BF2S Forums Bush vetoes embryonic stem-cell bill

I'm glad, i think abortion is wrong when People do it for "convenience".

I know someone that has diabetes and still would rather have diabetes than take the life of an unborn, even if they were to be disposed of anyway.

kr@cker wrote:

by your logic there is even less reason to fund ESC research because it has yielded NO results, while the missile defense system has yielded some, defense tech is no different from any other tech in that it doesn't wake up one morning to find itself miraculously cheap and efficient, and NO technology has ever been developed without trial and error, had the Kerry's and Kennedy's of the world not whined about it in the 80's it probably would have worked a few weeks ago had we needed it.

That's not part of my logic at all.  I was trying to point out to him that he seems to be saying that it is ok to spend billions on missile defense, but not millions on stem cell research.

Why doesn't your line about missile defense technology not waking up one morning to be cheap and efficient apply to stem cell research waking up one morning to be an effective cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc?

If the Bush's, Roves, Coulter's, etc would just shut up and quit whining about it we may just have a cure.

By the way, a hell of a lot more people have been afflicted by the diseases I mentioned above than have been effected by rogue missiles.

I'm going to say it again: debt for bible-belt voters.

kr@cker wrote:

by your logic there is even less reason to fund ESC research because it has yielded NO results, while the missile defense system has yielded some, defense tech is no different from any other tech in that it doesn't wake up one morning to find itself miraculously cheap and efficient, and NO technology has ever been developed without trial and error, had the Kerry's and Kennedy's of the world not whined about it in the 80's it probably would have worked a few weeks ago had we needed it.

This is really a bad reasoning to argue your point which I think you are doing here because you kind of contradict yourself in your wording halfway through that paragraph. Every technology that ended up becoming a mainstay in modern day was once unproven and yielded NO results. NASA being a huge example of a Government funded organization that invented and tested new technology that had never before been used or dreamt of. ESC research has yield no significant results for the simple fact that they are limited in resources, it's only been about 8 years since the first research began and there is a huge learning curve in the bio-genetic fields whenever something new is thrown into the mix. If it were easy we would already have a cure for cancer.

and i really should apologize to all on these forums, I've just gotten jaded by all the whining and constant republican/american bashing on here and haven't seen much need to post anything other than a few colorful anecdotes here and there as most of these topics are incessantly repetitious, I can only post a fact so many times before I get sick of repeating myself, only to have it ignored and someone start a new thread on the same damn subject and start all over again. In my own defense on this thread my first few posts said all I needed to, and I have not seen anything new come up since that has not been addressed already so, yes, most of my posts here have been "one liners. I needs hepls, it seems da most i post, der stupider i are.

*chuckle* I understand your feelings on this very well. When was the last time you saw me post on any serious debate issue on this forum? It must be months ago now. For the same reason is that debate and discussion on this forum is often wasted on the multitude of idiots who don't read and only post. However instead of posting one liners I tend to just not post at all. Saved my energy for the real heated discussions like this one.

Last edited by kilroy0097 (2006-07-21 14:16:18)

dankassasin42o wrote:

-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:

I dont think Clinton was a very religous president lol.

no but prolly twice the president as bush.      So anwser me this.   how can bush say NO to stem cell research.  cuz it takes a life to save a life or what ever. but he allowed 747s to crash into the WTC.   Killing 1,000s.   BUSH DID THAT.  Then he SENT our military to IRAQ for his OIL battle, and has gotten numours of american military members killed.    How could Bin Laden be responsible when he was in a hospital under AMERICAN care.  (No he wasnt in the states, but he had americans caring for him, and CIA watching over him, WHILE 9/11 was HAPPENING)   So lets hear how you can explain this......   Whats the difference of killing a stem cell or 1,000 of americans WHO WERE ALREADY LIVING LIVES??   


and for those of you WHO still think Bin Laden caused 9/11.    PROVE IT.     Look at everytime HE DID try.  HE FAILED.   So since i see Laden as a failure, just about as much as a failure as Geroge W Bush.  How does a terrorist whos failed over an over, pull off something like 9/11 with military PROFESSION.     Your really telling me that all the BS about 9/11 that bush or the white house has told you, you believe?

While I appreciate your sentiment, please post this in one of the multitude of threads already labeled 9/11 conspiricy and refrain from hi-jacking my thread. Thank you.

kr@cker wrote:

dankassasin42o wrote:

-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:

I dont think Clinton was a very religous president lol.

no but prolly twice the president as bush.      So anwser me this.   how can bush say NO to stem cell research.  cuz it takes a life to save a life or what ever. but he allowed 747s to crash into the WTC.   Killing 1,000s.   BUSH DID THAT.  Then he SENT our military to IRAQ for his OIL battle, and has gotten numours of american military members killed.    How could Bin Laden be responsible when he was in a hospital under AMERICAN care.  (No he wasnt in the states, but he had americans caring for him, and CIA watching over him, WHILE 9/11 was HAPPENING)   So lets hear how you can explain this......   Whats the difference of killing a stem cell or 1,000 of americans WHO WERE ALREADY LIVING LIVES??   


and for those of you WHO still think Bin Laden caused 9/11.    PROVE IT.     Look at everytime HE DID try.  HE FAILED.   So since i see Laden as a failure, just about as much as a failure as Geroge W Bush.  How does a terrorist whos failed over an over, pull off something like 9/11 with military PROFESSION.     Your really telling me that all the BS about 9/11 that bush or the white house has told you, you believe?

proof? other than the tapes of al-quaeda tape with the confession that they did it? wrong thread for further discussion, why did I even respond?

you responded, b'cuz u know im right.   that wasnt Bin Laden on that tape.   come on.   WATCH IT AGAIN, and AGAIN.  Then look at BIN LADENS OLDER CONFESSIONS.  Tell me its him.    1st The guy in the 9/11 confession is about 70LBS TO FUCKING HEAVY.    2nd THE BIN LADEN IN THAT VIDEO IS WRITING RIGHT HANDED.   Look at the FBI most wanted, Laden is a lefty.     3rd.   His religion tells him to hate america for their freedom.   well it also says that hes not to covet personnal items. .  Hmm kinda like that gold ring he was wearing in the video.   HE DOESNT WEAR GOLD.     No im not tryin to stand up for this ASSHAT.   But i can sence BULLSHIT where theres BULLSHIT.   And all you so called "proof"  IS FUCKING BULLSHIT...

  Do you forget he is on dialis or HOWEVER the fuck its spelt.    A diease that is KILLING him, b'cuz he CANNOT GAIN WEIGHT...

kr@cker wrote:

Chuckles wrote:

The main reason that the Bush administration spent more on stem cell research is more a function of time than his big heart.  This field of study has only existed since '98, so Clinton only had the opportunity to fund it for two years.  Bush has been there for six terribly long years now, and has only funded it $90,000,000 according to another poster here.

stem cell research has been around since the 60's

Yes. Embryonic Stem Cell Research has not been.

Last edited by kilroy0097 (2006-07-21 14:24:54)

PekkaA wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Chuckles wrote:

The main reason that the Bush administration spent more on stem cell research is more a function of time than his big heart.  This field of study has only existed since '98, so Clinton only had the opportunity to fund it for two years.  Bush has been there for six terribly long years now, and has only funded it $90,000,000 according to another poster here.

stem cell research has been around since the 60's

Back then hardware for research was A BIT different from today. Like building missile defence that 's based on catapults.

funding was the point, not hardware

apologies..

kr@cker wrote:

how about you prove bush did it......on another thread

Maybe he did or maybe he didn't but he's the one who got most benefits for it.

no

kr@cker wrote:

no

umm... nice disproving comment.      U have no argument.    Go blow yourself.