The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Oh, and you wanna put fishermen out of work and ruin the economy and families and a rich fishing culture just for the sake of some turbot?

Fisherman have rarely had much trouble overfishing and putting themselves out of business.

Luckily, in Canada, they can club baby seals in the Winter and let the fish be.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
So are you on Canada's or Spain's side?

Is this a soccer match?

A fight over fishing rights?

I don't know anything about this.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is this a soccer match?

A fight over fishing rights?

I don't know anything about this.

Here's a primer. Some Canadian friends of mine were nearly kicked out of Spain over the whole thing.

[Spanky]

=============================================
THE NEW DEM DISPATCH, December 09, 2005
Political commentary & analysis from the DLC =============================================
[http://www.DLC.org ]

Idea of the Week: A Center for Cures

One of the few really new and big ideas to come out of the 2004
presidential campaign was Sen. Joe Lieberman's proposal to create an
American Center for Cures within the National Institutes for Health,
providing a focal point and "driver" for efforts to cure major
chronic diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, and heart
conditions.

Now Lieberman, along with Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), is sponsoring
legislation to place that idea into law. The bill would give the new
Center for Cures, led by a presidentially appointed director, the
mission of accelerating the translation of scientific breakthroughs
into medical therapies, which is currently inhibited by the
isolation of individual scientists and research programs.

As the Progressive Policy Institute's David Kendall said in a recent
report: "The nation's medical research community, which receives
much of its public funding through NIH, has produced great gains in
reducing the burden of disease and injury through the curiosity and
brilliance of individual researchers.... But the NIH has not been as
successful with mission-driven research that can accelerate the
delivery of cures for specific diseases or types of injuries by
planning research that can lead to cures by design."

That's precisely the problem the Center for Cures would be created
to address. It would:

Encourage, through funding and direction, a big expansion in
multidisciplinary collaborative research involving physical,
biological, and medical sciences, along with advanced technologies.
Make sure high risk/high yield research gets done, particularly
research that doesn't fit into a for-profit model.
Acelerate the transfer of intellectual property from research to
the commercial sector (e.g., new drugs and devices).
Increase the quantity and quality of clinical trials through
collaboration with academic health canters, hospitals, clinics, and
medical practitioners.

The Center for Cures would basically represent a Manhattan Project
for research into cures and treatments for major chronic diseases.
And the payoff could be enormous, not just for Americans, but for
the world.

Moreover, finding ways to cure and treat chronic diseases -- which
afflict up to 100 million Americans -- could help revolutionize our
overall health care system, which all too often focuses on acute
care rather than prevention and treatment. The impact of finding
cures for major chronic diseases on rising health care costs -- one
of the most important burdens on both taxpayers and the business
communities, and increasingly a factor in the loss of health
insurance among Americans -- is incalculable.

Last year, DLC Chairman Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa sponsored a
resolution putting the nation's governors on record favoring this
idea: "The American Center for Cures will be the bridge between the
promise of scientific opportunities and the reality of our nation's
health needs." And DLC President Bruce Reed called it "a simple,
bold, breakthrough idea."

And it's an idea that should command broad political support from
anyone interested in saving human lives -- or in fulfilling the
promise of American science, technology, and medicine.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Oh, and you wanna put fishermen out of work and ruin the economy and families and a rich fishing culture just for the sake of some turbot?

The culture is destined to die out if it has to go to within 200 miles of canada to survive. The only ones who have this right are Maine lobstermen and the government of New Zealand.

Canada can suck it too, because they've been putting out of business the new england fishing culture for the last 25 years at least.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Here's a primer. Some Canadian friends of mine were nearly kicked out of Spain over the whole thing.

You know they always say: how many Americans should die for Oil

On the same vain: how many Canadians or Spaniards should die for fish.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The culture is destined to die out if it has to go to within 200 miles of canada to survive. The only ones who have this right are Maine lobstermen and the government of New Zealand.

Canada can suck it too, because they've been putting out of business the new england fishing culture for the last 25 years at least.

My solution is that we ban all hunting of wild game. In the ocean and out of the ocean. If someone wants to eat fish or any other kind of seafood it has to come from a commercial fish hatchery or farm.

Oops. I forgot. Anyone that doesn't agree with me is an idiot.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
=============================================
THE NEW DEM DISPATCH, December 09, 2005
Political commentary & analysis from the DLC =============================================
[http://www.DLC.org ]

Idea of the Week: A Center for Cures

One of the few really new and big ideas to come out of the 2004
presidential campaign was Sen. Joe Lieberman's proposal to create an
American Center for Cures within the National Institutes for Health,
providing a focal point and "driver" for efforts to cure major
chronic diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, and heart
conditions.

Now Lieberman, along with Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), is sponsoring
legislation to place that idea into law. The bill would give the new
Center for Cures, led by a presidentially appointed director, the
mission of accelerating the translation of scientific breakthroughs
into medical therapies, which is currently inhibited by the
isolation of individual scientists and research programs.

As the Progressive Policy Institute's David Kendall said in a recent
report: "The nation's medical research community, which receives
much of its public funding through NIH, has produced great gains in
reducing the burden of disease and injury through the curiosity and
brilliance of individual researchers.... But the NIH has not been as
successful with mission-driven research that can accelerate the
delivery of cures for specific diseases or types of injuries by
planning research that can lead to cures by design."

That's precisely the problem the Center for Cures would be created
to address. It would:

Encourage, through funding and direction, a big expansion in
multidisciplinary collaborative research involving physical,
biological, and medical sciences, along with advanced technologies.
Make sure high risk/high yield research gets done, particularly
research that doesn't fit into a for-profit model.
Acelerate the transfer of intellectual property from research to
the commercial sector (e.g., new drugs and devices).
Increase the quantity and quality of clinical trials through
collaboration with academic health canters, hospitals, clinics, and
medical practitioners.

The Center for Cures would basically represent a Manhattan Project
for research into cures and treatments for major chronic diseases.
And the payoff could be enormous, not just for Americans, but for
the world.

Moreover, finding ways to cure and treat chronic diseases -- which
afflict up to 100 million Americans -- could help revolutionize our
overall health care system, which all too often focuses on acute
care rather than prevention and treatment. The impact of finding
cures for major chronic diseases on rising health care costs -- one
of the most important burdens on both taxpayers and the business
communities, and increasingly a factor in the loss of health
insurance among Americans -- is incalculable.

Last year, DLC Chairman Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa sponsored a
resolution putting the nation's governors on record favoring this
idea: "The American Center for Cures will be the bridge between the
promise of scientific opportunities and the reality of our nation's
health needs." And DLC President Bruce Reed called it "a simple,
bold, breakthrough idea."

And it's an idea that should command broad political support from
anyone interested in saving human lives -- or in fulfilling the
promise of American science, technology, and medicine.

This is stupid. If Lieberman knew anything at all about the NIH, he'd know there is already, within the NIH, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (diabetes), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Alzheimer's), the National Cancer Institute (cancer), and theNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (heart disease), among many, many, many, too many others. This would just add yet another agency to the NIH, and nobody would be able to figure out its mission or its authority separate from all the other agencies within the NIH. For each of the targeted diseases, there would just be a separate program within the Center for Cures, and how exactly would that be different from what we have now in the NIH?

Another reason to dislike the DLC, and why Lieberman is in reality a Republican.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The culture is destined to die out if it has to go to within 200 miles of canada to survive. The only ones who have this right are Maine lobstermen and the government of New Zealand.

Never mind. Behind the times. Was going to make a reference to the America's Cup, but now that's no longer relevant.

Carry on. Nothing to see here.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
My solution is that we ban all hunting of wild game. In the ocean and out of the ocean. If someone wants to eat fish or any other kind of seafood it has to come from a commercial fish hatchery or farm.

Oops. I forgot. Anyone that doesn't agree with me is an idiot.

This is stupid.

First off, we'll all end up with dear eating apples in our back yard.

Second, farmed fish suck. They really do. Not only do they taste awful, they're filled with bad chemicals, metals, and such.

The solution is tradable property rights. (It's the only non-idiotic solution). Figure out how many fish can be taken consistent with sustainable stocks. Sell (or give away) licenses to take a certain percentage of that. Done. It saves fishermen from having to buy bigger, faster boats. a guy with a rod and reel might be enough to take his annual catch.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Never mind. Behind the times. Was going to make a reference to the America's Cup, but now that's no longer relevant.

Carry on. Nothing to see here.

Can you work in a fondue joke somehow?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Spanky
My solution is that we ban all hunting of wild game. In the ocean and out of the ocean. If someone wants to eat fish or any other kind of seafood it has to come from a commercial fish hatchery or farm.

Oops. I forgot. Anyone that doesn't agree with me is an idiot.

Here in wild salmon country, that solution wouldn't go over so well. Just about everybody in these parts thinks farmed salmon is a bad idea.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Can you work in a fondue joke somehow?

Fuckin' Swiss. I hate the Swiss. "Oh, you can't touch us, we are so neutral. Please to go away and leave us alone."

We should invade them, kill their bankers, and convert them to Christianity. Not their Christianity, our Christianity - the manly, megachurch, non-fondue-eating kind of Christianity that makes Ann Coulter swoon.

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by Spanky
On the same vain: how many Canadians or Spaniards should die for fish.

How about 43,549,601?

It's a healthy start.

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Fuckin' Swiss. I hate the Swiss. "Oh, you can't touch us, we are so neutral. Please to go away and leave us alone."

We should invade them, kill their bankers, and convert them to Christianity. Not their Christianity, our Christianity - the manly, megachurch, non-fondue-eating kind of Christianity that makes Ann Coulter swoon.

Thank you.