NationStates Jolt Archive

WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA?????

Oh....here it is.

CNN has learned that President Obama is planning to sign at least one executive order on Monday that will overturn Bush-era policy that limited the types of embryonic stem cell research that can receive federal tax dollars, according to administration officials familiar with the deliberations.

Obama's move will be hailed by advocates for those suffering from a host of diseases ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease, who believe that an expansion of stem cell research could leads to all kinds of medical progress and help eradicate various debilitating diseases. But many conservatives object to the destruction of human embryos because they contend it ends a human life.

The officials said the administration is planning a Monday event at the White House in which Obama will overturn an executive order signed by former President George W. Bush in August 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at the time he signed that order.

Bush also twice vetoed legislation — in July 2006 and June 2007 — that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. At the time, Bush said that because of scientific advances researchers could conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.





So, what do you all think of it? Good move? Immoral? Improving the human condition? Murdering innocent little babies?

WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA?????

Oh....here it is.


I love how you start all your Obama related OPs with this.:D


So, what do you all think of it? Good move? Immoral? Improving the human condition? Murdering innocent little babies?

Great move. Its about time the US stopped falling behind in medicine and science.

Bout damn time...I wants some Heart Valves, Hearts, Livers, Kidneys, Colons, the works dammit, when Im forty this shit better be up and running, lol...

It is about time. This should have been the very first thing he did once he was officially the president. The change took almost two whole months; what a promise-breaker.

It is about time. This should have been the very first thing he did once he was officially the president. The change took almost two whole months; what a promise-breaker.

I, for one, feel betrayed.

I, for one, feel betrayed.

Seriously. TWO WHOLE MONTHS. Change should happen faster!

:p

Seriously. TWO WHOLE MONTHS. Change should happen faster!

:p

What happened to "ready to lead on day one"?


Fucker. God I should have voted for McCain.

God I should have voted for McCain.

:eek::eek::eek2::eek2::eek::eek::eek2::eek:


DONT YOU EVER SCARE ME LIKE THAT AGAIN!!! :mad:



lol:p, (I just wanted to post lots of smileys, lol)

About damn time. I wonder if he's simply overturning the old executive order or replacing it with one with the same restrictions that were in the vetoed bill.

Aw man, and it was so awesome having scientific policy determined by some nonsensical religiously founded conception of morality, that didn't even really apply to the situation at hand when examined but was used as a convenient rallying cry for a relatively short period of time.

About damn time. I wonder if he's simply overturning the old executive order or replacing it with one with the same restrictions that were in the vetoed bill.
ut o

what restrictions were in the bill?

This is just one more step in his insidious plan to destroy us all with his army of gay socialist muslim clones! :eek:

ut o

what restrictions were in the bill?

The bill limited funding to embryos from in vitro fertilization already slated for destruction and instituted a strict informed consent policy.

The latter I absolutely agree with. The former I'm iffy on, but would still be better than Bush's policy.

There's nothing wrong with this research, in and of itself.

But there are plenty of people who, justifiably or not, think there is. There is no valid reason to force them, through their tax dollars, this research (or anything else) that they find reprehensible.

There's nothing wrong with this research, in and of itself.

But there are plenty of people who, justifiably or not, think there is. There is no valid reason to force them, through their tax dollars, this research (or anything else) that they find reprehensible.

So, if I think that all black people should die, that means the police shouldn't protect them?

There's nothing wrong with this research, in and of itself.

But there are plenty of people who, justifiably or not, think there is. There is no valid reason to force them, through their tax dollars, this research (or anything else) that they find reprehensible.

Yeah their is. For the same reason I find the Iraq war reprehensible, but I am forced, through my tax dollars, to pay for it.

This is just one more step in his insidious plan to destroy us all with his army of gay socialist muslim clones! :eek:

They can tell when all the stem cells start pointing towards Mecca and San Francisco.

So, if I think that all black people should die, that means the police shouldn't protect them?

No, it means you shouldn't be forced to pay for the police to protect them. Please pay attention.

Yeah their is. For the same reason I find the Iraq war reprehensible, but I am forced, through my tax dollars, to pay for it.

And you shouldn't be! That's the whole point! Two wrongs do not make a right!

No, it means you shouldn't be forced to pay for the police to protect them. Please pay attention.

So there shouldn't be any government whatsoever anywhere, then, right?

Because there isn't a single action government could take that someone among the governed isn't going to disagree with and thus won't want to fund.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206145301.htm

Actually, so-called defenders of science, Bush's funding of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells has led to the "reprogramming of adult stem cells" to totipotency. In many ways (lack of cancer not least) this research is far more promising than simple embryonic stem cells, and without the medical qualms. If Bush hadn't had restrictions, we never would have gotten this. Indeed, his "moral qualms" have put us way ahead of the game in this lane of research.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

There's nothing wrong with this research, in and of itself.

But there are plenty of people who, justifiably or not, think there is. There is no valid reason to force them, through their tax dollars, this research (or anything else) that they find reprehensible.

It does not seem feasible in real life to allow everyone to pick and choose what gets funded based on what they feel.

This is just one more step in his insidious plan to destroy us all with his army of gay socialist muslim clones! :eek:

I, for one, welcome our new Arabian Marxist sodomite overlords

good move by Obama.

The bill limited funding to embryos from in vitro fertilization already slated for destruction and instituted a strict informed consent policy.

The latter I absolutely agree with. The former I'm iffy on, but would still be better than Bush's policy.
is there reason to believe that the frozen embryo supply isnt enough to meet demand or that custom made embryos are a better bet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206145301.htm

Actually, so-called defenders of science, Bush's funding of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells has led to the "reprogramming of adult stem cells" to totipotency. In many ways (lack of cancer not least) this research is far more promising than simple embryonic stem cells, and without the medical qualms. If Bush hadn't had restrictions, we never would have gotten this. Indeed, his "moral qualms" have put us way ahead of the game in this lane of research.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Im sure you have some sort of evidence that this research was discovered because of Bush's archaic policies, and wouldnt have been discovered otherwise? Or do you just not understand causation?

Besides, there were many problems with the method you mention, its lack of versitility being one.

So there shouldn't be any government whatsoever anywhere, then, right?

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I have no problem with government acting in certain spheres.

What I have a problem with is forcing those who oppose those actions (justifiably or not) to pay for them via their taxation.

Eliminate coercion and we're cool.

There's nothing wrong with this research, in and of itself.

But there are plenty of people who, justifiably or not, think there is. There is no valid reason to force them, through their tax dollars, this research (or anything else) that they find reprehensible.

Screw them. Will they give me their corneas should I need them because stem cell research wasn't funded? No? Then screw them. My life is worth more than their superstitions, and so are the lives of people who NEED stem cell research. Screw them. If they believe so strongly in the rights of bunches of cells, not only they have to believe in the rights of ACTUAL people, but also they should be forced to furnish their organs for harvesting to deal with the consequences of their stupidity on others.

Screw them and their notions. Their notions, though many, are not worth a penny.

Screw them.

My life is worth more than their superstitions

They are not your slaves. They are not obligated to act contrary to their fundamental beliefs, however ridiculous they may be, for your sake. Your life is your problem, and you are not entitled to compel others to provide for it.

They are not your slaves. They are not obligated to act contrary to their fundamental beliefs, however ridiculous they may be, for your sake. Your life is your problem, and you are not entitled to compel others to provide for it.

Their beliefs are their problem too. Besides, if I BELIEVE they should be my slaves, they have to accomodate for my beliefs, per your line of though.

WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA?????

Oh....here it is.

So, what do you all think of it? Good move? Immoral? Improving the human condition? Murdering innocent little babies?

Yay! i look forward to seeing more scientific advances coming out of the USA in the coming years :)

Their beliefs are their problem too.
And never the twain shall meet...

Besides, if I BELIEVE they should be my slaves, they have to accomodate for my beliefs, per your line of though.

That's...not what I actually said. Not at all.

And never the twain shall meet...



That's...not what I actually said. Not at all.

They should not be forced to act counter to their beliefs. I souldn't be forced to act counter to mine and NOT ENSLAVE THEM FOR ORGAN HARVESTING AND SALE.

Simple.

Screw them. Will they give me their corneas should I need them because stem cell research wasn't funded? No? Then screw them. My life is worth more than their superstitions, and so are the lives of people who NEED stem cell research. Screw them. If they believe so strongly in the rights of bunches of cells, not only they have to believe in the rights of ACTUAL people, but also they should be forced to furnish their organs for harvesting to deal with the consequences of their stupidity on others.

Screw them and their notions. Their notions, though many, are not worth a penny.

Screw them.

I couldn't have put it better myself. ;)

They should not be forced to act counter to their beliefs. I souldn't be forced to act counter to mine and NOT ENSLAVE THEM FOR ORGAN HARVESTING AND SALE.

Simple.

Yeah, totally not what I said at all.

I couldn't have put it better myself. ;)

Thank you.

Screw them. Will they give me their corneas should I need them because stem cell research wasn't funded? No? Then screw them. My life is worth more than their superstitions, and so are the lives of people who NEED stem cell research. Screw them. If they believe so strongly in the rights of bunches of cells, not only they have to believe in the rights of ACTUAL people, but also they should be forced to furnish their organs for harvesting to deal with the consequences of their stupidity on others.

Screw them and their notions. Their notions, though many, are not worth a penny.

Screw them.

Will you come run for Senator or Congressman? Seriously, lol...

Will you come run for Senator or Congressman? Seriously, lol...

Awww. I like it when a post I make impresses. :D

To violate ethical boundaries in order to advance science is not acceptable. Destroying human beings is not the way to go about solving illnesses. Will it work? Perhaps. But so did Hitler's use of human beings in medical experiments. Neither are ethical. The means cannot be justified by the ends.

To violate ethical boundaries in order to advance science is not acceptable. Destroying human beings is not the way to go about solving illnesses. Will it work? Perhaps.

Too bad this cluster of cells arent a human being.

But so did Hitler's use of human beings in medical experiments. Neither are ethical. The means cannot be justified by the ends.

Godwin and no.

To violate ethical boundaries in order to advance science is not acceptable. Destroying human beings is not the way to go about solving illnesses. Will it work? Perhaps. But so did Hitler's use of human beings in medical experiments. Neither are ethical. The means cannot be justified by the ends.

People > Small balls of cells.

So are Jews, that are people, too, by the way. I don't know what Hitler's business in this conversation is, but screw him too. :p

People > Small balls of cells.

So are Jews, by the way. I don't know what Hitler's business in this conversation is, but screw him too. :p

There is something disturbingly anti-semitic in believing that Jews and little balls of cells are on the same level.

At the very least, it cheaps the Jews.

I have absolutely no problem with funding stem cell research. It's only involuntary funding I oppose.

There is something disturbingly anti-semitic in believing that Jews and little balls of cells are on the same level.

At the very least, it cheaps the Jews.

You do realize I was saying that Jews > little balls of cells, right?

I have absolutely no problem with funding stem cell research. It's only involuntary funding I oppose.

Again with this?

Read my first post in this thread, for thy better understanding.

You do realize I was saying that Jews > little balls of cells, right?

My comment wasnt directed at you, I quoted you because it was more of an aside to you.

Like your friend whispering to you during class.

To violate ethical boundaries in order to advance science is not acceptable. Destroying human beings is not the way to go about solving illnesses. Actually, no Human beings need be destroyed, as Stem Cells arent people.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_Cells


Will it work? Perhaps. But so did Hitler's use of human beings in medical experiments. Neither are ethical. The means cannot be justified by the ends.

yes, perhaps it will work...but, no Hitler's use of Human Beings did not in fact yield relevant results, name 1 thing his experiments did that advanced Medical science in any way...

Typically, the experiments resulted in death, disfigurement or permanent disability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

And, in this case, being that the means are entirely within the rights of the scientists and the US Constitution, the ends can justify the means, in this situation...

"Change" related smugness notwithstanding, this is excellent. Quite excellent.

My comment wasnt directed at you, I quoted you because it was more of an aside to you.

Like your friend whispering to you during class.

...it was you then... That told me to strip and do the macarena on the teacher's desk...

YOU ARE THE VOICE IN MY HEAD!

ZOMG!!! \o/

Oh, and a note to the OP: Obama's slight deviation from his predecessor on a few trivial issues such as this one does not constitute meaningful "change." In most other aspects, it's more of the same, especially in regard to foreign policy (http://www.antiwar.com/justin?articleid=14336). But that's another subject for another thread.

Again with this?

Read my first post in this thread, for thy better understanding.

I understand you, I'm just giving my two cents.

Oh, and a note to the OP: Obama's slight deviation from his predecessor on a few trivial issues such as this one does not constitute meaningful "change." In most other aspects, it's more of the same, especially in regard to foreign policy (http://www.antiwar.com/justin?articleid=14336). But that's another subject for another thread.


Slight deviation from his predecessor on a few trivial issues?

You have a strange definition of "slight" and "trivial".

Slight deviation from his predecessor on a few trivial issues?

You have a strange definition of "slight" and "trivial".

It's a roundabout way of saying "Where's the change Sauron!?"

People > Small balls of cells.

As a former 'small ball of cells,' I strongly disagree with your assertion that we are not people. I had a unique set of chromosomes, different from my parents yet clearly that of a human organism. I was growing and would soon be the age I am now. Just because I was smaller, doesn't mean I was any less of a person, and to say that I was is extremely offensive (even federal law granted me rights under Public Law 108-212).

All human beings, no matter their size, age, or stage of life, deserve to live.

As a former 'small ball of cells,' I strongly disagree with your assertion that we are not people. I had a unique set of chromosomes, different from my parents yet clearly that of a human organism. I was growing and would soon be the age I am now. Just because I was smaller, doesn't mean I was any less of a person, and to say that I was is extremely offensive (even federal law granted me rights under Public Law 108-212).

You're right, just because you were smaller does not mean you weren't a person. The complete lack of any discernible organs or central nervous system on the other hand....

Slight deviation from his predecessor on a few trivial issues?

You have a strange definition of "slight" and "trivial".

This is really a trivial issue compared to the other issues that are going on.

As a former 'small ball of cells,' I strongly disagree with your assertion that we are not people. I had a unique set of chromosomes, different from my parents yet clearly that of a human organism. I was growing and would soon be the age I am now. Just because I was smaller, doesn't mean I was any less of a person, and to say that I was is extremely offensive (even federal law granted me rights under Public Law 108-212).

All human beings, no matter their size, age, or stage of life, deserve to live.

:rolleyes:


By God, I dont have the willpower right now to refute this inane arguement yet again, and am a little drunk, so the eyeroll is all you get.

Slight deviation from his predecessor on a few trivial issues?

You have a strange definition of "slight" and "trivial".

So far it's more of the same. More profligate spending. More war (Obama didn't object to Iraq on moral grounds, he objected on "we're killing the wrong foreigners!" grounds). More consolidation of power in Washington, D.C. No reduction in the size of the police state. He might have a better smile and a bigger brain (but who doesn't?) then his thankfully departed predecessor, but his rhetoric notwithstanding (and it is just rhetoric), he's just more of the same.

Don't believe me? Just ask if the Afghanis if this is "change we can believe in!"

All human beings, no matter their size, age, or stage of life, deserve to live.

And you weren't a human being yet when you were a fetus in your mother's uterus. Next.

This is really a trivial issue compared to the other issues that are going on.

Thats a matter of perspective. The guy can multitask. He is also working on the economy, for example.

I dont think finding cures to diseases is "trivial".

This is really a trivial issue compared to the other issues that are going on.

^ This.

Compared to the myriad other important issues facing us, both domestically and internationally, I'd call this one trivial (not trivial per se, but trivial in comparison to the others).

As a former 'small ball of cells,' I strongly disagree with your assertion that we are not people. I had a unique set of chromosomes, different from my parents yet clearly that of a human organism. I was growing and would soon be the age I am now. Just because I was smaller, doesn't mean I was any less of a person, and to say that I was is extremely offensive (even federal law granted me rights under Public Law 108-212).

All human beings, no matter their size, age, or stage of life, deserve to live.

Neo! NEO! Solve this, please. Your move is perfect for him, give him Bob, the Janitor...

Neo! NEO! Solve this, please. Your move is perfect for him, give him Bob, the Janitor...

Oh, Bob has gotten a little passe, we'll see where this goes before I trot his old bones out.

^ This.

Compared to the myriad other important issues facing us, both domestically and internationally, I'd call this one trivial (not trivial per se, but trivial in comparison to the others).

The restrictions GWB put on potentially life saving research is trivial . . .I had no idea.

This is really a trivial issue compared to the other issues that are going on.

On a symbolic level, I disagree. It is a significant divergence from the thrust of the past 8 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206145301.htm

Actually, so-called defenders of science, Bush's funding of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells has led to the "reprogramming of adult stem cells" to totipotency. In many ways (lack of cancer not least) this research is far more promising than simple embryonic stem cells, and without the medical qualms. If Bush hadn't had restrictions, we never would have gotten this. Indeed, his "moral qualms" have put us way ahead of the game in this lane of research.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Ah, ignorance.

The reprogrammed cells do not act exactly as ES cells. They are similar, yes, but not the same.

Meanwhile, the reprogramming requires genetic modification through viral vectors - which makes these cells basically unusable in any cell therapy.


is there reason to believe that the frozen embryo supply isnt enough to meet demand or that custom made embryos are a better bet?

There are a couple. First of all, there is the idea of therapeutic cloning - which could not be funded under such restrictions. The idea behind that is to custom make cells for the patient through cloning procedures, thus getting around all worries of immune rejection. It hasn't yet been accomplished in humans, but there are labs trying.

The second I can think of off of the top of my head is the study of genetic diseases. Most people tend to focus on cell therapies when they talk about embryonic stem cell research. What they forget is that ES cells also give us an unmatched window into early human development. Some who research genetic diseases and how to treat them would like to specifically create embryos with these diseases in order to investigate exactly how the disease affects development - and how those effects might be counter-acted. They are unlikely to find the embryos they need from discarded IVF embryos.


Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I have no problem with government acting in certain spheres.

What I have a problem with is forcing those who oppose those actions (justifiably or not) to pay for them via their taxation.

Eliminate coercion and we're cool.

In other words, there shouldn't be any government. A voluntary government is an ineffective one at best, and is pretty much a non-existent one.

As a former 'small ball of cells,' I strongly disagree with your assertion that we are not people. I had a unique set of chromosomes, different from my parents yet clearly that of a human organism. I was growing and would soon be the age I am now. Just because I was smaller, doesn't mean I was any less of a person, and to say that I was is extremely offensive (even federal law granted me rights under Public Law 108-212).

All human beings, no matter their size, age, or stage of life, deserve to live.
oh please. A fetus is not a person. it bears greater similarity to an organ, a parasite . . . or possibly a tumor than a human. (and by this definition almost every sexually active women is guilty of reckless endangerment and possible manslaughter.)

Ah, ignorance.

The reprogrammed cells do not act exactly as ES cells. They are similar, yes, but not the same.

Meanwhile, the reprogramming requires genetic modification through viral vectors - which makes these cells basically unusable in any cell therapy.

even worse, their telomere length remains identical, meaning these cells will have a much shorter lifespan than its new hosts cells.

In other words, there shouldn't be any government. A voluntary government is an ineffective one at best, and is pretty much a non-existent one.

Exactly, I would like to add a reference to the Articles of Confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)

As an Example of the type of government he seems to be implying...

In other words, there shouldn't be any government. A voluntary government is an ineffective one at best, and is pretty much a non-existent one.

Where did I say there should be no government? All I said was that there should be no taxation.

Or are you so conservative that you can't envision any other means of funding government?

Where did I say there should be no government? All I said was that there should be no taxation.

Or are you so conservative that you can't envision any other means of funding government?

I can envision several. All of them so cripplingly inefficient that they amount to no system at all, however.

Where did I say there should be no government? All I said was that there should be no taxation.

Or are you so conservative that you can't envision any other means of funding government?

so tell me, aside from taking money from the populace how would YOU fund a government?

so tell me, aside from taking money from the populace how would YOU fund a government?

deficit spending *nod*

I love how you start all your Obama related OPs with this.:D
I rather dislike it. And I'm not sure it's any less annoying than the real "Where is the change?!" cries. . .




Great move. Its about time the US stopped falling behind in medicine and science.
This and this. With the full force of America's know-how (both private and public) pointed in the right direction, and supported by the American government, all technological advances cease to be a matter of 'if' and simply and matter of 'when'. I truley believe that.

Remember...President Kennedy's announcement in 1961 that America "should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

Well, while in 1961 that seemed impossible, by 1969 an American was on the moon. :)

This lack of technological support from the Bush administration was probably my biggest problem problem with them.

In any event, I had already brought this up a while ago. The Economist had covered this:

http://media.economist.com/images/20090131/D0509ST1.jpg
American attitudes to stem-cell therapies are changing fast

FOR the past eight years, America’s government has declined to fund new research into one of the world’s most promising medical technologies: the use of human embryonic stem cells to repair or replace damaged tissue in the diseased and injured. Embryonic stem cells are special for two reasons, one scientific and one ethical. The scientific reason is that they are able to turn into any of the body’s myriad cell types, which is why they might be used in this way. The ethical reason is that, at the moment, harvesting them usually involves killing human embryos. The embryos in question have no future anyway (they are usually “spares” from in vitro fertilisation procedures). But it was this destruction of potential human life that disturbed George Bush and his supporters.

Barack Obama has promised to reverse the ban. When that happens, American academics will no longer have to watch enviously from the sidelines as their colleagues in Australia, Britain, China, the Czech Republic, Israel, Singapore and South Korea push ahead. But though the legislative wheels have yet to start turning, the mood has already shifted.

One sign of this shift came on January 23rd when the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted permission for the first clinical trial of a therapy based on human embryonic stem cells to Geron, a firm based in Menlo Park, California. Geron was able to ask for permission, and the FDA was able to grant it, because the ban does not apply to privately financed research. America, it seems, is back in the stem-cell business.

. . .

Michael West, the founder of Geron and now head of BioTime, another biotechnology company, says the existing legislation has affected privately financed research as well as the public sort. Investors have been frightened off by the political debate. Once it is gone, the full brunt of America’s innovative know-how, academic and private, could transform the subject, as other countries may soon find out.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13014104


Barack Obama is making good his promise to welcome scientists into his administration
http://media.economist.com/images/20090110/D0209ST1.jpg

ONE of the stranger beliefs of some politicians is that if they treat nature like a troublesome opponent and ignore it, it might go away and stop bothering them. In the opinion of many scientists George Bush, America’s retiring president, was just such a politician. It would be one thing, for example, to argue that it is too expensive to stop climate change and that adapting to such change is a better course of action. It is quite another, as White House officials have done in the past, to describe climate change as a liberal cause without merit.

Mr Bush’s administration also stands accused of suppressing the publication of research he did not like. In 2007, for example, Richard Carmona, then surgeon general, testified to Congress that Mr Bush’s officials had delayed and tried to “water down” a report which concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm. It has been criticised, too, for preferring AIDS-prevention techniques based on abstinence (which don’t work, but have a moral appeal to Mr Bush and his supporters) to those that use condoms (which do work). His attitude to research on embryonic stem cells did not endear him to many scientists, either, and although the disagreement in this case was about a matter of principle rather than one of scientific truth, the decision to stop funding such research was seen as yet another example of how low the stock of science had fallen in the government.

Well, it is rising now. On December 15th Barack Obama, the incoming president, announced that he was nominating Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize-winning physicist, to be his energy secretary. At the moment, Dr Chu is head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he has built up a big solar-energy-research project. He is also a strong advocate of research into nuclear power and foresees a world in which fossil fuels are largely replaced by other sources of energy.


http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12887207

And like I said before, this is one change I am excited about and looking foward to.

Thats a matter of perspective. The guy can multitask. He is also working on the economy, for example.

I dont think finding cures to diseases is "trivial".

That is not the trivial part.

The trivial part is the social issue aspect.

Also, the argument that an embryo is a human life is still a valid one, in this case, that's a personal opinion, not an incorrect statement.

On a symbolic level, I disagree. It is a significant divergence from the thrust of the past 8 years.

On one social issue.

I am much more concerned about Obama's overall economic policy, which has really been the same: Lots of spending.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;14579001]So, if I think that all black people should die, that means the police shouldn't protect them?[/QUOT:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

On one social issue.

I am much more concerned about Obama's overall economic policy, which has really been the same: Lots of spending.

To paraphrase Thatcher, there really are more interesting things to occupy oneself with than the economy. Like wars, or shiny new technologies and sciences.

Also, the argument that an embryo is a human life is still a valid one

No, its not.

in this case, that's a personal opinion, not an incorrect statement.

No, its an incorrect statement. Opinions arent worth anything when theyre contrary to the evidence.

No, its not.


Not that I'm against stem cell research, but that is entirely correct. Is it living? Yes, therefore it is life. Had he said 'human person', instead of 'human life', then there may have been an issue.

Its a cover for Obama's planned attempts to create a clone terrorist army.

Its a cover for Obama's planned attempts to create a clone terrorist army.

So, HE was Master Cypher Dias after all, lol...

oh well, I hear these guys are Excellent Soldiers:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_KfbaA4TuSug/RrncUpI9MtI/AAAAAAAAATw/CtnmO7HHqag/s400/republic-commando_a_1024x768.jpg

Those embryos aren't thinking yet. Therefore, I don't consider them alive.

Patients with Parkinson's, on the other hand, are thinking, breathing, etc. They're alive.

I'm willing to destroy the non-thinking embryos to save the thinking Parkinson's patients.

Its a cover for Obama's planned attempts to create a clone terrorist army.

Don't be foolish.

He is going to clone himself so he never has to yield the Presidency. Term limits didn't consider clones!

Don't be foolish.

He is going to clone himself so he never has to yield the Presidency. Term limits didn't consider clones!

Or is it really backup for his plan to turn Sasha to the dark side? ;)