The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ays-and-buses/

If this is true I can't see this ending very well with posters like this on public transport in any city let alone NYC.......

Exchange the word "Jews" for "Muslims" and see how long it is allowed to stand.

[SoulReaver]

Exchange the word "Jews" for "Muslims" and see how long it is allowed to stand.

“Killing Muslims is Worship that draws us close to Allah” ?

[Coco Pops]

I'm still iffy on the genetics thing. Sure it sounds nice and is a good thing if we can do it right but you'd have to be extremely careful in what you modify. What about unintended effects of such modifications.

Sure we can modify an embryos genome now but this worries me.

Here's the article I was talking about..

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...-human-embryos

[Falcon Horus]

Exchange the word "Jews" for "Muslims" and see how long it is allowed to stand.

Charlie Hebdo might know.

“Killing Muslims is Worship that draws us close to Allah” ?

You need to switch out Allah with his alter ego, God, in order for that to work.

I'm still iffy on the genetics thing. Sure it sounds nice and is a good thing if we can do it right but you'd have to be extremely careful in what you modify. What about unintended effects of such modifications.

Sure we can modify an embryos genome now but this worries me.

It's an ethical question which needs to be talked about. And many scientists are wary about the prospects. The Chinese have proven it's possible but also say we are not yet advanced scientifically wise to alter the genomes without risks.

It's like cloning animals. When Dolly, the sheep, was first cloned the scientific community was in an uproar and thought that soon we'd be cloning humans. Yet, the science of cloning is still too young to even consider cloning a human being.
-- Ethics of Cloning

[Coco Pops]

It's an ethical question which needs to be talked about. And many scientists are wary about the prospects. The Chinese have proven it's possible but also say we are not yet advanced scientifically wise to alter the genomes without risks.

It's like cloning animals. When Dolly, the sheep, was first cloned the scientific community was in an uproar and thought that soon we'd be cloning humans. Yet, the science of cloning is still too young to even consider cloning a human being.
-- Ethics of Cloning

That is true........ I don't think it will happen soon but one day someone will clone a human whether legally or otherwise. It will happen. It just needs time.

[Womble]

You need to switch out Allah with his alter ego, God, in order for that to work.

But then the truth value of the statement wouldn't hold - after all, what do you switch "Jihad" for?

It's an ethical question which needs to be talked about. And many scientists are wary about the prospects. The Chinese have proven it's possible but also say we are not yet advanced scientifically wise to alter the genomes without risks.

It's like cloning animals. When Dolly, the sheep, was first cloned the scientific community was in an uproar and thought that soon we'd be cloning humans. Yet, the science of cloning is still too young to even consider cloning a human being.
-- Ethics of Cloning

It's a matter of time before the ethical question is resolved by the simple fact that if science' brightest and most ethical minds won't do it, unscrupulous mediocrities will. Human genome editing for science and profit is a matter of when, not if.

[Womble]

You need to switch out Allah with his alter ego, God, in order for that to work.

But then the truth value of the statement wouldn't hold - after all, what do you switch "Jihad" for?

It's an ethical question which needs to be talked about. And many scientists are wary about the prospects. The Chinese have proven it's possible but also say we are not yet advanced scientifically wise to alter the genomes without risks.

It's like cloning animals. When Dolly, the sheep, was first cloned the scientific community was in an uproar and thought that soon we'd be cloning humans. Yet, the science of cloning is still too young to even consider cloning a human being.
-- Ethics of Cloning

It's a matter of time before the ethical question is resolved by the simple fact that if science' brightest and most ethical minds won't do it, unscrupulous mediocrities will. Human genome editing for science and profit is a matter of when, not if.

[Annoyed]

The news article cited above states one of the signs says:

“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” reads one such ad next to the image of a young man in a checkered headscarf. “That’s His Jihad. What’s yours?”

and that a federal judge ruled that that sign was protected by Freedom of Speech. (a decision I agree with, btw).

All my comment was saying was that if someone created a similar sign, saying that killing Muslims was acceptable, that sign would have been forced down so fast you wouldn't have had time to read it.

Regarding genetic manipulation. I don't think we have anywhere near the required scientific knowledge to be playing with such things. Not when it involves our food supply, let alone ourselves. Yes, we are learning to read the code, and depending on social factors, the ability to predict diseases could be a useful tool for medicine.
But as far as changing ourselves or even just our food supply at the genetic level? We can't possibly have any testing results that look at the long term effects, several generations down the road. What if we introduce unintended consequences that don't show up till 9 generations (or more) later?

[Coco Pops]

Regarding genetic manipulation. I don't think we have anywhere near the required scientific knowledge to be playing with such things. Not when it involves our food supply, let alone ourselves. Yes, we are learning to read the code, and depending on social factors, the ability to predict diseases could be a useful tool for medicine.
But as far as changing ourselves or even just our food supply at the genetic level? We can't possibly have any testing results that look at the long term effects, several generations down the road. What if we introduce unintended consequences that don't show up till 9 generations (or more) later?

And that is the very reason we should not at all be trying to do it now......

[Coco Pops]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-men-sign.html

I don't think this girl understands the meaning of "diversity" and "inclusive"

The fake tears did not help her cause one bit I think.

[SoulReaver]

It's a matter of time before the ethical question is resolved by the simple fact that if science' brightest and most ethical minds won't do it, unscrupulous mediocrities will. Human genome editing for science and profit is a matter of when, not if.

or unscrupulous bright minds
on the other hand banning this would go against the bedrock principles of capitalism wouldn't it?

[Annoyed]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-men-sign.html

I don't think this girl understands the meaning of "diversity" and "inclusive"

The fake tears did not help her cause one bit I think.

If you look at it outside the lens of political correctness, it seems to me that those who advocate diversity, inclusiveness, tolerance and such are quite often the ones that are most intolerant of views which disagree with theirs.

[Falcon Horus]

What is tolerance really?

I don't tolerate stupidity. Sadly, there's a lot of that going around lately.

[Coco Pops]

or unscrupulous bright minds
on the other hand banning this would go against the bedrock principles of capitalism wouldn't it?

It would indeed. After all can't have no profits :/

[Annoyed]

I'm not known for citing the leftist "Huffington post" site for news articles, but this one is a real gem.
The current occupant of the White House has been negotiating the TPP trade deal in secret, keeping some parts of it hidden from public view. This alone is bad enough, and ought to be grounds for impeachment, but now it seems the reason for the secrecy is starting to come out.
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-j...b_6956540.html

A key section of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement has been leaked to the public. The New York Times has a major story on the contents of the leaked chapter, and it's as bad as many of us feared.

Now we know why the corporations and the Obama administration want the TPP, a huge "trade" agreement being negotiated between the United States and 11 other countries, kept secret from the public until it's too late to stop it.

The section of the TPP that has leaked is the "Investment" chapter that includes investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. WikiLeaks has the text and analysis, and the Times has the story, in "Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.":

An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment "expectations" and hurt their business, according to a classified document.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership -- a cornerstone of Mr. Obama's remaining economic agenda -- would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings -- federal, state or local -- before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

The WikiLeaks analysis explains that this lets firms "sue" governments to obtain taxpayer compensation for loss of "expected future profits."

Let that sink in for a moment: "[C]ompanies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings -- federal, state or local -- before tribunals...." And they can collect not just for lost property or seized assets; they can collect if laws or regulations interfere with these giant companies' ability to collect what they claim are "expected future profits."

The Times' report explains that this clause also "giv[es] greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers."

The tribunals that adjudicate these cases will be made up of private-sector (i.e., corporate) attorneys. These attorneys will rotate between serving on the tribunals and representing corporations that bring cases to be heard by the tribunals. This is a conflict of interest because the attorneys serving on the tribunals will have tremendous incentive to rule for the corporations if they want to continue to get lucrative corporate business.

So, this sorry excuse for a president is planning a deal which allows foreign governments to sue the US for financial damages for any action which harms their businesses ?
And this trial would occur in UN or World bank courts?

Just think about that. In addition to the usual increase in outsourcing of US jobs, suppose some U.S. company invents a gadget which renders some imported gadget obsolete. The US grants a patent for this invention, and the product goes to market. The foreign company whose product can no longer be given away can then sue the US for not only loss of sales and profit currently, but can extend that forward into recouping the profits they expected to make off that item in the future. And these suits would take place before the U.N. which as we all know is basically a U.S. haters club these days.

Even members of his own party are calling him on this atrocity: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-deal-details/

How the heck can anyone continue to support this sorry excuse for a president? Better yet, how can the House and Senate not begin impeachment proceedings? This deal is about as far from protecting the interests of the United States as you can get.