What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
112 Comments
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38Very good
I think from now on every episode of The Daily Show should be on DIGG. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35Do you know anything about the subject? Those embryos 'bearing the image of God' are going to be thrown in the trash instead of being used in a way that could save thousands of lives. Here's one for you: Trapped in a burning building with a baby screaming and crying in a crib and a cooler full of embryos, you only have time to save one or the other - which do you save? As a christian myself the answer to this is easy.
Also, you are retarded. - vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32He's still an equal opportunity basher, it's just that the party in power has provided a lot more material than usual. I mean come on, half of what Bush does needs no witty line to go with it. The jokes write themselves.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26I saw him make fun of some Democrats the other day. If I remember what it was, I'll try and find a link for you, though I am sorry I can't remember the topic at the moment.
I think it goes back to what he said when he was on Crossfire - he can only work with the material he's given. In an age with a Republican presidency, congress and supreme court, the odds are that his material will be from the Republicans.
Before dismissing him on the basis that he is biased, I think you should wait and see if he gives favorable treatment to a democratic congress or a democratic president, should those things happen. Until then, remember that he's just a comedian and there's no harm in finding a comedian not funny. - wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -16/+37It is totally amazing to me that whenever someone does not blindly tout the moral majority's far right political rhetoric they become a troll for the left. President Bush has got this one (stem cell research) wrong! If dubya knew the value of what stem cell research could produce instead of pandering to the far right's BS. Science and medicine could archive some great things.
~ A Former Republican - wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29The Republican Party ~ Pro Life, Until you're born!
Pro Life and Pro War?
I'm Anti Hypocrite, Thank you. - RipperMortis, on 10/12/2007, -16/+35And rightfully so
- Isyso, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I don't think anyone thinks that life isn't precious. I think its more of a debate of when life starts. When you inject your 'image of God' into a scietific debate you completely remove yourself of any credibility.
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Yes we do, or people wouldn't digg them. If you don't like them, don't click them, don't watch them, don't comment on them. It's not that hard.
- Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14What does it say about the state of news when the only decent and somewhat honest commentary (i.e. someone actually calling a spade a spade) occurs intermittently on a comedy program that specializes in fake news?
The only reason Stewart's show is even on the air is because politics and the reportage of it have long since veered into the absurd and sycophantic. Reporters have gotten so used to balance that they are no longer capable of standing up and saying "*****". And of course this just encourages our dear leaders and social betters to produce more *****.
:(( - jkoski, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19"The life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).
Embryos have no blood. If you're going to say the bible in the uncontested word of God, you don't get to pick and choose. Time to start putting people to death for wearing a blend of cotton and wool, I guess. - monkeymad2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19i stopped reading at "god"...anyone else?
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13BTW Metman, Lincoln was Republican (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html)
~ oblivious to history - Isyso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@Metman
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html -- Okay.. just one guy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/ -- Hrm. Okay. I gave you a list of what President Bush has done. Look for "Presidential Signing Statements." They are important.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5135077 -- If you can't read well, these guys will tell you how it is. You can just sit back and listen.
Want a specific executive abuse?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060619-3.html -- Blocking the Democratic Process in Belarus by nature of its own government is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE? Sorry. I don't buy it.
Ah, and, I'm a conservative. I'm not a liberal that goes and searches for reasons to hate Bush. No. I just do research and stay up to date on my government, as difficult of a task as that is.
As for your statement regarding Congress--I completely agree. It has been the mistake of Congress, a mistake that dates back to the early 19th Century, to give the executive branch more and more power. The only way to solve it is to, as I said, petition Congress and support viable platforms. - Isyso, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22If you do a little research, you would find that Bush never needed to veto because he overstepped the restrictions placed on the executive branch by the Constitution.
Basically, he's disregarding your freedoms in favor of his own ideal of order in this country. Not one man should hold privy to that.
Essentially, he is signing bills that he deems 'Unconstitutional' and claims that he doesn't need to follow the bills that he is signing into law. He believes himself above the law.
This is a perfect example of how the executive branch, specifically, and the National government, broadly, has gained far too much power over the individual citizen. To fix the problem we must all petition Congress to restore its authority over war and the excutive branch and support platforms for a smaller National government. - Isyso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm going to assume you are saying the statement about the 'image of God' is a narrow-minded view.
Let me explain this to you--there are realms of study that are exclusive to themselves. There is math; there is science; there is rhetoric; there is art; there is religion, etc. As much as these domains can intertwine, there is truth in the fact that math is used to explain math; science is used to explain science; rhetoric is used to explain rhetoric; art is used to explain art; and religion is used to explain religion. Now, truthfully, math can be employed in the explanation of art (or similar combinations) but it is not the core matter of regard.
Now, when you enter a scientific debate with the core of your understanding based in faith; you are encroaching upon a realm that is not wholy yours and should concede to the superiors of such a domain. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Some of us poor bastards have lives that do not revolve around the television schedule.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The same research can be done with embryonic cells and that causes no loss of life."
Again do some research before posting, you're just showing your extreme ignorance at this point. Show me some data. You're wrong by saying there is a loss of life using embryonic stem cells - as I pointed out those embryos are either used to create stem cells for research, or thrown in the garbage. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Although you hold a view that I entirely disagree with, the fact that your opinion has been modded down (to -4 as of me writing this)...pisses me off to no end. Even more than the view that you hold about when life starts. Come on people, modding someone down just because they have an opinion that differs from yours is ludicrous. Slacker isn't being rude. S/he isn't being condescending and certainly gets their point across."
Wrong, it's nost just opinion - it is plain incorrect. Sure he was not being rude, but comments that completely misrepresent the subject should be modded down. While I agree that if a valid point is made the comment shouldn't be modded down arguments such as 'God told me so!' should be. - Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10If this is the "left", I'm all for it. Troll on John!
- tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And some of us less-poor bastards have jobs and can't warrant staying up late enough to watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Digg provides a highlights reel, basically.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+799% of digg readers stopped reading at "Christ"
- fanzhango, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I want my three wishes!
- Norseman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If you don't have TiVo and you miss an episode, or if you don't have satellite at all, these links are very nice. I have yet to see a clip from the Daily Show in the comedy section that wasn't funny.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Yeah cause we never went to war with Democrats in office... like the Civil War (Abraham Lincoln the 1st Democratic President), Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War.. in fact up until the Bush Boys every war the US was involved in there was a Democrat in office. War does not care what party your in."
War does not care what party you're in, but you are oblivious to history that's for certain. For example Abraham Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN. Please research your own details before posting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln - jkoski, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@SlackerCSB
My point is - which I should have addressed first - is that an embryo's heart starts beating at 18 to 21 days. If my heart isn't beating = not alive. If an embryos heart isn't beating = not alive.
It's easier to tell myself that being raised catholic is less crazy than being raised a scientologist if christians would stick to the 'love your neighbor' message (which, doesn't include persecuting gays) and not try to teach science based on a book that was written when people were removing poo from their backsides with their bare hands and thought slavery was ok. - wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Privilege... I'm starting to dislike the edit function here.
- addicted44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think TDS is solely for entertainment. However, as a 2004 study showed, it still does a better job of informing its viewers than CNN, Fox, etc.
It brings forth important issues, and at least makes us think and discuss them. So much of the net neutrality issue debate was solely because of the popularity of the TDS Ted Stevens video.
While I agree with you completely, that reading better sources of information (and not just foreign, but a wide variety. The Washington Post, and the New York Times, with maybe the UK's Guardian thrown in, as well as a French paper maybe. With the internet, and Google news, this is not really that difficult), still that does not detract from the good TDS is doing. At least it is a step above News channels, which are unfortunately the most popular 'sources of news'. - addicted44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Same reason why an AIDS vaccine will never be created out of private research. The amount of recurring money drug companies make out of people buying overpriced medicines to help survive aids, would never be compensated by a vaccine that would be administered only once in a person's lifetime.
I am a conservative, and believe in private industry, but that does not mean I reject public backed projects completely, esp in drugs, and let me present a mind experiment to illustrate why.
Consider that a company has just stumbled across a formula that allows the human body to cure itself of all diseases, without need of any medicines. Lets say this company sells medicines, as well as operates private hospitals and provide medical insurance service. They get a patent on their drug. If they release the drug, then that would kill all their other industries. Thus in the short term they might have a boost in their income, but in a few years all their money would dry up. Considering the money the company loses, it would be their ethical duty to not release the drug, since a corporation exists to maximize revenue for shareholders.
Do you foresee them releasing that drug at any reasonable price?
This shows that private funds might not always be the best way, and that sometimes public funding is essential. - mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Its just funny how killing is not considered murder if it is sanctioned by the governing authority. I think our society needs to really re-evaluate our perspective on life. I think it is a little twisted to take away one humans chance at experiencing life in order to attempt to cure a disease. I just don't think whether someone else lives or dies is a decision that any human being has the right to make. We can attempt to cure disease, but the moment we have to destroy life (human life) to do it, it becomes morally wrong. And I don't think anyone can argue that an embryo is alive.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Metman the reason there are more advances coming at this time is because it is federally funded to research adult stem cells. Get your head out of your ass and think about it for a minute, how are embryonic stem cells supposed to keep up when very few instituitions are actually researching the subject? If you're at a university go talk to a biology prof about the subject maybe he can shed light where this internet forum cannot.
- glitch13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Besides, it sounds like you have a problem with the patent system, not government funding of medical research.
- Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Could we please keep swearing out of the Subject/Summary?
- masterjenkins, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9some of us poor bastards can not afford cable
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8When you preface a clip with "Jon Stewart rips him and his cronies a new *****!" I'm expecting some no holds barred ownage. That was your typical Daily Show segment. Marked as inaccurate for misleading headline.
- econofast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think they already are...
There should just be a "Jon Stewart" subsection. - thejokell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So question - if stem cell research could lead to huge medical advancements and even cures for diseases, why does there need to be any government money spent on the research? If they really are that big of a deal, wont the medical companies make gobs of money without the tax dollars? Why should the American public have to fund the profits of the medical companies?
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Remind me again why that means the government needs to fund the *research*?"
Why does the government need to fund the The Tuskegee Syphilis Study from 1932 to 1972 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/tuskegee/time.htm)? Why did the government need to fund research on LCD in the '60s, or a slew of other questionable "studies" (http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/SECRET2.htm)? Why does the government throw our money at a billion pork barrel projects every year. At least this one has the potential cure some terrible diseases. Beside, anything that the pharmaceutical companies fund is automatically tainted and unbiased. - glitch13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So a patented cure is worse than no cure at all?
- Syntaxis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If there comes a cure for cancer out of this research, and treatment costs 100,000 Dollars (USD) most people won't be able to afford it and insurance companies would go bankrupt. That where the government, especially the US government, comes in to save its citizens. Spend 5 billion on treating fifty million cancer patients instead of one new aircraft intended for killing people halfway around the globe.
- NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Its just funny how killing is not considered murder if it is sanctioned by the governing authority."
Seeing as how murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of a person," it makes sense. What determines what's unlawful? The law.
Then there's the question of when one becomes a person, which happens to be the real issue at hand. - wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ addicted44 - Thank you, it was my privledge.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I guess people dont have cable tv.
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@MrHaines
No fair. You used math against emotion. How do ever expect leftists to win if you keep doing that? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah! Business Journals!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So by extension, Uttles, would you agree that:
Unless you are a professional chef in a four star restaurant, you have no business criticizing ANY legitimate chef.
Unless you are a cow, you are not qualified enough to tell when milk has gone sour.
Unless you're a licensed auto mechanic, you aren't qualified enough to know when your brakes fail.
Unless you're Ernest and Julio Gallo, you are unqualified to determine if someone is drunk. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What I dont get about stem cells is why be so selfish, just die. The last thing the world needs is people living longer and making it harder for everyone. I think people that are in favor of it are morons because it would only cause way more problems. If someone is going to die, they need to die, if they dont have a body part then that is how it was ment to be, they need to die. If I were missing some imporptant organ and stem cell research could make me live for another 40-50 years I would be against it. Stem cells are so selfish and do not think of the majority of people. More people living would just raise another crap load of problems.
- atelophobee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2sounds like a vicious cycle, nano... good luck figuring a way out of that one!
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I do realize that adult stem cells work better because you can create replacement organs for a person using that person's own stem cells. This eliminates the use of anti-rejection drugs because the new organ is made from that person's own parts and therefore won't be rejected. You didn't read the link did you?
If you think embryonic stem cell research needs funding, you can legally mail your own check to:
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892 - n8br, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2National funding, for medical research, is the main source of financial support for such studies at academic research institutions. The findings of these studies are published for the public and scientific community. Stating that medical research is a waste of tax dollars is like saying that education is a poor investment for our country. And to simply expect pharmaceutical companies to handle all the research is ridiculous. Besides, all of their findings are proprietary. Results of government funded research are discussed by many researchers at different universities; openly propagating the knowledge of the scientific community on a given topic. Thus leading to the development of new treatments and directly benefiting our society.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is