|
Bush issues first veto in 5.5 years. Congress FINALLY crossed the line ... hmm wait (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
stem-cell research is not and never has been illegal. It is simply not something that your government is going to fund. , with all you lefties whining about our overextended budget deficit while at the same time bitching and complaining about how rich, greedy and powerful corporate America is...yet you would prefer the government to somehow fund the initiative while not placing any burden on the evil rich corporations, even though the private market with all of its competition and innovation can probably do a much better job at it. Your government doesn't think it should be in the business of growing babies for spare parts, but hasn't said it is illegal for a private company to neccessarily do so.
Are you sure you're not just looking for one more reason to throw at the current administration even though it has done more than any previous administrations to fund this initiative? ing stupid. Why raise taxes when there are corporations sitting on mountains of cash that can do the research without burdening the rest of us?
It is beyond me how the left can criticize an administration for not doing enough when that very administration has done more for the cause than any prior administrations. This is nothing more than ongoing, unadulterated Bush-bashing for the sake of spreading the hate.
Sure you're not listening to Air 'Merikkka? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
stem-cell research is not and never has been illegal. |
Straw man, Shakka. I'm not arguing nor is anyone here arguing that it is.
| quote: | | It is simply not something that your government is going to fund. , with all you lefties whining about our overextended budget deficit while at the same time bitching and complaining about how rich, greedy and powerful corporate America is...yet you would prefer the government to somehow fund the initiative while not placing any burden on the evil rich corporations, even though the private market with all of its competition and innovation can probably do a much better job at it. |
Coupla points here. First, it's a point to consider about our budget deficit on the matter. But then again, if it's a toss-up between corporate welfare to oil companies or to tax cuts for the affluent, or to the gigantic pork barrel spending of this GOP-led Congress which has had more pork spending than any other Congress in history (even with inflation adjustment, correct?) such as that lovely Alaskan highway to nowhere,
vs.
promising scientific research that has endless possibilities to those diseases and ailments already described, well I guess it really is a matter of priorities here, is it not? And how much federal $ are we discussing with the former versus the latter really? Is it even a point of debate with such comparisons?
Second, corporations are going to make the profits on this since there will be no federal funding. Perhaps this is exactly what Bush wants, who knows. But if we are so opposed to such federal funding on research in general, then I think you would have a very difficult time trying to convince researchers to find their own ing $ instead of fighting for NIH, AHA, and other viable federal grants that has given them so much data and promise already. Personally I see this as no different. I believe there very well can be room for both the Federal and Private sector in this field, just as there is in so many other scientific research fields.
| quote: | | Your government doesn't think it should be in the business of growing babies for spare parts, but hasn't said it is illegal for a private company to neccessarily do so. |
No, our government CONSENTS to fertility clinics growing those babies and then throwing away some 90% of the embryonic cells instead of garnering those cells for promising research. That is the debate here. That is the issue.
| quote: | | Are you sure you're not just looking for one more reason to throw at the current administration even though it has done more than any previous administrations to fund this initiative? ing stupid. |
Shakka, the issues this Administration gives us to oppose present themselves. We couldn't garner up such issues, especially one like this with such broad bi-partisan support.
| quote: | | It is beyond me how the left can criticize an administration for not doing enough when that very administration has done more for the cause than any prior administrations. |
Shakka, how much exactly did you expect the prior Administration to do on this topic? The discussions in the political circles came about only within the last 6-8 years or so. This shouldn't be beyond you at all; the topic of federal funding is in it's birth stage.
| quote: | This is nothing more than ongoing, unadulterated Bush-bashing for the sake of spreading the hate.
Sure you're not listening to Air 'Merikkka? |
Don't even receive Air America, nor do I listen to it. I do listen to prominent scientists and 2/3 of America, however.
And finally, how do you reconcile Tony Snow's point that I posted earlier? How is it "murder" on the federal level, but it's seemingly okay on the State and private level especially if there's a profit involved somewhere? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Shakka, how much exactly did you expect the prior Administration to do on this topic? The discussions in the political circles came about only within the last 6-8 years or so. This shouldn't be beyond you at all; the topic of federal funding is in it's birth stage. |
Well, they certainly had no problem cloning a sheep (remember Dolly?). Why do you think this was such futuristic thinking back then? It's not that the idea is new, only that we have better technology now--not to mention a much more polarized country that loves to hate and debate and throw stones at the other side all day. However, that doesn't mean the concept hasn't existed for years. And I'm sure you were pushing for more stem-cell research in the 90's. YOu know, if George Bush would simply devote piles of tax revenues towards government funded stem-cell research, Christopher Reeve would've gotten up and walked out of his wheelchair and then Superman could've saved us all.
And even so--you still have an administration that has pledged more towards this goal than any other in the past. Oh goodness, they're actually being a little cautious about it. Oh for shame! If it's not related to the oil industry, Buler simply isn't interested.
I happen to think much of this issue is just a red herring. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And finally, how do you reconcile Tony Snow's point that I posted earlier? How is it "murder" on the federal level, but it's seemingly okay on the State and private level especially if there's a profit involved somewhere? |
How do you reconcile your own stance on abortion while criticizing Tony Snow? Isn't it an issue that has been largely left up to the states? I don't see the problem. What about smoking marijuana? Where do you stand on state's rights?
Let's translate/paraphrase what Tony Snow said:
George Bush doesn't think that babies should be bred for spare parts and he's going to limit taxpayer funding of such at the Federal level. However, he supports state's rights and recognizes that some of the most liberal states in the Union are pressing forward with the initiative. Given that the president supports state's rights, he is not going to stop them from pursuing it at the state level, despite any personal disagreements he may have with the issue. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
How do you reconcile your own stance on abortion while criticizing Tony Snow? |
Are you aware of my stance on abortion? And even if I were a pro-choice advocate (which I'm not much of one, BTW), how does this somehow parallel the contradiction of calling it murder on the federal level but not on the state or private sector level?
I realize you're seeing this on a federal vs. state rights level as well as one regarding financial $ being spent, and I actually think these are points worth debating more, but this is not the rhetoric being thrown out by this Administration. On the one hand, they do not want the federal government being responsible for utilizing these embryos for research despite them being discarded down the drain anyway (even though the majority of public opinion want otherwise) because they regard this as "murder", but OTOH they feel it's somehow not murder when the States and private sector perform the same action?
| quote: | | Isn't it an issue that has been largely left up to the states? I don't see the problem. What about smoking marijuana? Where do you stand on state's rights? |
I'm all for state's rights. In regards to marijuana, I guess I'm really indifferent - it could be a state's rights issue or it could also be advocated on the federal level for all I care. Personally I see a great deal more damage performed by alcohol and tobacco, and a certain level of hypocricy is indeed allowed by such legal drugs by looking the other way, but I digress.
But the question I want to know is what exactly is the harm done on either an ethical level or financial level if there were more federal funding for this issue, especially when the broad majority of scientists who work in this field and tend to know a wee bit more about their field than Bush and Snow are advocating more $ for their research? If the states can give them the funding, then terrific. But if they can't, what exactly is the problem to receive federal funding for such research in the same manner as other federal programs like NIH who hand out billions of $ per year in health research?
| quote: | Let's translate/paraphrase what Tony Snow said:
George Bush doesn't think that babies should be bred for spare parts and he's going to limit taxpayer funding of such at the Federal level. |
Those 20 cells called blastocysts are being thrown away before they are being made into viable cells such as neurons, bone, skin, muscle, blood cells, etc. for research to find cures and relief of diseases instead? Got it.
| quote: | | However, he supports state's rights and recognizes that some of the most liberal states in the Union are pressing forward with the initiative. |
That's an interesting interpretation. How exactly did you come up with that again?
| quote: | | Given that the president supports state's rights, he is not going to stop them from pursuing it at the state level, despite any personal disagreements he may have with the issue. |
Yeah, Terri Shiavo was a terrific representation of State's rights, wasn't it Tony?
I think you're reaching a bit too far here, Shakka. The rhetoric is not about states versus federal, it's about a "culture of life" which is being easily debunked in their own contradictions. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
That's an interesting interpretation. How exactly did you come up with that again?
|
| quote: | | As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it. And I dare say if people think that there’s a market for it, they’re going to support it handsomely. |
Possibly the 2 most liberal states in the U.S. Did I miss something? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Possibly the 2 most liberal states in the U.S. Did I miss something? |
Ahh, overlooked that. Point taken.
Again, if these arguments truly led to a states versus federal issue rather than an ethical standpoint, I think the debate could be a bit more worthwhile. If there were no words of "murder" being used, for example, I think we could be on to a good discussion.
Much appreciated. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Jesus ing Christ, I really don't know what else to say here. Are you sure, Q5, these are the dips you want to support? |
yes, because unlike you, who can't see further than 1 week on any given issue due to your blind hate, this administration sees the inevitable and unquentiable thirst for what fertility clinics provide in the function of giving life.
ideologically, your put yourself in a position defending your party that ignored and disestablished any alternatives to recieve Federal funding. a position you cannot defend. try, and look like a fool. i'm not gonna even ask you if thats who you want to support, woman, you do it here apologetically every day. it's pathetic. it's destructive.
| quote: | | This is just such a ing unbelievable stance on this issue that I would hope even you could see the problems with their rhetoric. |
rehtoric backed up by veto. i'll take it everytime. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Written law and monetary subsidy is ing irrelevant to Occ's main point. |
he asked me to explain why is there a "difference" basically. why the the Government wants it one way but presently advocates another.
the difference is that fertility clinics are protected by law to provide the services they do. to facilitate life for those unfortunate. like any hospital, they lose life along the way. as far as i know the Federal Government is not obligated by any means to fund them in any way for the reasons we are discussing. some do recieve a modicum funding i'm sure but the ethical boundries that exist are there for a reason. blind to you and your ilk of course, but nevertheless...
why don't you let him tell me how wrong i am. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Hmmm, let's see, out of those embryos created, only about something like 10% gets adopted. The rest of those embryos are destroyed. |
This comment should have ended the thread early right here. Unfortunately people still don't get it. For those supporting Bush's veto of the stem cell bill I will dumb it down for you. Assuming the above statistic is correct anybody with common sense will understand that out of the 10% of embryos that get adopted, 90% will go to waste. There's no going around this. Now the stem cell bill allowed those discarded embryos to be used for scientific purposes (stem cell research) so answer me this: Is it better for 90% of embryos to go to waste and serve no purpose or 90% of embryos to serve a great purpose?
The decision is pretty simple. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
The decision is pretty simple. |
maybe for you.
no offence, but are you sure you weren't "dumbing it down" for yourself?
news flash stevie boy! those 90% are free for the taking!
...and what supports your 10% utilization notion anyway?
and if that were true, how could that even sustain the theoretical, new cottage industry of ESC research labs without farming more of the little guys for the express purpose of destruction with Federal dollars?
let me dumb it down for you:
Rogain turned into a multi-billion dollar boon for "Big-Damn-PharmiCo" with zero Federal subsidies. Bush spends $90 million on ESC research and is left with his dick in his hand. who do you think is smarter? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
These embryos are being destroyed, period. There's nothing right now that this President, this GOP-led Congress, or anyone else is doing to protect these embryos that are being thrown down the drain.
All this bill does that was a big bipartisan bill and is supported by some 67% of Americans is utilizing those embryos, a cluster of 20 ing cells not yet determined to be anything at all, that were going to be destroyed anyway to be utilized for disease and ailment reseach. |
first off you can't ban IVF and there are already measures in place to protect unused embryos. even if it was wholly Federally funded, it's a classic red herring to hide your ideology behind though, that you're real good at, i'll give you that.
| quote: | | You ing get it yet? All Bush did was allow those embryos to be destroyed, rather than utilize them for possibilities into life-saving research. |
you seriously believe that? thats the problem with you blind haters. you have to tell yourself that Buler is the boogeyman so your rhetoric tastes better as you regurgitate it over and over again. good'ole fear mongering from the left never hurt anybody right?
no, the lawmakers that squashed any alternatives for federal funding in favor of exclusive hESC research dashed any hopes of "life-saving research". it's my opinion that all this was, was an attempted boondoggle for BigPharmiCo. i know you couldn't see that with your blinders on.
the world kept spinning though, for anyone who believes that hESC research can go on unhindered by the bonds of the American tax-payer.
| quote: | | ing tell me about your culture of life, please. Tell me how allowing those embryos to be thrown away instead of finding possibilities for cures like Hodgekin's disease like your Senator Specter suffers is somehow protecting the sanctity of life. |
more fear-mongering. i mean if your dumb ass really believes that, you should advocate for some Federally mandated organ/tissue havesting legislation from terminally ill patients. i mean, Terry Schiavo was as much a clump of cells as some blatycists right? or can you make that distinction?
| quote: | | As for the alternatives bill, those are all well and good but in essence they offer miniscule research and $ spent to that which is much more promising to embryonic research. |
oh ! now all of a sudden your the f**king expert biologist that "Rove and Snow" inheirently have no right to be. who's the hippocrite now? dolt:rolleyes:| quote: | | Few if any real credible scientists would consider it a point of contention that adult stem cells offer as much promise as the embryonic stem cell lines. That's not to dismiss adult stem cells altogether, but clearly the funding and promise must go where the research has clearly led up to date - the embryonic stem cell lines: |
truth is, you have no f**king idea what your spewing right now. your just makin up. "Few if any real credible scientists would consider it a point of contention that adult stem cells offer as much promise as the embryonic stem cell lines." wtf?
first, what the hell is an "un-credible" microbiologist? do they all work at the NIH?
second, how many more advances in practicable terms has ESC research given way to ASC research? huh? |
|
|
|
|
