Surgeon General speaks out

Right on Bob. GW has sunk to a new low by entering the office of President with a political agenda, seeking re-election and maintaining office for political purpose. Where is a special prosecutor when you need one?

I saw this on the news tonight. The response from the big house was laughable. Something about how it was a shame he didn't use his position to the maximum potential. :blink:

Bob, surprised no one has posted a thread about
China's former Food and Drug Administrator being executed today.

full time: :floor:

Have you heard that he's not running in 2008 either?

I'd love to be surprised by this, but..............

I hate when politics & religion mess with medicine and science!

Why is it I have no problem reconciling a strong faith and scientific fact, but people much more "learned" can't seem to manage it without freaking out?

Thanks for posting this Bob! It makes me sooooo :pissed:. Just think of the progress that could have been made with expanded stem cell research ~ and that we still have 2 more years of this!!!! :bang:

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

Like this?

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk again. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
John Edwards

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

Like this?

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk again. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
John Edwards

What are you trying to say? Reeve himself lobbied[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_cord_injury"][/ame] for stem cell research to help others rise from their wheelchairs in the future.

Considering Bush's medieval stance on stem cell research, I see no reason why Edwards can't say that a different president and policies would allow research with potentially huge results.

What are you trying to say? Reeve himself lobbiedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_cord_injury for stem cell research to help others rise from their wheelchairs in the future.

Considering Bush's medieval stance on stem cell research, I see no reason why Edwards can't say that a different president and policies would allow research with potentially huge results.

Do you even know what Bush's position on stem cell research is? You know it's not illegal, right? The government shouldn't be funding medical research, period. I'm skeptical about stem cell research because if there was money to be made in the research, and we all know how much money is in medicine, then private companies would be more involved in R&D. Just because Edwards has the hair and ethics of a televangelist doesn't mean it's responsible to speak like one as a politician. I know that Reeve lobbied for stem cell research, but not until he was injured. He didn't give a damn about medical research until he had a selfish reason to do so. Nothing wrong with that, but it's something to be mindful of. From what I've read, there is more promise in adult stem cells, but that's not a political hot button, so no sense in fighting for that. What Edwards said was despicable, but par for the course. If Kerry is elected, Christopher Reeve will get up and walk. That is what he said, and that is loathsome.

Many people do not get involved with charity work for a disease or ailment until it affects them in some way - usually when a loved one is afflicted. It doesn't mean they're selfish, it means they weren't fully aware of the issue or even knew the disease existed before then.

I don't have a problem with the government funding research (though I tend to think private is usually more effective), I do have a problem with them interfering and legislating how public & private research can occur for religious/political reasons!

Many people do not get involved with charity work for a disease or ailment until it affects them in some way - usually when a loved one is afflicted. It doesn't mean they're selfish, it means they weren't fully aware of the issue or even knew the disease existed before then.

I don't have a problem with the government funding research (though I tend to think private is usually more effective), I do have a problem with them interfering and legislating how public & private research can occur for religious/political reasons!

Like I said, nothing wrong with getting involved when you notice it. What does bother me is when he wants taxpayers involved on something that the private sector can do better. Exactly what legislation for religious reasons has been passed on this?

Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Resarch Enhancement Act, his first term actions limiting federal funding only to research on 60 lines of stem cells already in use (most of which are contaminated or unusable), his executive orders trying to steer the research towards amniotic fluid and placentas etc.

His policies on stem cells pander to the views of the Catholic Church and the religious right and do not reflect the overall wishes of the American people, information and advice from gifted scientists, or his own party's policy.

Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Resarch Enhancement Act, his first term actions limiting federal funding only to research on 60 lines of stem cells already in use (most of which are contaminated or unusable), his executive orders trying to steer the research towards amniotic fluid and placentas etc.

His policies on stem cells pander to the views of the Catholic Church and the religious right and do not reflect the overall wishes of the American people, information and advice from gifted scientists, or his own party's policy.

I said limiting private research, not limiting federal funding. I wish Bush was more active with his veto pen on spending, so I'll take whatever victory I can muster.

I too wish the veto pen was wielded with much more vigor to reduce pork.

The fact that the stem cell bill was the first thing he vetoed in 5.5 years made me mad.

One of my pet peeves is government at varying levels getting involved in stupid and pet issues while major issues go unaddressed and unresolved.

Do you even know what Bush's position on stem cell research is? You know it's not illegal, right? The government shouldn't be funding medical research, period. I'm skeptical about stem cell research because if there was money to be made in the research, and we all know how much money is in medicine, then private companies would be more involved in R&D. Just because Edwards has the hair and ethics of a televangelist doesn't mean it's responsible to speak like one as a politician. I know that Reeve lobbied for stem cell research, but not until he was injured. He didn't give a damn about medical research until he had a selfish reason to do so. Nothing wrong with that, but it's something to be mindful of. From what I've read, there is more promise in adult stem cells, but that's not a political hot button, so no sense in fighting for that. What Edwards said was despicable, but par for the course. If Kerry is elected, Christopher Reeve will get up and walk. That is what he said, and that is loathsome.

Christopher Reeve lived in my area, and the home/traveling nursing team company that he used and paid for with his own funds, is owned by a friend of mine.
I can tell you that he his lobbying was not selfish in the least. You have no idea what it took his nurses/him to get him ready to go out. My friend traveled extensively with him. Prior to his accident, he was politically involved in environmental issues and after his accident, I can tell you lobby or not, I don't think he ever really thought he would be walking in his lifetime.
So think twice before you call someone or label a group of people selfish. I know plenty of people involved in causes who have no personal associations.

Christopher Reeve lived in my area, and the home/traveling nursing team company that he used and paid for with his own funds, is owned by a friend of mine.
I can tell you that he his lobbying was not selfish in the least. You have no idea what it took his nurses/him to get him ready to go out. My friend traveled extensively with him. Prior to his accident, he was politically involved in environmental issues and after his accident, I can tell you lobby or not, I don't think he ever really thought he would be walking in his lifetime.
So think twice before you call someone or label a group of people selfish. I know plenty of people involved in causes who have no personal associations.

I never said I had a problem with him getting involved for selfish reasons, but he did have everything to gain from pushing stem cell research, and if he wasn't in a wheelchair, then he wouldn't have been the posterboy for it. John Edwards is a piece of sh*t for giving the world the false hope of "Elect me as VP and Reeve will get up from his wheelchair." I've been pretty clear that Edwards is the one I have the issue with, not Reeve.

Just to clarify, the Edwards quote wasn't that Reeves would get up and walk again it said people like Reeves will be able to one day get up from their wheel chairs and walk again. He didn't mean Reeves personally. The quote was made AFTER Reeves death so he wasn't saying Reeves himself would get up and walk. Edwards invoked the legacy of Reeves to make a point.

Just to clarify, the Edwards quote wasn't that Reeves would get up and walk again it said people like Reeves will be able to one day get up from their wheel chairs and walk again. He didn't mean Reeves personally. The quote was made AFTER Reeves death so he wasn't saying Reeves himself would get up and walk. Edwards invoked the legacy of Reeves to make a point.

I stand corrected on the timing of the quote. That makes the statement downright honorable. Good man, that John Edwards. Maybe this time we'll hear "If I am elected president, my wife will walk away healed from cancer. Elizabeth, you won't need to bring that hospital bed to the White House."

I stand corrected on the timing of the quote. That makes the statement downright honorable. Good man, that John Edwards. Maybe this time we'll hear "If I am elected president, my wife will walk away healed from cancer. Elizabeth, you won't need to bring that hospital bed to the White House."

I'm not one to champion Edwards. But if he can do that I'd vote for him too. Since my wonderful dad died of cancer I stopped joking about it, not so funny anymore. Nice slap though, Ann would be proud.

[/B]

I'm not one to champion Edwards. But if he can do that I'd vote for him too. Since my wonderful dad died of cancer I stopped joking about it, not so funny anymore. Nice slap though, Ann would be proud.

I'm no fan of Coulter. I'm making the point that it was a despicable statement, and putting it close to John Edwards' home. I have someone very, very close to me in about as bad of shape as Mrs. Edwards, so don't lecture me on that. Some of us deal with situations differently. I do my best to laugh about it.

I stand corrected on the timing of the quote. That makes the statement downright honorable. Good man, that John Edwards. Maybe this time we'll hear "If I am elected president, my wife will walk away healed from cancer. Elizabeth, you won't need to bring that hospital bed to the White House."

Your compassion level and dislike of Edwards are making me reconsider him as a candidate!

What an evil b@stard he must be, touting a promising area of scientific research as a ray of hope for people suffering.

Your compassion level and dislike of Edwards are making me reconsider him as a candidate!

What an evil b@stard he must be, touting a promising area of scientific research as a ray of hope for people suffering.

I've never taken him seriously. He's a pompous ambulance chaser and unelectable. If you are fine offering false hope to people suffering in exchange for their votes, good for you. I doubt you'd say the same if the candidate was on the other side of the aisle.

So why are we talking about Edwards and misquoting him. He's "unelectable". Ignore it, he's not a threat and not the topic of the thread.

Wait I get it, he's your "strawman". It helps deflect the negative attention from the Surgeon Generals comments.

No, I quoted the Democrat's most recent nominee for Vice President, and current candidate for President trying to shift political winds by using stem cell research. Just because I don't take him seriously doesn't stop you or the Democratic Party from doing so. The Democrats are the party that promises health in exchange for votes.

No, I quoted the Democrat's most recent nominee for Vice President, and current candidate for President trying to shift political winds by using stem cell research. Just because I don't take him seriously doesn't stop you or the Democratic Party from doing so. The Democrats are the party that promises health in exchange for votes.

I'd settle for health care.

So why are we talking about Edwards and misquoting him. He's "unelectable". Ignore it, he's not a threat and not the topic of the thread.

Wait I get it, he's your "strawman". It helps deflect the negative attention from the Surgeon Generals comments.

Step 1 in Flat Earthing any argument.............deflect onto irrelevant arguments...............