ehBeth, But it does; it's the next generation of science that will help the economy of the country that finds cures for human ailments.
Dookiestix wrote:Miller wrote:McGentrix wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:People vote based on what they perceive to be "promises" and upholding political values. How many of Bush's promises has he kept?
He promised to veto any new federal funding for human stem cell research.
Let industry fund the research.
70% of Americans disagree with you.
I don't care, I'm not the President.
cicerone imposter wrote:... it's the next generation of science that will help the economy of the country ...
So the $$ has a soul, but a blastula doesn't!
Miller wrote:Dookiestix wrote:Miller wrote:McGentrix wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:People vote based on what they perceive to be "promises" and upholding political values. How many of Bush's promises has he kept?
He promised to veto any new federal funding for human stem cell research.
Let industry fund the research.
70% of Americans disagree with you.
I don't care, I'm not the President.
I have no doubt that you don't care. On the other hand, 70% of Americans do care. Thank god for that.
ehBeth wrote:There are other researchers in other countries who can do, and are doing, the research...
These are the fools who've also tried to clone a human being.
McGentrix wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:People vote based on what they perceive to be "promises" and upholding political values. How many of Bush's promises has he kept?
He promised to veto any new federal funding for human stem cell research.
Then wadday know? He finally kept a promise...
Miller wrote:ehBeth wrote:There are other researchers in other countries who can do, and are doing, the research...
These are the fools who've also tried to clone a human being.
This isn't about cloning. Care to stay on topic?
cicerone imposter wrote:ehBeth, But it does; it's the next generation of science that will help the economy of the country that finds cures for human ailments.
That may matter to Americans, but not to everyone in the world. Medical advances come from many researchers in many countries. What matters, IMO, is that the research continue - not so much who is doing it.
Bush in 2000: "It's time to elect people who say what they mean and mean what they say when they tell the American people something."..."I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life."
Bush in 2002: "In the midst of tough times I don't need people around me who are not steady."
Bush in 2004: "My opponent clearly has strong beliefs -- they just don't last very long."
"You need somebody who's going to do what he says he's going to do"
"Senator Kerry flip-flops"
FLIP
1/29/02 - [Bush]: "We are winning the war on terror"
2/14/03 - [Bush]: "We're not only doing everything here at home, but we're doing everything we can abroad. Let me first tell you this: we're winning the war on terror."
8/15/03 - [Bush]: "Our nation is waging a broad and unrelenting campaign against the global terror network, and we're winning"
IN SHORT:
We are winning the war or terror, you hear? We ARE WINNING! We are making mincemeat of "terror"! "Terror" is terrified of us.
FLOP
10/16/03 - [Rumsfeld for Bush]: "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."
10/22/03 - [Link]: "...White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Australia, reacted by voicing support for Rumsfeld. "That's exactly what a strong and capable secretary of defense like Secretary Rumsfeld should be doing," said McClellan. "The president has always said it will require thinking differently. It's a different type of war," McClellan said...."
IN SHORT:
Er, we don't know if we are winning the war on terror or not.
FLIP
4/13/04 - [Bush]: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can."
IN SHORT:
We can win the war on terror.
FLOP
8/30/04 - [Bush]: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]."
IN SHORT:
We cannot win the war on terror.
FLIP AGAIN
8/31/04 - [Bush]: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]."
IN SHORT:
We can win the war on terror.
The unblievable spin by the Bush cabal continues on this issue:
Quote:
Today, Bush is
expected to vetofar more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."
The Chicago Tribune contacted a dozen top stem cell experts about Rove's claim.
They all said it was inaccurate. So who wrote the "studies" that Rove was referring to?
Quote:White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.
In a letter to President Bush last year, a group of 80 Nobel laureates wrote that "current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential."
Question: Does President Bush believe that adult stem cell research has "far more promise" than embryonic stem cells? Is that a contributing factor in his decision to veto the bill?
Miller wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:... it's the next generation of science that will help the economy of the country ...
So the $$ has a soul, but a blastula doesn't!
if a blastula has a soul but never lived long enough to accept Jesus as their personal savior, then they will burn in hell as they deserve, so what do you give a **** about the little sinners?
There's a whole lot more observable evidence that $$ has a soul more than embryos. Out of the millions of sperms you ejaculate every time, how many has turned into a soul? How about stem cells? Show us the evidence.
Better yet, how about showing us your soul?
The bible makes no mention anywhere of an age of accountability and so bush and his supporters are saving the lives of blastula, who have not accepted Christ and therefore hell bound according to strict interpretation of scripture (and a strict interpretation is the only accepted way right folks) at the expense of healing and saving the lives of good Christians who have accepted Christ and are bound for glory.
Shame on you , shame shame shame!!!!
http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html
Thomas wrote:Dookiestix wrote:Oh well, so much for the will of the people. It is now the will of the minority, diehard religious zealot who seems to be making Bush's decisions for him.
No. The majority that elected Bush for president prevailed over the majorities that elected each member into Congress. Both institutions, Congress and the presidency, are elected by popular vote, and thus represent a majority of voters.
You are assuming that all the people who voted for Bush back this absurd policy. In fact, generally speaking, only the Christo-fascist Zombie Brigade, nuts like James Dobson and Pat Robertson, support him on this.
Which doesn't contradict az all that it was on Bush's program.
Walter, That's fine and good, except you guys are missing the simple fact that all of Bush's other promises were broken. If you want to support what he said, at least be fair about his inconsistencies. One out of how many?
Dookiestix wrote:Thomas wrote:Granted -- If I was president, I would not make this bill the only one I'd veto. But given that both sides of the stem cell debate rely mostly on hype, I disagree that Bush's veto proves idiocy. Actually, current legislation in America is more permissive than in much of Europe, icluding Germany. And nobody accused the German government of idiocy over its stand on stem cell research yet.
What's the hype coming from an overwhelming majority of Americans who support embryonic stem cell research? Or is the will of the people now considered "hype?"
The hype on the pro-stem-cell-research side comes from interested scientists who make at least two exaggerated claims. (1) That cures for Altzheimer and Type 1 diabetes are just around the corner. (2) That the embryos in questions are leftovers who would never mature into human beings anyway. This is true enough during the research stage. But as soon as the techniques develped in the research come into mass production, it won't be true anymore. Embryos will have to be produced for the specific purpose of serving as raw material for medicine.
The will of the people, who repeat the claims of the lobbyists on either side doesn't have to be hype by necessity. But on this particular case, I claim that the will of the people is mostly based on hype, yes.
