Stem-Cells May Defeat the GOP

from JoeUser Forums



Bush for the VERY first time in 5 ½ years said he will veto the bill providing for Stem-Cell research. About 2/3 of Americans want this bill passed as does the majority of Congress. Again we have Bush and the far right making a ridiculous argument that this will destroy human life.

The truth is that the stem-cells that would be used to help find cures for many types of human suffering are the unused cells from in-vitro fertilization that will NEVER become human life. These cells are frozen and at some point will be DESTROYED. What Bush and the radical right is saying is DO NOT USE THEM TO HELP SAVE LIVES JUST LET THEM REMAIN FROZEN AND LATER DESTROYED AS MEDICAL WASTE!

It appears that even though the majority of Americans and the Majority of the Congress want this bill approved, Bush will use his FIRST veto to prevent this life-saving research. I hope EVEY member on Congress who does not vote to override the threatened Bush veto is swept from office if they are up for re-election in November.

We have a President that is truly out of touch with our country on almost EVERYTHING!
politics
16,630 views 50 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
If there was ever an article that cemented the fact that you're nothing but a RINO, this would be it.

Having said that, I applaud President Bush for having the balls to stand up for what he believes in, no matter how unpopular it might be. That takes more guts than most of his detractors want to give him credit for having.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
don't worry about the Col, Chaos....if Bush was to stand up and say, "let's do all the Stem Cell Research we possibly can", Col would be complaining that Bush is doing genocide against Americans....

If you wanna know what the Col stands for, just find out the latest on Bush, then go the complete opposite....
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
don't worry about the Col, Chaos....if Bush was to stand up and say, "let's do all the Stem Cell Research we possibly can", Col would be complaining that Bush is doing genocide against Americans....

If you wanna know what the Col stands for, just find out the latest on Bush, then go the complete opposite....


Yeah, I know all that. I've butted heads against him often enough that now I just read, shake my head, wonder how such a clue-less wonder survived for so long in the military. Then I stop, think about a large part of the officer corp that I've met (and as a gov't contractor and an Army brat, I've met more than a few) and realize that he'd fit right in with most REMFs. Which isn't so strange as he WAS a REMF.

It just sickens me that someone can be so deluded and filled with hate that NOTHING can be seen as good from the object of hatred.

As much as the poor guy gets ridiculed around here, I don't hate him. I pity him. I mean, wrapping so much into hating aguy that's not going to be leaving in 30 months is just pitiful.

Although, like torturing a bear ... it can still be rather entertaining in a sick, twisted way.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
wrapping so much into hating aguy that's not going to be leaving in 30 months is just pitiful.

Let's hope that he'll latch onto the next President with as much hatefilled glee. Otherwise he'll have no agenda.


Okay, now on to the topic at hand:
The truth is that the stem-cells that would be used to help find cures for many types of human suffering are the unused cells from in-vitro fertilization that will NEVER become human life. These cells are frozen and at some point will be DESTROYED. What Bush and the radical right is saying is DO NOT USE THEM TO HELP SAVE LIVES JUST LET THEM REMAIN FROZEN AND LATER DESTROYED AS MEDICAL WASTE!

If you want to debate stem-cell research and its ethics, that's one thing. But as always you want to discuss Bush's political position on this issue. Maybe he's representing America. I know I'm one of your so-called 1/3 who thinks stem cell research is an affront to nature and should be banned. So I know he's representing ME by vetoing (or threatening to veto) this controversial legislation.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe he's representing America. I know I'm one of your so-called 1/3 who thinks stem cell research is an affront to nature and should be banned. So I know he's representing ME by vetoing (or threatening to veto) this controversial legislation.


But that's the splendid part about the way this country is set up. I'm in that 2/3 (hmm . . . the word majority come to mind, anyone?) that believe that it is anything but an affront to nature. It's a way to help some of the less-fortunate souls in this world. So he's opposing me and my opinion my threatening to veto this controversial legislation.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmmm....I am seeing majority and minority thrown around here...San Chonino....what are your views on same sex marriage? Just wondering....
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know I'm one of your so-called 1/3 who thinks stem cell research is an affront to nature and should be banned.


I'm curious as to what makes stem-cell research an affront to nature?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another example of when you can not refute the facts you attack me. The issues are clear:

The majority of Americans want the Stem-cell research

The majority of Congress wants the Stem-cell research

The argument that it will destroy human life is untrue because the stem-cells that would be used to further this research will NEVER become a Human Being and will at some point be destroyed. Thus, is it better to use these Stem-cells to help people or just allow these same Stem-cells to be destroyed without helping anyone like Bush and the far right wants?

This is a real simple issue-- The stem-cells are not and will not become a person and thus the BS that allowing their use will destroy human life that will NEVER exist is untrue!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another example of when you can not refute the facts you attack me. The issues are clear:


As usual I have to make a fool of you right after you always say something stupid.

The majority of Americans want the Stem-cell researchThe majority of Congress wants the Stem-cell research


That doesn't mean Bush has to agree with them, just like every other ASmerican, he has the right to his own opinion and beliefs, it just so happens that he also has a little bit of power to exercise those opinions and beliefs.

The argument that it will destroy human life is untrue because the stem-cells that would be used to further this research will NEVER become a Human Being and will at some point be destroyed. Thus, is it better to use these Stem-cells to help people or just allow these same Stem-cells to be destroyed without helping anyone like Bush and the far right wants?This is a real simple issue-- The stem-cells are not and will not become a person and thus the BS that allowing their use will destroy human life that will NEVER exist is untrue!


You should do you homework before you open you narrow minded mouth.

From http://stemcells.nih.gov/ Link

Where do stem cells come from?
Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Cells from these embryos can be used to create pluripotent stem cell "lines" —cell cultures that can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue obtained from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development).


What classes of stem cells are there?
There are three classes of stem cells: totipotent, multipotent, and pluripotent.

1-A fertilized egg is considered totipotent, meaning that its potential is total; it gives rise to all the different types of cells in the body.
2-Stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types are generally called multipotent.
3-Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any type of cell in the body except those needed to develop a fetus.


In other words you ignorant fool, there has to be a fertilized egg in order to have stem cells, in other words the first few days of what would become a baby. Technically an abortion done on purpose just to get stem cells. Of course the stem cells will never become humans but they need one to get them, a live one. Regardless of what you want to believe it will still need the destruction of human life to get them.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, are you aware that the Bush administration is in favor of funding for stem cell research, and has in fact approved funding for a number of stem cell research programs?

Are you aware that these Bush-funded programs, including research into stem cells taken non-destructively from sources other than embryos, have so far shown more promise, and resulted in more medical advances, than the embryonic stem cell research?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you aware that these Bush-funded programs, including research into stem cells taken non-destructively from sources other than embryos, have so far shown more promise, and resulted in more medical advances, than the embryonic stem cell research?


Even more interesting is that stem cells can also be taken from adults without having to kill them. And Bush is in favor of this as well.

IV. What are adult stem cells?
An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell found among differentiated cells in a tissue or organ, can renew itself, and can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Some scientists now use the term somatic stem cell instead of adult stem cell. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are defined by their origin (the inner cell mass of the blastocyst), the origin of adult stem cells in mature tissues is unknown.

Research on adult stem cells has recently generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible. This finding has led scientists to ask whether adult stem cells could be used for transplants. In fact, adult blood forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in transplants for 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of therapies for many serious common diseases.


Link
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
San Chonino....what are your views on same sex marriage? Just wondering....


Same-sex marriage is one that I have trouble defining my views on . . .

From a purely political standpoint, I would support it.

From a purely religious standpoint, I would oppose it.

Because I am both a religious and a political creature, I have troubles coming to terms with it. But, when in doubt, throwing down with God on your side is usually a safe bet . . . so, when pressed, I would have to say I'm against it.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok....i was just wondering....

in this country, the majority doesn't usually get what they want...
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Charles C

You show your stupidity.

The stem cells that are proposed and that I mention in my Blog to be used are the remaining cells from in-vitro fertilization. These cells are not to be implanted and become a human being but will be destroyed at some point as medical waste. Please explain WHY the use of these left over cells from in-vitro that will be destroyed should not be used? Bush is entitled to his opinion but not to impose it on the reminder of us given the fact that both the Congress and majority of the American people want this bill to become law.

I have a wife with cancer and a step-son with diabetes. The use of these cells could help relieve the suffering I see EVERY day in my family you flaming A*s. Look at what the major leader of the Senate who is also a Doctor said. As I said Bush as usual is out to lunch and it will be a GREAT day when that idiot returns to Texas!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
What LW said.

Sorry, COL...there's no Constitutional right to MY money. Bush just ain't coughing it up!

I am a huge PROPONENT of stem cell research, but NOT ON MY DIME! The government needs to stop funding every pet project of every American; it's bankrupting us.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
You show your stupidity.


No, Col, you show yours. As LW said, there is NO ban on stem cell research. None. Any attempt to prove otherwise is just a politically motivated lie.

So your wife has cancer and your step son has diabetes. That's called "life", Col, and it affects every single one of us. It is NOT the government's job to babysit every single damned American without the motivation to work to create a better life for THEMSELVES. Early death has another name for it, Col; it's called "natural selection", and, frankly, you should embrace it rather than attempting to arrest it!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
little-whip

Better look at what the Senate majority leader and Doctor said-- Without a change the research will be hampered. Since the majority wants this bill I guess the majority want to use our tax dollars. The majority want an end to the Iraq war and want to STOP spending our tax dollars in Iraq. Here again Bush fails to do the will of the American People.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is the responsibility of our form of government to do the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! The WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS TO ALLOW Federally Funded Stem-cell research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is the responsibility of our form of government to do the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! The WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS TO ALLOW Federally Funded Stem-cell research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


1.) Calling it "the will of the people" is an outright, bold faced LIE, Col. There has not been a single election on the matter, and the truth is, you do not know. You CERTAINLY do not have access to enough people to state that it is the "will of the people", and, frankly, I'm pissed off with you telling me what I think, Col!

2.) No, it is not the government's job to do the "will of the people", Col. The Constitution limits the powers of the government for a reason, and NOWHERE in the US Constitution is there a clause allowing the government to fund all experimental research. You can look all you want and not find it.

3.) If the "will of the people" was found to be extermination of all liberals and deportation of all minorities, would you endorse it, COL? I would hope not, for obvious reasons, but your sanctimonious reliance on "the will of the people" as a guide would indicate otherwise, even though you, nor ANYONE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY can rightly claim to know the "will of the people" on this matter.

4.) I am sick and damn tired of your claiming omniscience, Col. Coming to the debate is one thing, but you claim to be the spokesman for all of America. If that were true, your book would have outsold "the Da Vinci Code", Col. Your presentation of yourself as this country's Messiah would have MUCH more merit if your book had placed, for even a week, ANYWHERE on the Amazon.com bestseller list. You accuse Bush of lying, when your entire blog is nothing but a string of lies, most of which are easily disprovable.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The majority of the people we elected to pass our laws ( Congress) have said they approve this law. That is called a Republic. Bush can have his personal religious conviction but he has NO RIGHT to impose that belief on anyone else. In addition poll after poll on both the stem-cell and the Iraq war show Bush is out to LUNCH! We have not had a President that was so far from what the majority want on almost EVERY subject:

Amnesty to illegal aliens
Border security
Deficit
Social Security
Energy
The economy
Stem-Cell Research
Trade
Jobs
Environment
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, please tell how you know what the majority wants? The majority of people in this country elected the President and Congress. We have already addressed your cut and paste claims in another thread which you ignored.

Tell us again col what the democrats have done in the past and what their plan is now to solve these "problems" that you keep cutting and pasting into different articles.

What a sad individual you are.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
The majority of the people we elected to pass our laws ( Congress) have said they approve this law.


That is actually not even CLOSE to what you said, Col. And besides, my other objections stand. The fact is, federally funded stem cell research falls outside of the Constitutionally outlined powers of the federal government.
As to the rest of your comments:

Amnesty to illegal aliens Bush has not proposed amnesty to illegals. I don't agree with his plan, but it falls far short of amnesty. This is more political spin.

Border security Yes, Bush is out of touch on this one, but it's a fair bet MOST bureacrats are. Bush is hardly unique in this regard.

Deficit Hold on a second. Bush has reduced the deficit and you're implying he's against deficit reduction? This doesn't make sense. Now, I'll admit Bush is a poor fiscal conservative, but he actually is lowering the deficit.

Social Security Actually, Bush's plan is contrasted with the total absence of a plan on the left. Bush is trying to plan for the future, when the money my generation has paid in won't be there and the government will either have to VASTLY increase taxes or eliminate our benefits altogether. Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever invented, Col, and we're going to go broke if we keep trying to sustain it.

Energy Bush has done absolutely nothing to prevent the free market from developing alternative energy sources, Col.

The economy I have to admit I don't get this one, Col. Are you saying the majority of the Americans want the economy to get WORSE? I don't see how a growing economy is against the wishes of the people.


Stem-Cell Research Again, Bush hasn't banned stem cell research, Col. You're going to have to try a LOT harder.

Trade Sorry, but there doesn't seem to be a majority consensus on ANYTHING in this area.


Jobs It's not the government's duty to provide jobs, Col. It's the government's duty to provide a fertile climate for free enterprise, which Bush and company are definitely doing. This is the first presidency EVER where I have seen an unemployment rate under 5% touted as 'high unemployment". Why don't you go look at France's unemployment figures for comparison, Col?


Environment Bush has not enacted ONE policy that has harmed the environment, Col. The fact is, no matter what you and your whacko, far left fringe want to think, the environment's doing pretty damned good. Smog levels are way down, the bald eagle and American Bison are off the endangered species list, our rivers aren't catching fire from the pollutants...I could go on and on. All you can "point to" is global warming, and that is a debatable one at best. As Baker pointed out, the fact that we can point to a time in the earth's history when temperatures were this high (and civilization wasn't really likely to be culpable), could indicate that we are going through a warming cycle rather than a crisis. To present scientists as united in this discussion is yet again misleading, Col.

You have completely proven yourself incapable of taking an objective look at ANYTHING, Col. You believe only in information from left wing sources, and select information at that. The sad thing is, you're able to put together a persuasive, compelling argument, but because the sources of your argument are questionable at best and completely wrong at worst, your arguments unravel quicker than a $5 sweater in a roomful of kittens.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col you are losing it.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Congress has said they approve this bill. They are in touch with their constituents and I assume know what the people that elected them want. The objection Bush has is biased on his religious beliefs. He has NO right to impose his religious beliefs on the country!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The objection Bush has is biased on his religious beliefs. He has NO right to impose his religious beliefs on the country!


1.) prove Bush's objection is based on his religious beliefs

2.) prove that the founding fathers never intended for leaders to guide the country based on their beliefs. you CAN maintain a wall of seperation between church and state, but religious beliefs DEFINE who you are.

3.) The Constitution provides a means by which a veto may be overridden. If Congress can't muster the votes to pass it over Bush's veto, then clearly your sanctimonious claim of federally funded stem cell research being "the will of the people" is spurious, at best.