Image of the day

Captured by

Comet Nishimura Racing Towards the Sun

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Started by AstroMart, 04/07/2018 10:51PM

Poll Results:

0 Total Votes
Posted 08/06/2008 04:34PM #50
Jeffrey Counsil said:

-There are more neurons in the brain of a housefly than in the embryos used for stem cell -research. Harvesting stem cells is no more like killing babies than swatting a gnat.

Hmmm... From what I understood at the time, only certain types of Human Brain Stem Cells are viable for research, not housefly or gnat..

You choose to miss the points. 1. Stem cell research is NOT killing children while abandoning that line of research for bs reasons condemns many others to die of diseases that may otherwise have been cured by that research. 2. The "reasons" cited by the Bush administration for refusing to fund the research did not rest on any valid scientific basis. Instead, they were irrational attempts to play to a politically powerful interest group.

The "firings" had very little to do with "political views" of the Bush administration, but more of not doing their jobs as prescribed by the laws of the country. They refused to uphold the laws they were sworn to uphold because of *their* political views. Laws that were in place even before Bush took office. They were trying to legislate from the bench. That's NOT what the Judicial Branch's role in Government is. They were derelict in their duties.

Yes that was the party line wasn't it? But then administration officials wouldn't even testify about the firings much less provide any evidence to support that claim. Speaking of "upholding the laws" Federal law prohibits hiring or firing a civil service employee because of that employee's religious or political views. I guess in your world-view only "certain" laws are worth upholding?

Posted 08/06/2008 07:16PM #51
-Yes that was the party line wasn't it?

What do you mean? I don't follow you here.

-But then administration officials wouldn't even testify about -the firings much less provide any evidence to support that -claim.

They didn't have to. And neither did Clinton when he fired so many. It's a priveledge of the Presidential Office. The only difference is the Republicans didn't whine about it..

-Speaking of "upholding the laws" Federal law prohibits hiring -or firing a civil service employee because of that employee's -religious or political views.

Yes, as long as those views do not interfere with your JOB. It wasn't a question of their views, but how they chose to defy the laws in the *name* of their views.

-I guess in your world-view only "certain" laws are worth -upholding?

Not hardly. I find it disgusting that *any* "public servant" gets involved in anything that they think puts them above the law. I don't care who it is, or from what "party". You do the crime, you do the time.
So many from both Dem, and Rep have sickened me by what they have done, and only some have been actually convicted, or paid their "debt to society". One thing that did make me sick was Bill Clinton abusing his "power" to pardon convicted criminals. Maybe a few could have been given leniency, but that many blatent crooks went too far. We'll see if Bush tries some weasle-like move like that.. Time will tell..
That's what I've been saying all along. It's *all* of the stinkin' Congressional politicans currently entrenched in Washington. It's time for a changing of the guard. Someone that will actually uphold the Constitution as it is written. Not try to change it for political and personal gain.
Posted 08/07/2008 05:09AM #52
-OK, let's bury the hatchet.


-On (C), that's the idea, somehow, behind any path forward.

Absolutely. But not by just "patching", by "real" cost cutting measures that will be permanent.

-But a massive success in cost cutting of 10% would only be an improvement of less than two -years of cost growth.

Not if there are permanent closings of the holes that bleed the system and force costs to go up.

-The legal cost was recognized 20 years ago, and a lot has changed in that area.

Yes it has. Too many holes have been opened up that allow the bleeding to increase. Have you seen all the "lawyer" commercials on TV? "Have you or a loved one taken the (FDA Approved) drug (name one here)?, then call us! We'll get the money you deserve." Or, "did a doctor save your life, but this drug (FDA Approved) cause side effects?, Call us! We'll get the compensation you deserve". Come on! You would have been DEAD otherwise! These "lawyers" are costing the health industry Billions! Class-Action lawsuits are a JOKE! The lawyers get millions, while each "victim" gets a check for a whopping $10 for their "share". And if You or I would want to bring a suit against some drug company, or doctor, for that same reason, we can't because that "issue" had already been "settled with". We were never involved in that class-action suit, but our right to sue had been taken away arbitrarily just so one or two lawyers can make out like bandits. Lawyers should be penalized for every frivolous, or otherwise, meaningless lawsuit they attempt to bring to the courts. It not only drains the health system, it also drains the "legal" system. The lawyers always win, even when they "lose" the case! Not to mention the loss of the hopes and dreams of their "clients", and the draining of their wallets. That needs to be addressed immediately. But why doesn't it? Hmmm, let's see, the Congressmen are mostly, yep, Lawyers! And if it were addressed, you'd see an immediate drop in medical "costs". And if it were addressed permanently, those cost reductions would perpetuate way into the future. And the drop would be more than a mere 10%. Doctors wouldn't be so afraid to "mis-diagnose" for fear of going bankrupt. They wouldn't need to run a "battery" of expensive tests just to cover their butts "legally", but rather be able to "specialize and concentrate" on the most likely diagnosis. Which leads to reduced costs. Doctors charge less because their insurance is cheaper, the drugs are cheaper, and the testing is cheaper. And guess what? People can afford to get their "checkups" regularly and get preventative medicine to help prevent the more expensive "emergency" treatment down the road.
That is only part of it, of course. The "legal" side can be a large chunk of the expense. Taming the legal side can have a domino effect on lowering costs since so many things depend on it, or are affected in some way by it.
Other ways, of course, are the "normal" operating costs of the hospitals and follow-up rehabilitation centers. Just the cost of "environmental control" (heating and air-conditioning), and electricity can be astronomical. Tame those costs by lowering energy costs. Yes, another thing that shouldn't be in the Government's hands. But that's another issue. ;-). Then the costs of labor in wages and salaries needs to be addressed. Sure, people like to make money, and who wouldn't? But when the Government forces people to pay a "higher minimum wage", how do they think that is compensated for? Yep, by higher costs to cover it! So the message is there are many ways to tame the costs. Many are so interrelated to other aspects of life that if one of them is less costly, it will affect another and reduce those costs as well, and so on. If you can get 1% here, and 3% there, and 2% over there, it will all add up to more than a mere 10% total reduction.

-It won't matter if the case is hopeless and the only treatments options are an expensive -waste of time. It would be Terri Schiavo all over again, where it got pressed, even though -after she died it was shown there really wasn't anything left to save.

Well, that was mainly more "legislation from the bench" and a media frenzy where Terri's wishes were stripped from her by some judge. A case of "expert against expert", but the "experts" were just a prop for the misguided judge to lean on. Sure, I felt bad for the whole ordeal. It's like a tug of war that you can't win. Nobody won there, but everybody paid dearly.

-but because we have collectively bought into the the legend of the miraculous last-minute -cure.

That's something one just has a hard time giving up... Hope! But there comes a time when all the hope in the world isn't going to change anything. And like Terri, I have a wish that if there is no "hope" for me, just pull the plug. Save the resources for someone that can be saved. What good is being a vegetable? I've lived my life contributing as much as I can. I don't want to "take it back" just because I can. But hey, that's me. Obviously others have a different outlook. That's a virtue of being a Free nation. You *can* be different!

-And it's the saying "No" to expensive and futile treatment has to happen to control costs.

But that isn't a large part of the overall costs. Maybe 2% at most, and in extreme cases. It's the reasons I spoke of above that make up the largest % of the costs.

-There can't be a lawsuit if it was correct.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? But the "legal system" has deemed "There is always someone to blame", no matter what..

-And everyone needs to pay their share of the system costs.

And how do you determine what one's "share" is? Is it fair that some people may only need 1%, while paying 10%, and some will use 50% while only paying 10%. But while using 30%, that cannot pay in their 10% because they are now incapable of doing so? Does their % debt add up? That's not going to be easy to figure that one out and be fair to all.

I still say that if the costs are tamed, people can pay their own way. We still have the Welfare system for those who just can't do it. As well as the generous donations and "fund raisers" that happen all the time.
Posted 08/07/2008 10:00PM #53
Sure the economy was booming when Billy was at the helm. Well, actually a proped up technological boom that was reporting false earnings and stealing from investors at an amazing pace. Then the balloon burst and folks went to jail and Clinton moved to poetic:-) Maybe while he had everyone eating out of his hand he could have started to work on Social Security, or getting ammo and food to the soldiers in Somalia? What do you think Reagan would have done if our troops where being killed and dragged through the streets? I'll NEVER forgive Clinton for that one...or the USS Cole. Having been a soldier I had to try to part my opinion from my duty. Republican or really doesn't matter. Either party is just there to make money and gain power we are just a pain in their asses.


Joe Bergeron said:

The only time since before Reagan when our debt was in decline and our budget was in surplus was during the last few years of the Clinton administration. He did a few things in his time which I didn't care for, but he did, at least, do that much right.

I suspect the habitual Republican budget-busting has something to do with their desire to "strangle the Federal government until it's small enough to drown in a bath tub."
Posted 08/08/2008 01:58AM #54
[QUOTE]Chris Provost said:

What do you think Reagan would have done if our troops where being killed and dragged through the streets?


I dunno...maybe the same thing he did when that Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by terroriists...withdraw?

Joe Bergeron

Moderator, Astro-Physics Forum
Posted 08/08/2008 03:10AM #55
Joe Bergeron said:

[QUOTE]Chris Provost said:

What do you think Reagan would have done if our troops where being killed and dragged through the streets?


I dunno...maybe the same thing he did when that Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by terrorists...withdraw?

Perhaps, but he would not have left them there with "It" swinging in the wind. Point being that for real change we need a man/woman (not Hillary) that is willing to act and act in a convincing way.
Posted 08/08/2008 03:14PM | Edited 08/08/2008 03:15PM #56
[QUOTE]Richard Wright said:

This is a good point. I don't think we have a contender with Reagan's acting skills in our current crop. Those tears on national television when the bodies of our Marines came home saved his Presidency. Of course, the current guy found a way from being accountable, even when our soldiers have been ordered to park their tracks and drive those pos humvees. Yep, he has something.


Lol, I guess I should have not used the word "act". I knew someone would use that to describe Reagans presidency. Just to clarify though the Humvee is not a pos. The men and woman who work on these (63 Bravo) would most likely not take kindly to that. The Humvee is not designed for a lot of things but it is designed for durability. As was said earlier the executive branch doesn't give the go ahead on funding. Should anyone think the troops need to be mechanized then I suggest you lobby your congress person on that point unless of course they are on the Republican side of the isle...they already agree. While your giving your wish list to your elected official please don't forget to express your dismay over the attachment of STUPID spending to our defense budget. BTW I can live without the smart a$$ comments. I have not offered any as of yet but it is something I am very good at grin Why is it that people can't have a constructive debate without all the 4th grade baby talk?

Posted 08/08/2008 07:06PM #57
Um, according to your trusted wikipedia, Reagan didn't "withdraw" anything. But with the barracks in shambles, where were the Marines supposed to stay? Of course they had to me moved to somewhere else. That was an attack by Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran. What was Reagan supposed to do? Attack Iran?

In Somalia, the dead bodies of the soldiers were being "paraded" and dishonored. Billy did nothing. Heck, Billy should have never ordered that "kidnapping mission" with the soldiers' hands tied! Yes, they had orders to not shoot, or defend themselves unless they were attacked. Yeah, go into hostile territory and allow yourselves to be shot at. It was just supposed to be stupid a kidnapping to just ask questions. Yeah, he was a leader alright..

Joe Bergeron said:

[QUOTE]Chris Provost said:

What do you think Reagan would have done if our troops where being killed and dragged through the streets?


I dunno...maybe the same thing he did when that Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by terroriists...withdraw?
Posted 08/09/2008 12:15AM #58
And just think about it. The mere though that we will pump out own oil has had a profound effect on prices. We haven't even pumped a single ounce yet and the prices are tumbling. Plus the dollar is getting stronger again. Hmmm..

Don Barar said:

Several weeks in this forum in a discussion about drilling in ANWAR or What I wanted in my backyard I recall writing that energy prices were high at the moment but the market would eventually work to bring things back in line. Back then oil was hovering around $150/barrel and everyone was attacking the speculators, exchange rates, and Big Oil.

Alot has happened since then. Oil is at $116/barrel and sinking like a rock. The President has lifted the ban on offshore drilling, the Democrats are realing from being exposed as cronies for wacky enviromentalists and are expected to lift the Congressional ban, people have changed their driving habits, and the US dollar is on the rise against the Euro becuase of the chance of recession in Europe.

My words words at the time about high energy were and I quote "this too shall pass". Free markets work.

Ok all you leftist Henny Penny's. I told you so!!!!!!
Posted 08/09/2008 12:16AM #59
You betcha! wink

Herb York said: