I don't understand why Bush wont support Stem Cell Research!

[PLFXpert 0]

I disagree.

>1) Morality.

Federal funding does not equate one's position on supporting or not supporting the something-to-be-funded.

>2) Funding.

Agreed--lotta money spent on the war. The government does not have unlimited funds. Disagree if we never went to war, we'd have spent half a trillion dollars on something else instead, like stem cell research. Disagree we SHOULD spend half a trillion dollars on something else, like stem cell research, just b/c we have it to spend b/c we didn't spend it on a war.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,076]

>Federal funding does not equate one's position on supporting or not
>supporting the something-to-be-funded.

I agree - but it does play into the decision to fund it. Moral issues are touted by both sides in such decisions.

>The government does not have unlimited funds. Disagree if we never went
>to war, we'd have spent half a trillion dollars on something else instead,
>like stem cell research.

I agree that we would have not have spent half a trillion dollars on research, nor should we. But it WOULD make it a lot more economically feasible to spend a few million dollars on something else.

[PLFXpert 0]

Also:

>1) Morality.

If two people have the same goal, but different ideas about how to get there. What makes one less "moral" than the other?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[DSE 5]

Quote

I disagree.

>1) Morality.

Federal funding does not equate one's position on supporting or not supporting the something-to-be-funded.

Of course it does.

[billvon 3,076]

>If two people have the same goal, but different ideas about how to
>get there. What makes one less "moral" than the other?

That's pretty trivial to answer, but doesn't have much bearing on the question at hand.

(Answer: I am sure you would agree that someone who solves his financial problems by going to college, getting a job etc is morally superior to someone who figures out how to rob banks. Even though they have the same goals, their decisions on how to get there make them more or less moral.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Federal funding does not equate one's position on supporting or not supporting the something-to-be-funded.

Of course it does.

On a completely unrelated note, I think we should take the money saved by leaving all wars and use to fund my skydiving. Good luck to me. Perhaps use that money to force everyone to use RSLs, AADs, and build swoop landing areas in all the DZs in the country. I think that's way more important. And moral, and economic.

distraction from the topic by pushing a hot alternate topic is boring and pointless - great, we all know everyone's priorities now. moving on.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

I think we should take the money saved by leaving all wars and use to fund my skydiving. Good luck to me.

Instead of paying to jump, we get paid to jump? Everybody start campaigning for Bill as the President of the United States of America!

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Royd 0]

>But, how are military & war funding related to funding of stem cell research?

A few ways.

Quote

1) Morality

I guess it's ok to play the morality card whenever it suits your side of the argument.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

I think we should take the money saved by leaving all wars and use to fund my skydiving. Good luck to me.

Instead of paying to jump, we get paid to jump? Everybody start campaigning for Bill as the President of the United States of America!

You can't trust that asshole. No way will I vote for him.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>But, how are military & war funding related to funding of stem cell research?

A few ways.

Quote

1) Morality

I guess it's ok to play the morality card whenever it suits your side of the argument.

It gets old when they keep playing their religious dogma at the crowd.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Moral issues are touted by both sides in such decisions.

Absolutely. But not everyone who votes for or against federal funding is voting based on what they would personally fund...

Quote

I agree - but it does play into the decision to fund it.

Of course it does. Certainly pro-lifers aren't going to contribute to embryonic stem cell research. But, most definitely some pro-choicers (me) would not support federal funding of it.

Quote

But it WOULD make it a lot more economically feasible to spend a few million dollars on something else.

There's no question it would. But, while there are some exceptions, what some might want to see a few mill federally funded to is not at all related to federal funding of war.

Though many want funds decreased to this particular war, few would want war privately funded.

The ratios aren't nearly so overwhelming for those who would federally fund or not federally fund "other stuff".

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

(Answer: I am sure you would agree that someone who solves his financial problems by going to college, getting a job etc is morally superior to someone who figures out how to rob banks. Even though they have the same goals, their decisions on how to get there make them more or less moral.)

Obviously. Perhaps I should have been more specific:

I support stem cell research, but do not support federal funding of it.

How does that make me more or less moral than he who supports the research for the same reasons as I do, but WOULD support federal funding for it.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Royd 0]

I support stem cell research, but do not support federal funding of it.

Quote

How does that make me more or less moral than he who supports the research for the same reasons as I do, but WOULD support federal funding for it.

It might make you an evil capitalist instead of an altruistic socialist.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You can't trust that asshole. No way will I vote for him.

DUDE.. I would SOOOOOOO get banned for that one.

[billvon 3,076]

>I support stem cell research, but do not support federal funding of it.

>How does that make me more or less moral than he who supports the
>research for the same reasons as I do, but WOULD support federal
>funding for it.

It would depend on the other person's viewpoint, would it not? To a libertarian who strongly opposes federal funding of any sciences, your stand would be quite moral. To a person with a crippling spinal cord injury who may now not benefit from a cure (or who may see a longer delay until it's available) your stand might seem selfish.

[PLFXpert 0]

Not a libertarian, but happy to know someone doesn't think terribly of me.

More importantly:

Quote

To a person with a crippling spinal cord injury who may now not benefit from a cure (or who may see a longer delay until it's available) your stand might seem selfish.

I fail to see how private funding for his research makes finding a cure any more or less likely. Furthermore, more money might even potentially be spent toward his research funded privately than federally.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,076]

>I fail to see how private funding for his research makes finding a cure any >more or less likely.

In general, private plus public funding will make more progress more quickly than private funding alone.

[PLFXpert 0]

If less were funded federally there'd be even more private money to contribute, and less limitations and all that.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>But, how are military & war funding related to funding of stem cell research?

A few ways.

1) Morality. If it's OK to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to kill people (including tens of thousands of innocent people) surely it is OK to spend millions in a pursuit that destroys potential life (that would be destroyed anyway) in order to save many other lives.

2) Funding. The government does not have unlimited funds, and any money that goes to one project is money that cannot go to another. The war has cost us half a trillion dollars so far - that's money we cannot spend on other things like stem cell research.

and you want to raise taxes to get more for the social programs my irony meter just exploded

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,076]

> and you want to raise taxes to get more for the social programs . . .

No, I don't. I think we should raise taxes to pay our bills - and also cut our bills by spending less.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I think we should raise taxes to pay our bills

Isn't half a trillion dollars chump change compared to what we're spending elsewhere that maybe we don't need to be spending? Not even talking about social programs.

Not exactly relative to such things I'm referring, but it just made me think of one of my favorite movies, Dave. You know where Dave feeds his buddy Murray his favorite--bratwurst--and they go over the budget? Funniest part: "If I ran my business this way, I'd be out of business."

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I did NOT support us going to Iraq. I DO support federal funding of war.

Not supporting going to war means very little when one supports continuing such war.

Quote

I DO support stem cell research. I do NOT support federal funding of it.

Do you feel this way for all research? Say, maybe cancer or AIDS http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-03.pdf. You may be abit angry to know that 2.6 billion of your tax dollars are being wasted on research. Out of a budget of 22.8 billion, it is a pitiful amount. I would suspect that a large amount is wasted on cutting through red tape to get anything done. Possible reason many are against federal funding is just that. The governments inability to do anything within a budget. But, I think that some dollars are better than no dollars at all. I also think it is real sad that this is what it comes down to, dollars - life. It kind of tells the whole story of what society believes in when it refuses to let go of an all mighty dollar and then turn its head so not to see someone elses misery. Out of sight, out of mind. I would think that everyone knows someone who could benefit from any kind of research be it be cancer, AIDS, MS,... whatever. I would also think that everyone knows that they too could be striken with an ailment at any given time and could benefit from their tax dollars being spent on research of any type.
You may, however, be pleased to know that the government has wasted $456,100,000,000.00 http://www.nationalpriorities.org/publications/local-costs-of-the-iraq-war.html
Also, see where your money is supposingly going http://www.nationalpriorities.org/charts.html

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I disagree.

>1) Morality.

Federal funding does not equate one's position on supporting or not supporting the something-to-be-funded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course it does.

Do you support the position that a person should be allowed to eat? If so, does this mean that the government should buy all food?

Do you support the position that people have the right to bear arms? If so, should the government pay for all guns and ammunition for people?

I support Michael Moore's ability to make films. It doesn't mean I will pay to see his movies, nor does it mean that I think the films should be state-funded.

See what she means?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PLFXpert 0]

Oy vey.

Quote

Not supporting going to war means very little when one supports continuing such war.

Who supports continuing the war?

What I said was I support federal funding of war. I support bringing our troops home. I support pressuring Congress to tighten the purse strings to help make this happen.

To the second part: You're misunderstanding private vs. federal funding.

Oh, and it's just a big, huge fallacy. You presume WAY too much about anyone in particular--let's say me--for the simple fact one generally supports private funding instead of federal.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,076]

>Isn't half a trillion dollars chump change compared to what we're spending elsewhere . . .

Well, the total 2007 budget is 2.8 trillion; 18% of that doesn't seem like "chump change." It's our biggest optional expenditure by far.