- 10-13-2004, 02:22 PM
Ok, so every time you talk to a hippie (jweave j/k ) about the election, or now since the death of Superman even the sKerry/Edward campain complain about bush and stem cell research
here is the stuff from bush's site
The President's Decision is Based on Ethical Principle
In August 2001, President George W. Bush made a decision about the complex and difficult issue of the Federal government's role in embryonic stem cell research. For the first time ever, he allowed Federal research funds to be used in embryonic stem cell research. The President's decision was based on a determination that we should not cross a fundamental moral line by using Federal funds to encourage or support the destruction of a human embryo.
Bipartisan Support for ethical treatment of human embryos: The principle that human embryos merit respect as a form of human life -- and that the Federal government should not encourage their destruction -- has been accepted on a bipartisan basis for a number of years. Every year since 1996, Congress has adopted legislative language stating that Federal funds may not be used in research involving the destruction of human embryos.
Broad Support Internationally
This principle also receives broad support internationally. Many European countries including France, Germany, Austria, Spain, and Ireland ban altogether the destruction of human embryos to create stem cell lines.
The President Supports Exploring the Promise of Stem Cell Research
President Bush understands the pain of individuals and their families suffering through a terrible illness. The President remains committed to fully exploring the promise and potential of stem cell research without violating ethical principles and while maintaining respect for all human life. In keeping with this commitment, the Administration:
* Provided FY03 funding of $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research, an increase of 132 percent from FY02.
o In FY03 the Administration provided $190.7 million for human non-embryonic stem cells (adult stem cells, including those from cord blood, placenta, and bone marrow).
o The Bush Administration was the first to provide Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
* Revised NIH rules regarding the segregation of private and publicly-funded research, which has enabled researchers to participate in privately-funded stem cell research without compromising their ability to receive NIH funding from separate projects.
* Funds three research centers to promote multi-disciplinary research on embryonic stem cells. Nine intramural labs at NIH are now involved in embryonic stem cell research. Some of these researchers are engaged in a project to comprehensively analyze the properties of the stem cell lines that are eligible for Federal funding, which will provide researchers with valuable information.
* Developed five training courses to help American scientists acquire the needed skills and techniques to culture embryonic stem cell lines and a special educational fellowship to encourage young researchers to enter the field.
The State of Embryonic Stem Cell Science
The lines available for Federal funding, and the other lines used in private research, are being employed to address the basic biologic questions that must be answered before the cells can be used in human therapies. It is not possible for any researcher to say with certainty whether additional lines will produce effective treatments for any disease.
* The President developed a policy that will allow us to explore the promise of stem-cell research, and do so in a way that doesn't cross a clear moral threshold.
* We are still at a phase where we are conducting the basic research so that we can better understand the promise of stem-cell research. There's a lot we don't know at this point.
* We all advocate finding a cure for Alzheimer's and many other diseases. There are embryonic stem cells available for research, and adult stem cell research holds great promise as well.
Number of Lines Available for Federal Funding
The Administration has also worked to make stem cell lines widely available to interested researchers.
* 78 derivations of human embryonic stem cells meet the criteria established by the President and listed on the NIH Registry, although since the announcement 16 of these derivations failed to grow into lines that would be usable for research.
* All 78 derivations are privately owned by research companies or institutions. However, with assistance from NIH, owners of 19 of the lines have agreed to make their lines available for use at cost by researchers in the U.S. or abroad. Four other derivations are being developed into lines today and will be available in the near future for Federal funding. Still others are being preserved by their owners until the science develops further. No other country in the world has made as many stem cell lines widely available.
* Researchers in the United States and abroad are taking advantage of the opportunity to use these lines. As of February 2004, 409 shipments of stem cell lines from the NIH Registry have been sent to researchers for their use in projects such as efforts to unravel the signals that make stem cells unique and research to better understand how stem cells can be used to treat Parkinson's disease.
* The National Institutes of Health plans to spend $18 million over four years to establish three "centers of excellence," which will speed research on the currently available cell lines.
Private and State Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Available
The President's policy places no obstacles in the path of private or state funding of stem cell research - researchers are receiving support from both, in addition to support from the Federal government.
* One study, based on 2002 data, reports that private sector research and development in stem cells was being conducted by approximately 1000 scientists in over 30 firms. Aggregate spending was estimated at $208 million (Lysaght, J.J. and Hazlehurst, A.L.., "Private Sector Development of Stem Technology and Therapeutic Cloning" Tissues Engineering 9(3): 555-561 (2003)). Geron Corporation alone has reported that it spent more that $70 million on stem cell research by September 2003.
* In the Stem Cell Business News Guide to Stem Cell Companies (Feb 2003), 61 U.S. and international companies are listed as pursuing some form of research or therapeutic product development involving stem cells.
* Just recently, Harvard University announced that it has raised private funds to create a stem cell institute and to make 17 new lines available to researchers.
* Some states ban the destruction of human embryonic stem cells for research. Some permit it but don't fund it (consistent with Federal policy). And others provide funding.
* As with most medical research, the effort to explore the promise of this science and to develop treatments and cures will require the combined efforts of both the public and private sector.
- 10-13-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally Posted by Jeff
- 10-13-2004, 03:43 PM
Just a few facts on stem cell research to keep in mind for tonight when John Kerry asserts that we are close to a cure but the President is standing in the way.
The "real deal" on stems cell research is that whether it is embryonic or adult stem cells the scientists are not trying to discover cures with stem cells at the present time, but are trying to see if the possibility of cures can come from stem cells. In countries that currently fund embryonic stem cell research (Israel, England, South Korea) and have since the 1990's few tangible gains and zero cures have been achieved. We must not forget that privately and state funded research in the US is legal and that the President is the first president, including Bill Clinton, to authorize any federal funding of stem cell research.
10-13-2004, 06:01 PM
In a speech two nights ago, John Edwards made one of the most ignorant claims that I've heard in a while. Bascially he feels that President Bush is part to blame for the death of Christopher Reeves. In his idiot opinion, he says that the development of stem cell research would be much farther along, and Reeves didn't have to die.
My God, people have been studying the spinal cord for years!
10-13-2004, 11:14 PM
you're right, that's about the most ignorant thing he could say and it's probably a new low for him. I'm waiting for the kerry camp to claim that President Bush could have prevented the sinking of the Titanic because they blame him for everything else.Originally Posted by DieTrying
10-14-2004, 01:10 AM
It doesn't matter...people are soooo stupid that this **** that Edwards and Kerry imply (or have even said) about Reeves and the like walking and being alive if it weren't for Bush that they actually believe it! I'm gonna move to Japan and let the Americans have John Kerry and John Edwards! The ****ing media is sooooo messed up it's ridiculous. I'm just going to stop right here....I'm soo ****ing pissed! I hate people, I hate people, and I hate people any more. I think people should qualify (via testing) to be a voter, honestly. Then the uneducated who are political pawns can't advance these ridiculous peoples' agenda by believing their ridiculous claims and promises! OH well...what's 4 years? Well, probably 8 considering Kerry will inherit a growing economy, with high home ownership, increasing education scores, etc. All he has to do is sit back and let the policies keep doing what they're doing, return in 4 years with more of his lies and he'll be in for 8! Grrr.....
10-14-2004, 06:32 AM
I have been preaching to the guys at work forever how there should be a voter registration test kwyckmynd. I'm with you there. How many people who know nothing about the issues are gonna be channel surfing and see 30 seconds of a kerry commercial and base their vote on that? Yeah it's our RIGHT to vote but it's also our RESPONSIBILITY to educate ourselves about the issues. The system needs an enema.
10-14-2004, 06:48 AM
A voter registration test is an excedingly bad idea. It would be wonderful if it could work, but it won't. The test itself will be administered by the government, the same government that screws up everything else it touches. There's a reason why so many people in this country don't understand the first thing about economics: the government controls the majority of the schools and teaches nonsense. There's a reason why most people couldn't even form a reasonable explanation of what the scientific process is: because the government controls the schools, and to a certain extent through funding the actual science. Let there be a voter registration test and it will necessarily be slanted towards only allowing people who agree with incumbents to vote.
Asking for a test is passing the buck. Get out there and educate the public if you think they're so damn ignorant. In a very significant way by wanting such a test you guys are no different than that public you despise so much. Something's wrong? You want the government to do something about it, which is the call of every other person in the country whenever anything displeases them. Why don't you do something about it?
10-14-2004, 07:16 AM
I have to agree with CDB. After the 15th amendment, voter tests were used to keep black men from voting. They'd do something similiar if they were revived.
I can't imagine any commision or department of the goverment being able to make a fair test.
10-14-2004, 07:41 AM
Question: 5 * 5
IF they can answer that then they get the right to vote.
10-14-2004, 03:23 PM
How about just having to know who the candidates are? Sean Hannity recently interviewed a few Kerry supporters and half couldn't answer who he was running with. Forget about when he asked them to name one thing he did during his 20 years in the senate.
10-14-2004, 03:49 PM
First of all the whole test thing was said tongue in cheek. It's an INDIVIDUALS responsibility to educate himself. Not just voting for the guy with the hottest daughters(bush) who you know nothing about just to excercise your right to vote. That was my whole point. You're honestly going to call me out on this by suggesting that there aren't people that are ignorant on the important issues? Do you know how many people will vote for kerry just because certain musicians or actors are against Bush? Or how many hippies will vote against bush JUST because we are at war while he's the president and they're tree hugging pacifists? Don't give me that crap about the government controlling schools as an excuse to be uneducated. And the whole thing was said as a smart ass comment yet you've already decided that the government will corrupt the testing procedure? Lighten up. You don't have to understand economic science to make a somewhat knowledgeable decision on who you're voting for. And as far as me "getting out there and educating the public" that I apparently despise- that's laughable. Believe me I would love to but unfortunately my current duties of working so i can feed my fat ass and pay my bills prevents me from talking to the millions of americans on the importance of using your vote wisely.Originally Posted by CDB
Last edited by jarhead; 10-14-2004 at 05:02 PM.
10-14-2004, 04:39 PM
The whole thing about stem cell research is that it can be fully funded by the government, without the destruction of human embreyos, which I am certainly opposed against. The reason is, a woman's unmillical cord contains hoards os stem cells that can be harvested right after birth with. This would otherwise be thrown out with the afterbirth/placenta/whatever, but it can be kept for research. The obstacle is women, for some reason, do not want to dontae it. It's like they're saying "No that is MY umbillical cord. Got cut up an aborted fetus instead. Or better yet, destroy some embreyos" I mean, come on, people. The pure stupidity of this makes my sick.
10-14-2004, 04:45 PM
That wasn't even an option that was posed to us with our last child (a year and a half ago). The asked us if we wanted to keep the cord blood. What the hell am I going to do with it, put it in the freezer? My wife and I would have be glad to donate it for medical research.
10-14-2004, 05:08 PM
Are you talking about high schools or public universities, too? B/C although it is publically funded, the university system is really the last venue for un-impaired discourse on any subject matter, so I don't see them teaching nonsense. There was no "government control" at any of the Universities I've attended...quite the opposite, it's where I learned to think for myself and analyze for myself.the government controls the majority of the schools and teaches nonsense.
RE: Stem Cells, I was aware of the Umbilical thing. The issue is they're trying to tie it with "Pro-Choice" platform, and also purposefully hoping to establish legislature which defines the fetus as nothing important. If it were only about getting stem cells, you'd wonder "why introduce embryos into the debate?"
If you don't think there are agendas behind both sides, you're blind. At it's heart, its a fight ove the definition and meaning of life. The worst case scenario is unpriveleged welfare mother fetus farming...sure, sounds crazy, but Harvard just applied for permission to perform tests on Embryos, so the pieces are in place.
RE: Voter Registration Tests-->The sad part is only 1/2 the people in the country vote. If we had tests, they would be skewed, and even less would vote.
Apathy and laziness have become ubiquitous-->When people are dying, why is Paris Hilton on the front page? IMO we are the new Babylon, the new Roman Empire, etc., and our excesses and the results of our indulgences will only serve to prove universal truisms. "Doing Something about it" is what inspired, smart people do...the other 85% are going home to watch "their shows" and giggle about whos ahead in the Nielsen ratings. You could stand on the street with a sandwich board of universal truth, and most people would walk past and joke with their dumb**** elevator buddies about the "crazy guy" outside, while sipping a corporate coffee and dancing the mass media jig all the way to the voting booth...not becuase they have been conditioned to do it, but because they have conditioned themselves by being lazy slaves to their impulses who are unable to harness their willpower.
10-14-2004, 06:17 PM
Well, I thought my idea was a good one until I read this statement. Then you reminded me of exactly why I'm a small government conservativeOriginally Posted by CDB
10-14-2004, 07:01 PM
I never said there weren't such people. I said it's your job, not the government's, to try and educate them.Originally Posted by jarhead
Do you know how many people willvote for Bush for equally spurious reasons? There's no excuse for being uneducated, but there is a reason and it helps to know it if you want to try and change things. Not quite the same.Do you know how many people will vote for kerry just because certain musicians or actors are against Bush? Or how many hippies will vote against bush JUST because we are at war while he's the president and they're tree hugging pacifists? Don't give me that crap about the government controlling schools as an excuse to be uneducated.
Yes, the government will corrupt the process. It's inevitable, it's happened every single time such a test has been in place. And yes, you should understand economics if you're going to vote since one of the primary roles of the executive and legislative branches of the government has become setting economic policy. Many Bush supporters will vote for Bush because they supposedly believe in the free market, and they really have no clue what a free market entails. For instance they probably think Bush's steel tarrifs were a great idea. Most of them probably haven't taken a second to even think through the reasoning of anti trust laws and how they're used.And the whole thing was said as a smart ass comment yet you've already decided that the government will corrupt the testing procedure? Lighten up. You don't have to understand economic science to make a somewhat knowledgeable decision on who you're voting for.
You don't have to talk to millions, just one here and there, every now and then. I ain't exactly a memeber of the leisure class myself and I manage to do it.And as far as me "getting out there and educating the public" that I apparently despise- that's laughable. Believe me I would love to but unfortunately my current duties of working so i can feed my fat ass and pay my bills prevents me from talking to the millions of americans on the importance of using your vote wisely.
10-14-2004, 07:13 PM
You should go to thefire.org. Their primary reason for existing is to fight for students' rights on campus, and the discrimination almost always goes against conservative thought. In my first history class I was told, flat out told, that the Great Depression was caused by greedy capitalists who over produced nonperishable goods. I sat there, basically stunned into silence at the level of bull**** that was pouring out of the prof's mouth. No one questioned him on this point, so I can't honestly say he would have stifled debate. The only reason that the colleges aren't as bad as the public school system is because the students are adults and a bit harder to control, not as many are going to simply accept whatever is told to them. In my political science classes there was little taught as the whole class was essentially a Republican bashing session. Didn't bother me as I'm not a Republican, but the arrogance, bias and flat out ignorance was astounding. Now I am in NY, a blue state, so my view can be skewed I'll admit.Originally Posted by Brodus
She's prettier than death, basically.Apathy and laziness have become ubiquitous-->When people are dying, why is Paris Hilton on the front page?
Good points.IMO we are the new Babylon, the new Roman Empire, etc., and our excesses and the results of our indulgences will only serve to prove universal truisms. "Doing Something about it" is what inspired, smart people do...the other 85% are going home to watch "their shows" and giggle about whos ahead in the Nielsen ratings. You could stand on the street with a sandwich board of universal truth, and most people would walk past and joke with their dumb**** elevator buddies about the "crazy guy" outside, while sipping a corporate coffee and dancing the mass media jig all the way to the voting booth...not becuase they have been conditioned to do it, but because they have conditioned themselves by being lazy slaves to their impulses who are unable to harness their willpower.
10-14-2004, 07:31 PM
OK CDB, this argument is retarded. I think you just like to piss people off. It was a SARCASTIC statement. And you're still arguing that the government will corrupt it's process. But You're wrong, It's not MY responsibility to educate all people. Am I the chosen one or something? I do talk about politics with people so keep your assumptions about me to yourself. And I don't recall ever saying I despise anybody either. But you win, the system is perfect, and how dare I even joke about changing it.
10-14-2004, 07:34 PM
You're taking things way, way too seriously Jarhead. Tone doesn't always come across well in writing, I never got sarcasm from your post. If I misinterpretted it, sorry 'bout that. Now the plan for tomorrow is less red meat, okay?Originally Posted by jarhead
10-14-2004, 07:44 PM
Actually I thought your tone was kind of arrogant so I got defensive. I guess with all the heated political talk going on around here the last couple of weeks it's just getting easier to get frustrated and carried away. I'll tell you what, I'll still have red meat tomorrow but I'll cook it this time. Deal?Originally Posted by CDB
10-14-2004, 07:51 PM
Yeah really knock it off. You guys are out of control. I've been spending more time reading political posts than I have bb related posts.Originally Posted by jarhead
10-14-2004, 07:54 PM
Well **** man, if you're gonna eat it anyway you might as well do it right. If a steak doesn't charge when you wave a red cape at it, it's overcooked.Originally Posted by jarhead
10-14-2004, 07:58 PM
I'd love to see Kerry and Bush go at it in a power lifting competition. In a way I want a constitutional ammendment to be passed that allows foreigners to be president. Actually I'm totally against that, but it'd be nice to see Arnold run for president, win, and then have to justify throwing people in prison for using steroids while he presides over the executive branch with his biceps bulging.Originally Posted by NPursuit
10-14-2004, 08:03 PM
Don't worry NPursuit...it's almost overOriginally Posted by NPursuit
Here's what's left:
* A few weeks of campaign lies and rhetoric (i.e. scaring old people into thinking they're going to die if _blank_ happens and scaring teens that they'll be getting drafted, etc.)
* Election day
* Post election lawsuits because somebody cheated.
* Judicial ruling on the lawsuits.
* This time the democrats really won.
* Michael Moore is appointed Secretary of State.
* Mary Cheney marries Chelsea Clinton
* John Kerry marries Jaques Chirac
* G. Dubya Bush marries a Saudi Princess and converts to Islam
* We find out Teresa Heinz Kerry is in fact, a man.
* Britney Spears and Christina Aquilera finally make that lesbian porn video we've all been waiting for and Janey Jackson, head of the FCC, fines them for indecent exposure.
EDIT: *Oh, and Billl "the fraud" O'Reilly is convicted of sexual harrassment
Then we can get back to discussing good 'ol Anabolics
10-14-2004, 08:10 PM
M1T for President!Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
While I like the idea of Britney in a lesbo video, Aguilera never seemed that great to me. ****able, more of a whore, but not that great lookswise.
10-14-2004, 09:01 PM
I never liked Britney...she looked to manly. LOL. I do wish, however, that Christina could just stick to dressing semi-normal so I can appreciate her assets.Originally Posted by CDB
edit: I've seen them both in person and that definately effecte my outlook on Britney...they stretch her out on camera...definately.
10-14-2004, 09:42 PM
You seem to like 'em thinner than me. I'm always worried with a girl who's too thin I'll be running my hand over her in bed and cut myself on her hip bones. When you turn the lights out a little too much feels better than a little too little. Now don't get me wrong, the hottest hottie in my life right now is thin as a rail with a set of perky A cups, so I like them all in the end. But when I have my choice I go for the curves. Give me a nice set of C or D cups and an ass to squeeze and I'm happy.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
10-14-2004, 09:43 PM
BLASPHEMY!!!!! I still see her as the innocent forbidden fruit she was in her first video.( At least in my mind). I'd still have to do her out of principle. I'm with CDB, I like a little meat on the girl. I'll be happy in another year or so when she has to do playboy to revive her career. Ok I'm officially a loser.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
10-15-2004, 03:12 AM
Ha, ha...I've got the same situation. I like an ass and some tits. I love big 'ol titties and a tight round ass. My g/f has A cups, too (although they're pretty much perfect). She's about 110lbs, ha, ha. She does have shape though; she's got nice hips and a small waist; her bust is just not quite proportional. She's 36x 23.5 x 32 (we need to bump that 32 up to a 36+ )Originally Posted by CDB
I do like meat on a girl, dont' get me wrong. Britney was built wide and thick. Thick is okay, I just don't like the "wide" thing. I like the traditional "hourglass" shape on a girl.
If you want to get my version of "the perfect chick", take a look at my post IN THE ADULT SECTION (nudity warning).
Well, I actually like Britney in her first video. She had that appeal to her. As she got older and her testosterone topped 1200ng/dl () she just started to need that TV stretch and when I saw her she looked too thick. Although, I will admit that most peoples recollections tend to "exaggerate" things, and I'm not exception. I just know that I was at this Teen Choice Awards (my dad did some business with them, blah, blah, blah) and the best looking chick was some chick that worked for the spanish channel!! Woo, hoo! She was hot. F*ck the celebrity chicks! The only other funny thing was Adam Sandler; he looked drunk as a skunk. Oh, and Stone Cold was there, he's a pretty big guy!!Originally Posted by jarhead
EDIT: I just realized, we're way off topic. Stem cells, right? Uh, yeah...I hear that since they've not made much progress toward and actual cure for anything, yet, they may have some use in naturally developing breat tissue, thus creating an alternative to unnatural looking breast implants...well, maybe not, but one could always hope, right?
10-15-2004, 05:37 AM
Oh don't get me started on the spanish channel kwyck! That's an addiction I've been dealing with for quite some time. Back to stem cells...if they COULD be used as you suggested, to correct certain genetic shortcomings in women THAT would be quite a campaigning platform.
10-15-2004, 07:27 AM
You've got my vote, and I don't give a **** who you invade to get it done. I can see Bush/Kerry now: "Due to the continuing threat of small breasts, we've invaded Easter Island. We've encountered remarkably little resistance..."Originally Posted by jarhead
To the subject of the conversation as it was going, I don't like the look of most breast implants. Some of them are done well, but for most women I think they're better off making the best of what they've got already.
10-15-2004, 07:52 AM
LOL I'm glad to see the light at the end of the tunnel.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
I'm going to ignore all of this bad talk about Britney.
10-15-2004, 03:37 PM
Bad talk? What bad talk? You mean that thing about her natural test levels being over 1200ng/dl?? I'm just jealous.Originally Posted by NPursuit
Similar Forum Threads
- By yeahright in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 3Last Post: 11-15-2006, 01:12 AM
- By yeahright in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 0Last Post: 09-06-2006, 11:13 PM
- By yeahright in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 0Last Post: 09-06-2006, 09:08 PM
- By yeahright in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 2Last Post: 06-18-2006, 09:15 PM
- By LakeMountD in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 0Last Post: 01-30-2006, 10:34 PM