Cancer pledge drive on TV tonight

[Lucky... 0]

As I watch the cancer fund drive on TV, I can't stop thinking that the US could be the world's hero, instead of the world's villian. We spend >1/2 trillion every year on military operations, if we took 1/2 that, or even 10% of that money and spent it on cancer research we would sooner than later find a cure or at least a stopper to buy time. SO instead of bringing life to the world, we bring death and wonder why we aren't loved....

[Gawain 0]

The government is not a research lab. The commercial sector invests billions in cancer research...it's bio-engineering, not a widely available skill set.

Perhaps with the billions spent on education, they could focus on trying to instill a greater interest in students so that they pursue that field...they'd just have to focus on math, science, and reading...hmmm...

There are some 30,000+ papers written per year...it's not like nothing's being done.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[1969912 0]

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

There are plenty of companies looking for the cure for cancer because, oh my, it would make a lot of money!!!

Despite this profit incentive, it's a pretty difficult task.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

What is it with lefties that makes you think everything must come from the all powerful state?

PLENTY of research is done every year into cancer. I give to SEVERAL organizations that do such research. It's a difficult problem and money alone will not solve it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

You know, if the Slovakian government finds the cure for cancer, I'd give them credit.

Why does he think the cure must come from the US Government? Other countries are socialized - does that make them less capable?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The government is not a research lab. The commercial sector invests billions in cancer research...it's bio-engineering, not a widely available skill set.

Perhaps with the billions spent on education, they could focus on trying to instill a greater interest in students so that they pursue that field...they'd just have to focus on math, science, and reading...hmmm...

There are some 30,000+ papers written per year...it's not like nothing's being done.

But no repsonse to the US killing machine, the one that spends 8 times that of the next highest spender, the UK/Britain.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html

The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly.


You missed the mark, as Gawain did. Obviously intentionally.

1) The contributions were largely for a tax write-off.

2) The contributions were not from the gov, but from private people

The thread was about the mass military spending that could be for cancer research....go back and read.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

There are plenty of companies looking for the cure for cancer because, oh my, it would make a lot of money!!!

Despite this profit incentive, it's a pretty difficult task.

True, but once more, we could divert some of the >1/2 trillion/yr to cancer research and if a cure were found, disseminate it to the world to undo the hate created by the neo-con machine.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What is it with lefties that makes you think everything must come from the all powerful state?

PLENTY of research is done every year into cancer. I give to SEVERAL organizations that do such research. It's a difficult problem and money alone will not solve it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What is it with lefties that makes you think everything must come from the all powerful state?


Do you see teh contradiction? You advocatethe killing machine comming from the state, just not humanitarian elements.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PLENTY of research is done every year into cancer. I give to SEVERAL organizations that do such research.


You give; great, how about the funding for the killing machine being diverted to a cure?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a difficult problem and money alone will not solve it.


Perhaps once the zealotous right abolishes Tinky-Winky they can then turn to Jebus for a cancer cure.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You know, if the Slovakian government finds the cure for cancer, I'd give them credit.

Why does he think the cure must come from the US Government? Other countries are socialized - does that make them less capable?

You're intentionally missing the mark...... the 1st post clearly referenced the contrast between gross military spending that could be used for a cure to cancer.

As much as you say you're not a Republican, as much as you say, when prompted that you dislike the gross military spending, we all know that obviously isn't true.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

... missed the mark, as Gawain did. Obviously intentionally. ...

1) The contributions were largely for a tax write-off.

2) The contributions were not from the gov, but from private people

The thread was about the mass military spending that could be for cancer research....go back and read.

I didn't miss the point. I hit it head on. My counterpoint to your post was that money does not solve every problem. In fact, there's a stronger argument that more money, especially when tied to government spending, creates more problems.

In addition, there is not enough of a talent pool to take advantage of the billions you so wish the US would give up, leaving itself defenseless, in pursuit of a cure.

The government hasn't invented anything.
The government hasn't cured any diseases.

It wasn't a government lab that came up with the vaccine for cervical cancer.

You think the world is just despising us. I've seen different, I've been there, and done it and heard it, lived it. I've seen our coalition partners, I have friends from far away places and have never seen the levels of hate you think is out there.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

You know, if the Slovakian government finds the cure for cancer, I'd give them credit.

Why does he think the cure must come from the US Government? Other countries are socialized - does that make them less capable?

You're intentionally missing the mark...... the 1st post clearly referenced the contrast between gross military spending that could be used for a cure to cancer.

As much as you say you're not a Republican, as much as you say, when prompted that you dislike the gross military spending, we all know that obviously isn't true.

And if you think of all the houses that cancer spending could buy, we'd have a lot less cold people in the winter.

And if you think of the number of Happy Meals that could buy - we'd never have a hungry child....


What do you estimate was the net worth of those appearing on the program last night? Why don't we take their money from them and give it to you? Then you could find the cure.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

... missed the mark, as Gawain did. Obviously intentionally. ...

1) The contributions were largely for a tax write-off.

2) The contributions were not from the gov, but from private people

The thread was about the mass military spending that could be for cancer research....go back and read.

I didn't miss the point. I hit it head on. My counterpoint to your post was that money does not solve every problem. In fact, there's a stronger argument that more money, especially when tied to government spending, creates more problems.

In addition, there is not enough of a talent pool to take advantage of the billions you so wish the US would give up, leaving itself defenseless, in pursuit of a cure.

The government hasn't invented anything.
The government hasn't cured any diseases.

It wasn't a government lab that came up with the vaccine for cervical cancer.

You think the world is just despising us. I've seen different, I've been there, and done it and heard it, lived it. I've seen our coalition partners, I have friends from far away places and have never seen the levels of hate you think is out there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't miss the point. I hit it head on.


My piont: we could divert some of the >1/2T/yr spent on the military and spend it on cancer research; you didn't address that.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My counterpoint to your post was that money does not solve every problem.


It will takes money to cure cancer, the issue at hand with this thread.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In fact, there's a stronger argument that more money, especially when tied to government spending, creates more problems.


That's such a dynamic argument that we would never get back to the thread's issue if we went there, start a thread about that, until then, this thread is about gross military spending - diverting some to cancer research.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.In addition, there is not enough of a talent pool to take advantage of the billions you so wish the US would give up, leaving itself defenseless, in pursuit of a cure.

Leaving itself defenselss aginst foreign invaders, or????? You were vague there.

Also, I'm sure you're an expert with the number of researchers available to study these diseases.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The government hasn't invented anything.
The government hasn't cured any diseases.


Many universities get grants to research. The dichotomy is that some universities are based upon exclusively academics, others are academics and research.


http://www.ackc.org/position

Government funding shows a similar picture. The National Institutes of Health,(v) the nation's medical research agency, considers cancer one of its top priorities, but kidney cancer research is under funded there, as well. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) allocates $30.5 million(vi) for kidney cancer research in its 2005 budget, compared to $310 million for prostate cancer research. And kidney cancer is far more deadly: over 12,000 people die from kidney cancer each year as compared to 30,000 from prostate cancer. But prostate cancer patients have a 5-year relative survival rate of 98%, while the 5-year survival rate of kidney cancer patients is about 63%.(vii) If we look closer at those numbers, we can see that the NCI spends more than four times the money for each prostate cancer death than it does for each kidney cancer death ­ and almost twice as much per prostate cancer patient than kidney cancer patient.(viii)

Here's a big oops for your hero: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/18/bush-cancer/

The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001. But as ABC News’s Medical Editor pointed out last night, “most of that occurred in those early years under a Clinton initiative. The budget was actually cut last year and the projected budget for this year is to be cut even further.”


Your hero cutting kid's cancer research, researchers on hold - so much for your assertion that there aren't enough researchers.

http://www.curesearch.org/news_and_media/news_article.aspx?id=4470

In recent years, the amount of funding for childhood cancer clinical research from the federal government has been declining. In response to the most recent cutbacks, the National Cancer Institute has decreased funding which especially impacts childhood cancer research. As a result, the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), the world’s pre-eminent childhood cancer research organization, has been forced to put 20 new studies on hold and decrease enrollment in new clinical trials by more than 400 children next year.

Any more insightful assertions?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You think the world is just despising us.


It's obvious, esp since your hero as pres.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've seen different, I've been there, and done it and heard it, lived it. I've seen our coalition partners, I have friends from far away places and have never seen the levels of hate you think is out there.


Oh, just a lower level of hate? I understand. Of course when you an AR, all other non-armed people are your friends.

So, let's recap:

- Military expenditures way up

- Cancer research funding way down

......thx for supporting my assertion with this thread

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You know, if the Slovakian government finds the cure for cancer, I'd give them credit.

Why does he think the cure must come from the US Government? Other countries are socialized - does that make them less capable?

You're intentionally missing the mark...... the 1st post clearly referenced the contrast between gross military spending that could be used for a cure to cancer.

As much as you say you're not a Republican, as much as you say, when prompted that you dislike the gross military spending, we all know that obviously isn't true.

And if you think of all the houses that cancer spending could buy, we'd have a lot less cold people in the winter.

And if you think of the number of Happy Meals that could buy - we'd never have a hungry child....


What do you estimate was the net worth of those appearing on the program last night? Why don't we take their money from them and give it to you? Then you could find the cure.

Objection: Quit grandstanding!

Hey, why don't we slightly increase taxes, cut the military in half, quit fucking with people around the world, increase domestic healthcare and cancer research?

I bet most would agree with me.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I bet most would agree with me.

Yep, those silent masses are just stretching their fingers for the post-whoredom to begin...

Just so you know, I do not agree with you. The government is not the source of inspiration for this. How many more scientists do you think a "government job" would attract? Where do you think these bio-engineers will come from? Do you think that government spending will magically create college graduates in this field?

Quote

Hey, why don't we slightly increase taxes, cut the military in half

We already did that in the 1990s. What size military would suffice in your grand wisdom in the current world we live in?

The IRS won't return to you what you don't claim, you can voluntarily increase your IRS withholdings and give yourself a tax increase. Meanwhile, please make sure that your increased funding is properly channeled to the proper government lab...oh wait, there isn't one...so, you'll have to fund the creation of one too. Please write up the proper charter for Congress to approve so that they can create another entitlement program...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I bet most would agree with me.

Yep, those silent masses are just stretching their fingers for the post-whoredom to begin...

Just so you know, I do not agree with you. The government is not the source of inspiration for this. How many more scientists do you think a "government job" would attract? Where do you think these bio-engineers will come from? Do you think that government spending will magically create college graduates in this field?

Quote

Hey, why don't we slightly increase taxes, cut the military in half

We already did that in the 1990s. What size military would suffice in your grand wisdom in the current world we live in?

The IRS won't return to you what you don't claim, you can voluntarily increase your IRS withholdings and give yourself a tax increase. Meanwhile, please make sure that your increased funding is properly channeled to the proper government lab...oh wait, there isn't one...so, you'll have to fund the creation of one too. Please write up the proper charter for Congress to approve so that they can create another entitlement program...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>We already did that in the 1990s. What size military would suffice in your grand wisdom in the current world we live in?


I'm not talking number of troops, I'm talking number of dollars. We spend 8 times that of our closest ally, GB, so we could easily cut that to 4 times and still be superior.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The IRS won't return to you what you don't claim, you can voluntarily increase your IRS withholdings and give yourself a tax increase. Meanwhile, please make sure that your increased funding is properly channeled to the proper government lab...oh wait, there isn't one...so, you'll have to fund the creation of one too. Please write up the proper charter for Congress to approve so that they can create another entitlement program...


I pay my share, I'm asking that Congress and the pres allocate tax $ from everyone to go there. BTW, didn't Bush use a variation of that line? I would be careful not to follow that lead.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>We already did that in the 1990s. What size military would suffice in your grand wisdom in the current world we live in?

I'm not talking number of troops, I'm talking number of dollars. We spend 8 times that of our closest ally, GB, so we could easily cut that to 4 times and still be superior.

So, if you want to retain the active force, but spend less, you are then advocating short changing on training, protection (hardware), and benefits (housing and salary)?

You can't have it both ways. The US military is expensive to be sure. It has weapons that should (or do) send fear into the hearts of our enemies. Despite doctrine, the US soldier is built around a 10:1 lethality ratio, the only way we can match up to numerically superior potential opponents.

Do some research, the UK has a total force strength of 200,000. The US has an Active, Reserve, NG force strength around 1.5M.

So, it would appear you advocate short changing the military in pay, benefits and equipment, if not numbers.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The IRS won't return to you what you don't claim, you can voluntarily increase your IRS withholdings and give yourself a tax increase. Meanwhile, please make sure that your increased funding is properly channeled to the proper government lab...oh wait, there isn't one...so, you'll have to fund the creation of one too. Please write up the proper charter for Congress to approve so that they can create another entitlement program...

I pay my share, I'm asking that Congress and the pres allocate tax $ from everyone to go there. BTW, didn't Bush use a variation of that line? I would be careful not to follow that lead.

I pay may share too. You're advocating that we should pay more. I oppose that, but remind you that you can overpay at your discretion. Don't drag me into your perceived misery of a country that offers more to its citizens than any other on earth.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Hey, why don't we slightly increase taxes

How much more do you want? Between sales, income, federal and state, property, fuel, road, and all the little ones I get nabbed or every year it comes close to about 45% of my income. How much more do you want from me? Everything I do I get taxed for. How much more do I have to give so some slug can do nothing?

Quote

cut the military in half,

In half? Why so much? How can they do that when the US is the first the world calls when someone needs help? Some country calls for help and they have a battleship group off their coastline in 48 hours.

Quote

quit fucking with people around the world,

We would if they would stop fucking with us in the first palce.

Quote

increase domestic healthcare and cancer research?

Thats right! Have a problem just keep throwin cash at it. It will work.

Quote

I bet most would agree with me.

Not me!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!