George Bush And Stem Cells

[Jerry_Lundegaard 0]

I find it pretty ironic that George Bush would veto the bill on stem cell research -- I guess to protect the "sanctity of human life." Apparently a mass of undifferentiated human cells holds quite a bit of value in Bush's mind. However this same person has absolutely no qualms about launching bombs at county of Iraq, causing the death of literally thousand of real live humans (most of them innocent) for reasons that are extremely unclear. Shouldnt someone who opposes stem cell research be some sort of ultra-pacifist? At least stem cell research has a noble purpose. In Bushes mind: Iraqi Citizen/US troops < microscopic stem cell. He is the biggest ****** of all timeRant over.

[76clubs 0]

I find it pretty ironic that George Bush would veto the bill on stem cell research -- I guess to protect the "sanctity of human life." Apparently a mass of undifferentiated human cells holds quite a bit of value in Bush's mind. However this same person has absolutely no qualms about launching bombs at county of Iraq, causing the death of literally thousand of real live humans (most of them innocent) for reasons that are extremely unclear. Shouldnt someone who opposes stem cell research be some sort of ultra-pacifist? At least stem cell research has a noble purpose. In Bushes mind: Iraqi Citizen/US troops < microscopic stem cell. He is the biggest ****** of all timeRant over.

This thread is nothing but trouble.

[HangukMiguk 8]

This thread is nothing but trouble.

yeah i see this1) getting moved to religion2) RKIGS3) L. Ron Hubbard hijacking this.

[brvheart 1,757]

Why is that stupid? There are plenty of studies that say that you will get the exact same results from adult stem cells and then no embroys have to be destroyed. He even said that at the veto signing. I know it's hard sometimes to look at both sides of an issue... but you really should.one way... embroys die.the other way... same results, nothing dies.But fight on... because I know you democrats love to kill anything human that hasn't been born yet.

[76clubs 0]

yeah i see this1) getting moved to religion2) RKIGS3) L. Ron Hubbard hijacking this.

I see a bunch of pointless argueingIm going to stay out of it untill I see some idiot say something really stupid.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Naw, leave it here. We should be able to discuss random OffTopic stuff in OffTopic---> GeneralTo the OP: (shrug) Yeah. Sorry to disappoint, but this is a pretty basic "Religious Conservatives SUCK" argument that Liberals have been making for years.Bush is stupid. QED.Wang

[HangukMiguk 8]

I see a bunch of pointless argueingIm going to stay out of it untill I see some idiot say something really stupid.

RKIGS will be on in a few hours. just be patient.

[tyfgine 0]

At least stem cell research has a noble purpose.

The noblest of all purposes, really. They have the potential to save countless peoples lives.

[Jerry_Lundegaard 0]

Why is that stupid? There are plenty of studies that say that you will get the exact same results from adult stem cells and then no embroys have to be destroyed. He even said that at the veto signing. I know it's hard sometimes to look at both sides of an issue... but you really should.one way... embroys die.the other way... same results, nothing dies.But fight on... because I know you democrats love to kill anything human that hasn't been born yet.

Well clearly this is one of those issues that we will only go in circles with. Embryo stem cells have much more potential. If you dont think that embryos should be destroyed fine..... but if life is so sacred that we cant destroy an embryo than war seems totally out of bounds to me. I just dont see how how can oppose the seasearch and support the war.

[HangukMiguk 8]

Well clearly this is one of those issues that we will only go in circles with. Embryo stem cells have much more potential. If you dont think that embryos should be destroyed fine..... but if life is so sacred that we cant destroy an embryo than war seems totally out of bounds to me. I just dont see how how can oppose the seasearch and support the war.

war in middle east = oiloil = money + powerAINEC

[brvheart 1,757]

Well clearly this is one of those issues that we will only go in circles with. Embryo stem cells have much more potential. If you dont think that embryos should be destroyed fine..... but if life is so sacred that we cant destroy an embryo than war seems totally out of bounds to me. I just dont see how how can oppose the seasearch and support the war.

The war isn't about killing people for research... it isn't the movie 'Coma'. The war is about defending ourselves and trying to make our word worth something. I'm not ranting at you here... but WTF is the point of the UN. They make a resolution that says, don't do this or we will remove you. Then said person/country does it, since the UN is just a big piece of ****. This of course makes the UN cry like a little girl... "HEY!! WE SAID DON'T DO THAT! IF YOU DON'T STOP WE WILL BE FORCED TO MAKE ANOTHER RESOLUTION!!" The UN did this 12 times, and finally the US said enough is enough. Thank goodness Bush got elected in 2000 and then reelected in 2004.

[76clubs 0]

Thank goodness Bush got elected in 2000 and then reelected in 2004.

Wow, I thought that the posts in general were stupid.-1 bajillion to Brvheart

[brvheart 1,757]

Wow, I thought that the posts in general were stupid.-1 bajillion to Brvheart

I'm so surprised that you said this 76... and way to back up your argument. nh.

[mrdannyg 274]

The war isn't about killing people for research... it isn't the movie 'Coma'. The war is about defending ourselves and trying to make our word worth something. I'm not ranting at you here... but WTF is the point of the UN. They make a resolution that says, don't do this or we will remove you. Then said person/country does it, since the UN is just a big piece of ****. This of course makes the UN cry like a little girl... "HEY!! WE SAID DON'T DO THAT! IF YOU DON'T STOP WE WILL BE FORCED TO MAKE ANOTHER RESOLUTION!!" The UN did this 12 times, and finally the US said enough is enough. Thank goodness Bush got elected in 2000 and then reelected in 2004.

are you serious?The US is the single force removing any usefulness of the UN. if the US had any interest in world peace or unity, they would actually participate and pay their UN dues. They don't, and constantly ignore it, and so the UN has little purpose. Don't blame others for the US destroying the potential for world unity and a lack of war.The war is not about defending yourselves. I'm sorry, but its not. The United States is simply a warmongering nation. By being one, it has achieved a stand-alone status as military, political and economic leader, despite being extremely inefficient on all three counts. I don't mind if you guys try to take over the world and establish yourselves as supreme overlords. But don't think you're doing us a favour. You are warmongering, murdering and absolutely selfish. You've also given yourself the ability to deem what's right and wrong, so there's no need for the doublespeak, except of course for the government to convince its own citizens that they're "defending themselves."

[brvheart 1,757]

are you serious?The US is the single force removing any usefulness of the UN. if the US had any interest in world peace or unity, they would actually participate and pay their UN dues. They don't, and constantly ignore it, and so the UN has little purpose. Don't blame others for the US destroying the potential for world unity and a lack of war.The war is not about defending yourselves. I'm sorry, but its not. The United States is simply a warmongering nation.[LOL, nh] By being one, it has achieved a stand-alone status as military, political and economic leader, despite being extremely inefficient on all three counts. I don't mind if you guys try to take over the world and establish yourselves as supreme overlords. But don't think you're doing us a favour. You are warmongering, murdering and absolutely selfish.[You're right, we are so selfish to actually want to protect ourselves. We're such bastards... I suppose you think that Israel is warmongering also, LOL] You've also given yourself the ability to deem what's right and wrong, so there's no need for the doublespeak, except of course for the government to convince its own citizens that they're "defending themselves."

Am I right to assume you are a socialist? Because you sound like Noam Chomsky.... no doubt a hero of yours.

[CardWarfare 4]

I politics

[gobears 0]

If you believe that killing embryos to get their stem cells is wrong, then it follows that you should be against all fertility clinics as well.Fertility clinics produce more embryos then they need and then choose among the many candidates to come up with the best candidates. Out of these candidates, many are implanted in the hope that one survives. Instead of just discarding these embryos that are no longer needed, what's the problem with using them for medical research?Fertility clinics are really death camps as Michael Kinsley writes in the Washington Post - Bush actually praised fertility clinics Today in his speech - guess that those embroyo "deaths" don't mean as much.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Am I right to assume you are a socialist? Because you sound like Noam Chomsky.... no doubt a hero of yours.

You know, you're not an idiot. I feel like I have to point this out....You've made some pretty decent points, even if they run contrary to MY beleifs, but...It is 100% impossible to take someone seriously when he says stuff like that. I love good political discourse- and I'll admit plenty of liberals here are more than willing to appeal to the lowest common denominator- but what DannyG said was just dumb.What you said was disappointing. You KNEW that was silly when you said it, right? Just like you knew DannyG's comments about the US being a warmongering blah blah blah country were silly. I was all set to lambast him for that- and I still think, DannyG, that your comments are irresponsible at best- but it is incredibly frustrating to see stupidly generic insults about Noam Chomsky from someone I expected to be an intelligent conservative.Wang

[brvheart 1,757]

If you believe that killing embryos to get their stem cells is wrong, then it follows that you should be against all fertility clinics as well.Fertility clinics produce more embryos then they need and then choose among the many candidates to come up with the best candidates. Out of these candidates, many are implanted in the hope that one survives. Instead of just discarding these embryos that are no longer needed, what's the problem with using them for medical research?Fertility clinics are really death camps as Michael Kinsley writes in the Washington Post - Bush actually praised fertility clinics Today in his speech - guess that those embroyo "deaths" don't mean as much.

I never said any of this. I simply said that I agree with Bush that if you can use adult stem cells without killing more embryos... then why not. This shouldnt even be an argument. It's fairly obvious.

[mrdannyg 274]

Am I right to assume you are a socialist? Because you sound like Noam Chomsky.... no doubt a hero of yours.

Never read Chomsky, and not really a socialist. I do believe in some sort of international unity, which I guess is a socialist idea though.

You know, you're not an idiot. I feel like I have to point this out....You've made some pretty decent points, even if they run contrary to MY beleifs, but...It is 100% impossible to take someone seriously when he says stuff like that. I love good political discourse- and I'll admit plenty of liberals here are more than willing to appeal to the lowest common denominator- but what DannyG said was just dumb.What you said was disappointing. You KNEW that was silly when you said it, right? Just like you knew DannyG's comments about the US being a warmongering blah blah blah country were silly. I was all set to lambast him for that- and I still think, DannyG, that your comments are irresponsible at best- but it is incredibly frustrating to see stupidly generic insults about Noam Chomsky from someone I expected to be an intelligent conservative.Wang

The US isn't warmongering? So all their wars are completely necessary? And the ineffectiveness of the UN isn't directly attributable to the UN?My comments were certainly irresponsble, since I provided no definitions or evidence, but that does not make them at all untrue. The US is warmongering, and their citizens are constantly lied to/misled by their own government, and are only able to defend their country's actions based on their own misinformation.Again, irresponsible, but also not untrue.I am of the opinion that democratic processes can work and be efficient, if everyone believes in them, and is willing to accept the democratic outcome. If some will simply pursue their own interests regardless of the democratic outcome, then it loses meaning. Maybe that's some sort of complicated, second-level "true" democracy that I don't understand, but in my world, you play a game by the rules that everyone agrees on.

I never said any of this. I simply said that I agree with Bush that if you can use adult stem cells without killing more embryos... then why not. This shouldnt even be an argument. It's fairly obvious.

because its much harder? because its more expensive? because its inefficent/inconclusive?i don't really know, and can present no scientific evidence, but it seems like if it wasn't a lot better in some way, scientists probably wouldn't want to do it so badly.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

1) Don't blame others for the US destroying the potential for world unity and a lack of war. 2) The United States is simply a warmongering nation 3) [The United States] has achieved a stand-alone status as military, political and economic leader, despite being extremely inefficient on all three counts. 4) You are warmongering, murdering and absolutely selfish I'm a pretty cynical guy. I'm a very VERY Liberal-American. As far as social issues, I'm as far to the left as it gets. Economically, despite being raised in a pretty well-to-do household, I lean to the left as well. And as much as I appreciate my country, I wion't defend it blindly. "Jingoistic" is not a word anyone would ever use to describe me. Just so we have a little background.1) In no way to I support our unilateral military effort against Iraq. I hope that's what you're referring to here. The Afghan war effort was necessary. But what we did in Iraq was opportunistic, irresponsible, and- yes- dangerous. At the same time, however, suggesting that the US is SINGLEHANDEDLY destroying "the potential for world unity and lack of war"? That's just stupid. Say what you will about our role as PoliceState, we've been the FIRST country to defend freedom more than any other. It may have been, most of the time, to our own benefit, but there are few other countries with the military and economic might to defend the helpless. (shrug) We're self interested jerks most of the time, but we still do the jobs most countries can't even consider.2) Yeah, WWII is a great example of our War Mongering. We were STUPIDLY Isolationist for years, and only entered the war when attacked. It was (see above) STUPID to wait that long, but to suggest the US actively SEEKS war is ridiculous. Vietnam is probably the best example of American Military "Overreach." When the war began, however, there was a real fear of the spread of Communism. Think: "Domino Effect." We were villified for Vietnam, and likely rightly so, but most of the Western World's hopes depended on the United States during the Cold War.3) (shrug) Silly. I hate to be a jerk, but the US has a proven track record as the most effective economic, military, and political nation in the history of the modern world. 4) If you want to be taken seriously, referring to a nation as "murderous" (not to metnion "warmongering" for a second time) won't get you anywhere. Ever. It's inflammatory and absurd.Wang

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

1) Don't blame others for the US destroying the potential for world unity and a lack of war. 2) The United States is simply a warmongering nation 3) [The United States] has achieved a stand-alone status as military, political and economic leader, despite being extremely inefficient on all three counts. 4) You are warmongering, murdering and absolutely selfish I'm a pretty cynical guy. I'm a very VERY Liberal-American. As far as social issues, I'm as far to the left as it gets. Economically, despite being raised in a pretty well-to-do household, I lean to the left as well. And as much as I appreciate my country, I wion't defend it blindly. "Jingoistic" is not a word anyone would ever use to describe me. Just so we have a little background.1) In no way to I support our unilateral military effort against Iraq. I hope that's what you're referring to here. The Afghan war effort was necessary. But what we did in Iraq was opportunistic, irresponsible, and- yes- dangerous. At the same time, however, suggesting that the US is SINGLEHANDEDLY destroying "the potential for world unity and lack of war"? That's just stupid. Say what you will about our role as PoliceState, we've been the FIRST country to defend freedom more than any other. It may have been, most of the time, to our own benefit, but there are few other countries with the military and economic might to defend the helpless. (shrug) We're self interested jerks most of the time, but we still do the jobs most countries can't even consider.2) Yeah, WWII is a great example of our War Mongering. We were STUPIDLY Isolationist for years, and only entered the war when attacked. It was (see above) STUPID to wait that long, but to suggest the US actively SEEKS war is ridiculous. Vietnam is probably the best example of American Military "Overreach." When the war began, however, there was a real fear of the spread of Communism. Think: "Domino Effect." We were villified for Vietnam, and likely rightly so, but most of the Western World's hopes depended on the United States during the Cold War.3) (shrug) Silly. I hate to be a jerk, but the US has a proven track record as the most effective economic, military, and political nation in the history of the modern world. 4) If you want to be taken seriously, referring to a nation as "murderous" (not to metnion "warmongering" for a second time) won't get you anywhere. Ever. It's inflammatory and absurd.Wang

1) as the strongest and most aggressive military and economy in the world, while we may not single handedly do this, we do destablise peace quite a bit. As for beung the great defenders of freedom, I can give you many more examples of the US stomping all over freely elected govenments than defending them. If you'd like, I'll give those examples. And the war with Afganistan wasn't so much nessisary as inevietable. 2) Isolationist W/R/T Europe, but not so much isolationist if you were, say, cuba.. or panama.. or any other country in the western hemisphere. Or the philipines. Or several other small pasific coutnries. I guess those don't count. and if by "fear of communism" you mean "competition for the worlds natural reascourses with communism" then yes, the domino effect was a fear of communism.3) I can't really agure with this point. To pharase the Marvel Comic Character Wolverine... " the US is the best at what they do. BUt what they do isn't very nice".4) The US has comminted numourous acts of assasination throughout the 20th century, is assisination considered murder? And since our economy would basically collapse without the war, er I mean the defense industry, I don't think murderous and warmongering are that far fetched. Not the words I would use to have a clear headed argurment about US foreign policy, but then there certainly are kernals of truth to both of those statements. However, I think the term murderous and warmongering is better for, say, Pol Pot, or Stalin or Hitler. I don't liek bush at all, but for all his flaws, he's not in the same zip code, much less ball park as the truly murderous dictators of the 20th century. But he does what he can, so I give points for that.Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the USA. I'm really thankful I'm an American, and not, say, an Iraqi. I like to be on the winning side of conflicts. Losing a war sucks ***. However, I don't have some romantic, deluded dream view of the united states. The US makes foriegn policy decisons based on some cold, hard, some ( whom, unlike me, bealive in objective right and wrong) would call evil motives, like money and power. Having a friendly government in Iraqi is a huge advantage for the US from an economic perspective ( IE their oil resourses) and from a tactical perspective, as the middle east is pretty much the most USA hostile regon inthe world, have a US puppet state in Iraq would be an ideal launching ground for any future conflicts that may come up. What the US Doesn't give two shits about is freedom. THat is all rethoric, pure and simple. There are pleanty of very very unfree coutnries in the world that the USA is trading partners with ( say.. China, Saudia Arabia) or openly supposrts and props up ( say.. indonesia) We don't go to war with them because either A) they have no startegic/economic value for the US ( see pretty much all of africa) 2) they are too powerful ( see China) 3) or they are a friendly towards the usa government. Time and time again throughout the 20th century, our positon towards a country ( to trade with them/support them or to try and topple and overthrow them) has no corelation to the amount of freedom of the government, and everything to do with how friendly that govenment is towards US ( and of course US corporate interests).

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

I find it pretty ironic that George Bush would veto the bill on stem cell research -- I guess to protect the "sanctity of human life." Apparently a mass of undifferentiated human cells holds quite a bit of value in Bush's mind. However this same person has absolutely no qualms about launching bombs at county of Iraq, causing the death of literally thousand of real live humans (most of them innocent) for reasons that are extremely unclear. Shouldnt someone who opposes stem cell research be some sort of ultra-pacifist? At least stem cell research has a noble purpose. In Bushes mind: Iraqi Citizen/US troops < microscopic stem cell. He is the biggest ****** of all timeRant over.

To address the actual point of the OP, I agree that iit would be intellectually consistant to be against both war and embroyos, but consistancy isn't really the mark of protestant geo/policy. GWB seems to come from the old school of Manifest Destiny sort of religious school. To give credit where it is due, the (modern) papacy seems to have a more consistant pro life stance, IE against war, the death penatly, and abortion. I suppose the aqgrument against this consistancy would go something like the embroy/fetus are young and innocent and have not done anything wrong, whereas the adult criminal or Iraqi opposition fighter is an adult, who made a free and rational desiscon that lead to the position they end up ( IE under a bomb, or in Ole Sparky). I don't have the urge to bring the ole death penalty into this, but as for war, there's a big flaw in this view, IMO. I don't know how any follower of christ, who bleives in loving thy nieghbor and turning the other check, can possibly be okay with collateral damage. IE innocent women children, old people and what not, whom have done nother wrong other than to have been living in Iraq/Toyoko/Dresdin/Hiroshima when the bomb started dropping. I suppose there was a time, say, when king david was leading isreal, when you could actually have somethign of a "holy" war. Where every combantant was an adult male, and they choice to fight on their side, knowing full well before hand what rish they were putting their own lives in. But the 20th century has had no such wars. They are only "unholy" wars were children dying is called " collaterial". In short, I haev no answer for the OP. I, for the life of me, can't understand how someone who claims to be chrstain can be okay with any of the 20th's century wars. I can't imagine anything more vile and evil ( if I believed in evil, which I don't), or horrible thigng than war. Perhaps GW's religiopus conviction is just a facade for his voting base. Or perhaps he'd deluded into thinking he's doing god's work. I tell you one thing Jesus wouldn't have done, and that's bombed children.

[Davin 0]

Why is that stupid? There are plenty of studies that say that you will get the exact same results from adult stem cells and then no embroys have to be destroyed. He even said that at the veto signing. I know it's hard sometimes to look at both sides of an issue... but you really should.one way... embroys die.the other way... same results, nothing dies.But fight on... because I know you democrats love to kill anything human that hasn't been born yet.

adult stem cells arent the same thing as embryonic stem cells. the adult cell is already differentiated; it would only repair and replenish cells of the organ it was found in. embryonic stem cells are undetermined and therefore could be the ultimate sources of tissue regeneration. embryonic stem cell research is also very promising because these cells have been successfully cloned; this means that the handful of cells recovered from a single destroyed embryo can be amplied many fold to produce hundreds, possibly thousands of unspecified stem cells. also, adult stem cells are not as genetically "pure" as embryonic cells. they have gone through countless mitosis replications which leads to lost dna and mutatations that could affect the effectiveness of the stem cellon a seperate note, and what's wrong w/ noam chomsky again?

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

on a seperate note, and what's wrong w/ noam chomsky again?

He's highly critical of US foreign policy, pretty much. On another note, he's just as radical in his field of actual acedemic study, lingiustics. From wikipedia...was a distillation of his book Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75) in which he introduces transformational grammars. The theory takes utterances (sequences of words) to have a syntax which can be (largely) characterised by a formal grammar; in particular, a Context-free grammar extended with transformational rules. Children are hypothesised to have an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages (i.e. they assume that any language which they encounter is of a certain restricted kind). This innate knowledge is often referred to as universal grammar. It is argued that modelling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the "productivity" of language: with a limited set of grammar rules and a finite set of terms, humans are able to produce an infinite number of sentences, including sentences no one has previously said.I'm sure paul phillips hates him just as much for his ultra descriptivist veiw of grammer as he does for his world view