Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But hey, we're a free commerce of ideas kind of place, right?

no need to live with it bubba. just Tell Ty it disturbs you and he'll delete it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I thought it was limiting federal funding of stem cell research to the lines in existence. Let's call lil Ron reagan. He knows.

OK, let's huddle up and get him on the speakerphone. I'll come by your office.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Threads
Your comments should be applied to all federally funded research.

2~!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But hey, we're a free commerce of ideas kind of place, right?

As long as you don't violate any federal statutes, no offence.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There is a certain taxwonkish charm to watching Penske ketchup. The excitement builds as he gets closer and closer to joining the rest of us! I'm aquiver with anticipation.

I have arrived!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I thought it was limiting federal funding of stem cell research to the lines in existence. Let's call lil Ron reagan. He knows.

Right. The twelve lines in existence that are mostly contaminated with rat DNA.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Right. The twelve lines in existence that are mostly contaminated with rat DNA.

Rat-ist fuck!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Rat-ist fuck!

If you're now saying man should lay down with animals and intermix the DNA, then this is where we part ways.

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Right. The twelve lines in existence that are mostly contaminated with rat DNA.

Research on human embryonic stem cell lines may receive NIH funding if the cell line meets the following criteria: Removal of cells from the embryo must have been initiated before August 9, 2001, when the President outlined this policy; and the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived must no longer have had the possibility of developing further as a human being. The embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes but no longer be needed for them. Informed consent must have been obtained from the parent(s) for the donation of the embryo, and no financial inducements for donation are allowed.

In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, NIH examines stem cell lines and maintains a Stem Cell Registry of lines that satisfy the criteria.


In addition to the contamination of the existing lines (both rodent and possibly viral) the requirement of using existing cell lines means that lines from specific races and genetic backgrounds cannot be created.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you're now saying man should lay down with animals and intermix the DNA, then this is where we part ways.

In the Dark Brothers semenal film, "Lemme Tell Bout White Chicks" (or maybe it was "Lemme Tell Bout Black Chicks"-I always got those two confused), an underage Traci Lords made it with a rat named Bob (although the rat was plastic).

How can I reconcile what I saw in this movie with your bias against interspecies love?

[Nut Case, Sensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you're now saying man should lay down with animals and intermix the DNA, then this is where we part ways.

Yeh.

Well, I'm spreading the word about your animalist ways to my whole family. We're everywhere, and we're coming for you. Don't wander into any dark alleys with a squirrel.

(eta: OK, so we aren't the scariest critters around. But after we nibble your nuts we're turning you over to the lizard and the monkey)

[Penske_Account]

No man's life or liberty is safe when the legislature is in session. Never has that adage been truer than when Congress is hanging around Capitol Hill anxious to demonstrate its ability to pass laws, any laws, no matter how expensive, unnecessary and ill considered. With Congress going home for its summer break, Americans are thankfully safe for at least a few days.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Nut Case, Sensitive
Yeh.

Well, I'm spreading the word about your animalist ways to my whole family. We're everywhere, and we're coming for you. Don't wander into any dark alleys with a squirrel.

(eta: OK, so we aren't the scariest critters around. But after we nibble your nuts we're turning you over to the lizard and the monkey)

Screw them. At least they get some variety in their diets. Ever tried living on nothing but bamboo? You know how much of that stuff I have to eat to maintain my corpulent figure? Send him over to me. Granted, he's been marinading in Detroit River water, but beggars can't be choosers.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You, I, and Rep. Cardin all think tariffs are bad, as a rule.
[/i]

Since this was all you said, I would assume that you like most rational people would conclude that California, if it could, should not institute tariffs to encourage Alabama to adopt our enviromental, safety and labor laws. Why - because it would hurt consumers and destroy free trade.

CAFTA is a bill that will eliminate tariffs between the CAFTA countries and the United States. Eighty percent for now and all tariffs completely in the next twenty years. Yet, you and these other "experts" that is not enough for you. You want the bill also to include labor and environmental protections or you don't vote for it. This does not make sense. If getting rid of Tariffs perse is good then why not do it? If someone offer you hundred dollars you don't turn it down and take nothing because you wanted $110. You take the hundred dollars.

CAFTA eliminated tariffs and that is a good thing. It does not create a level playing field in you opinion but why does that justify killing the whole bill. You are willing to allow an uneven playing field between Alabam and California. Why not one between America and CAFTA?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, but perhaps the question is not whether to have CAFTA at all, but whether to have CAFTA with the flaccid labor law enforcement provisions, or CAFTA with the sort of provisions that were a feature of previous trade agreements. The Administration could have gotten the votes of people like Cardin if they had followed those precedents, so why did they water them down?

[/i]

Those provisions of NAFTA were included to buy Democrat votes. The business community did not want them. Republicans had to suck it up because Clinton put them in there. Many Republicans voted against NAFTA because of those provisions arguing that NAFTA was not really a free trade bill (sound familiar). But the business community pointed out that the bill was still better than no bill. So the true Free Traders voted for the bill because it was better than the status quo (even with the NTB Labor provisions). Bush figured on this one he could get the bill through with out these provisions and he was right. But even if you wanted those provisions this bill is better than no bill at all. This bill was negotiated by a Republican president so they can't expect all their riders to be in there. The vote they faced was either eliminating tariffs or not.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I dissent. SDI is part of national defence. National defence is something we all benefit equally from and which is difficult/impossible to pass to the marketplace to be allocated (other than via the exercise of our second amendment rights).

Actually no - in the Defense industry it is in the pecuniary interest of many companys to come up with great new weapon systems (like SDI). However, the risk is way to great for them to take the chance. That is why we can't wait for companys to come up with SDI on there own. The government needs to pay for the research otherwise it becomes to risky. That is true of the A-Bomb, Nuclear Submarines, etc. The same is true with disease research. Sometimes the risk is to great so companys don't get invovled. And disease prevention helps everyone. It is part of national secuirty. So just like we compensate defense companys for researching SDI and other weapon systesm (and the government does some if its own research) the government should also subsidize companys that are working on disease prevent and cures. The market would work eventually over time but who wants to wait.