What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
151 Comments
- Naxr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+53Like he said in the debate: "Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it."
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47At least there is one candidate that can actually read and comprehend the plain english of the Constitution.
- fuzzgaze, on 10/12/2007, -12/+47Ron Paul seems to be relatively grounded and rational in terms of his decision making. That shouldn't seem like a refreshing thing, but for some reason it is.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25@dshpls
You're absolutely right. Let's ban the internet because the framers didn't imagine it! And cars, planes, indoor plumbing, etc.
Or you could pull your head out of your ass. - Naxr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26I don't think many would doubt the importance that those technologies have played in our lives. The question is, is it the government's role to fund science (through taxation of course) or would it best be left to the people? Now, do we really need to have a lecture on the allocation of scarce resources for the market versus the government?
- SuperMoses, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Unfortunately it's those characteristics that don't win elections :/
- meistaiwan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Alright, so he's decided that the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize federal funding for stem cells. Here's the problem with Ron Paul...he doesn't mention what else he doesn't think is constitutional. From that logic, all federal funding for research should be stopped. These grants go to universities and hospitals that typically wouldn't get commercial funds for research. Instead, all we have left are the commercial interests in medical research. That's the pharm companies.
Our America has gotten where it is by a nice balance of socialist and capitalist funding for research. We have very very smart people in universities who compete for government grants (socialism via capitalism) and the results, we all benefit from. We also have the purely capitalist pharm companies researching to make money, ie make equipment and drugs to sell. It's a good system, but Ron Paul apparently wants to get rid of half of it.
This is a big problem with Ron Paul. While he will publicly state the good parts of his Constitutionalist/Libertarian viewpoint, he doesn't finish along his line of thinking, and excludes the bad consequences from his idealistic viewpoints. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby,"
So true, and a horrible way to make spending decisions.
The difference between approval and financing is a difficult one for many to understand. Or is it? Maybe it's just the "me too" attitude. I really don't know. I do know this, we would all be better off if the federal government didn't spend money without authorization.
They are far too diversified. They need to limit themselves to functions they were created for, then we wouldn't have to worry about lobbyists. Who would lobby for a bigger Post Office? - Automatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Federal funding for research is what made American technology what it is. Too bad we're in such a rush to give our leads away.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@colber
agreed. it is hilarious that all the libertarians on the net don't realize where the internet came from: public sector research and funding. yes it's a fact little lemmings. - n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Can we just get a Ron Paul section already!
- Naxr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18If you are going where I think you're going, then I would advise you to read the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Libertarians want to turn government over to multi-national corporations? You have some reading up to do on libertarianism.
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Did you RTFA? His stance is all encompassing, and rather easy to understand.
- adrenaline33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9He is NOT pro-life as we know it today. He simply believes that it should be a state matter instead of a constitutional one. So the only way abortion would be outlawed in the U.S. is if every single state voted for it to be outlawed in 50 separate state votes. And there is no way that would happen.
- luther70, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10They need to be reminded of this as often as possible.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Let me break it down to everyone who doesn't understand ***** about the way medical research is done in this country:
Biomedical research is primarily funded by NIH(National Institutes of Health). NIH distributes this money to different medical schools, research centers, etc who conduct research to make your lives better. This has been going on for decades and every little improvement in our health care system is a product of this.
If NIH does not support stem cell research, no one, not even the private companies, have the funding to do it. NIH is already in deep ***** as it is, the government has already stopped increasing its funding fro 3 or 4 years now.
This means that our quality of life will not improve and countries like Japan, Korea, China, etc who are willing to fund this kind of research will surpass us. - kraftyballs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Where do I go to get my money back for the programs that I don't agree with?
Jesus H Christ, you people act like you really get to choose where your money goes. - aknappjr, on 10/13/2007, -2/+9@aliengoods
Ron Paul doesn't want to BAN stem cell research. He wants to BAN YOUR TAX DOLLARS going towards it. When you buy a computer (or any commodity), with all the research it takes to build a computer, would it be a good idea if Congress, Washington, and special interest groups decided whether to fund Mac research or PC research? No! Leave it to the free markets to decide which type of stem cell research to pursue, be it embryonic, adult, nuclear transfer, ect. Congress is a poor vehicle for making or deciding which cars, planes, indoor plumbing, and most other things, including stem cell products, to make. - JigoroKano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@Y0tsuya
I say thank the gods Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a horrible conservative. Horrible! He ran a terrible budget and was a terrible military interventionist. Our foreign policy under Reagan was extremely unethical at times. Reagan was worse than GWB in quality, just not in quantity. At least we can all agree that taking out Saddam was a good thing. Some of the things that the Reagan administration did were just evil.
Ronald Reagan was a nice guy, a good head of state, and a _great_ diplomat, but he ***** ruined conservatism. There would be no GWB if it weren't for Reagan. Conservative doesn't mean anything today, partially because of him. All the good is rhetoric, and all that's done is bad. When I see all the Republican candidates kissing Reagan's dead ass in the debates, I know that conservatism is truly dead. - trenchcoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Swiss Cake Roll endorses stem and seed research.
- DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Well the constitution gives the government power to fund the military, because that is something we need.
- painted82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@meistaiwan
Ron Paul's argument is not idealistic... it's very realistic. Ron Paul believes that congress is not smart enough to know what to fund or how to fund it. To fund stem cell research or alternative energy, what technique would congress choose and what company would they choose? Isn't that direct contradiction of capitalistic free market? Isn't that why Haliburton gets no bid contracts? And isn't that why oil companies have puppets (like bush and cheney) in our federal government?
Who do you think ultimately ends up paying for those government subsidies and bribes? It's the American taxpayers since government pays those companies. On top of that, American public also pays interest to the Federal Reserve... On top of that, Americans suffer inflation since the Federal Reserve pumps out more money to give to the federal government.
So... to conclude... when federal government gets involved, it leads to inefficiency, corruption, and more money wasted. And the only ones who will suffer in the end will be the American public. This is Ron Paul's point and I quite frankly concur: role of federal government must be limited! - paradexes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@fuzzgate
You got my digg for that comment. It is soooo true with all the weirdness going on in DC these days. Both sides are fighting it out and it is causing more problems for everyone than fixing. Hopefully Ron Paul does get a chance at the Oval office. I would also look at Mike Gravely as well. He seems like the democrat version of Ron Paul. All the major "front runners" of both parties have left me very unimpressed. Obama and Clinton have raised their money and quite a bit of it came from the movie and music industry....IMO that just reeks of special interests via the RIAA and MPAA.
Alternatively the republican candidates for the most part are supported by Automotive and other large corporate interests as we have seen with the Bush administration. It seems that the candidates with the least sponsorship from special interest groups are the most honest. Hence why greedy dishonest corporations are not donating to their campaigns. Gravely or Paul are likely to get my vote this year. I am going to play it non partisan as I am tired of the partisanism we are seeing. It is dividing the country as a people. United States is not really standing "united" anymore. We have been divided into blue states and red states if you look at the media's POV on it. - eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@dhpls
Perhaps you are misunderstanding that the constitution does not call for the government to fund research. That is for states and private companies. If the government funds it that means essentially that citizens are paying for it.
The constitution can be amended though so if you think its important enough you could probably ask your represenatives to try to put an amendmant in that it is the responsibility of the government to advance technology. (not that it matters or that they will take you seriously)
@alien
wtf are you talking about did you even try to understand dhs responce? do you even know what the article is about? - Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@kingkilr
The necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause.
The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
I think it's funny that this clause is the war cry for statists (big government people), the very title 'elastic clause' doesn't just bring the connotation of expanding congressional authority, but like anything elastic, can be argued to shrink the authority of congress. Anyway, i didn't see federally funded research in the Constitution, so I'd have to say that those powers were not vested in our government. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@kibibytebrain
He doesn't think the federal government should control abortion, but that the states should do it. Which is completely accurate.
However, he's very consistent, as he also believes that the death penalty and other ways we kill people are wrong. He has what teh interwebz told me was a "consistent life ethic." - DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yea, Ron Paul wants to stop that too.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If it's a joke it's a bad one. If you really believe this then chances are that you are retarded. Researchers have no use of fully formed new-born babies for research purposes, while it's also highly immoral to use them for any kind of research as they are full human beings with all the relative rights.
- sphigel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So what if he's morally against stem cell research. At least he's consistent in his stance that he doesn't want govt funding for his pet projects or yours. Everyone who points out what govt research has done for us never looks at the cost. Govt is always an incredibly inefficient way of getting anything done and should be avoided when not absolutely necessary.
All the benefits of govt need to be looked at in comparison to the costs. When you can forcefully take people's money(taxes), or just print money of course you have the vehicle to make things happen quickly. That doesn't mean its right or ultimately good for our Country in the long run. - rheobase, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I understand Dr. Paul's point that there is no Constitutional provision for research funding of any kind. It could be added as an amendment.
Everyone benefits from basic science research, just as everyone benefits from national defense. Why shouldn't everyone pay for it? - aknappjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What you're forgetting is how many of these things, and better, would be invented and in use if the billions hadn't been wasted in the bureaucratic process that IS the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Its the parable of the broken window, which many people don't realize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Taxing people to pay for sports stadiums doesn't create jobs, it takes money from people (that would be spent creating jobs on going out to dinner, vacations, consumer products, invested, ect.) and gives it to the special interest of people who like that particular football/baseball team and the politically-well-established rich owner/owners. - wakananda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Are you typing with an artificial limb, while drinking TANG?
In the absence of Federal Dollars for tech research, maybe investors would invest in good ideas. And maybe, because huge corporations weren't working hand in glove with Govt., getting all the fat grants, contracts and bailouts, and supressing competition with that power, we'd get some suprising innovation. And people would decide what technology to have, directly, by BUYING it - with the Fed tax dollars they would save. Chaos! You know, the kind that generates complexity. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What you don't realize is that all those tax dollars that we get to give grants would be back in the hands of either the citizen or the state. At that point that could donate the money or give a state grant or create a coalition of states to give grants.
- wakananda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They came here knowingly in violation of the law. Emergency rooms in the US, along the border region, have shut down because of the influx of illegals. "la Raza!" means "The Race." I love our latinos, legal and illegal, and feel that the vibrancy and ancient legacy offers a lot to the USA's culture. But the border problem, and the agitation for amnesty on open borders, and the racial/racist rhetoric of their "movement" undermines any good solution to the problem. Take care of the poor US citizens first, then open the hospitals, schools, and welfare programs of the US to the children of the world.
Toleration of this is all part of the proposed North American Union. Create (or allow) a problem, stir up a reaction to it, then impose the solution you had planned all along. Get ready for the total collapse of the dollar and the substitution of the Can/US/Mex "amero" currency. - diffraction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4All education should be funded by local and state governments.
- wakananda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed. There's no reason for Feds to be meddling in schools, handing down universal testing critera, unfunded mandates, etc.. That's incompetent, parasitic bureaucracy in action. Give that money back to the people, to school their children as they see fit. Superior methods will end up producing smarter kids, and the market will decide. If you want your child to stay on the farm, fine, or he wants to be a mechanic, fine: he gets the no-frills, no ***** state education, on the cheap. If you want to put some cash into your child's dream of becoming an astronaut, or an aerospace company does, fine.
We can figure this ***** out on our own, in our own communities. We don't need plain, vanilla, Federal government-issue education for all. - slickriven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@dergross - He's against Government funding of morally questionable or religiously profound topics. You're not going to find a large group of people who reject the idea of researching many of the other things you mentioned that have improved human life/existence. How much of what you mentioned had negative undertones from animal rights activists or human rights activists? Likely none, and like Naxr said, the question should be more about the government's roll in funding - meaning all law abiding, tax paying citizens shouldn't be basically forced to pay for the research of things that they don't agree on or that might not personally benefit them.
- buddyw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You are missing the over all point of the constitution and the 10th amendment. It was to limit the FEDERAL Government. Ron Paul is absolutely correct in stating that the federal government should not fund these sorts of things. There is nothing banning a state from funding it though. Once we cut all of this fat from the federal government there will be a lot more money for the states to make these decisions.
- DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You don't need government money to fund stem cell research, private businesses are interested in investing because if it pans out they make a lot of money. That's how it works in a Capitalist Economy, when the government funds everything you get Communism.
(Theres also that sweet tender middle ground called socialism, but thats a whole nother story). - Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Unlike other blithering idiots on Capitol Hill panicking about the subprime meltdon, Ron Paul's rational essay on the housing bubble is enough to get me to vote for him.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article731.html - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"The problem is that Paul only adds to the problem of isolation and the every man for himself ethic that is _built the US_."
There, fixed that for you. - NecroSexy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Since when does the consent of the taxpayers factor into the allocation of tax funds by politicians? Do you honestly believe they give a ***** whether you find something immoral or not? Am I too cynical?
- nighttrain2007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Um because the Constitution doesn't cover such spending? I know, I know, 200 year old document doesn't apply these days. Tell you what. Why don't we all pull our copies of the Constitution out, take a huge dump on them and then light it all on fire? How's that? Will that suit you?
Paul is not against such research, he's against wasting federal funds on ANY research that is not covered explicitly in the Constitution of these United States - acudoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Perhaps the issues he raises, and his primary stance that government cannot solve all of our problems and should be strictly limited in order to preserve liberty from a creeping totalitarianism, are more important than who gets to be the big honcho and strut around for a few years creating more problems than he solves. For that reason, let the Ron Paul backers proliferate. He is not your standard politician, mouthing only what will get him elected. Can you see the difference?
- JigoroKano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's much worse than that. If you research stem cells, then you lose funding on anything else you, your group, or your institution researches. It's a trojan horse. Practically nobody in the private sector is doing it, because it's just a billion times easier to go over to another country as many researchers already have.
You work on one of the original stem cell lines, or you move to a better country period. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"So, did he vote against the federal funding of the research that resulted in the development of the internet? "
The internet was developed under DARPA. So it was developed because the military wanted it, and therefore, a reasonable thing for the govt. to spend money on. - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hint: the issue of stem cells was always based on whether it should be gov. funded so all citizens benefit or should it be privatized so only those who can pay for it will benefit. It never had anything to do with "life" or the sanctity of it. When you hear a religious nut say it is, tell them they are full of *****, because they are. At least Ron Paul is honest.
- dergrossehund, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Did you RTFA? His stance is all encompassing, and rather easy to understand."
Yeah, I read it. His point seemed to be that he was against funding anything that there wasn't *specific* constitutional authority to fund, the flexibility built into the constitution for spending authority be damned. He also seemed to be against funding anything that was controversial to fund. Either one of these, alone or together, would eliminate all the research I listed, and a whole lot more besides. I had no difficulty understanding it. Nor did I have any difficulty understanding the implications. If he means what he says, he intends to do America a great deal of harm.
"He's against Government funding of morally questionable or religiously profound topics."
I disagree, I think his statements were pretty clear and that I represented them properly in the above paragraph.
However, if what you say is true, does that mean that he wouldn't fund high school science teaching? You know evolution, astronomy, geology, and other science are religiously controversial, right? Would he fund mathematics education? Some religionists are against teaching math. Would he fund any school that admitted girls? Because some religions seem to be against this. Would he fund the military? Many people think that fighting wars is morally questionable. Would he fund the nuclear weapons program? Would he fund the US Marshals to provide protective custody to notorious, but as yet unconvicted, crime suspects? Would he fund prosecutors who made a plea-bargain with a criminal who agreed to testify against a worse criminal?
What he says is straightforward and understandable, but it is third-grade thinking. It is easy to be a rabid ideologue, much harder to balance actual moral questions - difficult moral questions - and decide what to do. Much harder to stand up to the shrill demands of people who don't have the country's interests at heart, and do the right thing despite them. - scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@Eric Wilson: "This is exactly what Bush did. In fact, Bush took it farther and DID use SOME federal money and he STILL got crap for not supporting Stem cell research enough. It was NEVER banned."
It put researchers in the awkward position of not being allowed to use equipment already purchased with federal money on projects relating to "illegal" stem cell research. Researchers who were able to obtain federal funds for their stem cell programs were forced to buy redundant instruments, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of private funds in the process, in order to conduct research using stem cells/personnel who were paid for with other funds.
Bush is a ***** who has no business uttering the words "research" or "science". -
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is