How low can Limbaugh go? - Page 11 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #101 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:11 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
Very close friend of mine died a couple years ago of complications to Parkinson's disease. He stayed mentally sharp till the end but his body had a mind of its own. Most amazing was the effect the drugs had on him. The effect was so lucid you actually watch the drug peak and decline through his ability to move. To say Michael Fox is faking it is ludacris to anyone who is familiar with the disease.
Shane is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #102 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:16 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
You are correct that, until power is shifted, the debate is moot. That would be the point of the advertisement. There is always going to be private, state and foreign but until the fed steps in with real dollars, real FAST solid research lags. That goes for any subject whether it is rocket science or SCR. It is just a matter of bigger dollars get more people working.

The problem with religion in a political debate is that a Secular Government should not have laws that are based on the beliefs of a small percentage of the population. Now it is easy to say that a majority of people voted for Bush so his word should be law but that is not the case. Only a majority of voters, that voted that day voted for Bush [in theory]. Justice is suppose to be blind [and apparently wearing a blouse according to Ashcroft] but if one religion has set a standard for laws, Justice is now looking one way. On issues like SCR, religion is blocking cures for known illnesses for EVERYONE, not just those that believe in that religion. Some say “might” or “may” when talking about SCR but those are the same folks that use fuzzy arguments when trying to discredit the thousands of SCIENTISTS who research Global Warming. SCR is a viable research tool. It is proven. The only folks that say it is not is those who try and stop it. And they just never have proof of their argument since it is based on religion which has no place in determining funding for medical research.

Again, if folks are against SCR, they need to sign a lifetime waiver for themselves and their children, have that chipped in them that they will never use a CURE developed by any Stem Cell Research in the World. It is that simple. Put their Balls where their Beliefs are.
The government is secular. According to the Constitution, that not a condition of enfranchisement. On the contrary the Constitution clearly protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion, all three of which are clearly in play in this debate. It is not okay to disapprove approve of it. By disapproving of people bringing their morality to an issue of fundamental moral importance, you insist that people strip themselves of that which defines their humanity.

Laws are just codification of the prevailing morality. Christians, being the singlemost important moral force in America, their morality will have the greatest influence. This is why Nancy Pelosi made a big deal about saying she has friends & family who are antiabortionists. She is attempting to mollify that power which can thwart her ambition, if sufficiently riled.

Christianity is just like any other special interest group in that regard. Politicians suck-up to unions and Chambers of Commerce and enviro orgs and anti-abortion orgs and oil company orgs. That's what they do--balance the ambitions of the various competing interests against their own and against what they think is best for the nation.

What is the total non-fed spending on stem cell research in the USA? Worldwide? What research group is crying for more money? For what research? How much money can they absorb? I honestly don't know. I'd sure like to see hard figures rather than election day rhetorical flourishes.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #103 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:21 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
^^Agreed^^ Still to not support it is irrational.
Shane is offline  
post #104 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:33 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane
^^Agreed^^ Still to not support it is irrational.
Ah, that's a whole 'nuther argument. And I agree.
Botnst is offline  
post #105 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
The government is secular. According to the Constitution, that not a condition of enfranchisement. On the contrary the Constitution clearly protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion, all three of which are clearly in play in this debate. It is not okay to disapprove approve of it. By disapproving of people bringing their morality to an issue of fundamental moral importance, you insist that people strip themselves of that which defines their humanity.

Laws are just codification of the prevailing morality. Christians, being the singlemost important moral force in America, their morality will have the greatest influence. This is why Nancy Pelosi made a big deal about saying she has friends & family who are antiabortionists. She is attempting to mollify that power which can thwart her ambition, if sufficiently riled.

Christianity is just like any other special interest group in that regard. Politicians suck-up to unions and Chambers of Commerce and enviro orgs and anti-abortion orgs and oil company orgs. That's what they do--balance the ambitions of the various competing interests against their own and against what they think is best for the nation.

What is the total non-fed spending on stem cell research in the USA? Worldwide? What research group is crying for more money? For what research? How much money can they absorb? I honestly don't know. I'd sure like to see hard figures rather than election day rhetorical flourishes.

B
So it was OK to burn people at the stake and dunk women to prove they were or were not witches because THAT was the prevailing religion. Cool. We could do some branding, that A thing has already been done but I bet the NeoCons would be happy to do G’s [maybe not on Hastert]. So I see where you are going with this. Codifying the prevailing morality. So, do we base it on…which religion? Judeo-Christian? What about Jewish? Hindi? Buddhist? Muslim? Shaker? [I really don’t like their desserts] Mormon? Let’s settle on the Judeo-Christian. Baptist? [Southern? Northern? Free? New? American?] Methodist? Catholic? What about inerrancy? Because if we are going to Codify the prevailing morality, we have to decide if the World is 6000 or 60,000,000 years old. It just makes sense. Sorry, since religion is now being codified into law, sense no longer matters.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #106 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:47 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
What is the total non-fed spending on stem cell research in the USA? Worldwide? What research group is crying for more money? For what research? How much money can they absorb? I honestly don't know. I'd sure like to see hard figures rather than election day rhetorical flourishes.

B
Now for a less silly answer. I don't know. I will check the other fora tomorrow morning when my brain is less full and post up. I had the NIH numbers for 2004 and they were driving the budget requests at that point.

Here is my main link to NIH
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp

I will post up the Brit link tomorrow, it is not on this computer [I finally gave up my 5 year old laptop but it has most of my "favorites" as I did not paste that file over.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #107 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:51 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
So it was OK to burn people at the stake and dunk women to prove they were or were not witches because THAT was the prevailing religion. Cool. We could do some branding, that A thing has already been done but I bet the NeoCons would be happy to do G’s [maybe not on Hastert]. So I see where you are going with this. Codifying the prevailing morality. So, do we base it on…which religion? Judeo-Christian? What about Jewish? Hindi? Buddhist? Muslim? Shaker? [I really don’t like their desserts] Mormon? Let’s settle on the Judeo-Christian. Baptist? [Southern? Northern? Free? New? American?] Methodist? Catholic? What about inerrancy? Because if we are going to Codify the prevailing morality, we have to decide if the World is 6000 or 60,000,000 years old. It just makes sense. Sorry, since religion is now being codified into law, sense no longer matters.
I agree completely, Mac. Explaining away the 'codification' of religious dogma by way of legislation by calling it a reflection of our "humanity" does it too much justice.

It's very possible for one to be a decent and moral person in the complete absence of religion - of any variety. It should be equally possible to establish laws for our land that are free of favor or offense toward any particular religion.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the concept of "separation of church and state" is a fallacy...it originates from a misunderstanding of the letter, if not certainly the spirit, of the constitution. Arguments about how the Federalist papers, etc. should shed light on the true pulse of the framers are shallow to me - these people were masters of the language, and I refuse to believe that ambiguity is an accident.

If you (e.g. people in general) want to separate the church from the state, start by doing this - quit showing churches favoritism by removing their tax shelters. License them, and hold them to the same standards of operation and legitimacy as any other legal entity. If you can't get behind that, then you're not interested in the separation of church and state - you're just interested in being argumentative.
Qubes is online now  
post #108 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-25-2006, 08:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
I agree completely, Mac. Explaining away the 'codification' of religious dogma by way of legislation by calling it a reflection of our "humanity" does it too much justice.

It's very possible for one to be a decent and moral person in the complete absence of religion - of any variety. It should be equally possible to establish laws for our land that are free of favor or offense toward any particular religion.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the concept of "separation of church and state" is a fallacy...it originates from a misunderstanding of the letter, if not certainly the spirit, of the constitution. Arguments about how the Federalist papers, etc. should shed light on the true pulse of the framers are shallow to me - these people were masters of the language, and I refuse to believe that ambiguity is an accident.

If you (e.g. people in general) want to separate the church from the state, start by doing this - quit showing churches favoritism by removing their tax shelters. License them, and hold them to the same standards of operation and legitimacy as any other legal entity. If you can't get behind that, then you're not interested in the separation of church and state - you're just interested in being argumentative.
I agree that it should not have a tax advantage, especially now that many churches are acting as ad hoc pacs.

The most decent people that I know have not participated in a church or organized religion for years or decades. As Lenny Bruce said "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God"

That makes more sense every day.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #109 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-26-2006, 04:24 AM
CH4S Artist
 
Teutone's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1985 500SEC, 1991 190E 2.6.
Location: Los Angeles / Hannover Germany
Posts: 33,556
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Germany has a church tax coming out of every pay check, so do a number of other European Countries. The only way out of it is to declare yourself an atheist. One of the exceptions is Holland. As a result, the Dutch church had to sell some of their properties. The since the 60's famed Paradiso Club Amsterdam, is in a former church painted purple. I can remember seeing an (then) unknown Van Halen perform with Golden Earring (radar love).
Teutone is offline  
post #110 of 156 (permalink) Old 10-26-2006, 05:09 AM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Here is my favourite church. In fact it's probably the best in London and I'm keen to worshic there as frequently as I can.

http://www.fancyapint.com/main_site/...s/pub1027.html
deathrattle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Limbaugh detained at Palm Beach airport guage Off-Topic 24 06-29-2006 09:56 PM
    Rush Limbaugh, Sex Tourist? firstmb Off-Topic 1 06-27-2006 09:13 PM
    FS 4 LIKE NEW W140 Wheels LOW LOW LOW MILES mespe For Sale/Wanted/Trade/Giveaway 0 09-20-2005 12:33 PM
    Is Rush Limbaugh getting high again? FeelTheLove Off-Topic 6 09-01-2005 10:09 AM
    LOW LOW PRICE on 4 Brand New 20" LORINSER RS6 Diamond Cut Silver rims khoatrn General Mercedes-Benz 2 02-14-2005 11:09 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome