molson_golden2002

Bull sh--, that guy is more in your Bush league than mine. I made a serious argument he made a stupid one. It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see the difference

Wow! You should give a speech before a group of people trying to survive cancer! You are a good example of how ideology trumps reality with simple minds. A complete useful idiot

ROTFLMAO!!! Sort of like the Bushbots that wanted to help the Iraqis they hate so much. I never got that one, they want to bomb and kill them, and then stay there to form a democracy.

maybe they are forcing the sailors to convert to Islam.

You really make no sense at all

WTF are you talking about?

Depends. If they are providing a service then yes, of course its ok.

I suppose an argument can be made that welfare is a partial solution. What would they do if there was no welfare? Crime? Isn't it cheaper to have welfare than locking people up? Would we see the old political machines rise again? Yes, there can be much more corruption in society.

no

Ya know, one reason to get a good job with a good salary is to be able to live away from the decay class of people. I enjoy my living space. I'm not going appologize for that

Oh? The fat f---in Bushbot down the street from me now rides around on his medicare bought electric wheelchair and I'm not moving. One social program is not every social program.

1) Well, ya know 2) You don't know that. And the Pharmo should benefit from the research because they are the most efficient at distributing. You want the government to do it? Bill Gates benefited from internet and computer research the government did in the space and military programs. Is that so bad? I read the 180,000 somewhere, I'll pass it along if I run into it again.

But its still a silly point. Because I think the government should help people I have to want to live with those people?

Ya, I think it could send the earth into a dark age. Certaintly there would be some major reprecussions if the global economy shut down and some areas were cut off from oil, fresh water, and coffee. Extremist movements would grown up, migrations would take place and wars would follow.

1) No, it probably has more to do with the all the people I'd have shot if I was in power 2) Why in the world can't we do all of that? The money we spent on Iraq would have advanced the goals of cancer research and energy research farther than it has ever gone. And Iraq is going to keep on costing us. 180,000 vets to date have filed for disability from Iraq and Afganistan. What a clusterfok! 3) No need to pick winners and losers, we can have our cake and eat it too

And you are Wacka

Holy crap! This is big! WTF are the Iranians thinking?

With the benefits so great its worth the cost of the 11 failures. So the feds should fund it. Looking for alternative forms of energy is the same thing. If I was in charge we would be wasting hundreds of billions to find a solution for cancer and energy, and it would be worth it in the end.

The home owners sold and renters moved in--welfare people. The street was covered by swarms of screaming kids. I had to go. No houses were selling anymore in the neighborhood and we got lucky. They were building an old folks behind our house and wanted to build a driveway where our house was, so they bought it and tore it down. What luck!

Michael A. Caplinger, a scientist with Malin Space Science Systems, said that if the rate of carbon dioxide erosion from the Mars poles continues for thousands of years, "then it could profoundly amend the climate of Mars."<<<<< These articles you posted tell us nothing about global warming. Yes, climates change elswhere. That proves in no way that global warming on earth is not man made, or that carbon is contributing to it here.

Let's say you own a company and Harvard University medical researchers had developed a pill to cure cancer, with money they got from a government grant. The government asks for bids from companies to manufacture and sell that pill. Would you bid on a pill that guarantees a profit?

1) Smoke screan. Simply a cheap way to blame liberals because it feels good to blame liberals. 2) Link?

"A" top priority. As in you draw up a list of top priorities and act on them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...04820-8232r.htm 1) I don't get how this isn't more of a political issue. What politician would be against funding cancer research? 2) You would think politicians, being human, would want to see more research done.

Well, that is a fair question. While the "Molson Plan for health care" is still in committee, I would just toss out a few ideas. Since this plan would provide for the least able among us to buy health care, I see no problem with a fast food tax. An extra two or three cents a big mac won't kill anyone. And since the drive thru creates more pollution, add an extra penny on each trasaction there. I do not know how I would address the problem of the diabetic who only eats potato chips and drinks mountain dew. Is it ethical to cut off someone's care who will not take care of themselves? I say yes, but I'm sure others would not agree. What Spitzer is doing here in New York is interesting. He is pulling money out of the big hospitals and funding more, smaller clinics to, I guess, stress prevention to save costs. I will be interested to see how that goes if it passes. Of course, the flood of poor people into hospitals will lengthen the time it takes for everyone else to get procedures taken care of. I don't know if I like that too much