Smallc Posted January 18, 2009 Report Posted January 18, 2009 That's not rational....would you have felt the same way about FDR because of internment camps? Yes! The US doesn't owe you accelerated progress on stem cell research; the US has certainly contributed more to the effort than Canada, with or without "executive orders". I never said the US owed me anything. The US has taken a back seat to the UK, France, India, China, Russia, and in some cases, even Canada in this area because they were prohibited from proceeding on many fronts. I want the US to move forward in this for the good of the entire world. The more people we have working on it, the better. When I say things it isn't usually about me. You should try looking at the broader picture once in a while. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Posted January 18, 2009 I never said the US owed me anything. The US has taken a back seat to the UK, France, India, China, Russia, and in some cases, even Canada in this area because they were prohibited from proceeding on many fronts. I want the US to move forward in this for the good of the entire world. The more people we have working on it, the better. What you want and what the US does are two very different things. The good of the entire world? Are you joking? When I say things it isn't usually about me. You should try looking at the broader picture once in a while. I did...and I found a very self serving comment by you about a foreign politician.....odd indeed. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted January 18, 2009 Report Posted January 18, 2009 The good of the entire world? Are you joking? You don't think that increased forward movement in medical research is good for humanity? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Posted January 18, 2009 You don't think that increased forward movement in medical research is good for humanity? Not necessarily....this planet is infested with human beings. More importantly, far more people could benefit from something as simple as clean potable water...or HIV programs....from....executive orders. If Canada wants to blow its wad on stem cell research (funny, but it hasn't)...then go for it. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted January 18, 2009 Report Posted January 18, 2009 Not necessarily....this planet is infested with human beings. Very nice. I'm done with you now. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Very nice. I'm done with you now. Bye.....please give my best to the "fetal tissue". Looks like Canada only budgeted a paltry $27 million on stem cell research for 2006 - 2007. The US spent about $600 million in 2005 alone. http://www.stemcellforum.org/about_the_isc...th_research.cfm Edited January 18, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 I know that. She was going to be Vice President. That would have made her President of the Senate. She also would have been a 72 year old heartbeat away from the ability to use executive orders. I don't want her anywhere near either of those things. I know, how scary would it have been to have Sarah Palin as VP? Imagine her being incharge of energy and special needs children issues, while once in a blue moon breaking a tie in the senate. Because I fear for my neighbours ....and because I'd like stem cell research to finally start to move forward in the US again...and because I really just don't agree with any single thing that the Governor talked about.... Again, you're quite misinformed. Stem cell research has been going on for a long, long, time. And there's a difference between stem cell research, and embryonic stem cell research. And there's also a difference between private sector stem cell research, and government funded stem cell research. There are no limits to private sector stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. There are some limits to government funded embryonic stem cell research (you can't indefinitely create embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them for reasearch). http://www.abc2news.com/news/local/story/M...2A.cspx?rss=702http://www.democratandchronicle.com/articl...36/1041/OPINION Because you never looked, and checking would have not fit your bias. Nope. The only bias that exists is in the mainstream media. Providing a couple of local television station stories, as oppose to the national media illustrates my point. And the estimated cost of Obama's inauguration is approaching $170 million dollars now. The story you provided was just the state of Maryland's estimated cost. Two entirely different things. Nice try though. Quote
Smallc Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 Again, you're quite misinformed. Since I wasn't wrong about the above, I don't see how you can say 'again.' But regardless, shes not the VP.....THANK GOD. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 I look forward to the Obama Inauguration tomorrow and I think it'll be mostly a celeb who's who and who among them will cry first and most often. My vote goes to Oprah btw. I really hope that he will bring change and not just the same ol', same ol'. I'm sure they'll be some change but some of the same ol' faces will be present in Obama's cabinet so perhaps it'll be business as usual in D.C. To be fair to Obama he has entirely too much pressure on him to be the savior to everyone and to drastically change the world and no one can do this. I think many Obama supporters will be disappointed but at the same time Bush will be an easy act to follow. Who wouldn't want to the President after Bush. Anyone is an improvement on him. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Shady Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 The US doesn't owe you accelerated progress on stem cell research You're so right. It amazes me that American pharmaceutical companies are so reviled. The world lives off of drugs and therapies researched and developed by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Eli Lilly, etc (12 of the world's top 20 are American), while paying a small fraction of the cost to develop such drugs and therapies. After they're developed, the world produces its own generic versions, while letting American companies, and American taxpayers pay the real costs of the research and development of new innovations. And the same can be said of embryonic stem cell research. America spends more money and resources, both public and private, than any other country in the world, but it isn't enough. People of the world want the free, or next to free medical breakthroughs damn it! So let America be the one to spend the billions of dollars. And let America take on the moral and ethical challenges of such research. Create as much life in order to destroy it for medical reasons, and who cares if there's any questions of morality, the people of the world have spoken! They want the benefits without having to participate in any of the risks. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 .... I think many Obama supporters will be disappointed but at the same time Bush will be an easy act to follow. Who wouldn't want to the President after Bush. Anyone is an improvement on him. That's what Jimmy Carter thought too. As for the rest, many will never even get the chance to prove it. Because that is the first test, failed by Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and McCain. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
guyser Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 The only bias that exists is in the mainstream media. Who FOX ? And the estimated cost of Obama's inauguration is approaching $170 million dollars now. Could you refer us to where that came from ? Seems my sources suggest $50M. ....which is more than the $42M that Bush spent , but not grossly so. Yes it is too much, but hey, its their money. Quote
kimmy Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 Who FOX ?Could you refer us to where that came from ? Seems my sources suggest $50M. ....which is more than the $42M that Bush spent , but not grossly so. Yes it is too much, but hey, its their money. Your own article said $150 million... But the question is still valid: Amid these challenging economic times — the worst since the Great Depression — isn't a $150 million party for Obama's inauguration over the top? Frankly, yes. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/articl...36/1041/OPINION -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
guyser Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 Your own article said $150 million... Yes it did, but failed to deduct security costs, as was done before. Quote
August1991 Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Posted March 5, 2009 Check out this photo. You can zoom in and see anyone in the crowd. Quote
jdobbin Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Check out this photo. You can zoom in and see anyone in the crowd. And see that Clarence Thomas is asleep. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Check out this photo. You can zoom in and see anyone in the crowd. That is very cool. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.