Living in Nevada, one of the biggest issues is Yucca mountain. W promised to oppose any waste coming to NV in 2000 when he was running. Since then he has changed his tune and given the green light to depositing as much waste as possible, even though the site hasn't been proven to be TOTALLY safe and the fact that the area around the site is prone to earthquakes and has lots of ground water issues. A huge majority of the southern NV population doesn't want it there and even Richard Ensign, the Republican Senator, thinks W is wrong when it comes to Yucca mountain. when w came to Vegas he told the "crowd" that he believed Yucca mountain was necessary and he tried to put the blame on the federal courts,who upheld his decision. All this after he promised not send nuclear waste to NV in 2000. How convenient. This might not be war records,the war on terror, or the economy, but alot of nevadans don't want nuclear waste anywhere near their homes and this is a BIG issue here. So if any of you out there want to do right by your president , how about asking your local government if they would like to store it. Because I DON'T want it here and I can find you alot of nevadans who don't want it here either. That's one big reason I'm voting for Kerry. Fool me once shame on you,fool me twice shame on me.
Gov't grants are the primary funding stream for medical research, it is just how it is, like it or not. That's not just an idea liberals came up with to attack George W. Bush -- it is the reality of American medicine. It would be impossible to calculate how far back evidence-based medicine would be if private sector grants were the primary funding source. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trader appears to be arguing aginst the entire concept of Public Health here. Hopefully no one you love ever gets sick and has to rely on public-funded medical discoveries. Please explain how you are not arguing against the NIH. Thiis would make sense if we wanted to use Stem Cells to make cheaper iPods, but the goal of Stem Cell is to cure disease, which to me sounds like a health issue. I just don't view it as a technology issue, and don't see why you do. I don't think anyone does. Where do you get that? I have not heard anyone argue it as a tech issue. Why not just argue stem cell as a housing and urban development issue instead? Just for kicks, humor me and pretend it is a public health issue. Because on one hand, you're right, this debate is simple. Which sector of our economy is best suited to lead the way in funding health initiatives? The private sector, as you argue? Or the public sector and private sector, as me, most doctors, and by-the-way George W. Bush would argue. (From last week on Larry King: "Now listen, nobody cares more about curing disease than Laura and me. I mean, that's one of our responsibilities. As a matter of fact, at the NIH I made sure that the NIH's budget was doubled, as I said, during the course of my campaign so that we could conduct more research.") The broad philosophy and existence of the NIH is my "spin"?
From an independent: A reason to vote for Bush - Supreme court appointment likely to defend 2nd amendment A reason to vote for Kerry - Supreme court appointment likely to defend the right of a woman to choose what is right for their life (pro choice)
from the Kerry website: Create Good-Paying Jobs As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas. John Kerry and John Edwards will also stand up for workers by enforcing our trade agreements. Cut Middle-Class Taxes To Raise Middle-Class Incomes When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan. Make Washington Live Within A Budget John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office. He will end corporate welfare as we know it, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and impose a real cap to keep spending in check. And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it. Invest In The Jobs Of Tomorrow Today, businesses are harnessing new technology to manufacture energy-efficient cars, high-grade steel, advanced plastics and other new products. And this requires a bigger, skilled labor force to make them. John Kerry and John Edwards believe we should invest in these jobs and invest in the people who will fill them. Kerry/Edwards
As i've said before, there are good reasons to vote for both candidates (as there are bad ones, which we are all tired of hearing), contingent on what your priorities are. if i hear someone's priorities and they choose the candidate who matches their priorities, then i believe they made a good choice. I absolutely detest parties because they destroy individualism and free thought. As Chris Rock once said, "anyone who makes up their mind before listening to the issues is a f***ing idiot". So here are the stances on the issues, as I see it from a moderate standpoint, as civil as I can make it. Bush- If you are pro-life, anti-stem cell and anti-gay marriage, and you hold these things as priorities, Bush is strong on these issues. If you are in the group that will benefit from his tax cuts and money is your perogative, he is also your man. If you believe that a strong foreign policy needs to have the US call the shots, vote Bush. If you distrust or dislike the idea of the UN, then Bush is strong on this issue. If you feel our foreign policy should be on eliminating potential threats, Bush is better. If you want your president to be decisive on the issues and sticks strong to his own beliefs, and not the beliefs of opponents, and hold this to be a priority, then Bush is also a candidate for you. If you find that it is most important for our economy to grow by putting money into those things that have the most capital and highest growth rate, Bush is your guy. If you want a president who is consistently tough in getting done what he finds most important and will not get sidetracked by other issues, Bush is your guy. If your priority for security is having a strong offense, the vote Bush. If you feel our space program is a priority, Bush is stronger on this issue. Kerry-If you support a foreign policy which is more multilateral, pro -UN and where we have strong mutual relationships with other countries, I won't say Kerry will create it, but other countries will jump at the opportunity to improve their relationship with the US, Kerry will at least listen and try to get potential allies to like us. If you feel an environmental policy is a top priority, kerry is for you. If you feel that minorities should have equal rights as other Americans and feel that this is a perogative, you should support Kerry. If you feel a foreign policy where human rights and diplomacy are important, you should support Kerry. If you feel that lower and middle classes need more support than those who are considered wealthy, and this is your main issue, then kerry is your boy. If you believe military, police and firefighters should recieve more pay, and believe this is a priority, Kerry is stronger on this issue. If you feel it is most important that the president greatly considers what others think before he chooses his own stand, then Kerry is this type of person. If you believe stem cell research is a perogative, vote Kerry. If you believe that our economy will fare better by putting resources into middle class jobs, preventing outsourcing, and investing in new technologies, Kerry is your guy. If you feel a priority is to drop the rising costs of education, Kerry is stronger. I think the issue of Iraq is a moot point as our involvement there is for a long time, and I don't think either candidate will differ much towards own involvement, nor do i think they differ much on the issue. As far as fighting terrorism, all we are really doing is waiting, so I think the candidates are equal in preventing an attack (although it is arguable that one candidate over the other is more likely to incite an attack). For once, I'd like to see a candidate who will do more than a photo-op to show that he supports a minor issue, this goes for both candidates.
I'm voting Bush because: He knows (unlike most of you, it seems) that you can get plenty of stem cells from the umbilical cord. And no babies have to be aborted for that, only born. He supports the right to choose in the case of rape or incest, or when a mother's life is in jeopardy. He believes in strong national defense. He has given me (I am below federal poverty level for a family of 4) tax cuts and tax relief. It is not just the rich that have benefitted. He did at least volunteer for a place in the military. Something several others did not. (I know John Kerry did too... ) He never protested against fellow troops or his government during war time when they needed the most support. He believes in a Faith-based initiative program. He has withstood a severe attack on American soil as our leader, did not break under pressure, and is still a straight talker to this day. His speech is not polished, presumptious, and fake, but plain, humble and real. He has a genuine smile and realizes when a joke is on him, and not "at" him. He calls for all Americans, of all faiths, to pray. He stands for the true definition, and origin, of words like "marriage." He feels no need to second guess the entire recorded history of mankind, and the overwhelming majority throughout, on this matter. He is not afraid to lead. He stands ground on moral and religious issues despite public opinion polls and popularity. He once traded Sammy Sosa. (Really, what has Sosa ever won anyway? A HR title? ) He was a drunk, a druggie and accused of AWOL... yet now he is a sober, clean and 100% PRESENT in office (taking it with him on vacation) and public service LEADER. (unlike his opponents 21% attendance rating to several national security meetings.) He has "flip-flopped" toward the betterment of himself and his country, instead of hindering the funding of schools, military and troop armor. If he changes his mind it is toward positives, and not party politics. He makes his mind up. And if he changes, he doesn't tend to go right back, but instead makes a final switch. (his opponent bases his decision and response on which interest group or media outlet happens to be asking at the time -except the congressional records don't lie.) He is worthy of a second vote from me. Those are just some reasons "why to" vote Bush, IMO.
For the record the stem cells at issue here are taken while at the cell stage. There is no baby. There are no eyes, feet, hands, etc. It is just at the cell stage when the stem cells are collected. I thought the objection was that potential babies were being used.
I dunno if i agree with this one the immigration is already a system filled with corruption and violation yet another loop whole is not welcomed Rocket River not anti imigration . . but definately for keeping it better regulated
Interesting spin considering that the VAST majority of the embryos that would be used for stem cell research will be donated by people who have done in-vitro fertilization and will instead be discarded. That is the real choice, throw the embryo in the trash or use it to cure disease. Sounds like an easy choice for me.
Who are the conservatives on this BBS who give their viewpoints without automatically resorting to demeaning the other side? Here's a little bit about stem cells from the <a href="http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp#useadult">NIH website</a>: So, that answers one question - there are reasons why you can't simply go with adult stem cells. IROC it said: Only Christian groups have gotten funding under this program. Not Jewish. Not Muslim. Not Hindu. No Buddhist. Only Christian. It's not "faith-based".
John Kerry will put money back into the hands of the middle class. George W. Bush is trying to kill the middle class. Reason enough for me to vote for John Kerry this November...I'll be voting for a real economic recovery. One that includes jobs.
I am voting for GWB since: 1. He spends money like a drunk sailor. 2. Federal debt? Who cares! The second coming will happened before the bill comes due, leaving the nonbelievers to pay for our folly. 3. He reduces complex ideas into simple catch phrases that any idiot can understand like "Mission Accomplished" (wasn't that a TV show in the 70s) and "Bring It On". 4. Baits the electorate during the campaign with the best advice that focus groups have to offer. 5. Switches to his real, hard right agenda once the election is over. 6. He appoints federal judges who interpret the Consittution the way the Religious Right thinks is best. School prayer and the 10 commandments will both be back in. Atheist will have their citizenship revoked. Nonchristians will be encouraged to change their flawed religious thinking, before it is too late. Unitarians will go missing. 7. He is dedicated to getting the government off the back of the rich, important people of this country. 8. He supports unrestricted gun ownership. You never know when the citizens will need to start a revolution. Who care what the cops on the streets think since they will be packing new heat too!!! 9. He is dedicated to reforming social security so that it will bankrupt itself sooner, relieve the government of the finiancial burden, and make each citizen solely responsible for funding their retirement. 10. He is dedicated to bankrupting the government (after he leaves office) by repealing as many taxes as possible. Coming out of bankrupcy, all those transfer-of-wealth commie social problems will be killed and the government then can concentrate on what is really important: more prisons and a bigger military. 11. He for using the death penalty to reduce crowding in prisons. 12. He is for invading a new country and rebuilding its nations as he sees fit, every two years. Iran is next, followed by North Korea (or maybe commie Cuba or its satelittle Venezuela). 13. He is for instituting a draft, targeting poor people who don't add much to the economy anyway. 14. He will ask the rich people to take another tax cut to help pay for these two new wars. 15. He is dying to b**** slap the French, at the slighest provocation. 16. He will make sure that American companies get high paying no-bid contracts on our next round of nation building. 17. He will offshore outsource all federal agencies who refuse to disband their unions. 18. He will make sure $5,000 is spent on AIDs in Africa in the next four years, as a good faith first step in fulfilling his promise there. 19. He will attend Michael Moore's funeral, after a tragic plane crash. 20. He will revoke John Kerry's three Purple Hearts, since Kerry really only got scratched way behind enemy lines. 21. He will try his best to make sure we have another 1 miilion net jobs lost in the next four years.
RR: My argument, that stem cell research has potential to relieve sufferring is "interesting spin," but your point, that stem cell research is "kill(ing) someone to save someone else is "fact?" Help me here -- I dig your posts, but my bro, that's a little off. I have never, and will never, advocate killing anyone unless you could retroactively harvest the stem cells of Gloria Estefan in a fatal procedure before Miami Sound Machine recorded 'Conga.' For the record, I'd probably go ahead and ptich those stem cells just to be safe. Folks, if you have done your research, and really in your brain and heart believe that lifting the current restrictions on stem cell research equates to killing people, that's fine, I can't help you. God bless. But if you are concerned, confused or want to learn more about it, please research it, there is alot of mistruth out there. Please try not be spooked into mistrusting well intentioned, reasonable, wicked-smart researchers who have spent years trying to make life better, not make it worse. Stem cell is not cloning. Stem cell is not abortion. Those who really know about -- but still mask it as such -- are trying to spook good people, and harvest their fears for political benefit. It's the same tactic which is always used to discourage progress -- basically, if we give ourselves powerful tools to better ourselves, we not be able to prevent the misuse of those tools. But that is foolish. Medically, socially, militarily, technologically, etc., this country is not, and has never been best served by the worries of the fearful uninformed. PS. Apparently, I feel the need to derail every thread with this. Thread title: "Who will start, Lue or Sura." Me: STEM CELL STEM CELL. Sorry, I am running out of gas, I will quit soon. Happy new year.
i'm voting for him because: 1. he was 9-0 going into the belmont; 2. he missed a triple crown by less than a length; 3. he had heart!
Come on. He is a washed up wannabe who was put out to pasture for good reason. He should spend his time servicing mares, not running the country.
