing would be noble.

 

I know for a fact that that last part wasn't meant to give the impression that stem cell research, in American specifically, has been given the appropriate amount of scientific devotion it deserves. In terms of modern scientific discovery, eight years is not a long time. It takes time and money to make important discoveries, especially when the targets are obstacles as huge as cancer and AIDS. I also know for a fact that you definitely aren't saying that the develops European studies have made are not worthy of research in America with public funding. Nearly every week there's something in the news about stem cell research coming closer and closer to curing another new malady. I know these things for a fact because you'd be an idiot to try and proselytize your crap even while being so astoundingly wrong.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7974795.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7974795.stm

 

It took me two seconds on BBC to find two articles saying that European scientists are getting close to developing treatment for deafness and bone and cartilage treatments that can be applied to any number of autoimmune diseases. Maybe if you read something other than Faux News (see, we can make clever puns too) you'd know something about this.

 

Oh, and since you're so concerned about the money, just imagine how much money the British scientists and medical institutions will be making when the UK has cures for RA, cancer, etc and the US is still chugging along because some people seem to think a baby dies every time an embryo line is created.[/quote']

 

 

I read your articles from the BBC, hardly a conservative source, and even they recognize the controversy that you so gleefully ignore. The articles mention a lot of coulds and maybes and the fact that any possible cure is YEARS away, not that they are getting close as you interpret the articles to say.. As I said, why would I want to pay for something that I don't agree with using tax dollars, when private funding or other governments are willing to pay for it and to reap the rewards? I reread what I posted and I did not say that I believed , nor did I imply, as you put it "...that for each cure a million billion babies have to die". If you can't see or debate or recognize the obvious controversy, then you my friend are an idealoge and there's no use in discussing anything with you.

 

As for your statements about the deaths that occur during war, your response is typical, left wing, knee jerk bullsh!t. War is terrible, but sometimes apparently necessary. Killing in war is terrible, but does not fit the definition of Murder, maybe you should look up the definition of murder and then try again. The unnecessary death of any human is terrible. Murder is never ethical, IMHO. But in the opinion of many/most liberals, infanticide is perfectly acceptable and ethical in the cause of "choice"....More than 40 million babies, HUMAN LIVES have been destroyed since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court. I'll stand by my belief that abortion is murder and is unethical and immoral.

 

In America, the Constitution clearly calls for the funding and use of the Military for the protection of the American people and by inference, American interests. There is no mention of funding of medical research or abortion, which Obama has also agreed to do...he signed an executive order to allow funding of "family planning" which includes abortion services even though they will occur in foreign countries.

 

I pointed out a logical argument for the other side of the issue, with no personal attack or hyperbole. You responded with your bullsh!t, hyperbole and left wing ranting, I will disregard what you write from now on as you have shown your true colors. You are another stereotypical left wing loon and I will respond to you as such from now on.

[Murph]

Bottom line' date=' Neocon, and you can run but you can't hide:

You live on a desert compound.

You cling stubbornly to guns and religion.

You are proud of this.

Well.

We have a word to describe your brothers overseas.

and

it starts with a "T"...

And you are more dangerous

because you are here.[/quote']

 

Man.

 

That was stupid. Well armed Americans are our best defense.

[The Mick]

[AXE®]

Like a 1964 cherryburst Les Paul Custom...