The Third Debate - How Do You See It?

[DrewKaree]

I'm posting this during the debates....I think Bush got in a DYNAMITE shot, but don't know yet how this is going to end.

What do you think?

[TA Pilot]

I watched the foreign policy section, and then worked on getting the kids to bed.

If Bush had done this well in debate I, there'd be little left of the Kerry campaign right now.   He was spot-on, though I would have liked him to have hammered some of the things Kerry said a little harder (and differently).  You can only do so much in a short time, however.

He was relaxed, comfortable, forecful and certain.  Far better than last time - and he -attacked- Kerry without looking desperate or bullyish.

Kerry was about the same as last time, but didnt look as good because Bush looked so much better.


Unless Bush blow it in the domestic section, he's going to come out of this debate very strong.

[DrewKaree]

He always sounds a little pissed to me, but I view that as a good thing.  I DID L-O-V-E the smack in the face when he said Kerry could have done something about a bill if he had only showed up to vote.

I wish someone (Bush) would beat Kerry over the head OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again about the fact that the Bush administration DOES SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH, HAS WANTED STEM CELL RESEARCH, DOES FUND AND SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH.  

He just isn't willing to give access to aborted fetus' to obtain these stem cells.  

The man funds the research, and somehow, that equates to him not supporting stem cell research.  

[TA Pilot]

the Bush administration DOES SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH, HAS WANTED STEM CELL RESEARCH, DOES FUND AND SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH.  


Yes.   And most (liberal) people are surprised when you tell them this.

[Mameotron]

I'm listening on the radio while I work, so I'm not really getting it all.  But I can't believe what Kerry just said.  He said Bush should have waited for the UN Inspectors to finish their job.  Does anyone actually believe that we didn't wait to hear the final UN reports?

[TA Pilot]

And Bush made a powerful point in that hard questions dont always have popular answers.   You do whats right, not whats popular.

THAT, friends, is a remark from a man that understand LEADERSHIP.


"Follow Me!" is what you want to hear from your platoon leader.  "Follow Me!" is what we heard from Bush in that line.

[shmokes]

the Bush administration DOES SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH, HAS WANTED STEM CELL RESEARCH, DOES FUND AND SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH.  


Yes.   And most (liberal) people are surprised when you tell them this.

Because it's a disingenuous statement.  Pretty much every scientist working on stem cell research says that the few existing strains of stem cells that are eligible for federal funding are grossly inadequate.

The Bush administration severely restricted stem cell research.  That's fact.  To suggest that the Bush administration "supports" stem cell research simply because they severely restricted it instead of banning it outright is like saying that a democrat who supports two week waiting periods and a mandatory six-week gun training course before purchasing a gun is "pro-guns".

[shmokes]

"Follow Me!" is what you want to hear from your platoon leader.  "Follow Me!" is what we heard from Bush in that line.

Yes.  Before 9/11 Bush's approval rating was dismal and falling.  Then America was attacked by a foreign enemy.  Bush suddenly was faced with a public that would "follow him" anywhere and, consequently, a legislature that would as well.  Unfortunately Bush is a fool and he used his new-found, and unearned political currency to lead us into Iraq, where, even if they had a millian nuclear warheads, we knew for a fact that Al Queida wasn't.  We KNEW AND HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that 9/11 and Al Queida had no relation to Iraq and/or Saddamm Hussein.

Bush said to a wounded and cowed America, "Follow Me."  We followed him and it was and is a disaster.  

[abrannan]

He just isn't willing to give access to aborted fetus' to obtain these stem cells.  

If unused embryos from fertility treatments are "aborted fetus'" (sic) then why aren't the pro-life folks up in arms aver the hundreds of embryos that get destroyed every day?  Why not use those embryos for a purpose that might actually improve life for others, rather than being wasteful like we are today?

[Setabs]

This is way off topic but isn't it weird that someone can get an abortion but if a girl that is pregnant is murdered  in some places the person that did it gets charged for 2 deaths.  Dont get me wrong if the person killed them they should be in prison for life or on death row.  But to say that in an abortion the fetus is nothing and in murder it is a human.  Thats stupid.

[SirPeale]

This is way off topic but isn't it weird that someone can get an abortion but if a girl that is pregnant is murdered  in some places the person that did it gets charged for 2 deaths.  Dont get me wrong if the person killed them they should be in prison for life or on death row.  But to say that in an abortion the fetus is nothing and in murder it is a human.  Thats stupid.

Most states have a minimum that the fetus has to be xx number of weeks into gestation to be considered murder.

[TA Pilot]

The Bush administration severely restricted stem cell research.  That's fact.  To suggest that the Bush administration "supports" stem cell research...

The Bush administration is the first to provide federal funding for stem cell research.  They simply disagree with you in how much should be spent and on what line of cells.

But the fact remains - he does support it and he did allocate the funds.  YOU just think its not enough.

[TA Pilot]

Unfortunately Bush is a fool and he used his new-found, and unearned political currency to lead us into Iraq...

Make sure you mention this to every "undecided" voter you meet.  Often and loudly.

And lets not forget - Kerry supported the war.  Then he changed his mind.  And then he changed his mind agian.  And then again.   Currently he's against the war.  But hey - there's one more debate; he may change his mind.



where, even if they had a millian nuclear warheads, we knew for a fact that Al Queida wasn't.  We KNEW AND HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that 9/11 and Al Queida had no relation to Iraq and/or Saddamm Hussein.

9/11 comission disagrees with you.  They specify clear contacts between Iraq and AQ.



Bush said to a wounded and cowed America, "Follow Me." We followed him and it was and is a disaster.

In what terms?
How are you a competent judge?

[shmokes]

The Bush administration severely restricted stem cell research.  That's fact.  To suggest that the Bush administration "supports" stem cell research...

The Bush administration is the first to provide federal funding for stem cell research.  They simply disagree with you in how much should be spent and on what line of cells.

But the fact remains - he does support it and he did allocate the funds.  YOU just think its not enough.

That's patently false.  During the Clinton Administration, before scientists had realized the potential of stem cell research, a law was passed banning federal funding for research that destroyed a human embryo.  IIRC this was aimed at banning human cloning.  When embrionic stem cell research came along and Clinton realized that he had essentially banned federal funding for it unintentionally he identified a loophole in the law.  He said, as long as the federal funding wasn't used EXPRESSLY FOR the destruction of the human embryos used in the stem cell research, federal funding would not be limited in any way.  In other words, a scientist could destroy hundreds of human embryos in his private lab and those embryos could then be used for stem cell research with unrestricted federal funding.  

This happened in 2000.  You may remember that the Clinton administration left office that year.  The religious right was furious and looked to Bush to plug the loophole....which he did.  

I know you are trying to spin the issue to make it look like Bush is the FIRST president to do any kind of funding for stem cell research, but even if he had been the first it would be kind of like faulting FDR for not providing federal funding for the internet.  Ronold Reagan could hardly have provided federal funding for stem cells that he didn't know existed, or their potential scientific value.

But the fact is, Clinton did support stem cell research, which pissed off religious conservatives.  Bush, subsequently restricted it, by not allowing federal funding for stem cell research done on any embryos not already destroyed, regardless of whether federal funding helped pay for their destruction.

The thing that gets me, TA, is that I think you already know all this.  I think you deliberately choose to mislead people with your posts by leaving out clearly relevant information.  Rather than arguing that embryos are human lives and destroying them is murder, which would be a position that think is misguided but at least can be respected, you instead tell a flat-out lie about Bush and his support for stem cell research.

[DrewKaree]

The Bush administration severely restricted stem cell research.  That's fact.  To suggest that the Bush administration "supports" stem cell research simply because they severely restricted it instead of banning it outright is like saying that a democrat who supports two week waiting periods and a mandatory six-week gun training course before purchasing a gun is "pro-guns".

You're arguing apples to giraffes.

In your example, the democrat STILL supports the right to own guns.  That would, indeed, make him "pro-gun".  

What you state when you say "That's fact" still does nothing to argue AGAINST Bush supporting stem cell research.  When it comes to gun control, you argue that we all want SOME form of control, but it's an unspoken line for everyone.  You are arguing that any possible stem cell should be allowed to be harvested.  Bush wants to ensure that we don't become so calloused that we start baby farms (sorry, fetus/embryo farms) in the name of "science", and that abortion doesn't become something a woman is praised for because "she's contributing to the advancement of science".  

[DrewKaree]

You claim that it's patently false, yet your argument still doesn't refute the claim.

Step by step:

During the Clinton Administration, before scientists had realized the potential of stem cell research, a law was passed banning federal funding for research that destroyed a human embryo.  IIRC this was aimed at banning human cloning.

so at that point, federal funding could not be given to stem cell research.

When embrionic stem cell research came along and Clinton realized that he had essentially banned federal funding for it unintentionally he identified a loophole in the law.  He said, as long as the federal funding wasn't used EXPRESSLY FOR the destruction of the human embryos used in the stem cell research, federal funding would not be limited in any way.  In other words, a scientist could destroy hundreds of human embryos in his private lab and those embryos could then be used for stem cell research with unrestricted federal funding.

Now, Clinton realized he made a mistake and formed a loophole so that federal funding could go to a program that destroyed embryos.  The program could not be a program that was destroying embryos for the express purpose of stem cell research.  

I'm following you so far.

This happened in 2000.  You may remember that the Clinton administration left office that year.  The religious right was furious and looked to Bush to plug the loophole....which he did.

So Clinton did this, then Bush took over.

I know you are trying to spin the issue to make it look like Bush is the FIRST president to do any kind of funding for stem cell research, but even if he had been the first it would be kind of like faulting FDR for not providing federal funding for the internet.  Ronold Reagan could hardly have provided federal funding for stem cells that he didn't know existed, or their potential scientific value.

You lost me here.    You said we're trying to make it look like Bush is the FIRST president to do any kind of funding for stem cell research.  You are correct in your assessment of our argument.

I'm still waiting for the argument you want to make that he ISN'T, and that it was actually CLINTON!  

Your words clearly show your case.  And as you charged, your case is patently false.  Your position is that Clinton passed a law banning funding for it, realizes he made a mistake, and then created a loophole to allow it.  

Our position is clear.  The Bush administration FUNDED stem cell research.  Your position is equally clear (to me, anyway).  Clinton created the opportunity for Bush to FUND stem cell research.  I looked and looked and looked.  How will you now spin the fact that you can't show Clinton FUNDING stem cell research, but merely changing the law to make it possible?  

You're trying to make Clinton's INTENTIONS equal actions, whereas we are arguing that it matters not what Bush's intentions were, he took ACTION to make things happen.  

While Bush may not agree with the PROCESS you want, he clearly  agrees with the outcome, and did something to ensure further possibilities, within limits.

You may not want to give Bush credit with funding stem cell research, but money is allotted for it.  You may want to give Clinton credit with being the first, but money WAS NOT allotted for it.

Clinton created a "wink and a nod" loophole.  Bush created a "let's get it started" program, and put his money where his mouth was.

[DrewKaree]

Unfortunately Bush is a fool and he used his new-found, and unearned political currency to lead us into Iraq, where, even if they had a millian nuclear warheads, we knew for a fact that Al Queida wasn't.  We KNEW AND HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that 9/11 and Al Queida had no relation to Iraq and/or Saddamm Hussein.

Bush "lead" us into Iraq.  The man you feel we should hail as the chief said "In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region?  And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States?

Sounds as if your "shadow of a doubt" doesn't seem to be quite long enough to cover Mr.  Kerry.

The man you approve of was led, rather than being a leader as he is now claiming he would be.  

THE TIME TO LEAD WAS WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNPOPULAR  Perhaps you missed that point in the debates.  With Kerry asking if we can afford to ignore Sadaam, Bush LED.  

Kerry MISSED his chance to lead, and wants us to give him another, now that he has hindsight and all the information he has now.  

THAT'S NOT LEADING, IT'S REACTING!

We, the American people, need someone to lead us...lead us to find those who intend harm to the U.S.  Lead us to act on information we receive.  Lead us to battle against those unwilling to show they will not and can not do harm to the U.S.  Lead us to a position of strength when dealing with other nations.  

Bush is this person.

When Kerry had the opportunity to lead, he couldn't.  He was too busy FOLLOWING Bush around.  You stated it yourself.

Bush is qualified to lead us for 4 more years.  Kerry is qualified to follow the leader.  If he doesn't like what the leader is doing, it's a simple solution, really.  Show up to vote against him.  When it comes to taxes, he's on the ball.  When it comes to the safety and assurance of the American people, he's strangely absent, time and time and time again.  

Kerry's not fit to lead me on a tour of the Senate.  I don't believe he's been there enough to know anything about the place.

[shmokes]

In your example, the democrat STILL supports the right to own guns.  That would, indeed, make him "pro-gun".  

Ah, TA.  Once again winning the argument is more important to you than honesty about your position.

You and I both know that your beloved NRA would have something else to say about the democrat in question.  Somehow I don't think they would use the term "pro-gun" to characterize such a person.

Go back and re-read.  My post makes it perfectly clear that Clinton made funding for stem cell research available.  Please allow me to lay out for you the differences in Bush's and Clinton's approach to embrionic stem cell research.

1- Can federal funds be used to pay for the destruction of a human embryo?
Clinton:  No
Bush:  No

2- Can federal funds be used to pay for embrionic stem cell research on existing lines of embrionic stem cells?
Clinton: Yes
Bush: Yes

3- Can federal funds be used to pay for embrionic stem cell research on new lines of embrionic stem cells, which were acquired with private funding?
Clinton: Yes
Bush: No


Please pay particular attention to number 3.  It's the key difference.  Most people, scientists and lay-people would consider, for better or for worse, #3 to represent a restriction on embrionic stem cell research.  

Also, please understand that Clinton was president before Bush.  If you apply something I like to call logic to this fact it becomes quite clear that if both presidents have supported stem cell research to any degree, the Clinton administration's support kinda had to come before the Bush administrations.  If both presidents supported stem cell research in any form it becomes difficult for Bush to be the "first" president to support stem cell research.   I can't stress enough the fact that Bush didn't become president until after Clinton was done being president.  I know it's nit-picky, but I think it's an important detail.

[DrewKaree]

Ah, TA.  Once again winning the argument is more important to you than honesty about your position.

Drew to shmokes, Drew to shmokes...come in shmokes....shmokes.....buddy answer me....you just CAN'T die yet...there's so much to live for.....Marilyn Chambers in the White House....John Kerry in the dog house...SHMOOOOOOOOOOOKES!  Oh, hey man...that was me.

I don't belong to, nor particularly care what the NRA would say about said democrat, but I'd call him pro-gun.  Pile 50 weapons you want to ban on top of that, and THAT makes them "anti-gun".

Go back and re-read.  My post makes it perfectly clear that Clinton made funding for stem cell research available.

I'm going back to re-read it now.  If it did make it perfectly clear, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that he did NOT fund, meaning allocate money to, stem cell research.  I'll get back to ya.

p.s. I'm so disappointed that, forensically, you can't differentiate between myself and TA.  It's as clear as night and day.  I use these

Code: [Select]

[quote][/quote]while he uses these

Code: [Select]

[b][/b]
You're really causing me to reassess all the good things I heard about you.

[fredster]

Shmokes,
I must say you laid out the case. Total fact, total logic.

So does that make Bush Bad for protecting life?  Bush is pro life, clinton was pro choice.  Bush is well respected by the pro life people for his decision.  There are people I know that say it's murder and amoral to do this type of research.  Are the wrong?  They say it's murder, some say it's research.

I always have this nagging question with stem cell research.  If embryonic stem cells have so much potential for curing disease, then why isn't there more private institutions like Pfizer and Eli Lilly involved in research?  There are other countries that are involved in this research that don't us Federal funding from the US.  Where are the breakthroughs?

A lot of reseach by Germany would be nice.  The UK can still do it.  Japan, etc.  Not all breakthroughs happen in the US now do they?

You are right. Bush didn't ban embryonic stem cell research, he restricted it to the existing lines.  He provide more federal funding than anybody on those lines.  Kerry says that they are corrupted, but there are lines that are not.  Either way, research continues.  If Kerry was so motivated, he could have authored a law that would provide it.

But if you check his and his running mate's sentate attendance record for the past couple of years you will notice he wasn't there to do that.  

I follow this pretty closely.  I have a personal stake in this because of illness in my family that could potentially benifit from stem cell research.

There are Adult stem cells and embilical cord stem cells too. There is unfettered research ongoing there.  They are showing lots of promise, but nothing tangable. If something were to come of this in the US or the UK, then the position might change.

States can still fund this research.  It's not Banned.  It's not illegal, it just not paid for by federal dollars.

Also, people seem to wanna gloss over the fact that the Bush administration has increased funding for all types of medical research.  Why do they keep forgetting that?

[DrewKaree]

1- Can federal funds be used to pay for the destruction of a human embryo?
Clinton:  No
Bush:  No

2- Can federal funds be used to pay for embrionic stem cell research on existing lines of embrionic stem cells?
Clinton: Yes
Bush: Yes


3- Can federal funds be used to pay for embrionic stem cell research on new lines of embrionic stem cells, which were acquired with private funding?
Clinton: Yes
Bush: No

This time around, you added the embryonic part, and still haven't made the case for Clinton FUNDING the research.

Let's see if this will help, or at least get you to see you have to use little words with me  I will, at this point, cede that Cliton was the first to support to stem cell research by opening a loophole for it.  Bush was the first to support stem cell research by funding it.

Clinton was the first president to say he supported stem cell research_{while Bush was the first to put his money where his mouth was}

I can't stress enough the fact that Bush didn't become president until after Clinton was done being president.  I know it's nit-picky, but I think it's an important detail.

I can't help but wonder what Dexter thinks of your sense of humor.  Does it pain him to see someone who agrees with him revert to using "the lowest form of humor"?  Shmokes, thank you for not being a pretentious buffoon.  (Dexter, is subtlety another, lower, form of humor?  )

[TA Pilot]

 He said, as long as the federal funding wasn't used EXPRESSLY FOR the destruction of the human embryos used in the stem cell research, federal funding would not be limited in any way...this happened in 2000.  You may remember that the Clinton administration left office that year.

Tell me:
How much federal money was spent on stem cell research before Bush came into office?

[shmokes]

My bad.  TA's avatar used to be a Bush/Cheney, I think....  Anyway, yeah.  I should have directed that barb at Drew.

[shmokes]

He said, as long as the federal funding wasn't used EXPRESSLY FOR the destruction of the human embryos used in the stem cell research, federal funding would not be limited in any way...this happened in 2000.  You may remember that the Clinton administration left office that year.

Tell me:
How much federal money was spent on stem cell research before Bush came into office?

I have no idea.  Maybe none.  But once again, he left office in 2000 -- shortly after stem cells became celebrities.  I don't think it's too far a stretch to assume that he opened the loophole allowing embrionic stem cell research because he actually wanted stem cell research to receive said funding.

[shmokes]

Okay, Drew.  Just for you I will pile 50 guns on that the same Democrat described earlier believes should be banned outright.  Lets say many of them could be categorized as assault rifles.  But for handguns he wants the 6-week training course and 2-week waiting period.  Is that better.  Were you incapable of understanding my argument without that?  Don't you think it's a waste of time to pretend not to understand me.  Somehow I get the impression that your strategy here is merely to exasperate me to death so you can win the argument by my forfeiture.  

Also, I must apologize for not using the word "embryonic" in my earlier posts.  I considered it to be a given, since no other stem cell research is the subject of controversy, but clearly I am dealing with someone who insists on straining at gnats and playing semantics games.  That was totally my bad.

If there were no existing lines of embryonic stem cells in existence today Bush's position would amount to an outright ban of federal funding for research involving embryonic stem cells.  There is a consensus between those who work with embryonic stem cells that the existing lines are grossly inadequate.

Fredster....I don't know how to respond to you.  I've no idea what your point is about pro-life and pro-choice.  Do you mean that maybe it's a noble thing that Bush doesn't support embryonic stem-cell research?  Okay.  I agree.  Maybe he'll get an award in heaven for it.  Nevertheless, as long as he's here on earth and I'm a liberal, future-hell-dweller who does support it, I'll criticize him for the fact that he clearly does not "support" stem cell research.  

For Drew's sake:  Bush is "pro-embryonic-stem-cell-research like a democrat who wants to completely outlaw the vast majority of all guns, but would allow hunting rifle ownership after a 6-week training course is completed and a 2-week waiting period/extensive background check is done, would be considered "pro-gun".

The fact that I have every scientist doing embryonic stem cell research on my side certainly lends a little bit of credibility to it, I think.

[DrewKaree]

Okay, Drew.  Just for you I will pile 50 guns on that the same Democrat described earlier believes should be banned outright.  Lets say many of them could be categorized as assault rifles.  But for handguns he wants the 6-week training course and 2-week waiting period.  Is that better.

razafrasin...anti-gun Democrat.

Somehow I get the impression that your strategy here is merely to exasperate me to death so you can win the argument by my forfeiture.  

does this mean you give up?  I WIN!

Also, I must apologize for not using the word "embryonic" in my earlier posts.  I considered it to be a given, since no other stem cell research is the subject of controversy, but clearly I am dealing with someone who insists on straining at gnats and playing semantics games.  That was totally my bad.

you found the need to point out that Clinton came first, Bush came second.  NOW who's straining and gnats  

It wasn't a given, because Bush funded stem cell research.  

If there were no existing lines of embryonic stem cells in existence today Bush's position would amount to an outright ban of federal funding for research involving embryonic stem cells.  There is a consensus between those who work with embryonic stem cells that the existing lines are grossly inadequate.

inadequate is far from non-existent.  We have FDA regulations in effect for drugs, yet there isn't the clamor about the methods used to create/test things being "inadequate".

Maybe he'll get an award in heaven for it.

I thought you don't believe in heaven?  

I'll criticize him for the fact that he clearly does not "support" stem cell research.

He's funding something that is called stem cell research.  He's not funding embryonic stem cell research.  He supports stem cell research, again, just not to the extent you want him to.

For Drew's sake:  Bush is "pro-embryonic-stem-cell-research like a democrat who wants to completely outlaw the vast majority of all guns, but would allow hunting rifle ownership after a 6-week training course is completed and a 2-week waiting period/extensive background check is done, would be considered "pro-gun".

if that's the best I can get, I'll take it.  We'll work on the rest.  In time, my preciousssssss, in time.

The fact that I have every scientist doing embryonic stem cell research on my side certainly lends a little bit of credibility to it, I think.

the fact that you don't have all scientists doing stem cell research certainly lends an air of doubt as to the bias of those scientists you are allied with.

[TA Pilot]

I have no idea.  Maybe none.

If no federal money was spent on stem cell research before Bush, then how can you say that Bush isnt the first to spend federal money on stem cell research?


I don't think it's too far a stretch to assume that he opened the loophole allowing embrionic stem cell research because he actually wanted stem cell research to receive said funding.

Ohhhhh...
I seee.....  
You're claiming that -I'm- misleading people because of an assumption -you- made.

Show me how much federal money was spent on stem cell research before Bush came into office, or you dont have a leg to stand on.  I'll even go so far as to agree that money allocated in the FY20011 budget is money spend under someone besides Bush.

[MrBond]

To be clear on this subject, correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I understand about embryonic stem cell research:

Bush was the first to allow federal funding of existing embryonic stem cells (rather than have them destroyed/not funded to full extent).

Beyond those lines, President Bush issued an executive order preventing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (in support of a culture of life).  Private medical research facilities/colleges/universities may continue to do research on embryonic stem cells beyond the federal funded lines (ie there is no "ban" on embryonic SC research)

Despite the boost from federal funding, embryonic stem cell research has had no promising signs whatsoever in advancing medical science or in finding cures/treatments to any disease.

Adult, umbilical, and animal stem cell research facilities continue to receive federal funding (and obviously private funding).  These have proven to be more stable in research.  In addition, adult stem cell research has shown promise, resulting in the development of a variety of therapeutic treatments for diseases.  

Although embryonic stem cell research has not yet produced any tangible results (if there were, you would have certainly heard about them given the situation, and don't think the scientists haven't done everything they could have to find even a small discovery), many scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds promise over time...



What it comes down to is two things: an individual's ethical standpoint, and the medical results.  I vouch for adult stem cell research; in this manner, we avoid the ethical dilemma of destroying life to better life, while still furthering medical science.  Adult stem cells have proven benefical and stable in study, embryonic stem cells have not.

[shmokes]

Okay.  Earlier, I said of how much money Clinton spent on stem cell research, "I have no idea.  Maybe none."  I said that, because I didn't see how that was relevant.  But you concervatives really seemed to think that this was your trump card.  So I played on Google for a while and I see now.  That's the big spin.  President Bush isn't AGAINST embryonic stem cell research.  He's the only president to have ever provided funding for it!!!  That makes him the ONLY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY TO BE FOR IT!  Apparently this argument is playing out in the same way on message boards all over the web (who knew that this stuff got talked about on non-arcade-related websites?)

Of course, since scientists only discovered how human embryonic stem cells could be isolated in 1998 it would have been kind of hard for previous presidents to provide federal funding for it (I actually mentioned this earlier).  President Clinton, a big proponent of stem cell research, was faced with another dillema at that time.  The Dickey Amendment, the purpose of which was to ban human cloning, appeared to make federal funding for human embryonic stem cells illegal.  As we all know, Clinton is all about being slippery with definitions, and he immediately set his lawyers about finding a way to reinterpret the Dickey Amendment so federal funding could be allowed.  President Clinton, like every president before him, never had the opportunity to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cells.  For him it was because, by the time he had made the funding legal, he was leaving office.  But the fact that it was now legal, and NIH (National Institution of Health) had every intention of funding it the Christian Right went berserk.  So Bush, being beholden to them put a temporary halt and ordered an ethics investigation of the whole thing and then, rather than having the NIH or Tommy Thompson, his Secretary of Health, make the final decision, Bush took the reigns and decided it on his own.

So yes.  President Bush is the first president to provide federal money for the research of embryonic stem cells -- a very tiny amount of funding ($25 million dollars - roughly equivelant to the funding for St. John's Wort).  It's worth noting that even this paltry amount is only possible because of the work Clinton did to make funding legal in spite of the Dickey Amendment.

Another way of putting it, of course, is that President Bush is the first president to put in place a federal ban on embryonic stem cell research -- and at least one president DID have a chance to do that, though probably wouldn't have since there already was a ban in place before he found a way to circumvent it.  Also, Senator Kerry will reverse Bush's ban on funding new lines if elected.  

I find it mind boggling that you'all can't grasp the "pro-gun" analogy.  It's not apples and giraffes.  It ain't even apples and oranges.  It's the same thing.  Bush is not "pro-stem cell research".  He just tried to throw moderates a bone to stave off a reelection deal-breaker.

[DrewKaree]

We KNEW AND HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that 9/11 and Al Queida had no relation to Iraq and/or Saddamm Hussein.

Go ahead, click here.  The "shadow of a doubt" seems to be shrinking yet again.  I wonder if this will come up in the next debate and how Kerry is going to try to dismiss it.

[DrewKaree]

If unused embryos from fertility treatments are "aborted fetus'" (sic) then why aren't the pro-life folks up in arms aver the hundreds of embryos that get destroyed every day?  Why not use those embryos for a purpose that might actually improve life for others, rather than being wasteful like we are today?

Information on Eligibility Criteria for Federal Funding of Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells

"The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes"

Kinda like that?

[Hoagie_one]

about kerry "flipfloppin"...Many times you have to make a decision, especially in politics.  Bush had to do it, and all the congressmen had to do it.  Bush makes it seem so cut and dry.

It isnt.

When special interest starts tagging on B.S. onto bills and laws, its gets grey, confusing,and difficult to make a solid decision.  This is where Kerry is.  We wanted to support many things, but couldnt do to the Attached BS.  He also wanted to not support many things but had to go along because of important attached BS.

The thing is, people ridicule Kerry for thinking it through and wieghing things out.  Sometimes the good outwieghs the bad, sometimes it doesnt, but you have to keep thinking, and keep trying.

Bush on the other hand, makes a decision, sticks with it, doesnt think about how it could possibly be wrong, never admits mistakes and constantly tells us how we should live our lives.

ITems of interest that irritate me about Bush

-Consitutional ammendment about Gay marriage

-Tax refund checks sent out during the summer (2X) at a cost of more than $30 million dollars each time.  Wasted money

-Declaring war on a nation that was not directly, or proven indirectly harming the US.  Not that i like Sadam, but we invaded another country for "just because", how very nielistic (sp)

-Support of big business in lue of middle class citizens (Tax breaks, incentives, etc)

-Saudi oil ties (just bothers me, dunno why)

-Lessening environmental protections, especially for big business

[Dartful Dodger]

People ridicule Kerry, not because he thinks things through and changes his mind, it's because he tells one group of people one thing another group another thing, and when he does vote on something, it's inconsistent.  He's hoping if he votes for something once and votes against it another time, people will only him voting the way they wanted him to.  Unfortunately people do.

Now that the spokes person for stem research is dead, it will not be brought up again in this campaign.  Just like I wont be able to tell this joke again...


Who's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?



...Christopher Walkin.

[Hoagie_one]

People ridicule Kerry, not because he thinks things through and changes his mind, it's because he tells one group of people one thing another group another thing, and when he does vote on something, it's inconsistent.  He's hoping if he votes for something once and votes against it another time, people will only him voting the way they wanted him to.  Unfortunately people do.

I have to ask, is this something you've seen or read specifically about, or is this just whats been said so many times that it's become true and gets repeated as truth?  I've only seen this on like 3 issues, and all of them were explained in detail or were not as important to me as other issues where he takes a greater stand.

Now that the spokes person for stem research is dead, it will not be brought up again in this campaign.  Just like I wont be able to tell this joke again...


Who's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?



...Christopher Walkin.

That was pretty funny

[shmokes]

We KNEW AND HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that 9/11 and Al Queida had no relation to Iraq and/or Saddamm Hussein.

Go ahead, click here.  The "shadow of a doubt" seems to be shrinking yet again.  I wonder if this will come up in the next debate and how Kerry is going to try to dismiss it.

Drew,

I don't understand why you get your news from places like that.  It's impossible for any person to completely eradicate all bias from their journalism, but why would you get your news from a source that prides itself on being biased?  Is it just so you can get amunition that you can recycle on message boards?  If you don't trust CBS or the New York Times, fine, give us Wall Street Journal or Washington Post.  Give us USA Today or CNN.  

The crap you give us links to...      Front Page Magazine.  Gimme a break.

[DrewKaree]

I give links from all different sources.  I've used CNN, I've used USA Today....and I get MrC saying "CNN doesn't speak for me", so I just put out what I find...see what sticks  

If you give me a blanket statement saying something is known beyond a shadow of a doubt, then can't I post SOMETHING that casts doubt?  Yours was a biased statemen as well, with no backing for it.  You call it semantics or nit-picking, but when you use absolute terms, then my defense needn't be rigorous to show a flaw in your reasoning.  I know it's frustrating, but I expect the same cross examination from you.  Does the phrase "Bush was the first president since it came up" come to mind?

Also, you've just simply GOT to let me post a few blatantly biased things once in a while.  

"As a conservative, I've always been required to hate liberals and compassion.  I can't wait to move to Texas, where they do not have compassion but they DO have guns"  

And I thought I had exasperated you to the point that you had given up!  Catch your second wind?

 

[shmokes]

And I thought I had exasperated you to the point that you had given up!  Catch your second wind?

 

That's merely your strategy, but you've underestimated my tenacity.  

You know, I tried to think of some example to compare that crap you pollute your mind with that would apply to me if I tried posting it, but the best I could do was the *New York Times.  I simply cannot even think of a name of an extreme left-wing publication.  I need a pat on the back.  I can only assume they exist, but I like to delude myself into thinking that I don't need to have my hand held and can come to conclusions on my own.

*The New York Times is a very respectable paper, maybe the most respectable paper, but they do lean a little to the left.  Their image has been unfairly sullied by concervatives.