Filibuster Compromise

[punchdrunk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

Somebody wants to debate forever and not decide anything, he should simply join this forum.

heh heh

What about embryonic stem-cell research?

Poll: Stem Cell Use Gains Support

58% of Americans approve of medical research using embryonic stem cells, while 31% disapprove. Approval is higher now than it was last August; then, 50% approved and 31% disapproved, but 19% had no opinion.

GOP Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Grows

A Pew Research Center poll in 2002 showed that Americans, by a 43-38 margin, favored performing research on stem cells over protecting embryos. In a poll at the end of 2004, that margin was 56-32.

And this page from PollingReport.com contains a collection of poll results.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

And this page from PollingReport.com contains a collection of poll results.

And all these polls show significant numbers of people totally opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and one poll shows a large majority allowing at least some restrictions on it. I notice the polls that got the largest percentages in favor mentioned that it was used for Alzheimer's research, a "For God's sake, think of the children!" argument if there ever was one.

Again, I myself am not opposed to it in principle, and I'm not even opposed to federal funding for it. But I also understand the ethical and moral reservations of those opposed to it. And when more than 30% of a representative sample say they're opposed to it, you can't chalk it all up to evangelical Christians.

I'd be interested to see what would happen in a poll where the question was, "Do you believe embryonic stem cell research should be made legal?" with the results showing not the "yes" or "no" breakdown , but the breakdown of people who recognized it was a trick question, that it was already legal, just not funded by federal tax dollars.

 

[punchdrunk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

And all these polls show significant numbers of people totally opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and one poll shows a large majority allowing at least some restrictions on it. I notice the polls that got the largest percentages in favor mentioned that it was used for Alzheimer's research, a "For God's sake, think of the children!" argument if there ever was one.

I'm going to quote Arlen Spector from the article about the stem-cell override vote:

"I hate to personalize this, but when I look back on 1970, and President Nixon declared war on cancer, if that war had been adequately funded like the rest of our wars, I might not have Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer today," Specter said.

... and I'm personalizing this for you (with all due respect). I know you've had Hodgkin's. Do you consider his point a valid one?

regards

ps - I'm still derailing here, so I'll try to steer this discussion back to filibusters for now on....

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

... and I'm personalizing this for you (with all due respect). I know you've had Hodgkin's. Do you consider his point a valid one?

No. If the United State Senate contains a bigger ass than Arlen Spector, the building wouldn't be big enough to contain both of them at the same time. On the rare occasions I find myself agreeing with him, I sit down and do a quick sanity check.

This statement may be wildly out of context, but he makes it sound like there's been no progress on the cancer front since Nixon was president, which is utterly ridiculous. But people hear the word "cancer" and they react the same way a swimmer reacts when he hears someone yell "Shark!" He jumps out of the water without stopping to think that you don't usually find sharks in swimming pools.

Heart disease kills a lot more people than does cancer, but google "heart disease insurance" and then google "cancer insurance" and see what the insurance companies will sell you. People react emotionally to cancer and for Spector to use his own personal case as a way to gin up support for his position is reprehensible; it's pandering to the emotions and the fears of the ignoranti - something politicians are expert at.

The drugs I was taking when I had Hodgkins' were manufactured by drug companies, not Uncle Sam. My doctors came from my HMO, not Uncle Sam. The hospital was a private hospital, not a government one (when you're sick, do you want to go to a private hospital or a public one?).

Spector's making a statement that's entirely hypothetical, with not a shred of evidence to back it. And he's using it to support his position on stem-cell research? If appeal to emotion is the best argument he can muster for his position, I have to wonder if there isn't something wrong with it.

 

[jj]

And again, you haven't identified what issues and what positions Goldwater took that only the extreme liberals of today would support.

A falsehood. Many people here have accused me of being an "extreme liberal". While I frankly don't recall if you have said that, it's been said enough to at least offer some validity from the POV of the fascist rightwing here.

I would support Barry Goldwater.

Ergo, your question is illicit and disputive, since I can trivially produce one person alleged to be a far-leftist who would gladly support him were he alive and kicking.

Wild claim + zero proof + demand that others do the work to prove your claim = typical JREF Challenge WooWoo Applicant behavior. You're keeping some pretty bad company.

You're telling a lie.

I found the Goldwater thing without a great deal of trouble once, it was somewhat deep in a long, long article, but that's not a problem, I read fast.

I provided concrete, incontrovertable proof that at least one person who has been accused of being a far-leftist would gladly support Goldwater.

The knowledge of Goldwater being tossed out made the front page of the Newark Star Ledger, at the time, as well as the Times, so it's hardly a "wild claim", and your suggestion otherwise is simple ad-hominem on your part.

Finally, by using the words "wild claim" in such a dishonest and punitive fashion, you have taken on the mantle of fascist right-wing liar.

I require that you retract your "wild claim" and "no proof" falsehoods immediately. You are caught in a lie about my producing someone allegedly from the left who would support Goldwater were it possible (visions of "Equal Rights for the Dead" from Kentucky Fried Movie notwithstanding), and that in and of itself shows the sheer bankruptcy of your claim, and also your attempt to move the goalposts.

Btw, if you want to know one bellwether issue, just for your own enlightenment, try "gays in the military".

 

[varwoche]

There might be hell to pay the next election, but imagine the joy in Mudville if the Dems could block the Republican agenda for two whole years

Yup, that's how the system works. And it does actually seem to work, seeing as we've not witnessed any two year shutdowns by either party.

I agree with your prediction of how it will play out.

 

[BPSCG]

A falsehood. Many people here have accused me of being an "extreme liberal". While I frankly don't recall if you have said that, it's been said enough to at least offer some validity from the POV of the fascist rightwing here.

I don't even know what this means...

I would support Barry Goldwater.

Ergo, your question is illicit and disputive, since I can trivially produce one person alleged to be a far-leftist who would gladly support him were he alive and kicking.

That wasn't my question, but I have to compliment you on an elegant attempt to move the goalposts. My question was which of Goldwater's 1964 positions would an "extreme liberal" (you used the term first, BTW) of today support?

You're telling a lie.

I found the Goldwater thing without a great deal of trouble once,

Then you should easily be able to find it again to support your point. If you can, then do it and save us both a lot of typing.

I require that you retract your "wild claim" and "no proof" falsehoods immediately.

Or else what? You'll come over and beat me up?

 

[jj]

That wasn't my question, but I have to compliment you on an elegant attempt to move the goalposts. My question was which of Goldwater's 1964 positions would an "extreme liberal" (you used the term first, BTW) of today support?

Yep, you're trying to shift the goalposts. More ironically, you're trying desparately now to take me to task for that.

I would, since you don't believe a word I say, urge you to research Goldwater's planks for yourself.

Or else what? You'll come over and beat me up?

Yes, I realize that it appears your ethos is built on force. Shameful.

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, I realize that it appears your ethos is built on force. Shameful.

I don't put anyone on "ignore", since I'd lose all the entertainment value of posts such as your last few, but I just wanted to let you know I'm not going to pursue this pointless thread with you any more.