by frog
John Key fancies that he’s a bit like Barack Obama. Goodo. (Although I’m not sure that’s what Obama had in mind when he talked about change).
Meanwhile Russel thinks he’s a bit of an Usain Bolt. I can see that:
Nice smiles, nice shoes, nice islands (Waiheke and Jamaica).
Photo Credit: Rich115
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Mon, September 1st, 2008
Tags: Barack Obama, john key, Russel Norman, Usain Bolt
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
i reckon we should now call him barack hussein key..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and have you heard the one about ‘slippery-john’..and the secret meeting with the ‘ruthless’ british rightwing millionaire..?
..that key inially tried not to talk about..?
see john..!..see john wriggle..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/john-key-has-a-secret-meeting-with-a-ruthless-rightwing-british-millionairesee-key-wriggleattempt-to-deny-any-knowledge-of-the-meetingit-is-slippery-johnin-full-flight/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is pathetic. Really you dudes got me scratching my head. What about youth violence etc…etc…. any social policy that works lefty fools…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Meanwhile the left have accused Sarah Palin of adopting her daughters child and calling it her own as well as intentionally damaging her youngest child early in her pregnancy so the child would be born with downs syndrome.
You really have to hand it to the left, they are great at faux outrage whenever they are exposed yet when it comes down to it they are the dirtiest and most nasty people in any election campaign.
The lefts naked lust for power should always be a concern to anybody with a shred of decency.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
> Meanwhile the left have accused Sarah Palin of adopting her daughters child and calling it her own as well as intentionally damaging her youngest child early in her pregnancy so the child would be born with downs syndrome.
I haven’t heard either of those accusations, but even if they were made, I’m sure they would have been made by individual people, not by ‘the left’ as a whole.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro thinks in monolithic patterns..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…not to mention downs syndrome is genetic rather than environmental…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah good one, I’ll bet Russel wished he could run as fast when Margaret Wilson clipped him in the house last week!
I seem to remember the greens putting out a calendar not long ago, with Keith Locke fancying himself as a bit of a George Washington on Mt Rushmore
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro
“Three comments” on your thread:
1. “the left … ”
“Green” cannot be described accurately in “left” or “right” terms …
In some ways we could be mistaken as “lefter than left” and in some ways “righter than right”.
Therefore we use a different scale … We are “Green”!
2. “Damaging” the fetus does not create Downs Syndrome …
“Downs Syndrome” happens at conception, when the fertilized egg gets an extra “chromosome number 21″, described as “trisomy 21″ (ie what should be a pair of “chromosome number 21″ is actually three.)
As for:
“The lefts naked lust for power should always be a concern to anybody with a shred of decency.”
What can I say?
I’m speechless !!!
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You know Sapient your comment is truly disgusting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
patrick, what? is that tounge-in-cheek or just geniuine stupidity?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient is to stupid to understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wot is going on here ??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have no idea.
But then again the minds of those incapable of rational thought, such as d4j, can never be properly understood by those with easily double their IQ (what is his? 70?).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Really Sapient, you know what you were implying wrt Palin.
“Anyone can conceive a child with down’s syndrome, it occurs in about 1 out of every 800 to 1000 pregnancies. Age is a big factor, as a woman grows older she faces a greater risk of having a baby with Down’s syndrome., a woman in her twenties faces a risk of about 1 in 4,000. and, by the age of forty-five its 1 in 35. However chromosome #21 can be damaged during cell replication as cells grow and reproduce over time. As they do so, they make copies of the original chromosomes from the parents. Sometimes, the chromosomes from the parents are normal but a problem occurs when the new cells are reproducing. Two normal chromosomes at location 21 become three chromosomes in some cells” Sounds environmental is also a cause to me
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Patrick, what does it appear I was implying? I certainly ment nothing about palin, I dont know enough eaither way about her to make any statements of opinion past my normal dismissiveness of evangelicals.
Also, you are mistaking cause of the disease for cause of the mutation that causes the disease. The cause of the disease, as eredwen put it, is down to the expresion of an extra member in the 21st grouping and as such is genetic in nature. It is true that environmental factors can increase the risk of such an occurance happening in the ova, such factors may include age, chemicals or genetic mutations but in the main in those cases the mutations are present before the conception of the child. The mutation can happen after conception of course through a transcription error but the administration of any substance to intentionally induce such an error would have to be very early in the foetal development and at that stage would be significantly more likley to cause a discontinuation of the pregnancy or severe physical abnormalities than to produce downs unless it was some extremly focused super-substance that the americans have been developing? maybe they got frustrated with asians and practically everyone else outsmarting them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and patrick, where did you get that quote from? i assumed that you wikied it but a quick google turns up no, even partial, matches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And why on earth would anyone want to compare themselves to Obama.
I don’t know.
The only difference between Obama and Mcain is the speed with which the US will go bankrupt under Obama is much quicker than Mcain.
Neither Obama or Mcain offers any change for the US, none. The people should always be scared and afraid of politicians who talk a good talk as their is never any substance.
NOBAMA in 08!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Patrick Starr Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
> You know Sapient your comment is truly disgusting.
why is it disguting to state that downs syndrome is a genetic disaese?
I can only conclude that you are so keen to accuse someone of being ‘disgusting’ that you will make that accusation on the basis of no logic whatsoever. Patrick, you are truly crazy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Patrick and D4J,
do you guys seriously believe that Downs Syndrome is not caused by a trisomy of the 21st chromosome, or are you just being silly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All I know about Palin is that her online c.v. starts with two lines:
Religion: Christian
Sexual Orientation: Straight
Nice. A real classy woman, that one.
(I would prefer not to comment on her family, but what she chooses to put on her campaign webpage is up for comment – and judgement, if you like).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And all I know about her is that she likes guns and also fired someone in her justice department for NOT firing her ex-brother in law, with whom she had a personal vendetta, and that she lied about it afterward.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/211769.php
Fckn great. An unknown, parochial, gun-loving, corrupt VP candidate. At least you can’t say McCain’s choice wasn’t true to his party’s values.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea. I can only assume you are indeed ignorant and cannot read properly.
I previously noted that Trisomy existed “Two normal chromosomes at location 21 become three chromosomes in some cells? and I was also addressing the claim that D/S was not “environmental? when clearly is is both.
Kahikatea, aim before you fire, stupid
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Patrick,
Technically everything is environmental, avery aspect of our genetics, every aspect of our personallity and every aspect of who we are. Our genetics are after all what they are due to mutations created by the environment and by the copulation of our parents, also a environmental factor.
When one talks of disease, and particuarlly mental disease, a line is drawn and any disease which results from a genetic abnormality, such as huntingtons, is considered to be of a genetic basis where as any disease, such as fetal alcohol syndrome, that results from pre and post natal conditions is considered to be environmental. This distinction is made for ease of identification, there is infact large cross over; to use huntingtons and fetal alcohol syndrome as examples; huntingtons results when the huntingtin gene possesses more than 35 CAG repeats, the more repeats present the earlyer the age of onset. but the huntingtons symptoms accually display because the cells are exposed to the huntingtin proten in their environment and age is also a environmental variable. In much the same way fetal alcohol syndrome results from excessive levels of blood alcohol in the prenatal environment but the mechanisms through which the impaired brain development, elongated head, and in extremme cases deformed limbs, are accually predented is the activation of genes within the affected cells which changes the proteans which are produced by the given cells and alters the development of the subsiquent cells with a reliance on those chemical markers.
So it is true that downs syndrome does have environmental factors but it is a genetic disorder by nature, not environmental.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, so now you are saying it’s a ‘natural’ genetic disorder, (its actually referred to as ‘Chromosome abnormality’) but you also state again its ‘not environmental’ at the same time I anticipate you accept the statistical evidence that a woman in her twenties faces a risk of about 1 in 4,000. and, by the age of forty-five its 1 in 35, but of course it’s ‘not environmental’?
pfft
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Patrick,
I would suggest you read my post through a second time.
I clearly state that it is affected by environmental variables and I clearly qualify that although it is influenced and comes about due to environmental circumstances, by medical definitions, it is a disorder of a genetic nature rather than a result of the prenatal and postnatal environments.
It is a natural genetic disorder as the abnormality arises through natural processes devoid of the influence of human synthesised substances. Just because a trait does not fit the norm for a given population it does not mean that that trait is unatural, infact a norm can easily be unnatural and traits which occur only in a small minority can easily be of a natural genesis.
Additionally Downs Syndrome is A EXAMPLE of ‘Chromosome abnormality’, a naturally occuring replication error which often is due to an error in germ-cell meiosis. If you have red hair and the population as a whole has blak hair that doesint make you heair unnatural, and if you dye it black that doesint make it natural, its much the same here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I would suggest you read my post through a second time.”
Ok then….
“So it is true that downs syndrome does have environmental factors but it is a genetic disorder by nature, not environmental”
I’m afraid you posts are like shifting sands
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Patrick Starr Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
> but you also state again its ‘not environmental’ at the same time I anticipate you accept the statistical evidence that a woman in her twenties faces a risk of about 1 in 4,000. and, by the age of forty-five its 1 in 35, but of course it’s ‘not environmental’?
Patrick, are you defining aging-related effects as ‘environmental’? because that would be a very strange definition of environmental, which I have never heard used before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Patrick Starr Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
> Kahikatea. I can only assume you are indeed ignorant and cannot read properly.
> I previously noted that Trisomy existed “Two normal chromosomes at location 21 become three chromosomes in some cells? and I was also addressing the claim that D/S was not “environmental? when clearly is is both.
> Kahikatea, aim before you fire, stupid
Okay. You called Sapient ‘disgusting’ for saying that Down’s Syndrome was a genetic condition. I assumed that meant yoiu believed that it was not a genetic condition. I apologise if you actually recognised that it was a genetic condition, but considered it disgusting for Sapient to mention that for some other reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Okay Patrick, lets clarify afew things.
Environmental effects refers to the effect of environmental variables on an object, this seems to be the sense in which you are using it and in that sense refers to, essentially, anything; it refers to a dog brushing against the leg, your mother meeting your father, two atoms colliding, a mutation in the genes of your fathers germ cells, or even a photon impacting a skin cell. The point is that in this sense yet Downs Syndrome does have environmenal effects, as does every single other thing in this universe and as such it offers no distinctive capacity.
In biology, to overcome the aforementioned distinction problems, genetic effects is used to refer to things which arise primarily due to the genetic make-up of the organism where as environmental refers to those that occur primarily due to non-genetic variables. Under this defintion, the most widley accepted and only useful distinction of the two, Downs Syndrome is classified as a disorder resulting from prmarily form environmental effects.
Get it through your skull; I am not arguing there are not environmental variables in the development of the chomosome trisomy, what I am saying is that the chromosome trisomy is the cause of the disease and is a genetic effect, not environmental.
The ‘argument’ is over, I accually have stuff I have to do that rates significantly higher than debating with someone unable to comprehend a word having multiple meanings in different circumstances.
Sapient
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient @ 3.54pm “but it is a genetic disorder by nature, not environmental”
Sapient @ 9.16pm “Downs Syndrome is classified as a disorder resulting from prmarily form environmental effects”
make up your mind will ya -I guess that’s the problem when you just Google for answers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sorry there, my 9.16pm post should read “genetic effects” not “environmental effects”.
I do not google for answers, i mearly googled to attempt to find the source of your quote since you make such an appeal to authority without providing referance. my answers come from my studies. at any rate, this discussion is over and I am sure that even you know full well what I ment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But Sapient, you said @ 9.16 “The ‘argument’ is over,” (and here you are carrying it on)
You really are confused aren’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)