ikol Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 By your attempt at installing fear (teratocarcinoma) you are indirectly implying that stem cells lead to cancer and should be feared. We all had them at conception, we all have them now, we all do not have cancer, therefore your attempt at installing fear is not working nor valid. Just because we had them at conception doesn't mean we want them now. During conception, their growth and differentiation is regulated. If you put them in the wrong environment (such as an adult body), controlling their growth is a real problem. And as the articles you posted pointed out, adult stem cells are not the same thing as embryonic ones, so the ones we have now are not the same ones that cause teratocarcinomas. This is basic stuff that even the simplest of biology course teach. You would think a supposed pre-med student would know science and how it differs form talking points. I am supposedly a med student, not premed, and none of the biology classes I've had from high school through college covered teratocarcinomas or even very much on stem cells. The first lecture that covered them was about two months ago in med school, and the professor that gave the lecture actually thought that adult stem cells had more therapeutic potential than embryonic stem cells. And considering he also advocated therapeutic cloning, he wasn't just some "prolife whacko." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 1) My comments was inregards to Stem Cells., not the tetra cells. 2) The whole argument is based on potential, not on knowns. Embryonic Stem Cells have potential because we do not know the mystery of how they morph into other cells, and shoudl we learn how, then perhaps we may learn how to replicate that. The goofball argument that they have not produced results so lets not look at it just does nto fly. The big difference is that adult stem cells can only be what they are, period. Embryonic stem cells can become all the various tissues in the body. These are two completely different situations and trying to combine them into one is being disengenuous. And all in all this takes nothing away from the discussion about Rush ebing an ass-clown. Those who were complaining about Fox using his celebrity to promote this cause, where are you today when Jeff Supan and Jim Cavezial are doing the same? Can't really say it is in response to the Fox ad because it takes a little time to put together a commercial and get it on the air. Aren't they using their celebrity to promote their cause? But it is different because IOKIYAR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 WTF IS IOKIYAR? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 WTF IS IOKIYAR? If you have to ask... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 WTF IS IOKIYAR? I dont kare if your a repblucan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 WTF IS IOKIYAR? Its OK If You Are A Republican Different rules for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 1) My comments was inregards to Stem Cells., not the tetra cells. Either way, it's not covered in the "simplest of biology course," so your comments was wrong. 2) The whole argument is based on potential, not on knowns. Embryonic Stem Cells have potential because we do not know the mystery of how they morph into other cells, and shoudl we learn how, then perhaps we may learn how to replicate that. The goofball argument that they have not produced results so lets not look at it just does nto fly. The big difference is that adult stem cells can only be what they are, period. Embryonic stem cells can become all the various tissues in the body. These are two completely different situations and trying to combine them into one is being disengenuous. Of course the whole argument is based on potential. The same goes for adult stem cells. It is not known exactly how limited they are. It may be possible to produce any type of cell with them. It's not a simple case of "they are what they are" as you claim. And all in all this takes nothing away from the discussion about Rush ebing an ass-clown. Rush may very well eb an ass-clown. But his adipose tissue is probably full of stem cells. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Either way, it's not covered in the "simplest of biology course," so your comments was wrong. As usuall, everything that is not your opinion is wrong. I did learn this in college biology way back when i got my Geology degree. I took several biology courses as they relate to paleontology. No, I am not a geologist, I am a tax accountant today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kicking_Television Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 There is no defense of Limbaugh's comments. However, I agree with both of these clips to some extent, as has been discussed here before. You can't deny the Democrats' eagerness to use/exploit people who have experienced some kind of tragedy, illness, injustice, etc. for political purposes. If you speak against them or challenge their stance, you're immediately an unsympathetic asshole. and we're accusing only democrats of this?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 and we're accusing only democrats of this?? Yes. It fits my ideology better to ignore the truth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 At least you acknowledge it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 He's just droppin' some science to keep shit straight. Nothing wrong with that. There was nothing sacrastic about my post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 been busted for having a huge stash of perscription dope in his posession (that kind of weight, if it had been a "normal" citizen would have been put away for years), flying in and out of the Dominican Republic with perscription meds (Viagara!) in his posession without a perscription, and now this flap. The thought that he goes on and on about lawbreakers and dopers etc, etc and yet he is one cracks me up. This guy is a complete jagoff and a hypocrite to the 10th degree. Pompus douchebag I can't believe I'm saying this, but unless I am mistaken, Rush was accused of the things you mentioned but was never formally charged with anything (except I think for one minor possession charge which he pleaded not guilty to and reached some kind of settlement without admitting any wrongdoing). With that said, I still agree that he is a pompous douchebag and I'm disgusted by his comments about Michael J. Fox. Well, about almost everything, really. He needs a filter on his mouth. "I sometimes do not take my meds before lobbying, but I was on them for those commercials." -MJF on the news last night, paraphrase. Do you know where I can find that quote? I just had an hour long lunch discussion about this whole thing and it would really help my case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 He [Rush] needs a filter on his mouth. aren't ratings supposed to serve that function in some sense? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darkstar Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I can't believe I'm saying this, but unless I am mistaken, Rush was accused of the things you mentioned but was never formally charged with anything (except I think for one minor possession charge which he pleaded not guilty to and reached some kind of settlement without admitting any wrongdoing). With that said, I still agree that he is a pompous douchebag and I'm disgusted by his comments about Michael J. Fox. Well, about almost everything, really. He needs a filter on his mouth.Do you know where I can find that quote? I just had an hour long lunch discussion about this whole thing and it would really help my case. Yep. Your correct he wasn't convicted. Amazing huh? Anyone else with that kinda charge and no big$$$ lawyer wouldda been screwed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I agree with that 100%. Just saying, nothing was ever really proven. That doesn't mean I don't think it happened....but it isn't really a good argument against this whole MJF thing because on the record he didn't do much of anything wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I thought that he admitted it but copped a deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Pretty sure he pleaded not guilty. This is from Wikipedia:Deal reached On April 28, 2006, Limbaugh turned himself in to the Palm Beach County, Florida Sheriff's Office as part of a prearranged settlement to the case. He filed a "not guilty" plea with the Court and posted a $3,000 bond[36] to a single criminal charge of doctor shopping to "obtained 2,000 pills over six months".[37] The sheriff's office later announced that Limbaugh was technically "under arrest" during the booking process. Believing that this term would misleadingly invoke an image of the talk show host being handcuffed and hauled away, Limbaugh and his attorney contacted various media outlets to inform them of the settlement. Black issued a statement indicating that Limbaugh had settled the charge with the state[38] and that the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the criminal charge if Limbaugh pays $30,000 to defray the cost of the investigation and completes an 18-month therapy regimen with his physician. Black stated: "... [T]he State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse. Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position. Accordingly, we filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State."[39] Limbaugh asserts that the state's settlement agreement resulted from a lack of evidence supporting the charge of "doctor shopping." Under the terms of the agreement, Limbaugh may not own a firearm and must continue to submit to random drug testing, which he acknowledges having undergone since 2003.[40] Actually, now I'm not quite sure what this all means. Seems like he paid money as if he made a deal, but still didn't admit guilt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
darkstar Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I agree with that 100%. Just saying, nothing was ever really proven. That doesn't mean I don't think it happened....but it isn't really a good argument against this whole MJF thing because on the record he didn't do much of anything wrong. Oh yeah, point taken. This guy is one sad fucker. I'm no bleeding heart by any stretch but every time I hear or see him it's like I almost feel embarrased. The guy has no tact. You can disagree with Fox doing the ad and state the reasons why you disagree, but making fun and gesticulating wildly? Thats some serious bad karma shit there. I believe in mocking and poking fun at just about everything but damn...... Anyways Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Peel it sure as hell sounds to me like he had a plea deal where by he paid a fine and agreed to a treatment program in exhchange for no jail time and no trial. Or at least that is what it would be for me. But then again I do nto have a nationally syndicated radio show, political connections or millions. Funny how he bashes the ACLU continually yet he took their help in his case. Of course he only admitted to minor help, but they are constitutional lawyers and I am pretty sure they gave him his entire legal argument for his defense. But that is merely splitting hairs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I think that's what that Wikipedia thing says too, but I don't understand the part about filing a Not Guilty plea. The way it reads to me is that he paid money for the investigation, but that the charge would be dismissed in 18 months automatically after filing a Not Guilty plea. It doesn't make any sense to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I think it means that, as part of his deal, he wouldn't end up with a criminal record as a result of it. He agreed to pay the fine in exchange for not having a conviction or guilty plea on his record. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 But then again I do nto have a nationally syndicated radio show, political connections or millions. If you did the show phonetically in the same style you spell, i'd listen ever yday. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I think it means that, as part of his deal, he wouldn't end up with a criminal record as a result of it. He agreed to pay the fine in exchange for not having a conviction or guilty plea on his record. That makes sense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SlowBurn68 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 If he was chewing 30 oxycontin a day - his liver should start to fail in about 6-7 years. Then (unless he gets a transplant) we wont have to worry about him anymore. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.