View Full Version : What? No posts about Bush's 1st veto?
SoonerInKCMO
7/19/2006, 03:06 PM
Y'all disappoint me. :texan:
jeremy885
7/19/2006, 03:07 PM
We're still in shock from his use of the s word.
Hatfield
7/19/2006, 03:10 PM
what is there to say?
He is ******tastic.
NormanPride
7/19/2006, 03:14 PM
I just wish he'd molest the German chancellor more. That was :hot:
GrapevineSooner
7/19/2006, 03:14 PM
Yes.
The President, who is a real human being, actually cussed.
BTW, I'm kinda on the fence on the whole stem cell research thing. IMO, you're not a bad person if you support or oppose it because there are just as many legitimate and noble reasons to support stem cell research as there are to oppose it.
I do dislike the fact that it took Bush this long to Veto a bill. There have been a number of other bills that have come across his desk that are just as deserving, if not more deserving, of his Veto Pen.
1stTimeCaller
7/19/2006, 03:15 PM
a terrible mistake
Hatfield
7/19/2006, 03:21 PM
and for the record I am more appalled by his table manners (or lack thereof) than him saying S!#@
Yes.
The President, who is a real human being, actually cussed.
BTW, I'm kinda on the fence on the whole stem cell research thing. IMO, you're not a bad person if you support or oppose it because there are just as many legitimate and noble reasons to support stem cell research as there are to oppose it.
I do dislike the fact that it took Bush this long to Veto a bill. There have been a number of other bills that have come across his desk that are just as deserving, if not more deserving, of his Veto Pen.
according to "The West Wing", its a stamp, not a pen.
and naturally, I believe that without question.
SoonerInKCMO
7/19/2006, 03:25 PM
BTW, I'm kinda on the fence on the whole stem cell research thing. IMO, you're not a bad person if you support or oppose it because there are just as many legitimate and noble reasons to support stem cell research as there are to oppose it.
I agree. My issue with him doing this is how disingenous he was in using the families that 'adopted' leftover embryos when talking about why he issued the veto - without making mention of what an overwhelming percentage of embryos are discarded. If he's going to veto this legislation, he should push congress to create a law that illegalizes in vitro fertilization.
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 03:29 PM
I agree. My issue with him doing this is how disingenous he was in using the families that 'adopted' leftover embryos when talking about why he issued the veto - without making mention of what an overwhelming percentage of embryos are discarded. If he's going to veto this legislation, he should push congress to create a law that illegalizes in vitro fertilization.
Exactly.
SicEmBaylor
7/19/2006, 03:33 PM
Fock.
I had $30.00 in a pool that he wouldn't veto once during his term.
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 03:34 PM
Fock.
I had $30.00 in a pool that he wouldn't veto once during his term.
Most boring illegal gambling EVAR.
GrapevineSooner
7/19/2006, 03:35 PM
What mdklatt said about KC's post.
If fertilized embryoes are going to be tossed in the garbage anyway, why not use those cells for research?
soonerscuba
7/19/2006, 03:35 PM
Does it really surprise anyone? His first veto should be like most of his policy, hallow attempts at giving the occasional wink at the base that put his ineffective at best, dangerous at worst *** into the office. I really just think most have written him off as a failed experiment and wait for mid-terms and '08.
GrapevineSooner
7/19/2006, 03:35 PM
I lost $100 that he'd never cuss during his term. ;)
royalfan5
7/19/2006, 03:35 PM
Fock.
I had $30.00 in a pool that he wouldn't veto once during his term.
Ah, a gambling problem. That's why you commited a felony.;)
I won $750 in the 'Which Foreign Leader Will He Spit Up On' pool.
Tear Down This Wall
7/19/2006, 03:38 PM
It's days like these, Bush cursing the islamofascists one day and protecting human life at its beginning the next, that remind me why I voted for the man. Thank you, W! You still rock!
Whipped your butts again, commies, atheists, and "socially liberal/economically conservative" Republicans!
¡Viva Bush!
President Bush and some not-so-discarded embryos:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/images/20060719-3_p071906kh-0118jpg-515h.jpg
"As science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation. America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal, and endowed by our Creator with the right to life. We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity instead of the other way around.
America pursues medical advances in the name of life, and we will achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life. I believe America's scientists have the ingenuity and skill to meet this challenge. And I look forward to working with Congress and the scientific community to achieve these great and noble goals in the years ahead."
Love it! Love...it!
NormanPride
7/19/2006, 03:43 PM
I think getting that pumped up about anything other than entertainment is a bad idea.
Petro-Sooner
7/19/2006, 03:46 PM
according to "The West Wing", its a stamp, not a pen.
and naturally, I believe that without question.
Actually its an ink stick. :cool:
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 03:49 PM
It's days like these, Bush cursing the islamofascists one day and protecting human life at its beginning the next, that remind me why I voted for the man. Thank you, W! You still rock!
Whipped your butts again, commies, atheists, and "socially liberal/economically conservative" Republicans!
¡Viva Bush!
So much for majority rule, huh? Damn activist presidents.
Do you think IVF should be illegal or are you a hypocrite?
SoonerInKCMO
7/19/2006, 03:49 PM
It's days like these, Bush cursing the islamofascists one day and protecting human life at its beginning the next, that remind me why I voted for the man. Thank you, W! You still rock!
Whipped your butts again, commies, atheists, and "socially liberal/economically conservative" Republicans!
Love it! Love...it!
So what do you think about Bush's tacit approval of the discarding of embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization?
SoonerInKCMO
7/19/2006, 03:50 PM
So much for majority rule, huh? Damn activist presidents.
Do you think IVF should be illegal or are you a hypocrite?
:les: GET OUTTA MY HEAD!!
I wonder....
for each of those 'not-so-discarded embryos', how many embryos were destroyed or discarded, just to create those lives?
etouffee
7/19/2006, 03:52 PM
how disingenous he was in using the families that 'adopted' leftover embryos when talking about why he issued the veto - without making mention of what an overwhelming percentage of embryos are discarded. If he's going to veto this legislation, he should push congress to create a law that illegalizes in vitro fertilization.Precisely. If he really cares so much about every single embryo, then he should be pushing not legislation but for a constitutional amendment forbidding the destruction of even one embryo. After all, surely protecting life in this way is even more important than stopping gay people from getting married, and he thinks that warrants an amendment. By letting thousands upon thousands of embryos continue to be destroyed in fertilisation clinics, he shows how much he really cares about "protecting life".
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 03:55 PM
Precisely. If he really cares so much about every single embryo, then he should be pushing not legislation but for a constitutional amendment forbidding the destruction of even one embryo. After all, surely protecting life in this way is even more important than stopping gay people from getting married, and he thinks that warrants an amendment. By letting thousands upon thousands of embryos continue to be destroyed in fertilisation clinics, he shows how much he really cares about "protecting life".
Apparently unborn life is more important than the lives stem cell therapy will save, too.
etouffee
7/19/2006, 03:58 PM
Apparently unborn life is more important than the lives stem cell therapy would have saved too.
Fixed. All those lives are on his hands now.
1stTimeCaller
7/19/2006, 03:59 PM
http://www.tarnsjogarveri.se/bilder_horse/borstsele/F1110022-A.jpg
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 04:05 PM
Fixed. All those lives are on his hands now.
I wouldn't go that far. It's hard to weigh the potential life of an embryo against a theoretical (at this point) life saved. But by coming down on one side the conservatives have again shown that they value the unborn more than those of us currently walking the planet.
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 04:06 PM
http://www.tarnsjogarveri.se/bilder_horse/borstsele/F1110022-A.jpg
I don't think stem cells could help Barbaro.
IronSooner
7/19/2006, 04:25 PM
After all, surely protecting life in this way is even more important than stopping gay people from getting married, and he thinks that warrants an amendment.
If you had any idea how many embryos are destroyed in each gay marriage ceremony you'd push for a constitutional ban on it too. It all ties together.
etouffee
7/19/2006, 04:27 PM
If you had any idea how many embryos are destroyed in each gay marriage ceremony you'd push for a constitutional ban on it too. It all ties together.http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/bwahaharoll.gif
thanks for pointing that out; i hadn't considered that angle.
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 04:27 PM
If you had any idea how many embryos are destroyed in each gay marriage ceremony you'd push for a constitutional ban on it too. It all ties together.
They throw down embryo-filled test tubes and dance on them, like with plates at a Greek wedding right?
etouffee
7/19/2006, 04:29 PM
They throw down embryo-filled test tubes and dance on them, like with plates at a Greek wedding right?the "bride" wears a garter made of discarded embryos, and whoever catches it gets illegally married next.
1stTimeCaller
7/19/2006, 04:31 PM
does anyone have any recipes for embroys? Do you cook them just like a fetus?
TIA
does anyone have any recipes for embroys? Do you cook them just like a fetus?
TIA
No, hillbilly, you don't cook them at all. They're a lot like caviar.
BlondeSoonerGirl
7/19/2006, 04:33 PM
Do you cook them just like Festus?
I don't know - how does he cook them?
:mack:
Howzit
7/19/2006, 04:34 PM
No, hillbilly, you don't cook them at all. They're a lot like caviar.
Tar tar.
etouffee
7/19/2006, 04:34 PM
somebody cooked Festus???
IronSooner
7/19/2006, 04:35 PM
No, hillbilly, you don't cook them at all. They're a lot like caviar.
They go well on crackers and celery. Or you can mix them into protein shakes for that extra oomf in your workout.
1stTimeCaller
7/19/2006, 04:35 PM
I don't know - how does he cook them?
:mack:
I guess he puts them on a block of cream cheese and eats em up wif Ritz crackers.
homerSimpsonsBrain
7/19/2006, 04:37 PM
No, hillbilly, you don't cook them at all. They're a lot like caviar.
Whats that smell? oh, right. Brimstone :D
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 04:37 PM
No, hillbilly, you don't cook them at all. They're a lot like caviar.
You get your spek back and then some.
+(:D x 50)
Condescending Sooner
7/19/2006, 04:37 PM
[QUOTE=etouffee]Fixed. All those lives are on his hands now.[/QUOT
Ummm.. he didn't outlaw the research. They have plenty of cells from before the deadline. Plus you don't know how many lives could possibly be saved. Most of it is purely hypothetical.
etouffee
7/19/2006, 04:41 PM
Ummm.. he didn't outlaw the research. Ummm.. nobody said he did. He did, however, prevent the research from going forward at a faster pace by prohibiting additional funding.
Plus you don't know how many lives could possibly be saved. Most of it is purely hypothetical.No, most of it is not "purely hypothetical". It is a fact that stem cell research will eventually lead to advancements that save lives. It is therefore a fact that some number of lives that could have been saved, and some degree of suffering that could have been prevented, had he not slowed the pace of research with this veto. I don't have to be able to quantify it; if the number is ONE, that's one too many.
Condescending Sooner
7/19/2006, 04:49 PM
[quote=Condescending Sooner]Ummm.. nobody said he did. He did, however, prevent the research from going forward at a faster pace by prohibiting additional funding.
No, most of it is not "purely hypothetical". It is a fact that stem cell research will eventually lead to advancements that save lives. It is therefore a fact that some number of lives that could have been saved, and some degree of suffering that could have been prevented, had he not slowed the pace of research with this veto. I don't have to be able to quantify it; if the number is ONE, that's one too many.
So should the federal government fund all medical research? I thought there were private firms that did a lot of the research. I am sure that if there is a major breakthrough that could save a lot of lives to come of this, there is plenty of money from prvate industry being thrown that direction. If something "will eventually lead to something that save lives", it sounds hypothetical to me.
etouffee
7/19/2006, 04:58 PM
So should the federal government fund all medical research? I thought there were private firms that did a lot of the research. I am sure that if there is a major breakthrough that could save a lot of lives to come of this, there is plenty of money from prvate industry being thrown that direction. So I take it you're in favor of eliminating all federal funding of medical research, then? After all, I'm sure if there is a major breakthrough in cancer or heart disease research that could save a lot of lives, there will be more than enough money from private industry.
If something "will eventually lead to something that save lives", it sounds hypothetical to me.It seems that you've failed to grasp the meaning of the words "will" and "hypothetical", and how they relate to each other. I recommend dictionary.com, but there are other resources out there if you look.
So I take it you're in favor of eliminating all federal funding of medical research, then? After all, I'm sure if there is a major breakthrough in cancer or heart disease research that could save a lot of lives, there will be more than enough money from private industry. It seems that you've failed to grasp the meaning of the words "will" and "hypothetical", and how they relate to each other. I recommend dictionary.com, but there are other resources out there if you look.
ummm...not to **** on your parade, but it is hypothetical....
but with a caveat. My understanding is that embryonic stem cells provide the largest available window into how the human body develops....much much more so than adult stem cells....in this way, they are most likely to show us answers to many key questions that we hope lead to cures for ****. We don't know that they will lead to cures, but we do know that they have the greatest potential to lead to cures. The cures that may come from them are all hypothetical, but the people that know better than me tell me that they are much more likely to find answers from embryonic stem cells than from any other place.
Condescending Sooner
7/19/2006, 05:09 PM
So I take it you're in favor of eliminating all federal funding of medical research, then? After all, I'm sure if there is a major breakthrough in cancer or heart disease research that could save a lot of lives, there will be more than enough money from private industry. It seems that you've failed to grasp the meaning of the words "will" and "hypothetical", and how they relate to each other. I recommend dictionary.com, but there are other resources out there if you look.
You stated that "the lives that could have been saved are in his hands", when there is plenty of research going on. I love the way you try to take it a totally different direction, which is a typical liberal tactic. When you get all your information on a topic from musicians and actors, maybe you should do a little research before placing lost lives in someone's hands.
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 05:10 PM
When you get all your information on a topic from musicians and actors, maybe you should do a little research before placing lost lives in someone's hands.
Amen. Everybody knows religious leaders are the real science experts.
Condescending Sooner
7/19/2006, 05:14 PM
Amen. Everybody knows religious leaders are the real science experts.
Or scientists. Geez.
etouffee
7/19/2006, 05:15 PM
You stated that "the lives that could have been saved are in his hands", when there is plenty of research going on. I love the way you try to take it a totally different direction, which is a typical liberal tactic. When you get all your information on a topic from musicians and actors, maybe you should do a little research before placing lost lives in someone's hands.That would be a pretty good post, if a) I was a liberal, and b) I got all my information from musicians and actors. Sadly for you, neither is true. However, making unfounded assumptions and resorting to insults and putdowns to divert attention from the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about is a typical tactic of rightwing extremists who get all their information on a topic from Jerry Fallwell and Rush Limbaugh.
Vaevictis
7/19/2006, 05:17 PM
The question, really, is, "How many more lives would have been saved -- due to accelerated research -- if federal funding of more stem cell research had occured?"
Frankly, it's unknown and unknowable. What we do know is that:
1. The research will occur whether or not the government funds it.
2. Plenty of foreign governments will fund it.
3. With more foreign governments providing more funding, it ain't much of a guess as to which companies will benefit, and where the jobs that result will spring up.
And as far as "protecting life from the beginning" goes, as others have mentioned: Come beyonces. Put your money where your mouth is. Advocate banning of in-vitro fertilization, disposal of all such embryos in existance, and how about you give em a home too?
No? Didn't think so.
All it is is a typical right-wing-fundie politician move. Between each yell of "DEAD BABIES" is a quieter but unmistakable cry of "KEEP US IN OFFICE SO WE CAN CONTINUE THE GRAFT." *yawn*
Jimminy Crimson
7/19/2006, 05:25 PM
Stem cells are also found in the umbilical cord, which is thrown away.
This isn't just messing with embryos and schtuff.
Sooner Born Sooner Bred
7/19/2006, 05:30 PM
They go well on crackers and celery. Or you can mix them into protein shakes for that extra oomf in your workout.The frozen ones are a lot like that awesome ice you get at Sonic.
NormanPride
7/19/2006, 05:32 PM
The frozen ones are a lot like that awesome ice you get at Sonic.
Thanks, now Sonic Ice is ruined for me. :mad:
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 05:35 PM
The frozen ones are a lot like that awesome ice you get at Sonic.
A Sonic cherry, lemon and lime flavored embryicee RMFO.
As usual, this discussion is devolving into the Peewee Herman "I know you are, but what am I" kind of argument. As Ike pointed out, bio-medical scientists see great potential in research using embryonic stem cells. As Vaevictis points out, the rest of the world is kicking our *** in basic research regarding this issue. There is also a contradiction in Bush's position on using the blastocysts for stem cell research and ignoring that thousands of embryos will be "thrown in the trash." The logic simply does not work. While it is true that private entities will invest in research, they typically are reluctant to do so if there is not a reasonable probablity of gaining some economic benefit from doing so. Generally speaking, there are two broad categories of scientific endeavor. Basic research and Applied research. Basic research is intended to add to general knowledge without regard to practical application. Applied research occurs when the results of basic research are used to solve practical problems. Private entities tend to be more interested in applied than basic research. But applied research can't occur without there first being basic research. The federal government is the most important funder of basic research. Without public investment, the creation of new scientific knowledge is negatively affected, thereby reducing the possiblity of private firms developing specific treatments for specific maladies. The examples of this public-private "enterprise" are too numerous to list but have influenced, if not created, the world in which we inhabit today.
Did his veto outlaw stem cell research or federal funding of it?
Does the federal government fund in vitro fertilzation?
I haven't followed any of this so I honestly don't know.
NormanPride
7/19/2006, 06:04 PM
Did his veto outlaw stem cell research or federal funding of it?
Does the federal government fund in vitro fertilzation?
I haven't followed any of this so I honestly don't know.
All you need to know is that frozen embryo is the next caviar.
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 06:10 PM
Did his veto outlaw stem cell research or federal funding of it?
It maintains the status quo--whatever that is.
Does the federal government fund in vitro fertilzation?
If government workers have IVF benefits in their insurance, yes. I have no idea if they do.
Let's say the government in fact does not fund IVF in any way. If this is the big moral issue that the pubz claim it is, is it acceptable as long as the government isn't paying for it?
All life is sacred. As long as government funding is involved. Unless you're a murderer or enemy soldier. Or you're mistaken for a murderer or you happen to be too close to an enemy soldier at the wrong time--sorry about that!
SicEmBaylor
7/19/2006, 06:15 PM
The status quo is that the individual states can fund embryonic stem cell research, it can be funded privately, and the feds can continue research on existing stem cell lines.
It's not illegal.
Condescending Sooner
7/19/2006, 06:17 PM
That would be a pretty good post, if a) I was a liberal, and b) I got all my information from musicians and actors. Sadly for you, neither is true. However, making unfounded assumptions and resorting to insults and putdowns to divert attention from the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about is a typical tactic of rightwing extremists who get all their information on a topic from Jerry Fallwell and Rush Limbaugh.
You insulted me first. And believe me I do have a clue what I am talking about. Maybe you should do a little research. Anyway there are existing stem cells and other ways to get new stem cells. He vetoed a bill for GOVERNMENT FUNDING of NEW- EMBRYONIC, stem cell research. You said lost lives were in his hands, which is very reactionary and short sided. Sorry about assuming you were a liberal, but the statement you made certainly sounded that way.
etouffee
7/19/2006, 06:36 PM
And believe me I do have a clue what I am talking about. You haven't done anything to demonstrate it thus far, but I'm willing to give you another chance.
Maybe you should do a little research. I've done quite a bit on this topic, thanks. Since I'm sure you've done quite a lot yourself, would you care to compare notes?
Anyway there are existing stem cells and other ways to get new stem cells. Yes, there are. There are also existing facilities for cancer research, diabetes research, and heart disease research. Are you opposed to any additional federal funding of these causes going forward?
He vetoed a bill for GOVERNMENT FUNDING of NEW- EMBRYONIC, stem cell research. Yes, I'm well aware of what he vetoed, thank you very much. It's all over the news.
You said lost lives were in his hands, which is very reactionary and short sided.It's not reactionary, it's a statement of fact. When people die because stem cell research did not proceed at the pace it could have proceeded but for this veto, Bush will be the one responsible. Also, I believe the term you were trying to use is "short sighted", but it doesn't really apply here.
Sorry about assuming you were a liberal, but the statement you made certainly sounded that way.You mean because I'm not a fundamentalist and don't blindly march in lockstep with GWB and the GOP and believe they can do no wrong? By that definition, I suppose you could call me liberal, but I prefer "independent thinker".
Condescending Sooner
7/19/2006, 06:48 PM
It is a "statement of fact that people are going to die" because he vetoed this bill? Yeah, you are being reasonable. I can see that you think you know more about it than I, and can't be reasoned with, so I am done. Have a good night.
Scott D
7/19/2006, 06:53 PM
:pop: :pop: :pop:
olevetonahill
7/19/2006, 06:55 PM
:pop: :pop: :pop:
:D :pop: :hot:
For those who are interested.
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/stemcells.pdf
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 07:12 PM
For those that are interested.
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/stemcells.pdf
Quit trying to interject facts into a political discussion.
Quit trying to interject facts into a political discussion.
That always seems to get me in trouble with a number of posters on this board.;)
Vaevictis
7/19/2006, 07:16 PM
That always seems to get me in trouble with a number of posters on this board.;)
Pretty soon they'll start calling you French. It's oh-so-predictable. :)
StoopTroup
7/19/2006, 07:19 PM
Actually its an ink stick. :cool:
You mean it's more like a Bingo Dobber? :D
http://www.danwashburn.com/bingo.jpg
Vaevictis
7/19/2006, 07:22 PM
You mean it's more like a Bingo Dobber? :D
http://www.danwashburn.com/bingo.jpg
Why not? This is GW Bush we're talking about. Bingo Dobber seems about right.
You're saying Bush could handle that many cards simultaneously?
OCUDad
7/19/2006, 07:33 PM
You people are perverted, twisted, and sick.
Gawd, I love this place. :D
I believe the stem cells are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.
Hatfield
7/19/2006, 09:15 PM
this has more to do with mid term pandering than it does with protecting life.
rest assured.
Does it really surprise anyone? His first veto should be like most of his policy, hallow attempts at giving the occasional wink at the base that put his ineffective at best, dangerous at worst *** into the office. I really just think most have written him off as a failed experiment and wait for mid-terms and '08.
Bush is pretty dangerous, especially if you're a jihadist terrorist. How many has he killed?
Can't wait until we make things right with Speaker of the House Nanci Palossi. Boy, I'm telling ya, the moonbats can't wait. Raise taxes, raise spending, pull out of Iraq, cut the military budget, and ban private guns. What an alternative!
mdklatt
7/19/2006, 09:33 PM
Bush is pretty dangerous, especially if you're a jihadist terrorist. How many has he killed?
Bush? Zero.
OCUDad
7/19/2006, 09:42 PM
Bush is pretty dangerous, especially if you're a jihadist terrorist. How many has he killed?
Can't wait until we make things right with Speaker of the House Nanci Palossi. Boy, I'm telling ya, the moonbats can't wait. Raise taxes, raise spending, pull out of Iraq, cut the military budget, and ban private guns. What an alternative!This is the kinder, gentler Jerk we've been promised? :rolleyes:
This is the kinder, gentler Jerk we've been promised? :rolleyes:
Yes. I haven't called a liberal a "commie bast*rd" since my commitment to be nicer. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't make me an arsehole. I get along with Scuba just fine, I just don't see eye to eye with most of his beliefs. I'm not making it personal.
Hatfield
7/19/2006, 10:53 PM
I get along with Scuba just fine, I just don't see eye to eye with most of his beliefs. I'm not making it personal.
have you tried pumps?
soonerscuba
7/20/2006, 12:04 AM
ban private guns
shows what you know, in the Democratic future the idea of "private ownership" will be a thing of the past, you'll still have guns they just won't be *your* guns.
Unlike a good number on the board, Jerk isn't a ***** who gets all bent out of shape for the mere suggestion that an alternative viewpoint exists.
CrimsonChampion
7/20/2006, 12:56 AM
It's days like these, Bush cursing the islamofascists one day and protecting human life at its beginning the next, that remind me why I voted for the man. Thank you, W! You still rock!
Whipped your butts again, commies, atheists, and "socially liberal/economically conservative" Republicans!
¡Viva Bush!
President Bush and some not-so-discarded embryos:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/images/20060719-3_p071906kh-0118jpg-515h.jpg
"As science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation. America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal, and endowed by our Creator with the right to life. We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity instead of the other way around.
America pursues medical advances in the name of life, and we will achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life. I believe America's scientists have the ingenuity and skill to meet this challenge. And I look forward to working with Congress and the scientific community to achieve these great and noble goals in the years ahead."
Love it! Love...it!It's a beautiful thing
GrapevineSooner
7/20/2006, 12:59 AM
That always seems to get me in trouble with a number of posters on this board.;)
French. :D
Here's the deal with political discussions on SO
Each poster has their own POV. Some will defend the POV to their death even if they were wrong.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Libs sure get mad when someone tells the truth.
Whoever left the unsigned negspek - you're a puss.
shows what you know, in the Democratic future the idea of "private ownership" will be a thing of the past, you'll still have guns they just won't be *your* guns.
Unlike a good number on the board, Jerk isn't a ***** who gets all bent out of shape for the mere suggestion that an alternative viewpoint exists.
When did get bent out of shape? The only thing that's annoying are the anonomous PUS*Y negspekers. Other than that, I don't care what you believe or alternative you have- just as long as it doesn't affect me or my life I don't give a f**k.
Hatfield
7/20/2006, 08:41 AM
but have you tried pumps? ;)
Tear Down This Wall
7/20/2006, 09:55 AM
It's a beautiful thing
Yes 'tis :D
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41908000/jpg/_41908090_getty_baby203.jpg
http://www.whas11.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/dailyimages/071906veto.jpg
And, beyond that, it forces college research types to get off their butts and work to go get their research money from private sources, the way most Americans do with their own businesses, instead of just putting their hands out and whining at the government. The ingrates waste most of the money the government gives them anyway.
NormanPride
7/20/2006, 10:31 AM
Yes 'tis :D
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41908000/jpg/_41908090_getty_baby203.jpg
http://www.whas11.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/dailyimages/071906veto.jpg
And, beyond that, it forces college research types to get off their butts and work to go get their research money from private sources, the way most Americans do with their own businesses, instead of just putting their hands out and whining at the government. The ingrates waste most of the money the government gives them anyway.
So you're saying government funded research is a waste of money? And that researchers should spend more time fundraising and less time researching? Because that's what it sounds like you said. I really want to think I'm wrong on this one.
Tear Down This Wall
7/20/2006, 10:40 AM
So you're saying government funded research is a waste of money? And that researchers should spend more time fundraising and less time researching? Because that's what it sounds like you said. I really want to think I'm wrong on this one.
Much of it is. They should spend more time researching, but they shouldn't just expect government money to fall into their laps. Private researchers are coming out with more medicines and medical procedures now anyway.
NormanPride
7/20/2006, 10:45 AM
Much of it is. They should spend more time researching, but they shouldn't just expect government money to fall into their laps. Private researchers are coming out with more medicines and medical procedures now anyway.
Okay, you've just got to quantify a statement like that. There's a huge difference between pork like "The Uses of Wood" and needed research like cancer, stem cells, viral medicine, etc...
IMO, research should be one of the few things that is nationally funded. The states should handle a lot of other things, but the federal gubment should take care of the researchers because of the scale.
SoonerInKCMO
7/20/2006, 10:46 AM
IMO, research should be one of the few things that is nationally funded. The states should handle a lot of other things, but the federal gubment should take care of the researchers because of the scale.
Sic'em is gonna kick you in the shins for that.
Vaevictis
7/20/2006, 10:47 AM
Much of it is. They should spend more time researching, but they shouldn't just expect government money to fall into their laps. Private researchers are coming out with more medicines and medical procedures now anyway.
That's pretty much the way it's always been. Private companies pay for applied research. They don't typically pay for fundamental research, which is required before the applied research can occur.
Most obvious example: The research that resulted in the transistor was paid for by private sources. The research that ALLOWED the research that resulted in the transistor? Paid for by the government.
NormanPride
7/20/2006, 10:48 AM
Sic'em is gonna kick you in the shins for that.
Heh. At least I want the states to handle the rest. I just think the scale of the federal government is beneficial to research. States individually can't raise that kind of money, but combined their power is great!
Hatfield
7/20/2006, 10:51 AM
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/07/bushbabyAP130706_228x188.jpg
SoonerInKCMO
7/20/2006, 10:53 AM
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/07/bushbabyAP130706_228x188.jpg
Man... If only we could have 228x188 avatars.
NormanPride
7/20/2006, 10:56 AM
That pic begs an etouffee-ing.
Scott D
7/20/2006, 10:57 AM
http://sargman.freehomepage.com/images/fishing1.gif
:pop: :pop: :pop: :pop:
SoonerInKCMO
7/20/2006, 11:00 AM
Man... If only we could have 228x188 avatars.
Awwww yyeahh!!
SoonerInKCMO
7/20/2006, 11:02 AM
Awwww yyeahh!!
To be fair, I'd probably have the same goofy look on my face if someone made me hold a baby. :O
etouffee
7/20/2006, 11:04 AM
That pic begs an etouffee-ing.I did one, but I think teh czar did it before me, and his is posted on the fark board.
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9080/bushstolemyfish2nw1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Frozen Sooner
7/20/2006, 11:08 AM
We should probably go ahead and ban male masturbation, wet dreams, and female monthly cycles. Those are all potential people.
This is going to really screw up my social life.
We should probably go ahead and ban male masturbation, wet dreams, and female monthly cycles. Those are all potential people.
This is going to really screw up my social life.
This is why I asked the questions about the bill. The practice isn't being banned, federal funding is the issue.
I am not sure wet dreams, masturbation and female monthly cycles are federally funded either :)
IronSooner
7/20/2006, 11:34 AM
I am not sure wet dreams, masturbation and female monthly cycles are federally funded either :)
Easiest. Government. Job. Evar.
I am not sure wet dreams, masturbation and female monthly cycles are federally funded either :)
If they aren't, then by God THEY SHOULD BE!!! :texan:
OklahomaTuba
7/20/2006, 01:30 PM
We should probably go ahead and ban male masturbation, wet dreams, and female monthly cycles. Those are all potential people.
This is going to really screw up my social life.
I don't know which is funnier, how stupid that comment is, or that someone actually thought it out and posted it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.