Who supports Ron Paul?
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
sharon kinsella
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am
- Contact:
Embryonic are the ones they've been working with I don't know if there is such thing as adult stem cells.
I do know that because of the use of embroyonic stem cells the right wing pundits have try block it.
I do know that because of the use of embroyonic stem cells the right wing pundits have try block it.
"When I dare to be powerful -- to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid." - Audre Lorde
-
Tracy Jones
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:26 pm
The history of research on adult stem cells began about 40 years ago.
The adult tissues reported to contain stem cells include brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, skin and liver.
There are several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.
You can learn more about stem cells and research at this site:
The adult tissues reported to contain stem cells include brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, skin and liver.
There are several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.
You can learn more about stem cells and research at this site:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp
-
Jim DeVito
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Stephen Eisel wrote:I think that it all starts with our educational system.a leader who will fully embrace (fund) science not one who will shy away from it.
Valid point. A system that needs more attention as we seem to be falling behind in the fields of Math and Science. However it is hard to take on educational reform with the underlying cause not being addressed. We need a leader who will work to create a strong middle class and help to lift people out of poverty. Sorry if that was a little off topic... but there you go.
-
sharon kinsella
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am
- Contact:
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
Vince Frantz
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:03 am
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Re: Ron Paul doesn't accept evolution
Tracy Jones wrote:
A president who cannot understand or accept evolution is a president who cannot understand or accept basic science. In today's world, many of our problems and their solutions depend upon science. A president who cannot accept the reality of natural, materialistic science is one who will either not recognize the problems which science tells us about, or will not accept the solutions science has to offer, or both.
Tracy,
I just caught up on your response here and I am glad you pointed this out. As ardent Dawkins and E.O. Wilson fans, my wife and I have come to support Ron Paul BECAUSE of our strong interest and support of evolution, natural selection and rampant diversity.
For us - Hillary Clinton (or any other candidate for that matter) represents a sort of "intelligent design" mentality - that big federal government can be smarter than us ants. We do not share Ron Paul's religious beliefs as many of his supporters don't either. The Fed is a homogenizing force that while it's initial aims seem valiant, the long term effect is stifling and downright unhealthy. Especially when it comes to education and social programs!
I have no problem with Dr. Paul's opinion of evolution. I know he would not be pushing this kind of agenda from on high:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yzBvQ9EeF3k
-
Tracy Jones
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:26 pm
Sharon, thank you for the compliment, however ,I feel the need to inform you that I am far from'brilliant', just interested in topics like stem cell research and evolution among others.
Vince, as for Paul, I can't share your sentiments, not only due to his denial of evolution, but his stance on abortion and his enabling of neo-nazis. He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants. He seems to be for isolationism, anti-government, anti-immigrant, and refuses to recognize that culture matters. The only thing I can agree with him on is his attack on the drug war.
As for E.O.Wilson and Dawkins, I am right there with you and your wife.
Vince, as for Paul, I can't share your sentiments, not only due to his denial of evolution, but his stance on abortion and his enabling of neo-nazis. He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants. He seems to be for isolationism, anti-government, anti-immigrant, and refuses to recognize that culture matters. The only thing I can agree with him on is his attack on the drug war.
As for E.O.Wilson and Dawkins, I am right there with you and your wife.
-
Vince Frantz
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:03 am
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
His stance on evolution or abortion are his own. From his standpoint as an ob-gyn working in lower income communities gives him a perception on abortion that you and I don't have. However, if he were to push them on others or support federal laws restricting abortion, I would feel different.
I haven't seen any proof that he supports neo-nazis. I have seen the anecdotal story about him having dinner at a restaurant that was frequented by white supremacist groups and the debunking of it as well. I know that he has not returned (nor will he return) the $500 donated by a white supremacist guy and has stated publicly many times his disdain for those groups.
He does seem to attract any group that wants smaller government. It is bound to attract some kooks. It wasn't until I looked deeper that I decided to support his candidacy. My hope is that his presence will interject some of the bigger issues that effect 100% of the population vs wedge issues like abortion, immigration and terrorism that are designed to keep our eyes off the real problems. I am not swayed by these issues despite the attention they are given. Monetary and Foreign policy are the most important issues and I agree with his views on these. These, along with defense are the domain of the federal government. For the folks that believe that there are "terrorists" waiting around every corner - you have the rest of the field to choose from. I am not buying it.
I am not hoping to sway your opinion, and I appreciate any evidence you may have found that backs up your views. People have different experiences that shape their worldview and there's no shifting that. I would say that I am not "anti-immigration" but I disagree with subsidies that are not funded locally. I am not "anti-government" but I am for true government which seeks to provide balance - not control. (check out Kevin Kelly's book "Out of Control" for some in depth reading on "governing").
As for cultural matters, if Dr. Paul was pushing God or Christianity or anything of the sort, he would be nowhere in this race. The fact that he doesn't think that we should allow illegal immigrants into the country doesn't mean he is espousing a homogeneous culture. In fact - if he was he would be much higher in the "likely republican voters" polls.
One thing I disagree with is the use of cultural diversity as a "present" to us as if it would not happen unless the government enforced it. It is a collectivist view supported by our election system. Treat everyone as part of a block. Leave no room for individuals. (Check out Edward Bernays for some interesting history on these PR tactics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays ).
The point of my original posting was to highlight the range of individuals who have publicly supported this guy. It seemed pretty diverse to me.
But hallelujah for you (Tracy) and the refreshingly well thought out and civilized posts. Maybe things are changing around here!
I haven't seen any proof that he supports neo-nazis. I have seen the anecdotal story about him having dinner at a restaurant that was frequented by white supremacist groups and the debunking of it as well. I know that he has not returned (nor will he return) the $500 donated by a white supremacist guy and has stated publicly many times his disdain for those groups.
He does seem to attract any group that wants smaller government. It is bound to attract some kooks. It wasn't until I looked deeper that I decided to support his candidacy. My hope is that his presence will interject some of the bigger issues that effect 100% of the population vs wedge issues like abortion, immigration and terrorism that are designed to keep our eyes off the real problems. I am not swayed by these issues despite the attention they are given. Monetary and Foreign policy are the most important issues and I agree with his views on these. These, along with defense are the domain of the federal government. For the folks that believe that there are "terrorists" waiting around every corner - you have the rest of the field to choose from. I am not buying it.
I am not hoping to sway your opinion, and I appreciate any evidence you may have found that backs up your views. People have different experiences that shape their worldview and there's no shifting that. I would say that I am not "anti-immigration" but I disagree with subsidies that are not funded locally. I am not "anti-government" but I am for true government which seeks to provide balance - not control. (check out Kevin Kelly's book "Out of Control" for some in depth reading on "governing").
As for cultural matters, if Dr. Paul was pushing God or Christianity or anything of the sort, he would be nowhere in this race. The fact that he doesn't think that we should allow illegal immigrants into the country doesn't mean he is espousing a homogeneous culture. In fact - if he was he would be much higher in the "likely republican voters" polls.
One thing I disagree with is the use of cultural diversity as a "present" to us as if it would not happen unless the government enforced it. It is a collectivist view supported by our election system. Treat everyone as part of a block. Leave no room for individuals. (Check out Edward Bernays for some interesting history on these PR tactics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays ).
The point of my original posting was to highlight the range of individuals who have publicly supported this guy. It seemed pretty diverse to me.
But hallelujah for you (Tracy) and the refreshingly well thought out and civilized posts. Maybe things are changing around here!
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
Please don't get distracted by side issues.
My 2 main reasons for supporting Dr. Ron Paul are:
1). like Dennis, he will end our military involvement in Iraq. As President he can do that without needing Congress.
2). He will save us a hundreds of billions of dollars a year that we do not have (we are borrowing from places like China) and can not afford to spend on military aggression throughout the World. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/
Our economy can not continue to support federal spending at this level.
Dr. Paul can do these 2 things. Who else can or would?
Please don't get distracted by side issues.
My 2 main reasons for supporting Dr. Ron Paul are:
1). like Dennis, he will end our military involvement in Iraq. As President he can do that without needing Congress.
2). He will save us a hundreds of billions of dollars a year that we do not have (we are borrowing from places like China) and can not afford to spend on military aggression throughout the World. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/
Our economy can not continue to support federal spending at this level.
Dr. Paul can do these 2 things. Who else can or would?
Mankind must put an end to war or
war will put an end to mankind.
--John F. Kennedy
Stability and peace in our land will not come from the barrel of a gun, because peace without justice is an impossibility.
--Desmond Tutu
war will put an end to mankind.
--John F. Kennedy
Stability and peace in our land will not come from the barrel of a gun, because peace without justice is an impossibility.
--Desmond Tutu
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
I don't agree with everything Dr. Paul stands for either. I don't think that there is ever a perfect candidate.
But I do think that Dr. Paul is a man of principals and I understand where he comes from on every issue - even when I disagree.
But three things are paramount to me in this election.
1) Getting out of wars and stop being the policeman of the world. We are in a war that will never end. A war against terrorism and our presence in the middle east encourages more terrorists - its an infinite loop.
2) Restoring our civil liberties. These have slowly been being eroded to the point that we now have Big Brother watching. The data mining is truly scary. Lost of Habeus Corpus, approving torture - all of these things are wrong. Naomi Wolf a Rhodes Scholar and author talks about how hard it is for good people to give up power once obtained. She questions whether any candidate will give it up. Dr. Paul will restore our liberties.
3) Restoring our economy. The dollar is falling. The mortgage crisis is the tip of the iceberg. We need someone that will take bold steps to fix it - not hide their heads in the sand.
I completely agree with Dr. Paul that immigration wouldn't be the problem it is if we had a strong economy. He really doesn't demonize undocumented workers - but feels that they shouldn't get ahead of people waiting to enter the country legally. I think he believes that we are incentivizing people entering the country illegally and you get what you reinforce.
These are areas where I believe that Dr. Paul is the strongest candidate.
Many of the issues that Dr. Paul discusses he realizes should not be taken overnight - but are long term goals.
Goggle Ron Paul and read what he has to say on a whole variety of issues. He is talking about many issues other candidates aren't.
But I do think that Dr. Paul is a man of principals and I understand where he comes from on every issue - even when I disagree.
But three things are paramount to me in this election.
1) Getting out of wars and stop being the policeman of the world. We are in a war that will never end. A war against terrorism and our presence in the middle east encourages more terrorists - its an infinite loop.
2) Restoring our civil liberties. These have slowly been being eroded to the point that we now have Big Brother watching. The data mining is truly scary. Lost of Habeus Corpus, approving torture - all of these things are wrong. Naomi Wolf a Rhodes Scholar and author talks about how hard it is for good people to give up power once obtained. She questions whether any candidate will give it up. Dr. Paul will restore our liberties.
3) Restoring our economy. The dollar is falling. The mortgage crisis is the tip of the iceberg. We need someone that will take bold steps to fix it - not hide their heads in the sand.
I completely agree with Dr. Paul that immigration wouldn't be the problem it is if we had a strong economy. He really doesn't demonize undocumented workers - but feels that they shouldn't get ahead of people waiting to enter the country legally. I think he believes that we are incentivizing people entering the country illegally and you get what you reinforce.
These are areas where I believe that Dr. Paul is the strongest candidate.
Many of the issues that Dr. Paul discusses he realizes should not be taken overnight - but are long term goals.
Goggle Ron Paul and read what he has to say on a whole variety of issues. He is talking about many issues other candidates aren't.
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
Tracy Jones
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:26 pm
Ron Paul's consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and church/state separation? How many realize that his "states' rights" rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote "traditional marriage" and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul is only a "libertarian" where and when it's convenient. Much of the rest of the time, he's not merely a social conservative but a religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of Christian Nationalists.
He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that it should be overturned. His preference would be for abortion to be criminalized and, contrary to most libertarians he doesn't not treat this as a states' rights matter. He would impose the ban at the federal level if necessary. Ron Paul also opposes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage: rather than let them work it out for themselves, he would use the power of the federal government to restrict gay marriage and prevent gay couples from being treated equally.
Ron Paul opposes protecting the liberty of women and the liberty of gays when they would use that liberty in a manner contrary to his personal religious beliefs. This is consistent with his support of using government funds and power to promote his religious beliefs over and above the religious beliefs of any other citizens.
If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately, he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do.
He opposes Roe v. Wade and believes that it should be overturned. His preference would be for abortion to be criminalized and, contrary to most libertarians he doesn't not treat this as a states' rights matter. He would impose the ban at the federal level if necessary. Ron Paul also opposes states' rights when it comes to same-sex marriage: rather than let them work it out for themselves, he would use the power of the federal government to restrict gay marriage and prevent gay couples from being treated equally.
Ron Paul opposes protecting the liberty of women and the liberty of gays when they would use that liberty in a manner contrary to his personal religious beliefs. This is consistent with his support of using government funds and power to promote his religious beliefs over and above the religious beliefs of any other citizens.
If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately, he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do.