T1B

Clearly with Bush's popularity at an all-time low, Frist feels he can go against him on this. Is this a political move for Frist who may be seeking the Presidency in '08?

Bush's popularity is at an all-time low?? Link?

And yes, this is an '08 move for Frist. he was becoming increasingly irrelevant in his impotent capacity so he needed to juice himself a little.

Wasn't it only a few months ago, during the starvation/dehydration of Terri Schiavo, that the mainstream media decided Frist was shameful for throwing the weight of his prominent medical background behind the policy argument against terminating life under circumstances where there was doubt about both the diagnosis (of persistent vegetative state) and whether Terri had chosen death? Why do I feel like the MSM will be singing a different tune now that Frist (who, in case you needed to be reminded 100 times by the NYTimes this morning, is a physician) has decided to buck President Bush's position on experimenting with human embryos?

DrDetroit wrote:Bush's popularity is at an all-time low?? Link?

Here's a start

mvscal wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Clearly with Bush's popularity at an all-time low,

Who gives a fuck? He can't stand for election again.

Yeah? Did you misss the point?

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Bush's popularity is at an all-time low?? Link?

Here's a start

So it's at an all-time low??

I may have missed that in your article.

DrDetroit wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Bush's popularity is at an all-time low?? Link?

Here's a start

So it's at an all-time low??

I may have missed that in your article.

Sorry, I guess I should have said, Bush's popularity is pretty damn low.

Here is another one.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote: Here's a start

So it's at an all-time low??

I may have missed that in your article.

Sorry, I guess I should have said, Bush's popularity is pretty damn low.

I guess so.

I was merely debating that it was at an all-time low.

The point is that if Bush's approval rating was say something like 60-70% do you think Frist would take this position? My opinion is, no he wouldn't. Since it is low, he feels he can oppose the PResidnet. It has nothing to do with Bush getting re-elected. Do you have any thoughts on that?

What's funny is I post about something that I think has an interesting dynamic to it and worhty of some discussion, but the line about Bush's popularity is the most interesting thing to you?

See You Next Wednesday wrote:The point is that if Bush's approval rating was say something like 60-70% do you think Frist would take this position? My opinion is, no he wouldn't. Since it is low, he feels he can oppose the PResidnet. It has nothing to do with Bush getting re-elected. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Question: Why do you think he can take advantage of a low rating? How does the Pres's approval rating affect how an individual legislator determines where his head is at on an issue?

I don't think it has anything to do with ratings. If anything I would have thought he would take advantage if Bush's political capital was taking a hit...but that's certainly not the case given the current slew of legislative victories for Bush and a SC nomination.

What's funny is I post about something that I think has an interesting dynamic to it and worhty of some discussion, but the line about Bush's popularity is the most interesting thing to you?

No, it was merely the first step. You were factually incorrect. In order to have an honest discussion of something you must begin with accurate information.

What does "popularity" have to do with the execution of the duties of the President of the United States ?


Last I checked, his oath is to the Constitution of the United States and not to a bunch of pantie wastes who need the "warm fuzzies".

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote: Here's a start

So it's at an all-time low??

I may have missed that in your article.

Sorry, I guess I should have said, Bush's popularity is pretty damn low.

Yes. When it comes to calling people out for exact wording, The anal retentive factor around here is at an all time high.

But I got what you meant, including your point. I agree that Frist could be using the opportunity where Bushs ratings for honesty are low and the topic of ESCR is an important one to make a stand on, possibly for an election run, but also to perhaps test the public waters for what he believes in to see if it may fly with people.

Much of the world is pursuing ESCR. we'll be left behind if we don't get on board with it.

not financially

Mister Bushice wrote:Much of the world is pursuing ESCR. we'll be left behind if we don't get on board with it.

I agree that it should be pursued.

However, I feel that the financing should come from private industry, not the feds. No federal funds should also mean that the feds should keep their noses out of it - no laws prohibiting it, for example.

And the private companies should reap the profits from it, without carping from government folks or the usual handwringers who demand that the fruits of all science be practically given away in the name of 'fairness.'

Much of the world is pursuing ESCR.

Uh, so are we...

You see, bushice...this is what gets you in trouble - your ignorance.

Otherwise, you'd know that the US was heavily invested in embryonic stem cell research. It just is not primarily funded by the government.

I've already posted about that here, but you know, since I am a shill for the administration you glossed over it apparently.

Tell us, how did you conclude that we would be left behind?

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Much of the world is pursuing ESCR. we'll be left behind if we don't get on board with it.

I agree that it should be pursued.

However, I feel that the financing should come from private industry, not the feds. No federal funds should also mean that the feds should keep their noses out of it - no laws prohibiting it, for example.

And the private companies should reap the profits from it, without carping from government folks or the usual handwringers who demand that the fruits of all science be practically given away in the name of 'fairness.'

I agree with that. The "government control" factor, especially with this administrations leanings, would definitely be a hindrance, however, I think government labs should be allowed to use the data and results derived from the R & D on the banned lines in the event they do result in a definitive cure or new research avenue.

However what I read about this from ind. research labs is that there is not enough money being spent to keep pace. is this a ploy. or a fact?

However what I read about this from ind. research labs is that there is not enough money being spent to keep pace. is this a ploy. or a fact?

Well, I posted what had been spent over the last three years a while back. There's the 10-year $3 BILLION effort. There's also the State of Illinois getting into it.

Well, I am sure DrD would be surprised to learn that I also do not favor government funds being used on this, not for any moral objections about fetuses, but simply that it is not the governments business. However, I don't think it should be disadvantaged from other research avenues that the government would potentially fund. What I am saying is that the government really shouldn't be involved in almost any kind fo research, but if they are, stem cell research should receive consideration on it's merits.

But my point was that if Embryonic stem cell research led to a cure for some disease and provided knowledge on WHY, that information should be made available to gov't R & D labs. Right now info on all of the forbidden E.S.C. lines are off limits to gov. funded labs.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Well, I am sure DrD would be surprised to learn that I also do not favor government funds being used on this, not for any moral objections about fetuses, but simply that it is not the governments business. However, I don't think it should be disadvantaged from other research avenues that the government would potentially fund. What I am saying is that the government really shouldn't be involved in almost any kind fo research, but if they are, stem cell research should receive consideration on it's merits.

if you're going to discuss this honestly, please be sure to draw the appropriate distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells.

the federal government does fund stem cell research already. most of that is contributed towards adult stem cell and a little toward embryonic. recall that it was Bush that changed that re: to embryonic. not congressional dems, not Clinton, but Bush.

Now, why does embryonic merit research dollars when adult stem cell research has already resulted in no less than 63 different medical treatments??

Mister Bushice wrote:But my point was that if Embryonic stem cell research led to a cure for some disease and provided knowledge on WHY, that information should be made available to gov't R & D labs. Right now info on all of the forbidden E.S.C. lines are off limits to gov. funded labs.

The research conclusions from ebryonic stem cell research not funded by fed $ is unavailable to research institutes that receive fed $?

Link?

Look detroit, do your own searching. I'm not wasting my time linking a file from a research facility that I linked to a thread a few months back only to have you find some hokey reason to knock it down because it doesn't agree with your concepts. Besides, if you don't get that research grants are incumbent upon adhering to strict guidelines and that Bush has made his position clear on what is and is not allowed, I'm not interested in going around the block with you in particular on this matter.

Anyway I was responding to someone else who won't waste my time nit picking over every word usage.

DrDetroit wrote:Now, why does embryonic merit research dollars when adult stem cell research has already resulted in no less than 63 different medical treatments??

Embryotic stem cells are not nearly as limited as adult stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

good luck getting through, SYNW.

As for the main topic, I don't see how undermining Bush serves much purpose unless Frist has in mind to either run in '08 or open the door for the GOP to be on board with this research avenue after Reverend Bushs term is over. You know that Bush will veto anything related to furthering ESCR into the other lines.

Look detroit, do your own searching. I'm not wasting my time linking a file from a research facility that I linked to a thread a few months back only to have you find some hokey reason to knock it down because it doesn't agree with your concepts.

Unlike you and BSmack, I don't attack the messenger. I simply asked you to clarify an assertion that you posted. If you can't, say so. otherwise, wtfu.

Besides, if you don't get that research grants are incumbent upon adhering to strict guidelines and that Bush has made his position clear on what is and is not allowed, I'm not interested in going around the block with you in particular on this matter.

I'm just supposed to "get" an unsubstantiated posted by you?

Huh?

Anyway I was responding to someone else who won't waste my time nit picking over every word usage.

I'm sorry, but when your "word usage" results in an absurd claim, it'll be questioned.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Now, why does embryonic merit research dollars when adult stem cell research has already resulted in no less than 63 different medical treatments??

Embryotic stem cells are not nearly as limited as adult stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

Huh? Are you even addressing what I posted?

Embryonic stem cells have been researched and tested for years now and despite their ability to become all cell types we have yet to see even a single medical treatment...care to explain this?

DrDetroit wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Now, why does embryonic merit research dollars when adult stem cell research has already resulted in no less than 63 different medical treatments??

Embryotic stem cells are not nearly as limited as adult stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

Huh? Are you even addressing what I posted?

Embryonic stem cells have been researched and tested for years now and despite their ability to become all cell types we have yet to see even a single medical treatment...care to explain this?

Maybe it is because your point is nonsense. ESC research is still in it's basic research stage. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote: Embryotic stem cells are not nearly as limited as adult stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

Huh? Are you even addressing what I posted?

Embryonic stem cells have been researched and tested for years now and despite their ability to become all cell types we have yet to see even a single medical treatment...care to explain this?

Maybe it is because your point is nonsense. ESC research is still in it's basic research stage. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Which point is nonsense?

That it offends the moral principle of life?

That there is no need for the federal government to fund it?

DrDetroit wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: Huh? Are you even addressing what I posted?

Embryonic stem cells have been researched and tested for years now and despite their ability to become all cell types we have yet to see even a single medical treatment...care to explain this?

Maybe it is because your point is nonsense. ESC research is still in it's basic research stage. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Which point is nonsense?

That it offends the moral principle of life?

That there is no need for the federal government to fund it?

Well, you certainly seem to be jumping all over the board with your points. There is a legitimate scientific reason to research ESC versus ASC. That is my point. I figured your point was that there wasn't. The moral argument regarding fetueses can be separated out, and we will disagree on that and I won't waste any effort in that argument because it is pointless. And I stated above that I generally do not approve of government funding, but I also do not think ESC should be particularly disadvantaged in receiving funding, given that the govenerment is funding many avenues of medical research. Nor should it be advantaged, it should simply be part of the pool of competing programs for funds.

Well, you certainly seem to be jumping all over the board with your points. There is a legitimate scientific reason to research ESC versus ASC. That is my point. I figured your point was that there wasn't.

I thought that we were talking about my nonsensical point(s)??

Of course there is a legitimate scientific reason to conduct ESC research. No one is debating that, though. The issue is federal funding of that research.

The moral argument regarding fetueses can be separated out, and we will disagree on that and I won't waste any effort in that argument because it is pointless.

Fair enough, but it is a reasonable consideration given that the question is tax dollars.

And I stated above that I generally do not approve of government funding, but I also do not think ESC should be particularly disadvantaged in receiving funding,

Wait a second. The question is whether the federal government should fund this research. If the federal government doesn't fund it, how is it disadvantaged? Relative to what?

If the research is that promising to merit gobs of cash being thrown at it then I am sure that private interests will fund it, individual states will fund it, and private universities will fund it. Which is already happening.

given that the govenerment is funding many avenues of medical research.

Sure it funds many types of medical research but not all. Does that mean that while you do not generally support government funding, you do support government funding of all types of medical research? Is that your only condition...that in the absence of funding that research will be disadvantaged? Come on.

Nor should it be advantaged, it should simply be part of the pool of competing programs for funds.

Federal funds are not appropriated in that manner.

The question at hand is whether the federal government should fund ESC research.

Your answer seems to be that:

a) You generally do not support federal funding;
b) However, you think that this research should be funded by the feds so that ESC research is not disadvantaged by the absence of funding;
c) But, ESC research should not be advantaged by receiving federal funding.

Did I get all that?

:roll:

Answer this: Should the federal government fund ESC research? Why?

No, what I am saying is that the government funds programs, this is a given. The government should consider funding ESC on the same criteria it uses to fund other programs.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:No, what I am saying is that the government funds programs, this is a given. The government should consider funding ESC on the same criteria it uses to fund other programs.

Again, that's now how congressional funding works. And why should ESC research be considered, relative to funding, on the same or similar criteria as homeland security programs or agricultural subsisidies?

Yes, the government funds spending programs. That's why the feds should fund ESC?

Well, why isn't the federal government funding all human research then?

Let me get this straight...your argument is that despite the fact that you generally oppose government funding, you think that ESC should be federally-funded because if it's not it'll be at a disadvantage (relative to what yet to be identified) and that funding should be based on the same criteria that other programs are (despite the fact that federally-funded programs do not share the same funding criteria)??

Do I have this right, yet?



Come on.

Why should the feds fund ESC?

I wonder if Branson and Rutan will be attacked by ESC research advocates for not investing their $$ in ESC research???

Of course not. They are only interested in getting us to pay for it because it virtually guarantees perpetual funding...just another interest group demanding to have their interest subsidized by me and you.

mvscal wrote:if that were truly the case, it would draw capital like stink on shit.

Didn't california throw some cash at it? More people would in Missouri if it was legal. For all the "biotech center" posturing the state government is making they can't let go of the Bible enough for anything to happen.

mvscal wrote:I'm just wondering where all the venture capital is. .

You have a point. Perhaps the unknown results aspect of it is enough to keep big dollar contributors away, or perhaps they're waiting to see what happens elsewhere in the world where more private money is being spent before they jump in.

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

mvscal wrote:I'm just wondering where all the venture capital is. .

You have a point. Perhaps the unknown results aspect of it is enough to keep big dollar contributors away, or perhaps they're waiting to see what happens elsewhere in the world where more private money is being spent before they jump in.

That isn't the way venture capitalists operate, though. They thrive on risk.

With all of these alleged theraputic applications, I'm having a hard time believing that biotech firms aren't all over this.

The big money is in real estate. A smart VC would know that.

The medical/drug R&D field has taken some hits over the last year with the drug recalls and lawsuits for poorly researched medication that have resulted in deaths or health problems. Perhaps the newness of this field and the TOTAL uncertainty of the outcome is just bit too risky?

I don't have any facts on how much is being spent, so perhaps a lot is and the scientists are just playing poor asking for more.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:if that were truly the case, it would draw capital like stink on shit.

Didn't california throw some cash at it?

Yes, California taxpayers authorized the state to issue $3 billion in bonds over the next 10 years. However, despite that, it's imperative that the federal government fund it... :?

More people would in Missouri if it was legal.

What's illegal about it, dumbshit?

For all the "biotech center" posturing the state government is making they can't let go of the Bible enough for anything to happen.

Hmmm, maybe the state legislature there doesn't believe that a state should be directly funding medical research.

Think about it...

New Jersey already funds it. Illinois is about to. Yet, it is imperative that the feds fund it. :?

Harvard is establishing a center devoted to ESC research, but it's imperative that the feds fund ESC research... :?

Mister Bushice wrote:

mvscal wrote:I'm just wondering where all the venture capital is. .

You have a point. Perhaps the unknown results aspect of it is enough to keep big dollar contributors away, or perhaps they're waiting to see what happens elsewhere in the world where more private money is being spent before they jump in.

Bullshit...risk is what the VC industry is all about. How the fuck do you think adult stem cell research initially started? It wasn't publically funded.

Why do you think it costs upwards of $800 million to develop a new drug? Do you think the pharma firms invest in drug developments knowing from the start that it will ultimately result in a product??

Get a clue.