Happy 200th Birthday Abraham Lincoln (R)

Amen!

You know, we were just discussing last night that the Democrats (I.e., current Admin.), would try to hijack that very fact (that Lincoln was a Republican) and make people think he was a Democrat. Probably a lot of folks do believe this if Obama implies it by continually identifying himself with Lincoln. Look at how ignorant people were during the campaign, and where Obama actually stood on the issues.

And, that goes for Martin Luther King, Jr. as well. The Democrats effectively claimed him to be on their side of the aisle, and before I heard from the National Black Republicans Associaton during the campaign season that he was a Republican, not a Democrat, I’d have ignorantly assumed the same.

Democrats opposed the Civil War
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2004/07/the_democrats_d.html

How ironic that as Democrats in Lincoln’s day promoted slavery, is that same idea being attempted today with the liberal Democrats in Congress in promoting a welfare state type of society? Attempting to completely enslave it’s citizens to them through financial means? I say ‘attempt’ because I don’t see it ultimately being successful, but it’s an intriguing (and disturbing) comparison.

No one is trying to “usurp” the legend of Lincoln. No one has claimed that Lincoln was a Democrat. Obama happens to admire Lincoln and can be rightly considered to be a Lincoln scholar. You are suggesting, perhaps, that the only people who have a right to quote Lincoln and be influenced by him are Republicans?

And the Republican party of 150 years ago bears little resemblance to that of today.

Are you aware that much of Lincoln’s career is a close parallel of Obama’s? Including minimal prior experience in government, and, then, only at the legislative level (I think he only served as a congressman for 2 years and later, of course, lost his Senate race against Douglas). Also, Lincoln was a harsh critic of the “Mexican War,” in which Mexico was forced to cede Texas and the Southwest, including California, to the USA. Lincoln claimed that this was a war of aggression, and that the President of the USA lied the country into war.

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/lincolnvmexwar.htm

Was Lincoln more like a modern day Democrat or a modern day Republican?

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I’ve just about had it with this absurd Lincoln-Obama comparison! How stupid EXACTLY do they think we are? You know the routine, if you HEAR a lie long enough …

Long before the Obama team hijacked honest Abe I’d written several times (on other blogs), how much George Bush resembles Lincoln. People forget that Lincoln was more unpopular than George Bush; the Copperheads being the equvilant of our modern day democrats.

Furthermore, if Lincoln lived by anything, it was the Declaration of Independence. MLK’s own granddaughter, Dr. Alveda King, never misses a chance to remind us of the “civil rights issue of our day, abortion.

You won’t hear this in the MSM, but many in the black community have labeled Obama, the “face of black genocide.”

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/pecar/090212

Who could argue Lincoln’s respect for the dignity of every human life? Now compare Obama’s reference (Inauguration Speech) to the DOI, the words of which Lincoln not only lived by, but lived into his greatness.

DOI: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Obama : the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Where’s the LIFE President Obama? Oh that’s right, all are not equal when it comes to life, but we already knew that from your voting record and speeches.

On the other hand, if George Bush got anything right, he got “life right.” I’m also convinced that many of the recent advances we are seeing in “ADULT (iPS)” stem cells are a result of Bush holding rock solid to his principles. FYI, the Japanese scientist who led the way in iPS (stem cells made from adult skin cells, no embryos involved) did so because he imagined seeing his daughter under the microscope, consequently wanted an alternative to human embryos. That said, had George Bush allowed government funds on ESC’s, the interest, consequently the amazing recent advances, would be nowhere where they are today. I often remind Bush haters that they or a loved one will most likely be benefited by the ADULT stem cell technology advanced, albeit indirectly, by George Bush.

Getting back to Lincoln and Obama, not a chance, not even close. It’s just one more attempt at semantic gymnastics and revisionist history, as phony as the “stimulus” bill.

Larry W, as for your question, Lincoln was indeed a George Bush, a Ronald Reagan, or even a Henry Hyde. Most of all, he was an American first.

Larry don’t take this personally, but it’s not “all about Harvard.” If I kept slaves in my basement I’d be ahead of the curve too the next time a good opportunity came my way. Are you actually trying to win an argument based on the destruction of human embryos and the exploitation of women for eggs? Furthermore, I made it very clear that the Japanese scientist who developed iPS technology, from which and only Harvard’s success was made possible, did so because he was motivated by conscience. That said, I don’t debase, and of course compliment, any and all of the ETHICAL advancements by the Harvard teams .

As for “Time’s whatever of the year” and “Harvard’s accolades”, let’s keep it in perspective. When it comes to the MSM, it’s “Harvard or no one.” The goal of stem cell research was of course to get to “patient specific.” Harvard was the first to achieve that goal using iPS cells, however, they were NOT the first to get to patient specific stem cells. The first patient specific stem cells came out of Griffith University in Australia (yeah, try finding that in Time or Newsweek).

http://www.frcblog.com/2008/08/ips_cells_from_als_patient_an.html
(This article contains all other necessary links)

The credit goes to Professor Alan Mackray-Sin, who BTW, did it from easily obtained cells from the NOSE. Anyone interested, especially Parkinson patients, can follow the links and read the details.

That brings me to my next point of all the NON REPORTED advances. The MSM STILL refuses to own up to the fact that THOUSANDS of patients have been successfully treated with ADULT stem cells (even before iPS technology), but not ONE patient has ever been successfully treated with ESC’s.

Once iPS technology opened the gates, labs all over the world were working on patient specific stem cell lines. Larry while I don’t discount cutting-edge and promising (ethical) work out of Harvard, I couldn’t disagree with you more that Bush retarded the development. You have a habit Larry, just like the MSM, of ignoring what doesn’t fit your agenda, like the work out of Australia.

And getting back to that Lincoln Obama thing…

Well, Obama is set to sign over federal monies (unless it’s already been done and I missed it with so much pork in the air) for the continuation of NOT NEEDED ESC research. Out of almost the same breath, he closes out Gitmo based on “civil rights” of TERRORISTS. But hey, what else should we expect out of the first POTUS to “rewrite” the Declaration of Independence sans the inalienable right to life.

So let me be clear, Barack Obama, YOU ARE NO ABE LINCOLN!

As a closing note, many may be surprised to learn that in Dec. of 08, before Bush left office, George Bush awarded Harvard stem cell scientist Eggan (oversaw the iPS work) one of the coveted PECASE awards. Yes, you read it correctly. Bush, you know, the Luddite last POTUS, awarded Harvard stem cell scientist, Kevin Eggan!

No surprise. Bush being a faithful Christian, did nothing more than what Christ used to do; acknowledge the part he got right, in fact, so very right! Now if we could all only move foward, WITHOUT destroying human life.

Mike, with all respect, I would be careful of putting Larry W into the “hate Bush for anything and everything crowd.” I’ve debated him on other boards, and he really is a rare “fair, balanced, and considerate” liberal, in addition to his obvious intelligent contributions.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been perusing this blog for some time, and nothing makes it more interesting, and worth reading, than a good liberal! That said, we all know Larry certainly can take care of himself.

I think as conservatives it’s so easy to “assume” that all liberal POV’s will be hateful & insulting, with almost never a valid argument. Consequently, when we run across a good one, we often don’t listen well enough to recognize him/her.

I can’t remember ever agreeing on much of anything with Larry, which, IMO is why he’s so interesting to debate; in some ways a bellwether of sorts against my best defense! As for the stem cell stuff, well, I get that we see the world via different filters. As usual, I couldn’t disagree more that without Harvard and the use of living embryos, the ground breaking iPS technology would have come to a standstill, or, that all of the FEDERAL monies put into adult stem cell labs by George Bush didn’t facilitate our recent advances.

Perhaps when Obama signs into law the needless use of federal funds for embryonic research, we can continue this debate under its own thread.

Mike,

Your position is that the financial meltdown was caused by misregulation of Fannie/Freddie; Barney Frank. Bill Clinton, and other Dems pushing banks to lend money to unqualified borrowers; Democrats “blocking” GOP efforts to reform Fannie/Freddie, and so on.

I disagree, and I have stated my reasons for so disagreeing in detail. I am very confident that my points of view are supported by virtually all mainstream economists, including Bush-appointed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, while your points of view are supported by virtually all conservative political pundits. So we have an honest difference of opinion. This does happen in daily living.

With respect to “global warming,” you are completely misrepresenting my position on this. I despise certitude in most matters of science, including climate change theory. I despise the certitude of people like Al Gore, who are utterly assertive, and I despise the certitude of people like you, who are utterly dismissive. Your title for the thread to which I was replying was “the great global warming scam,” not, “the great global warming debate,” and you even subtitled it “the great CO2 scam.” I happen to think that there are a lot of objective data supporting the human-caused climate change theory, and an irrefutable amount of data supporting human-caused increase in CO2, but I have repeatedly stated that my more important concern is not climate change, per se, but rather the potential health implications of the non-controversial human caused increase in atmospheric CO2.

He used nearly 5,000 words to spin and propandize on that topic on the following thread but I noticed he never answered my last four questions which are at the heart of the matter:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/01/30/a-history-of-the-great-global-warming-scam/#comment-158902

I’ll let my “5,000 words” (by the way, largely written entirely/originally by me, as opposed to being cut and paste type stuff) speak for itself. I stand by everything I wrote, and I’ll leave it to others to determine if this was “spin and propaganda,” or whether it was serious and thoughtful debate.

With respect to your “4 questions,” this is the first time I ever saw them.

Since you ask:

1. Do you really think that the Kyoto Protocol or the variant now under development would decrease CO2 levels at all?

No, I don’t, but I think that the amount of scaremongering regarding Kyoto easily rivals scaremongering about climate change, per se. First, the estimated US costs for complying with Kyoto were on the neighborhood of $500,000,000. A half trillion dollars. Out of a 14.5 trillion economy. It’s a 3.3% tax. But, unlike the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, the Wall Street bailout, and “the stimulus,” this is not money which comes out of the US treasury but which comes out of the entire economy, and it is paid out over multi-year installments, making it less than 1% per year. A 1% tax is not insignificant, but it’s hardly gloom and doom catastrophic.

Secondly, all the things which would be done to comply with Kyoto would have benefits. Cleaner air. More efficient vehicles and appliances. More rapid advances in green energy technology, to make the USA more competitive globally, in the coming era of the end of cheap fossil fuel energy.

But question #1 is really a straw man. I never argued Kyoto. I simply argued against the assertion that global warming is a “scam.”

2. Do you think that restructuring the entire Western economic/energy systems at the cost of mega trillions of dollars is the best use for our limited resources?

See question # 1. You are wildly overestimating the cost. You are engaging in Al Gore-style gloom and doom exaggeration.

3. Are you not at all concerned about diverting those massive resources and attention from immediate human needs like poverty, disease, literacy, hunger and 3rd world sustainable development?

See answer to question #2.

and lastly but most of all:
4. Do you really think that the scientist pushing the view of manmade global warming have a sufficient understanding of the complexities of climate and any possible role man has in influencing it?

I think that scientists who are “pushing” on either side of the debate are guilty of scientific certitude, which I have just stated I abhor.

The debate should be about probabilities, rather than certainties.

i.e.

“If there is an X probability that such and so will happen, and if the worst case scenario is this and that, then what is a reasonable and prudent course of action, given this probability and this worst case scenario?”

I don’t see anyone claiming that the US government should spend trillions of dollars on anti-climate change measures. I do think that what California is currently doing is reasonable and prudent.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Mike, do you really think that comment # 16 added anything worthwhile to the debate?

Let’s talk about something more interesting. Early handicapping the 2012 Presidential race:

I’m not allowed to start threads, but I think that what’s going on with Florida Gov Charlie Crist, your own South Carolina Gov Terry (nb. correction per comment # 20, should be “Mark”) Sanford, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is pretty interesting. All three are said to be interested in running for President. Sanford has staked out a strident position in opposition to the “stimulus.” Crist is almost as stridently in favor. Pawlenty was officially “cool” to the idea, but his spokesman is now saying that these are “unusual times,” and Pawlenty is not being nearly as vocal as Sanford.

So this is what seems to be going on: Sanford is betting a lot on the stimulus failing and the economy still being in the toilet, in the run up to 2012. Crist is riding high with a 70% approval rating in 2008 Blue State Florida. I think that Sanford is going after the base conservative vote in the primaries, while Crist is going to try and be the John McCain of 2012, if he decides to run, and get the nomination on the strength of the independent vote, who won’t vote in the Dem primary, because it will be boring, as opposed to the GOP primary, which will be wide open. I think that Pawlenty is basically trying to sit on the sidelines, keeping his powder dry.

P.S. also of interest: newest historian Presidential ratings survey:

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/presidential-leadership-survey.aspx

Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Mark Sanford

ooops. Thanks. Can’t keep my Carolina governors straight. They all look alike, from here on the Left Coast.

To PDill: I wasn’t arguing who gets first credit for what. You’d made the statement that George W Bush, by blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, actually accelerated development of induced pluripotent stem cell research. I cited Harvard, because it had a very well endowed ESC program, which did not require federal funding, and their decision to pursue IPS cell research had nothing at all to do with lack of federal funding for ESC research. The two other labs you cited (Japanese and Australian) also obviously were not motivated to pursue IPS cell research by George W Bush blocking federal funding for ESC research. Also, the fact that the Harvard lab had pre-existing expertise with ESC research was essential for their being able to do the IPS research. Because of the Bush policies, there are currently many fewer capable ESC labs than there would have otherwise been and, accordingly, many fewer labs with the existing resources and expertise to enter into the closely-related IPS cell research.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA