NationStates Jolt Archive

Anybody see it? I thought his speech was engaging, remarkable and interesting. He was speaking about the urgent necessity to approve embryonic stem-cell research and treatments.

I wonder what the Christian Right faction of the Republicans made of it?

For him to say that it was not a political speech was hogwash. First off you are at the biggest event for the Democratic party every four years, of course its going to be political whether he really intended it or not.

At the end of his speech stated that there is a vote for stem cell research and there was a vote against and imploring people to cast a vote for stem cell research in November. Now we all know that Bush stands against federal funding of stem cell research and that Kerry does. Ron Reagan was essentially telling others to vote for Kerry even though he said it was not a "political" speech.

A question I would like to pose to all those supporters of stem cell research, if there is so much hope in this research of curing diseases like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclorosis (spelling?), and other uncurable diseases why isn't private funding of said research poring into it?

I mean there would be tons of private money if there was a realistic hope of getting a decent return on investment. But there is not. Now I could care less if people want to spend their own money on this research but I do not want to have my money paid in taxes to the Federal government to fund this research.

His was a good speech. I think that he stressed that it wasn't political to save face, and tone down the mood of fanatacism that was beginning to hang around the convention - me, bleeding heart liberal, was getting really tired of the constant repitition - and his speech certainly cut through a lot of that.

He's not bad looking either.

For him to say that it was not a political speech was hogwash. First off you are at the biggest event for the Democratic party every four years, of course its going to be political whether he really intended it or not.

At the end of his speech stated that there is a vote for stem cell research and there was a vote against and imploring people to cast a vote for stem cell research in November. Now we all know that Bush stands against federal funding of stem cell research and that Kerry does. Ron Reagan was essentially telling others to vote for Kerry even though he said it was not a "political" speech.

A question I would like to pose to all those supporters of stem cell research, if there is so much hope in this research of curing diseases like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclorosis (spelling?), and other uncurable diseases why isn't private funding of said research not poring into it?

I mean there would be tons of private money if there was a realistic hope of getting a decent return on investment. But there is not. Now I could care less if people want to spend their own money on this research but I do not want to have my money paid in taxes to the Federal government to fund this research.

Yep and next you'll be telling us your 'christian' right?

You people aren't Christian, you go against everything Jesus taught from Compassion, Forgiveness and Tolerance, you contradict them all with your bigotted views. Just wait until the second coming, the likes of you will be thrown into hell for your version of Christianity.

And Stem Cell Research does offer massive rewards in terms of benefits for people with Prakinsons, Alzheimers and Paralysation, go and read any medical journal and it will explain the medical benefits of this research and why the Christian far right are scum.

On a scale of 1-10 for flaming you get a 10 Nazi Weaponized Virus. Now that you have gotten your daily ration of hate out of your system lets actually answer the question that I posed in my first post in this thread instead of seeing my screename, then pouring out bilge through your keyboard and condeming me to hell.

:headbang:

A question I would like to pose to all those supporters of stem cell research, if there is so much hope in this research of curing diseases like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclorosis (spelling?), and other uncurable diseases why isn't private funding of said research not poring into it?

I mean there would be tons of private money if there was a realistic hope of getting a decent return on investment. But there is not. Now I could care less if people want to spend their own money on this research but I do not want to have my money paid in taxes to the Federal government to fund this research.
There's tons of private money going into research on these issues--a lot of that research has been crippled by the idiotic position taken by the Bush administration on stem cell research. You really ought to get your facts straight before assessing blame.

a lot of that research has been crippled by the idiotic position taken by the Bush administration on stem cell research. You really ought to get your facts straight before assessing blame.

Exactly who did I blame in my original post? If it sounds like I'm blaming someone which I'm sure I'm not, that was not the intention.

You are essentially blaming the Bush administration about this. Private money is still allowed to flow to this research, its not like Bush is not allowing any research at all, he simply will not allow any federal money to go into it.

Exactly who did I blame in my original post? If it sounds like I'm blaming someone which I'm sure I'm not, that was not the intention.

You are essentially blaming the Bush administration about this. Private money is still allowed to flow to this research, its not like Bush is not allowing any research at all, he simply will not allow any federal money to go into it.
That's also incorrect. The Bush administration hasn't stopped federal grants for research into Alzheimers or Parkinsons or any of the other many diseases being researched. What he's done is crippled the research by limiting the lines of stem cells that can legally be used in the US. It's not the money that's the issue--it's the restrictions against stem cell research that's causing the problem, and the restrictions were put in place by George W. Bush by means of an Executive Order, soI absolutely blame him.

If I'm passionate about this, it's because I have two people very close to me who have diseases that stem cell research might help--my dad has Alzheimers and my nephew has Spinal Muscular Atrophy. I realize it's only a maybe that this research will help either of them or others like them, but it's ridiculous to me to restrict research because a minority of people in the country believe that a fertilized egg--an egg that was fertilized in a lab and would only be discarded, an egg that is like the millions of others that are spontaneously aborted by women every month without even knowing they were ever carrying them--is the equivalent of a human life.

Exactly who did I blame in my original post? If it sounds like I'm blaming someone which I'm sure I'm not, that was not the intention.

You are essentially blaming the Bush administration about this. Private money is still allowed to flow to this research, its not like Bush is not allowing any research at all, he simply will not allow any federal money to go into it.

Ok the key is the stem cells. Where you going to get them.

Investors are coming in but they are gambling the ruling will be over turned.

Kerry has a chance of changing his mind. The shrub and the repubs will not as they have to answer to the Christian base.

The is going to loose big if we don't get involved.

If I'm passionate about this, it's because I have two people very close to me who have diseases that stem cell research might help--my dad has Alzheimers and my nephew has Spinal Muscular Atrophy. I realize it's only a maybe that this research will help either of them or others like them, but it's ridiculous to me to restrict research because a minority of people in the country believe that a fertilized egg--an egg that was fertilized in a lab and would only be discarded, an egg that is like the millions of others that are spontaneously aborted by women every month without even knowing they were ever carrying them--is the equivalent of a human life.

I am with you on that one. My mom has MS.

I am with you on that one. My mom has MS.
mine too.

from http://zombiedeathkoala.blogspot.com:

I am a Ronald Reagan fan.

No, not the Gipper, the Junior Gipper. The son who said, at his father's well-publicized funeral, "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man, but he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians -- wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage." A subtle hint to the neo-cons of today, and one that was well phrased to both leave no doubt of its intent and also to give no opennings for direct rebuttal.

The chap who was chastized by William Buckley for admitting respect for Buddhist teachings in an interview with the New York Times. As Buckley sees it, saying he admired Buddhist teachings of ''mindfulness and loving kindness and compassion," was Ron's way to "profane/deride the faith of [his] parents, which is not very mindful.'' I guess it would be more respectful of Ron to pretend faith he does not feel and to express contempt and hatred for other religious groups. Or perhaps he should simply not think anything his folks might potentially disagree with, since that sort of mindless obedience is every parent's hope for their offspring.

I especially like how Ron's failure to vote for George W. Bush was refered to as "the political infidelity of the son of Ronald Reagan" by the same people who accuse Ron of playing up his famous father for a personal agenda (said selfish agenda being the advance of stem cell research for the purpose of saving lives and curing disease). Aparently, when he votes or talks about voting, Ron Reagan is supposed to base his decisions entirely on the party his father belonged to, but when he talks about issues on which his father disagreed with that party he isn't supposed to let anybody know he's a Reagan. Interesting.

But best of all, Ron Reagan, Jr., wasn't afraid to make an appearance at the DNC, and he was strong enough to refuse requests to use his speech for Bush-bashing. As Reagan told The Philadelphia Inquirer, "This gives me a platform to educate people about stem cell research." Since the GOP was not willing to allow him that forum, and the Democrats were, the simple fact that he is there will be a message on the party differences, and trying to use Reagan as a tool for more partisan name-calling would only weaken the thrust.

Granted, he does carry the tainted legacy of his senile, warlord-supporting, drug-dealing, economy-crippling pater, but it looks like little Ronny may be a prime example of environment and human intellect trumping genetic predisposition.