Mickey Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Thankfully Mr. Kerry has proposed meaningful stem cell legislation during his 19 years as a Senator. Unfortunately, it has always been voted down by the evil and vicious right wing radikals. [/sarcasm] 71536[/snapback] If I were voting on the past, I'd care. The question for those who find this to be an important issue is whether Kerry or Bush is going to do better on advancing this kind of research. For those who do not see this as important either way, I don't see why they would give a dip who is going to be the most supportive of this kind of research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 If I were voting on the past, I'd care. The question for those who find this to be an important issue is whether Kerry or Bush is going to do better on advancing this kind of research. For those who do not see this as important either way, I don't see why they would give a dip who is going to be the most supportive of this kind of research. 71608[/snapback] Yes. Stem Cell research has become a political tool by the Left. There is no Federal ban. The only "ban" is that the Administration denies public money for utilization of "new" fetal tissue. There are 22 "lines" of stem cells that you can get direct Federal funding (up fron 1 so-called lines a few years ago), There at least 3000 cultures that any private entity can request tissue from Federal medical entities, and do research on. The private sector can chop up and homogenize all the fetuses they care to. Stem cell research is not a magical medical bullet for all that ails man. That a scientific endeavor has been politicized is regrettable, IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 If I were voting on the past, I'd care. Since the decision to invade Iraq was made years ago, I guess that's not an important issue to you either. As far as the future goes, Kerry has a lot of "plans" but no substance. If such indecision by a candidate is what compels you to vote for him, I guess you must live in John Edwards' other America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Since the decision to invade Iraq was made years ago, I guess that's not an important issue to you either. As far as the future goes, Kerry has a lot of "plans" but no substance. If such indecision by a candidate is what compels you to vote for him, I guess you must live in John Edwards' other America. 71687[/snapback] Actually I have said several times that this election should be more of a referendum on who can best win it than whether it was a good idea to start it. Certainly though, the mistakes made by the administration then bear on the question as to whether confidence in their abilities now is justified or delusional. If Bush were able to admit and learn from his mistakes, I might be voting differently. Instead, he is set on "staying the course". That is often a good idea but not if you are the Captain of the Titanic and there is an iceberg ahead. Sometimes you need to change course, or captains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Hey Mickey you need to post an updated avatar of your puppy. Must be geting pretty big by now. And as-s-holes shut the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Since the decision to invade Iraq was made years ago, I guess that's not an important issue to you either. As far as the future goes, Kerry has a lot of "plans" but no substance. If such indecision by a candidate is what compels you to vote for him, I guess you must live in John Edwards' other America. 71687[/snapback] What are you talking about? What plan has Bush outlined other than to call Kerry a flip-flopper? His affordable health care plan is what? Beyond waiting until things hopefully get better, what would be his economic plan? He has had 4 years to accomplish something, anything. Unless of course you consider failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack in history, amassing a record budget shortfall, dividing our allies and uniting our enemies "accomplishments", fine you should really vote for him. The good thing is he could hardly do worse the second 4 years than he did the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Actually I have said several times that this election should be more of a referendum on who can best win it than whether it was a good idea to start it. Certainly though, the mistakes made by the administration then bear on the question as to whether confidence in their abilities now is justified or delusional. If Bush were able to admit and learn from his mistakes, I might be voting differently. Instead, he is set on "staying the course". That is often a good idea but not if you are the Captain of the Titanic and there is an iceberg ahead. Sometimes you need to change course, or captains. What are you talking about? What plan has Bush outlined other than to call Kerry a flip-flopper? His affordable health care plan is what? Beyond waiting until things hopefully get better, what would be his economic plan? He has had 4 years to accomplish something, anything. Unless of course you consider failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack in history, amassing a record budget shortfall, dividing our allies and uniting our enemies "accomplishments", fine you should really vote for him. The good thing is he could hardly do worse the second 4 years than he did the first. Would the real Mickey please stand up? First you say you might have voted for the guy if he would only admit to some mistakes, but then you say he has done nothing and is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Unless of course you consider failing to prevent the worst terrorist attack in history, Shame on you, Mickey. You always appear level headed. While your opinions are too left for me, you at least seem to have your wits about you. But do you really believe the attack that took place three years ago...the attack that took years to develop and execute...should have been stopped by a new president not a year into his first term? C'mon, man. Be real. Because that's just crazy. The attack could have and should have been stopped long before the standing president. But I guess when we threw firecrackers at the same people after they attacked the USS Cole...that was just being mindful of the international community. We can't have it both ways, dude, and you know better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Krauthammer is a very smart guy, and a good writer. He is also, IMO, THE MOST partisan columnist and pundit in the entire country. He is as far right as Rush or any of them. Interestingly, of course, he works for that liberal stronghold the New York Times, so really, how can one take anything he says seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Krauthammer is a very smart guy, and a good writer. He is also, IMO, THE MOST partisan columnist and pundit in the entire country. He is as far right as Rush or any of them. Interestingly, of course, he works for that liberal stronghold the New York Times, so really, how can one take anything he says seriously. It appears you are taking the word of a Democrat Presidential candidate over a conservative parapalegic editorialist on the issue of handicap research. Just as you libs downplay the role of our coalition allies in Iraq, now you are downplaying the role of mainstream medical research on spinal cord injuries. You are so closed minded to the realities of medical science and research that you're putting all your eggs into research that has offered no results to date and completely ignoring the very promising research that is being done without embryonic stem cells. Anything for political gain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Dont confuse the libs with facts, Kerry has a PLAN goddammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 It appears you are taking the word of a Democrat Presidential candidate over a conservative parapalegic editorialist on the issue of handicap research. Just as you libs downplay the role of our coalition allies in Iraq, now you are downplaying the role of mainstream medical research on spinal cord injuries. You are so closed minded to the realities of medical science and research that you're putting all your eggs into research that has offered no results to date and completely ignoring the very promising research that is being done without embryonic stem cells. Anything for political gain... 72062[/snapback] That's a bunch of crap. Krauthammer took Edwards statement and related it ONLY to his particular injury and to spinal cord injuries, disregarding all other kinds of diseases and injuries. From everything that I have read about the realities of "mainstream medical research" is that the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists, doctors and researchers that actually do the work and are in the field think that the government should fund stem cell research and that Bush's policy prevents it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Krauthammer took Edwards statement and related it ONLY to his particular injury and to spinal cord injuries, disregarding all other kinds of diseases and injuries. He was responding to same, K-dog. Edwards was doing the "disregarding" and Krauthammer was taking a position on Edwards' statement. You can't blame Krauthammer for trimming away the meat of Edwards' comment and finding no bone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 This may be a weird angle, but why do people feel we have the right to live forever. If we cure every disease and everyone would live to be 120 and older just imagine what that would do to this already overpopulated planet. You think we have problems with Social Security now, imagine if people were retired for 50 years! Disease and dying, unfortunately, are a fact of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 He was responding to same, K-dog. Edwards was doing the "disregarding" and Krauthammer was taking a position on Edwards' statement. You can't blame Krauthammer for trimming away the meat of Edwards' comment and finding no bone. 72093[/snapback] No, Edwards was talking about all people with diseases and injuries, not just Christopher Reeve. Krauthammer decided to just talk about spinal cord injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 No, Edwards was talking about all people with diseases and injuries, not just Christopher Reeve. Krauthammer decided to just talk about spinal cord injuries. 72100[/snapback] "People like Christopher Reeves will walk again." He may have been talking about all people and diseases and injuries, but he locked on Reeves as an example, and in a world of sound bites, if you're going to use an example like Reeves as a bullet, you shouldn't be surprised when someone shoots the same bullet back at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 "People like Christopher Reeves will walk again." He may have been talking about all people and diseases and injuries, but he locked on Reeves as an example, and in a world of sound bites, if you're going to use an example like Reeves as a bullet, you shouldn't be surprised when someone shoots the same bullet back at you. 72104[/snapback] So people should just speak in short sentences, one at a time, so they are not taken out of context and misreported and misrepresented by their opponents? That's smart. Edwards started talking about juvenile diabetes, alzheimers, Parkinson's, etc. then immediately said "Christopher Reeve just passed away. And America just lost a great champion for this cause. Somebody who is a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him, who have gone through the tragedy. Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Krauthammer the prick, on Fox, said "For Edwards to make the claims he did is the worst demagoguery I've heard in Washington in a quarter-century. To imply that Christopher Reeve was kept in the wheelchair because of the policies of the Bush administration on stem cells is ridiculous and insulting." THAT is ridiculous and insulting. Edwards didnt come remotely close to implying that policies of Bush kept him in a wheelchair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 So people should just speak in short sentences, one at a time, so they are not taken out of context and misreported and misrepresented by their opponents? Not so they are not taken out of context, etc., but so America can chew on them and digest them before they get another sentence. Look, I agree in part with what you're saying. The problem, unfortunately, is that the tactics we're seeing in this election are a direct result of how Joe America gets his information. Sound bites. It's all Joe America can take before America Idol is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 vast, vast, vast majority of scientists, doctors and researchers that actually do the work and are in the field think that the government should fund stem cell research and that Bush's policy prevents it. 72087[/snapback] And I really, really, really feel that the government should fund my mortgage payment research. Maybe they feel that way because the government hands out money like I hand out candy on Halloween. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 And I really, really, really feel that the government should fund my mortgage payment research. Maybe they feel that way because the government hands out money like I hand out candy on Halloween. 72128[/snapback] Hey, I would be in favor of wiping out every single budget of every single government program in the country and auditing it, and starting over, and making everyone prove what they need the money for and exactly where it is going. I think the government wastes over half of all money it spends, probably well over half. But the government also does a lot of good with that money and one of the things is funding medical research. I am not saying that stem cell research is going to cure all these diseases, but I am saying that out of the trillions that the government spends, a few hundred million toward this research is a great idea because of what may happen, according to the scientists themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts