OnTheRocks Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Frist to back expanded funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research This looks like he ripped a page out of Hillary Clinton's book. As she continues to position herself by taking bapy steps to the middle, Frist just took a somewhat giant step to the left. Do you suppose his reasons were motivated by a possible '08 run for the White House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Frist to back expanded funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research This looks like he ripped a page out of Hillary Clinton's book. As she continues to position herself by taking bapy steps to the middle, Frist just took a somewhat giant step to the left. Do you suppose his reasons were motivated by a possible '08 run for the White House? 393020[/snapback] It's always refreshing to see a politician come to his senses and realize nothing important ever gets done unless there's a government program for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 It's always refreshing to see a politician come to his senses and realize nothing important ever gets done unless there's a government program for it. 393044[/snapback] It's scientific research. While it would be governmentally funded, I just don't get what you are implying. There shouldn't be federally funded research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 It's scientific research. While it would be governmentally funded, I just don't get what you are implying. There shouldn't be federally funded research? I think my sarcasm was pretty clear, but this is a fun game - let me try it too: I don't get what you're implying. There are no advancements in science unless the federal government funds it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted July 29, 2005 Author Share Posted July 29, 2005 There shouldn't be federally funded research? 393059[/snapback] I don't know that it is neccessary. Does anyone have a source that shows what other money is being spent on this "scientific research"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I think my sarcasm was pretty clear, but this is a fun game - let me try it too: I don't get what you're implying. There are no advancements in science unless the federal government funds it? 393079[/snapback] I got the sarcasm. I just don't get what you have against federally funded research. Academic research is funded through government grants. You want all research to be done throught private companies? You'd get the advancements only if they were profitable. It wouldn't work. You want to rip government programs fine. But to rip federally funded scientific research is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I love that interview with "Dr." Frist where he won't take a stance about whether you can get HIV through tears and sweat. Hard to give credit to any medical stance he has after that laughable non-stance, which was clearly taken just to pander to dumb people who believe that you can catch AIDS from a doorknob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted July 29, 2005 Author Share Posted July 29, 2005 I just had a vision of Ron Reagan Jr.'s response to Frist this morning. To put it one way....I am guessing he is in the process of going blind at this very moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I don't know that it is neccessary.Does anyone have a source that shows what other money is being spent on this "scientific research"? 393084[/snapback] National Inst Health Budget NIH funded stem cell research Tufts study on drug R and D costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 You want all research to be done throught private companies? You'd get the advancements only if they were profitable. It wouldn't work. I guess that explains all the square wheels, stone tablets and everyone eating raw food before the US government was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Frist to back expanded funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research This looks like he ripped a page out of Hillary Clinton's book. As she continues to position herself by taking bapy steps to the middle, Frist just took a somewhat giant step to the left. Do you suppose his reasons were motivated by a possible '08 run for the White House? 393020[/snapback] The funny thing about this "federal stem cell research ban" is that the federal government spends more money on stem cell research than the rest of the world combined. Some ban... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I guess that explains all the square wheels, stone tablets and everyone eating raw food before the US government was created. 393104[/snapback] Aside from the obvious expenditures (defense, etc.), I can't think a better way to spend tax dollars than on research. It is next to impossible to separate the developments that corporations have made from basic research that enabled it, much of which was supported by these programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Aside from the obvious expenditures (defense, etc.), I can't think a better way to spend tax dollars than on research. It is next to impossible to separate the developments that corporations have made from basic research that enabled it, much of which was supported by these programs. 393187[/snapback] If it wasn't for research and scientific breakthrough, America wouldn't be the country it is today. We've always been a leading innovator, because our freedoms allow us the luxury of exploration, leading to breakthroughs and attracting smart people from other countries to our side. If all research was privately conducted the technologies would be proprietary, and expensive, until competition forced down the cost and price. Federal funding of research can make it accessible to multiple companies, shortening the timeline to competition and making the benefits available to more people. But to get back to the thread, either Frist or a family member has been diagnosed with a disease that would possibly benefit from treatments derived from stem cells, or he's pandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I love that interview with "Dr." Frist where he won't take a stance about whether you can get HIV through tears and sweat. Hard to give credit to any medical stance he has after that laughable non-stance, which was clearly taken just to pander to dumb people who believe that you can catch AIDS from a doorknob. 393089[/snapback] Come on, he's a surgeon. I wouldn't expect much more. His public stance on the Shiavo case was laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Aside from the obvious expenditures (defense, etc.), I can't think a better way to spend tax dollars than on research. Obvious expenditures = those actually outlined in the Constitution. Better ways to spend tax dollars = How I learned to love to grow the federal government, or dismantle the Constitution trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Obvious expenditures = those actually outlined in the Constitution.Better ways to spend tax dollars = How I learned to love to grow the federal government, or dismantle the Constitution trying. 393311[/snapback] What the hell are you implying here? The US shouldn't fund scientific research because it's not outlined in the Constitution? I've heard of strict interpretation, but that's just nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Frist to back expanded funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research This looks like he ripped a page out of Hillary Clinton's book. As she continues to position herself by taking bapy steps to the middle, Frist just took a somewhat giant step to the left. Do you suppose his reasons were motivated by a possible '08 run for the White House? 393020[/snapback] Can we all agree to call him "flip-flop" Frist from now on? I think his shameful display of pandering in the Schiavo mania that gripped the party not so long ago pretty much clinched it: The man is Presidential timber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callemasiseesem Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 What the hell are you implying here? The US shouldn't fund scientific research because it's not outlined in the Constitution? I've heard of strict interpretation, but that's just nuts. 393317[/snapback] "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " Those are some of the "nuttiest" and "craziest" words I've ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I love that interview with "Dr." Frist where he won't take a stance about whether you can get HIV through tears and sweat. Hard to give credit to any medical stance he has after that laughable non-stance, which was clearly taken just to pander to dumb people who believe that you can catch AIDS from a doorknob. 393089[/snapback] Senator Schiavo, a panderer you say? Heavens to murgatroid. I am shocked I tell you, shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 What the hell are you implying here? The US shouldn't fund scientific research because it's not outlined in the Constitution? I've heard of strict interpretation, but that's just nuts. 393317[/snapback] Oh, come on, he's just jonesing for the nomination to fill Renquist's seat, when it opens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts