I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Ron Paul
-
i actually cant believe i’m saying this, but i’ll take the southerners support and thats all any conservatives need with a McCain/huckabee ticket to win the day. let others waste their votes, but not many will against hillary.
only rush, hannity, ann colter, dr. laura, and other loudmouths care. who cares about them anyways. people with a deep desire to be told what to think? i thought only dems did that with jon stewart, cnn, mtv, and hollywood. i’m more of an o’reiley guy myself.
doesnt matter zero, so far jen just says things, the acuracy of the statements is secondary.
-
@Cmdr:
President Bush was the first president in American history to FUND stem cell research.
He’s pro-stem cell research.
Umm…
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html
This just goes to show how bad the reporting is there:
President Bush:
Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases – from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer’s, from Parkinson’s to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.
Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
I will also name a President’s council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html
250 million dollars given to Stem Cell Research with the blessing of President Bush.
President Clinton NEVER gave even a penny to Stem Cell Research. Before Mr. Clinton, there was no stem cell research to be done. Not saying Clinton’s choice was bad. But let’s not pretend that Bush was anti-stem cell research.
He was ANTI-Cloning from stem cells. He is PRO stem cell research.
-
i actually cant believe i’m saying this, but i’ll take the southerners support and thats all any conservatives need with a McCain/huckabee ticket to win the day. let others waste their votes, but not many will against hillary.
only rush, hannity, ann colter, dr. laura, and other loudmouths care. who cares about them anyways. people with a deep desire to be told what to think? i thought only dems did that with jon stewart, cnn, mtv, and hollywood. i’m more of an o’reiley guy myself.
doesnt matter zero, so far jen just says things, the acuracy of the statements is secondary.
A) Dunno about Rush, Ann, Laura or any other of the “loud mouths.” All I know is that the Fox and Gallup polls BOTH show that voters who identify themselves as conservative do NOT want McCain. Without these people, McCain will NOT win the White House and thus, Hillary or Barrack will.
B) Again, you let your foot fly right into your mouth. Why don’t you try and get some links and facts before you try to refute me? Especially when it’s so easy just to go to the White House and get the actual speech where President Bush becomes the first President to fund stem-cell research. A simple Google search also should spit out a few dozen links with the same speech.
-
yeah, stem cell research on non-embryonic stem cells.
the whole stem cell debate is about embryos vs. non embryos.
bush vetoed the ebryonic bill. why would he care about non embryonic ones. i am totally against using embryos but i’m totally for using other things.
you got it all mixed up……again.
-
I didn’t mix up anything.
I said President Bush was the first President in American history to fund STEM CELL RESEARCH.
If you thought he was signing into law that women could impregnate themselves and then sell the embryo to the US Government for research that’s your fault, not mine. You need to learn to read what I type, not what you hope I typed.
-
no no no,
you put pro-stem cell in a category full of other things anathema to conseratives 2 pages back. you made it seem anti-conservative to do such things. so you made it look very bad. thats how you giftwrapped it.
and the only bad one for conservatives is embryonic……so people sure thought thats what you meant b/c it wouldnt matter if he was pro-stem cells in other ways. which it doesnt matter.
-
No, that’s how you read it.
And yes, it is generally considered Conservative to be anti-Stem Cell research on multiple levels. Not just embryonic ones. Just as I feel many conservatives, myself excluded, would have issues with parents being able to order the perfect child through genetic manipulation.
-
of course children shouldnt be modified.
but to cure terrible ailments, use all the umbilical cord waste anyone desires. whats the harm in that?
-
i’m going to have to say you miss read her. i can’t see any conservaitve thinking that “They are both pro-Big Military and the use of that military” was a realy bad thing. ok maybe some, but not a lot.
also the enviroment is an issue that conservatives get nailed as being bad on when they are just as strong on it. (Teddy Rosavelt was a big supporter of our national parks, also most hunting liscenc’s pay for a large chunk of the wilderness maintance and clean up).oh and on the point that some one said that one or two votes don’t matter. WA state, 2 years ago had a govornor race that was vary close. the Demacrate won, but only on the 2nd recount. count one had Deno Rossi (ya Deno is his first name) up by a few houndred votes. count 2 had him up by a mear 40 odd votes. count 3 had our winner (the Democrat) up by 120 odd votes. state judical system said that a 3rd recount would not be allowed even though as far as counts go, the Republican won the first two counts and the Demacrat only won the last count. how wrong i feel that is, isn’t relavent. what is though is had the first recount stuck, it would have been a close race, off by under 50 votes total.
-
Not posted as an insult Jen, but you are correct in that you represent a large chunk of Conservatives. The large chunk in particular is often called “Dittoheads”.
Limbaugh has been Anti-McCain since the 2000 Primaries. For the past 8 years he has never let up. His listeners (who often call themselves “Dittoheads”) think as you do regarding McCain.
But other Conservatives do not agree with you, and I don;t consider them any LESS conservative for it.
-
ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES RAN ON HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICIES. ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES WERE VOTED INTO CONGRESS TO GET US OUT OF WAR. ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES TALKED ABOUT REDUCING GOVERNMENT.
so tell me. how are we less conservative for voting Ron Paul? Besides that, I won’t vote for a man that runs off his veterancy (that is always an advantage, but not a necessity), I vote for him based on his actions and character…
GG
-
Domestically, Ron Paul is probably the best choice out there GG, but personally I want a guy who isn’t afraid to put me to work, and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is rather naive.
-
I’m not afraid to put you to work (You get a paycheck for it 8-)), but I at the same time I am not going to drop a dime for a foreign policy that does not directly benefit me in the long run, or you for that matter (and no I’m not going to immediately jump on the bandwagon that were protecting us here by fighting them their, I didn’t do that in March of '03; I actually disagreed with the Iraq war. I won’t do it now). I don’t really care if the Iraqi’s live or die, call me uncaring, un-compassionate, whatever you want, but if they are not willing to lay their lives down for their country which I would willingly do if my country was directly under attack then they don’t deserve our blood or treasure.
As far as the naive part, his foreign policy is based off of 1,000 years of numerous measurable actions compared to 7 years of fear connected to one horrible event, that has cost us in precious lives and a recessive economy. Personally that is what I call naive. Study Economics and World History. It is pretty simple to judge why what is happening is happening.
As I said before, he is not for sticking our head in the sand and forgetting about the world, or leaving our borders, ships, planes, airports, and soil undefended, he just goes about it in a different, IMHO more direct, way.
GG
-
In five years, Iraq will be just like Bosnia, everyone will have forgotten that we have a garrison there. However, when trouble sparks and we need to react, we will have a base to start from. I dont think anyone knows or remembers the precarious position we were in in 1989-90 when we mobilized for Desert Shield. If Sadam had, we would have been in a lot of trouble. Ever since then our military planners have looked for a way to avoid that situation. Now we have that security. That my friends is what the war in Iraq was all about. My oppinion of course, take it or leave it.
-
@Cmdr:
I don’t think the new nation of the European Union will be our ally much longer. They may not become our enemy, but I do not think we can trust them. (And yes, I do believe they will become one nation and lose their individual identities.)
I’m european, and I don’t think European Union will be one nation. European Union is only about money, not political union. They tried make a european constitution, made referendum in only about half of countries and France and Low Countries voted no (wisely, the text was horrible). And think in Belgium, they are near to split the country in 2, they are not going to join again in a bigger.
And many europeans think we can not trust in USA’s government…
-
Dzrt, I understand that completely. I am personally not for having troops all over the world, but lets say that it is a worthwhile cause, and merely focus on the Iraq position compared to our other major outposts: Germany, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and “Bosnia” (We don’t even occupy it anymore).
Forgive me if the following sounds overused or simplistic. To me solutions are that.
Both Germany and Japan are modern first world countries very stable economies and governments, with limited foreign resistance, or disputing neighbors, and in Japan’s case it is isolated from it’s global region.
Saudi Arabia is a puppet government, and a corrupt one at that, which has can only rule with an iron fist because of the immense foreign aid and arms supplied to it. It is a frequently criticized country in it’s respective region, although it is not attacked, and I doubt that is merely because the US is there. But at the same token it is costing us billions in taxes and arms for that foothold.
Bosnia is empty, ethnically diverse, but kept under strict control by what? Sanctions. The government there is kept in check by simple International math that anyone can understand.
Now, why shouldn’t we be in Iraq? Well the “foothold” automatically suggests invasion. You don’t think Iran feels threatened? Why do you think they are developing Nuclear Weapons? I realize they have had a Nuclear Program in effect for a while, but why the surge now? If I had a huge military force sitting on my border, I would attempt to gain the upper hand. So right off the bat, by staying in Iraq we are creating a lethal enemy. Second it is costing us, and if we are still considering Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Korea effective “launching places” and worth keeping, then Iraq outdoes them in cost (currently cost standing at $500 Billion). that’s $275 Million a day. and we are supposed to be in there 100 years, if McCain gets in. Which brings me to the fact that it is not a economically stable or socially stable environment. Kurds in the North, Sunni in the middle, Shia’s to the south, Divided Neighbors as to the ethics of the US in the region. Oil lines are thousands of miles long and extremely undefended considering they are easy targets to find and hit. And we neither benefit from that, nor do they pay for it’s upkeep if it is sabotaged. I do. That’s paying twice for gas. That’s not a good investment. The foothold is a great idea, if you plan to invade (like I’ve mentioned). But that is going to require troops to occupy Iran, and Most likely Syria. With the way things are going, I don’t see how we could avoid invading Pakistan. That’s 6 Countries to invade. 5 to fully occupy. That’s 3.72 Million Square Miles extra to cover. That’s a lot of men. We only have 2.9 Million active and Reserve Personnel in the Military. We would not only have to call up reserves, but I don’t see how you could avoid a draft, extended service, stress to personnel, etc.
All because we occupy Iraq. I forgot though it keeps us safe…
GG
-
@Cmdr:
President Bush was the first president in American history to FUND stem cell research.
He’s pro-stem cell research.
Wow, what an accomplishment. No President before him has had the chance, really. But you are completely wrong. CONGRESS funded stem cell research, Presidents can only endorse it.
He’s pro-junk stem cell research, but not pro-embryonic stem cell research.
@Cmdr:
250 million dollars given to Stem Cell Research with the blessing of President Bush.
President Clinton NEVER gave even a penny to Stem Cell Research. Before Mr. Clinton, there was no stem cell research to be done. Not saying Clinton’s choice was bad. But let’s not pretend that Bush was anti-stem cell research.
He was ANTI-Cloning from stem cells. He is PRO stem cell research.
People have been working with stem cells since the 60s or so. But it hasn’t been a hope since early 2000s (i.e., not much attention until very recently).
He’s anti-embryonic, which has the most potential.
I actually have no idea how Ron Paul feels on it.
-
-
-
@Guerrilla:
Dzrt, I understand that completely. I am personally not for having troops all over the world, but lets say that it is a worthwhile cause, and merely focus on the Iraq position compared to our other major outposts: Germany, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and “Bosnia” (We don’t even occupy it anymore).
We still have a task force in Kosovo, approximately 1400 men as aresult of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. I was scheduled for a rotation to Kosovo in late 09, we’re not leaving there any time soon.
Don’t take my statements as support, I just see it as fact right or wrong. Why do we have bases and troops in Germany, Japan, etc? To project US strength and to remind the world that we are in the business of protecting our interests plain and simple. Having a permanent base(s) in Iraq is doing just that.
Suggested Topics
