Ronald Reagan

[JLittle44]

By now everyone has gotten this email. I like it.



"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."
- Ronald Reagan

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
- Ronald Reagan

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
- Ronald Reagan

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."
- Ronald Reagan

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
- Ronald Reagan

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
- Ronald Reagan

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
- Ronald Reagan

"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."
- Ronald Reagan

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
- Ronald Reagan

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan

"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."
- Ronald Reagan

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
- Ronald Reagan

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan

[keezdiver]

he was a brother in my fraternity....

entertaining quotes

[inletsurf]

I do miss Reagan. What a great man.

[Gradyman]

Thank you for posting that...Unfortunately I never really expereinced the man he was for our country...at that time in my life I was "Lost as a golf ball in high weeds".

[Bill McIntyre]

Thank you for posting that...Unfortunately I never really expereinced the man he was for our country...

I retired from the Marine Corps in 1980, just in time to experience what he was for our country.

Previous Presidents had held military pay raises below the increase in the CPI many times while I was on active duty, but when I retired, I was counting on my pension being indexed to the CPI forever after as provided for by the law.

I didn't know the law well enough. Reagan wanted to increase active duty pay to catch up, so he helped pay for it by using some obscure provision of the law that let him hold the retiree pension increase far below the increase in the CPI. Since inflation was running very high then, it made a significant difference. And since future inflation-based increases were starting from a lower pay, it matters for the rest of my life.

It seems he didn't care about military folks after they were no longer useful to fight the Evil Empire. And it didn't matter that promises had been made to induce military people to stay in. He could take back the promises, but it was too late for me to take back the service.

He was just like any other politician, except that he could stick it to you while telling homey jokes and with that Grandfatherly smile that made him so loveable.

[Nate Baker]

Interesting guy. Probably the right guy for the country at the time. We needed an inspirational leader, and he was extraordinarily inspirational. He had a keen sense of the role of the presidency that we haven't seen since.

Of course you have to factor in that 57 senior officials in his administration were indicted or resigned amid scandal (or both) -- a record that still stands.

[PatMyGreen]

he was a brother in my fraternity....

entertaining quotes

Where and when Keez? I was a Teke (Zeta Phi) at Rollins 98-01.

[DIVERTOM]

Reagan was a great president but we have a great amount of debt from
his Reaganomics. He was a monetarist and Milton Freidman just passed
away and he subscribed from his economic view point. He had the gift of
gab from his Irish heritage and did marry up. It's to bad that his wife asked
the Bushes to reconsider stem cell research and was bluntly told no by
Laura. I hope the Dems overturn that law so someone does not have to
waste away like that.

[Wayward Son]

There is no law against stem cell research.

[Bill McIntyre]

There is no law against stem cell research.

Spoken like a true Friedman fan. The private market should handle everything.

But Federal funding has sure helped in other basic research, and it would probably save some lives if it could fund stem cell research too.

[Wayward Son]

Please don't put words in my mouth, Bill. It just looks pissy & small of you.

I have not expressed an opinion on it, either way. I simply refuted the notion that some law should be over turned. You can't overturn a law that does not exist.

I repeat my prior statement: There is no law against stem cell research.

If you wish to debate how it should be funded, fine. But that is an entirely different subject from the claim that "I hope the Dems overturn that law so someone does not have to waste away like that." when there is no such law to overturn.

Bush has authorized more federal funding of this, including embryonic stem cell research, than any past administration including Clinton.

[DIVERTOM]

So what was Mrs Reagan asking for? Something the Bushes were not in
favor of. Who cares what the Bushes desire, as long as its overturned by the
Dems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4937850/

[Wayward Son]

She was asking for federal funding for embyonic stem cell research.

Bush has authorized a considerable amount of such funding & this research is presently ongoing, with both orivate & federal funding. The distinction is that Bush agreed to allow funds to be used on 72 existing lines of these stem cells but not for new lines.

So far as I know, there has not yet been any data to show that this research is going anywhere in regards to alzhiemers, which my mother also died from.

This is what bugs the shit out of me, is the distortion & outright lies about various issues. The people who want this funding constantly claim that there is a ban on this research, which is 100% bullshit. If people want to argue an issue, fine. Let's have the debate. But keep the goddamned facts in play & stop lying about what the other side is or isn't doing.

[jackpine savage]

Wayward is correct in that the federal funding applies to 72 lines of embryonic stem cells, what scientists would like is the funding to increase the amount of existing stem cells which they can base their research on. Nancy Reagan was asking that the federal government fund an expansion in the amount of lines of embryonic stem cells which researchers can draw from, a position which I applaud.

[DIVERTOM]

If its so simple why don't they just mind their own business and stay out
of it. I hear many voters did not agree with their views and since they work
for us why don't they do what the majority demands. Or is this a holy quest
and only to appease the religious right. Since this disease is hereditary why
would you agree with their decision? When did anything ever influenced by
religion ever turn out right in the long run?

[Wayward Son]

To play a little devil's advocate here, think about it. In order to get embyonic stem cells, you have to kill the embryo. That means an unborn human. It's not just a clump of cells. It's a clump of cells that left un-interfered with, will become a human.

Now, setting religious points aside, doncha think it's at least a little bit creepy to harvest unborn humans for the purpose of research?

[Wayward Son]

Further, you say they should "mind their own business", but really that is EXACTLY what they're doing when they oppose the use of federal funds to pay for this research. That's their taxes people want to spend on it. They are opposed. Some on religious principals, other people for other reasons. So when you propose taking their money by force of law & spending it on this, it is their own damned business to speak up & oppose it if they want to.

[Wayward Son]

I get even more confused about the big picture here. The left is constantly harping that under Bush the federal govt is spending way too much money. And many on the right agree with that. However, even while they bitch about out of control spending in general, on this issue how much we spend in total isn't even a concern. We need to open the vault & cough up the cash, baby!

So you might imagine how I have trouble making sense of it. Do we exercise fiscal control & spend less, or is that only lip service in talking about what's spent under a republican & really there is no limit?

[Makanic]

When did anything ever influenced by
religion ever turn out right in the long run?[/QUOTE]
I was influenced by religion and I definitely turned out better than I would've without it.

[DIVERTOM]

Would we be dealing with "Mad Scientists" or another Edward Jenner?
Is this an evil doing that lunatics are planning to demonize the world or
is this an attempt to better mankind? When Galileo looked into a telescope
and found cosmology to be explained incorrectly or Jenner realized milk
maids did not suffer from the pox or Sabin and Salk eradicating polio or
those Swiss who placed the first clock in a town plaza and where
condemed for trying to tell time! Well where are we now? These things are
taken for granted. Just think where would we be without doctors being
able to perform autopsies. Name one time they were on the right side?

[Bill McIntyre]

Reagan was a great president but we have a great amount of debt from
his Reaganomics. He was a monetarist and Milton Freidman just passed
away and he subscribed from his economic view point.

Carter appointed Paul Volker as Chairman of the Fed, and Volker adopted a strict monetarist POV on how money supply should be controlled. In retrospect, most economists think he put the squeeze on the money supply to tight for too long, and caused the back-to-back recessions of the early 80s.

Friedman was for balanced budgets, at least cyclically, so you can hardly say that Reagan was a strict adherent to Friedman's economics.

[DIVERTOM]

There is nothing wrong with leading a better life through religion but like
the ex-smoker who becomes a fanatic about smoking re-born religious
people start sticking there noses into things that they don't understand.
The Bushes pay off those voters with this stance and thats it. They have
done this one simple act for that group and they are so gullible.

[Wayward Son]

Do you understand this research? What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs? Hell, when you started this discussion you believed that their was a law banning it.

[Bill McIntyre]

Further, you say they should "mind their own business", but really that is EXACTLY what they're doing when they oppose the use of federal funds to pay for this research. That's their taxes people want to spend on it. They are opposed. Some on religious principals, other people for other reasons. So when you propose taking their money by force of law & spending it on this, it is their own damned business to speak up & oppose it if they want to.

I'm a little confused over the "theys" here, but I thought I have read polls that said the majority of people were in favor of stem cell research. If so, then its not exactly taking money by force of law.

[DIVERTOM]

Reagan wore a cowboy hat so he could not be that intelligent but he had
the gift of gab. I lived overseas during his presidency and he was hated as
much as Bush is today. I lived in LA for two years and he was like a Pope
there. Not much brain power there either at least where I was living and
working. His movies sucked too. But he had Ollie take the heat for him or he
would have been impeached, the best was when we invaded the evil island
of Granada and we were standing tall again. Imagine the terror they struck
back then with those crazy Cubans taking over. I was truely scared of that
place.

[DIVERTOM]

http://www.grg.org/RReaganJr.htm

The swishy Ron Reagan Jr. dancer also came out for stem cell research.

[jackpine savage]

To play a little devil's advocate here, think about it. In order to get embyonic stem cells, you have to kill the embryo. That means an unborn human. It's not just a clump of cells. It's a clump of cells that left un-interfered with, will become a human.

Now, setting religious points aside, doncha think it's at least a little bit creepy to harvest unborn humans for the purpose of research?
Well that is what the debate is over. What exactly constitutes a human being. Is it a single cell or is it a viable fetus or is it a baby tha has been born? Most people would agree with the second but not the first which is why the whole question is controversial. An embryonic stem cell will die if not kept in a controlled environment and it is not guaranteed you will get a baby from every embryonic stem cell, some become viable in the right circumstances some don't. I personally believe that using embryonic stem cells for research into hereditary disease is ok, if someone else doesn't believe in it fine. In my state we have voted to spend state money to finance this research if your state doesnt good for you for voting. What I would like to ask everyone who opposes this research is this, if embronic stem cell research finds a cure for parkinsin and alzheimers would you choose to use this cure even though you were opposed to this type of research?

[jackpine savage]

Wayward- I would like to think you for putting your opinions out there on this forum. While I seldom agree with you you do get me thinking about all other opinions on these issues and at least concerning gun control have helped me understand the gun rights position so that my opinion on that topic has changed dramatically.

[Bill McIntyre]

Its my understanding that the embryos used for research are extras left over after IVT and would have just been discarded anyway. If we are going to throw them in the trash, why not use them to do some good?

[ITSABOUTTIME]

Reagan wore a cowboy hat so he could not be that intelligent but he had
the gift of gab. I lived overseas during his presidency and he was hated as
much as Bush is today. I lived in LA for two years and he was like a Pope
there. Not much brain power there either at least where I was living and
working. His movies sucked too. But he had Ollie take the heat for him or he
would have been impeached, the best was when we invaded the evil island
of Granada and we were standing tall again. Imagine the terror they struck
back then with those crazy Cubans taking over. I was truely scared of that
place.
I guess we should let the overseas countries decide our president that way we will get a smart one that doesn't wear a cowboy hat :confused:

[Wayward Son]

Stem cell research seems to me to be a complex issue. I don't understand it in itself. I was the guy in school that took all the math & science I could, that's the kind of stuff that interests me. Chemistry, biology, physics, physical science, and such. But on this subject I simply know very little about the research itself. It's relatively new & I am not well read on it. My guess is the public at large likely knows less than I do about it.

I do know some things. I have a handle on the main points the debate centers around. I know that, unless I am mistaken, in order to get the stem cells you must kill the embryo, so this is a bit more complex a moral issue than looking through a telescope & discovering what's out there. You must kill what otherwise could be a human being. Not a lab rat, hamster, cat or pig, or monkey, but a human. So it isn't trivial.

I know that this research is legal, being done right now & getting federal funding at the largest amounts in our history, in addition to privately funded research. I know that Bush has made it clear that he will not agree to fund new lines of stem cells, though the existing ones are being funded.

I know that many people who either know better or should know better, in attempting to gain support for federal funding, state that this research is banned & it's the Evil Republican's fault. Which obviously is not true, but people who don't know that can easily believe it to be the case since they lack contrary information.

I know that when the govt takes our money, it is doing so through the force of law. Regardless of whether the majority supports that, you have no choice in the matter. Your money is taken, by force & if you attempt to refuse to pay you will be prosecuted for it. You may indeed lose the argument & be forced to pay, but that does not mean that you should not engage in the political fight over it while that fight is being held.

I know that in what news reports I do see, I have seen nothing, not one thing, reporting on successful treatment, promising progress or any other indication that embryonic stem cells are panning out for any disease. However, I do see fairly regular accounts of such progress being made with adult stem cells.

So, I'm not ready to buy into the unwavering assumption that embryonic stem cell research holds the keys to such cures. It may, but so far I'm not seeing anything to indicate it.

My mother died of alhiemers a mere year & a half ago. Dealing with this disease is very fresh on my mind. I am not unsympathetic to people who have it, or parkinsons or any other serious malady. At the same time I don't like being sold false hopes. What are the facts? This research may lead to a cure for one or more of these things, but it may not & what I know at present it does not seem to be a sure thing. Not enough to play that emotional card by promising that it will.

Jack, I agree with you on these types of discussions. I may often disagree but these types of things with clear arguments presented from the other side often causes me to look deeper into things, or in new ways.

[Bill McIntyre]

Wayward,

I'm not qualified to judge the promise of stem cell research. Many people with good resumes seem to think it is very promising, so all I can do is take their word for it. When Kennedy said we could put a man on the moon, I was similarly unqualified, so I had to take the word of physicists and engineers that all the money wouldn't be wasted.

I agree that the embryo was going to be a human, and nothing else, and that it certainly isn't trivial. I don't fit the standard liberal mold in that I am opposed to abortion. I've pissed off a lot of liberal friends when they say "a woman has the right to control her own body" and I reply "yes, she can cross her legs." I realize that doesn't address problems of incest or rape or a myriad of other considerations and I don't want to open that can of worms here, but was just trying to say that I am hardly one to advocate destroying potential human life.

So maybe a compromise is that we don't create embryos for the express purpose of killing them, but just use the extras from in-vitro-fertilization that were going to be thrown away anyway. If they were going down the drain anyway, why not use them to potentially save lives?

Of course some might say that an embryo is a human life, and we can't justify killing it to save another life. But we often take innocent lives to save others. All the civilians killed in the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo were killed to get the attention of the Japanese government and military, the Germans, and according to some, Joseph Stalin. Those lives were fully formed, had consciousness of the own existence, and plans for the future. An embryo has none of that.

If the death of an embryo can save people with fully formed lives and responsibilities to spouses, children, and others, maybe its something to consider.

[G1LM0RE08]

I MET RONALD REAGAN!!! It was when I was like 5 though. I still have a picture it's kinda cool.

[junior]

Went to Reagan's inaugural balls. Boy what a hoot:rolleyes: Thanks dad.

Human nature being what it is, the majority of people opposed to stem cell research would stand in line to be cured of life threatening and painful disease regardless of the origin of the treatment. Rare is the person who would writhe in pain dying while the cure sat at arms reach on the night stand .

Also, anyone who does not believe in natural selection as a functioning part of the theory of evolution should never take another antibiotic, eat another steak or partake in anything that is remotely tied to man's manipulation of the world through selective breeding, which is essentially applied evolutionary theory. Again, doubtful that will ever happen on as grand a scale as the push for intelligent duhsign:D

[Megabeast]

So, I'm not ready to buy into the unwavering assumption that embryonic stem cell research holds the keys to such cures. It may, but so far I'm not seeing anything to indicate it.

My mother died of alhiemers a mere year & a half ago. Dealing with this disease is very fresh on my mind. I am not unsympathetic to people who have it, or parkinsons or any other serious malady. At the same time I don't like being sold false hopes. What are the facts? This research may lead to a cure for one or more of these things, but it may not & what I know at present it does not seem to be a sure thing. Not enough to play that emotional card by promising that it will.

.... so in conclusion, can we say that you are only for Stem Cell research, only if it is guarenteed to work in the end? :rolleyes: That's why it's called research, you've got to see what you can do with it. You can't make the dinner without the ingredients. You gotta break some eggs to make an omlett too.

No one can guarentee what research results will be. We have to accept this. If we don't, then we are cowards who are sitting at home not doing anything wondering, 'what if we had only....' I never want to live my life regretting not doing something because I was too timid or too worried about the 'what ifs'. That's how cowards live. That's an empty existence.

Why is it such a big deal about using embryos anyway. As morbid as you will all think this is, WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE MORE EMBRYOS!!! The ability to reproduce isn't going away anytime soon, so all this sentiment about the 'little clump of cells that could be' is pretty weak IMO. Just make more. They're fun to make!!

[Wayward Son]

you misunderstood my point.

[Megabeast]

I thought you're point was something along the lines of, "I am intriguied by what this research could do, however I am more than a little skeptical of it. If I could see some hardcore evidence as to what this research will one day unviel, then I would fully support it."

Your quote of, "What are the facts? This research may lead to a cure for one or more of these things, but it may not & what I know at present it does not seem to be a sure thing." is what prompted my reply. 'Sure thing' and 'research' don't seem to belong together. You can't ask for facts when dealing with something that is primarily being discussed hypothetically.

If I misunderstood I apologize.

[Wayward Son]

You took "Not enough to play that emotional card by promising that it will."

and somehow turned that into ".... so in conclusion, can we say that you are only for Stem Cell research, only if it is guarenteed to work in the end?"

I made no comment either supporting or opposing the research itself. This fight is not about whether this research is to be done but over who is to pay for it. Proponents of federal funding have done a marvelous job of lying about this, as I stated earlier. For that matter, I have not stated my position on this funding either. So you read a lot that I did not write into what I did.

My point is exactly what I said ""Not enough to play that emotional card by promising that it will.""

There are people running around making that claim, that it WILL cure these diseases. No doubt, no room for even the possibility of doubt. To listen to them one would be convinced that the only reason we have not already found these cures is because of those evil damned republicans standing in the way.

Sorry, but I can't find any supporting evidence for that claim. I think it is fair to say that this research may possibly at some unknown point in the future lead to some benefit for these & other diseases. It may possibly lead to a cure. But this is NOT guaranteed. So I resent it when people make it sound as if it is. They are clearly attempting to leverage support by manipulating feelings.

[Wayward Son]

Speaking in broad general terms, my opinion is that most things should be handled by the private sector, with acknowledgement that there are exceptions. The space program comes to mind, it was such a hugely monstrous thing to undertake I dunno how long it would have taken for the private sector to do it. If ever.

I know that in my thinking I'm an anachronism these days, but IMO we would be better of if we actually stuck with the constitution & bill of rights as they were intended, the supreme law of the land. But we don't, we haven't in decades & we're not going to. Still, I've read the thing & have been unable to find where it grants the power for the federal govt to do much of what it does. Taking our taxes & funding research is one of them.

However, the documents are largely meaningless any more. They now mean whatever the hell you want them to & niceties such as adhering to the enumerated powers specified within are just a fading memory.

But I still wonder at the apparent contradiction I mentioned before by the libs, when they bitch to no end about federal spending & the deficit under Bush's watch, yet demand even more spending on issues such as this one. I mean, we're either spending too much & should restrain ourselves or we're not, pick one.

[Megabeast]

You took "Not enough to play that emotional card by promising that it will."

and somehow turned that into ".... so in conclusion, can we say that you are only for Stem Cell research, only if it is guarenteed to work in the end?"

I made no comment either supporting or opposing the research itself. This fight is not about whether this research is to be done but over who is to pay for it. Proponents of federal funding have done a marvelous job of lying about this, as I stated earlier. For that matter, I have not stated my position on this funding either. So you read a lot that I did not write into what I did.

My point is exactly what I said ""Not enough to play that emotional card by promising that it will.""

There are people running around making that claim, that it WILL cure these diseases. No doubt, no room for even the possibility of doubt. To listen to them one would be convinced that the only reason we have not already found these cures is because of those evil damned republicans standing in the way.

Sorry, but I can't find any supporting evidence for that claim. I think it is fair to say that this research may possibly at some unknown point in the future lead to some benefit for these & other diseases. It may possibly lead to a cure. But this is NOT guaranteed. So I resent it when people make it sound as if it is. They are clearly attempting to leverage support by manipulating feelings.

I feel ya now.

I haven't heard too many people using the word, "will" like you said, but I have heard the word, "could" a whole lot.

I also agree with your stance.

[aaron proffitt]

Anyone curious as to why people are crying for the government to fund stem cell research ?
Because of the lack of private investment in it.Lack of private investment means that the feds should kick in more money to fund it.
Why is their not more private investment in it ?
Because,despite what we're being fed by the media, it's not the pinnacle of healing that we're being led to believe it is.Ergo, investors are not going to sink money into something that won't produce. Right now,researchers in India are doing more in the way of research using cord blood than our folks (or anyone else ,for that matter) are when it comes to stem cells.Pay attention to this area,guys. And watch the free enterprise markets.See what develops.

[lens]

Aaron,
Actually it is pretty cut and dry for anyone that has the ability/want to research and read. Private funding has exceeded 100 million dollars since 2003 just in the U.S. In Europe it is in the Billions.

And yes it is a huge step in medical history. Dramatic results have already been concluded, not hypothesized but CONCLUDED.

Advancements in medicine have always been stipend with fear and slap happy overbearing hypocrites. Think about how it was viewed when doctors started dissecting corpses to better understand the human body. It was considered heresy back then. Why? Because people feared the unknown, and still do.

Again, government funding is not being requested just for increased funds, but for oversight. This has become a touchy subject. All the groups that oppose Stem Cell research provide enough conspiracy theories to rival the far left. These same people think that Stem Cell research will lead to cloning humans, deep basements of discarded human remains from harvesting livers, hearts, pancreases and so on. When in fact it is just about the “Stem Cell” itself. The Embryonic Stem Cell has the ability to become anything; skin, organs, eyes or even brain matter. It is an undeveloped cell that has not yet been coded. The Stem cells in question are already there, still frozen, and will continue to be there. So what’s worse, using them to further medicine and human healing………….or throw them away?

The conspiracy theorists fear the worst, as is human nature. But when provided answers and the posibility of strong oversight, they just turn to more excuses and uneducated statements.

A layman’s way of looking at the advantages of modern medicine is;

If it was not for the huge advancement in medicine and technology over the past 30 years, we would have as many deaths in Iraq now, as we did in Vietnam.

[aaron proffitt]

Lens,
I see your point.However,100 million bones is a drop in the bucket speaking on the corporate scale.Further,the majority of my retirement income is going to be the result of investments.Ergo, I do conduct alot of research and consult with alot of knowledgeable people on these areas.I ain't no scientist.
What I am repeatedly hearing is that stem cells and being able to use them in the manner is about as near a possibilty as solar fueled cars. But,like I said above, their are some huge gains being made in the use of cord blood. This is due to the fact that Asia had already been working on this before the stem cell was even a household name.
PS I have no ethical dog in this fight,BTW.

[lens]

You are right, 100 million is not all that much. But it is such a touchy subject, currently it is like playing with fire in regards to public relations.

I do not think you have not researched it, or that you are uneducated on the subject. i was just making a generalization. But I am sure you can agree that the majority of its opposition really over dramatizes the possible scenarios and outcomes of the technology.

And yes Cord Blood has great possibilities. No doubt about it. Currently the stem cells found in cord blood are helping reproduce Red Blood Cells, White Blood Cells and Platelets. Now there is a big IF and a slim chance, but....If the Cord Blood Stem Cells actually have the ability to differentiate, or change into other types of cells in the body, the whole embryonic stem cell debate will fade away. And I will gladly help it out the door.

[aaron proffitt]

And yes Cord Blood has great possibilities. No doubt about it. Currently the stem cells found in cord blood are helping reproduce Red Blood Cells, White Blood Cells and Platelets. Now there is a big IF and a slim chance, but....If the Cord Blood Stem Cells actually have the ability to differentiate, or change into other types of cells in the body, the whole embryonic stem cell debate will fade away. And I will gladly help it out the door.

Lens,

This has actually been acomplished during case studies in India.Please don't ask me for my sources.Kinda brain tired and I don't feel like Googling it.But,this has been done.
The only thing that makes this a winner for me (read $$) is that if the same thing can be done with cord blood as can be done with embryonic stem cells but w/o the controversy than I'm calling it a winner.

[Bill McIntyre]

Anyone curious as to why people are crying for the government to fund stem cell research ?
Because of the lack of private investment in it.Lack of private investment means that the feds should kick in more money to fund it.
Why is their not more private investment in it ?


I read an article in yesterday's LA Times health section. Of course the fact that I named the source will probably cause you to quit reading and jump on me for using communist controlled media as a source.

The author was Barron J. Lerner, a physician and historian at Columbia University Medical Center, and the author of "When Illness Goes Public: Celebrity Patients and How We Look at Medicine" (Johns Hopkins, 2006).

For all I know, Columbia is another cover for the Communist Party in the United States, and this author is on some conservative watch list.

Ordinarily, I would have just cut and pasted here the relevant information, but I know how you absolutely hate it when I quote directly from other people I've read rather than expressing totally original though as you always do.

Anyway, the title of the article was "Rita Hayworth's Misdiagnosed Struggle." The author said that Hayworth started having trouble remembering her lines during the 1960s when she was in her 40s. But she also drank heavily at times, and friends and doctors always attributed her problems to booze. She had increasing confusion and memory loss, but somehow made miraculous saves now and then and rose to the occasion and played successful roles.

Finally, in 1979 a New York psychiatrist made a diagnosis of Alzheimers. By that time, doctors had finally realized that while Alzheimer’s was often a cause for memory loss in the elderly, it was also a problem for the relatively young.

I know how you hate it when I just cut and paste, but after all that typing, I'll save myself a bit of time with this quote.

Hayworth, who died at age 68 in 1987, would become the first public face of Alzheimer's, helping to ensure that future patients did not go undiagnosed. Today, thanks in large part to Hayworth and Ronald Reagan, who went public with his diagnosis in 1994, federal funding for Alzheimer's research has dramatically increased from $146 million in 1990 to more than $650 million.

Unbeknownst to her, Hayworth helped to destigmatize a condition that can still embarrass victims and their families.

So I'm really glad that public funding for Alzheimer's research has increased so much. I suppose that you would have preferred to wait until private firms thought it was a safe investment, but I don't have that much time. I'm already misplacing my car keys and glasses.

I only wish that Alzheimers could be selective so that I could just forget irrationally hateful people like you who are so afraid of being challenged that they reject a post on flattening taxes and eliminating preferences and exemptions designed to influence behavior because they come from someone who is a known communist.

[aaron proffitt]

I don't think I've ever called you a communist.Or a socialist.Marxist.Or anything else.Your short term memory loss is showing.
You actually made my previous point to lens for me,Bill.
Cord blood research was already underway before stem cell became a political catch phrase.They(cord blood researchers) are way ahead of the curve and making great in roads with it. May be hope for ya yet,big guy. Hang in there !!