Please remove yourself from this discussion and this thread. Your input is no longer needed as you are incapable of remaining on topic.dankassasin42o wrote:
9/11 CRAP
Wait, Why? This goes HAND IN HAND. Bush isnt willing to destroy a stem cell for research, but is willing to kill 1,000 OF LIVING PEOPLE. Explain that. then explain how this doesnt FIT in to the same Convo, of HOW BUSH IS A FUCKING FAG.Chuckles wrote:
Seriously, start another thread. Thanks for stopping by.dankassasin42o wrote:
How about ill do it right here for you in 1 sentence. Take a look at the video of the confrence bush did a few months after 9/11 in florida. Where a lil girls asks " Mister president, what did you think when you were told about the planes on 9/11?" His anwser, " Well i was watching TV, just an ordinary TV, and saw the 1st plane hit, while i was waiting outside the classroom, and i thought, Wow thats a really bad pilot. then i went in to the class an was reading, my advisor came in a told me a 2nd plane had hit, and i realized it wasnt an accident."kr@cker wrote:
how about you prove bush did it......on another thread
The 1st FUCKING PLANE WASNT SHOWN ON TV UNTIL SEPT 12th. It was SAID THAT BUSH KNEW NOTHING OF IT UNTIL HE WAS INTRUPTED IN THE CLASSROOM. SO WHY THE FUCK DOES HE RECALL WATCHING IT HAPPEN??? MAYBE B"CUZ HIS TV HAD A DIRECT VIDEO FEED, SO HE COULD BE SURE HIS PLAN WORKED. Why WERE THE Hi Jacked Planes shot down?? Anwser these.
Ok, you convinced me. You win. Bush did it. That bastard!dankassasin42o wrote:
umm... nice disproving comment. U have no argument. Go blow yourself.kr@cker wrote:
no
Because we are discussions the agreement or disaggreement of the vetoed stem cell research bill. We are NOT discussing if Bush is a fucktart. I already know it's true and hence do not need to discuss that in this thread. Please pull your head out of your collective ass and get back on topic or else LEAVE this thread. My humble request as the person who started this thread. Thank you.dankassasin42o wrote:
Wait, Why? This goes HAND IN HAND. Bush isnt willing to destroy a stem cell for research, but is willing to kill 1,000 OF LIVING PEOPLE. Explain that. then explain how this doesnt FIT in to the same Convo, of HOW BUSH IS A FUCKING FAG.
Yes we already know this. And we have already discussed that additional funding regardless of where it comes from can only help. And yes the shouting match about supporters funding the program themselves has already been done. Thank you for your input however.rugburnv2.0 wrote:
Okay, this may be hard for some of you to understand, but here goes...
Bush is not BANNING any stem cell research. What he vetoed was more FEDERAL FUNDING for said research. I don't know about you (in the US, anyway), but I really don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to fund Pfizer or Bristol-Meyers or Johnson and Johnson's research into a cure for (insert disease here). They want the taxpayers to fund all their research, then when they come up with the cure, you think they'll give you a discount??? Do you have any idea what the cures for cancer, AIDS, paralysis, etc would be worth? If they think there is so much "hope" in stem cell research, let them spend their own money finding it. They're going to set the price on it anyway.
Just my .02
Id rather pay my tax dollars to Curing (said disease) then have my tax dollars fund a war, based on bullshit.rugburnv2.0 wrote:
Okay, this may be hard for some of you to understand, but here goes...
Bush is not BANNING any stem cell research. What he vetoed was more FEDERAL FUNDING for said research. I don't know about you (in the US, anyway), but I really don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to fund Pfizer or Bristol-Meyers or Johnson and Johnson's research into a cure for (insert disease here). They want the taxpayers to fund all their research, then when they come up with the cure, you think they'll give you a discount??? Do you have any idea what the cures for cancer, AIDS, paralysis, etc would be worth? If they think there is so much "hope" in stem cell research, let them spend their own money finding it. They're going to set the price on it anyway.
Just my .02
That's right. They need to save that money to give more subsidies to those poor oil companies. They're the ones that are going to swoop in and save us in the end.rugburnv2.0 wrote:
Okay, this may be hard for some of you to understand, but here goes...
Bush is not BANNING any stem cell research. What he vetoed was more FEDERAL FUNDING for said research. I don't know about you (in the US, anyway), but I really don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to fund Pfizer or Bristol-Meyers or Johnson and Johnson's research into a cure for (insert disease here). They want the taxpayers to fund all their research, then when they come up with the cure, you think they'll give you a discount??? Do you have any idea what the cures for cancer, AIDS, paralysis, etc would be worth? If they think there is so much "hope" in stem cell research, let them spend their own money finding it. They're going to set the price on it anyway.
Just my .02
Last edited by Chuckles (2006-07-21 14:43:05)
What if the embryos have no potential to become humans? Scientists in support of the research are trying to make it understood that embryos created in peitri dishes would not grow into humans and do not have that potential.mcgid1 wrote:
I'm probably going to get flamed for this but...I am against the idea of harvesting human life, even life that might not yet be self aware but still has the potential to become human, even if it has the potential to benefit others. Btw as a diabetic it is possible that I could benefit from this kind of research, but even if it becomes practical I still would have that moral dilemma before accepting any treatment stemming from this kind of research.
Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-07-21 21:38:34)
Some might agree with that point whole heartedly. If, of course, you removed "John Kerry" and replaced it with "George W. Bush" and "liberal" with "Conservative".Major_Spittle wrote:
Lets just round up everyone that voted for John Kerry. They show no signs of brain activity, a thus are not viable canidates to develop from a liberal into a human. Zygots at least have a pretty good track record of becoming humans.
True true.Chuckles wrote:
Some might agree with that point whole heartedly. If, of course, you removed "John Kerry" and replaced it with "George W. Bush" and "liberal" with "Conservative".Major_Spittle wrote:
Lets just round up everyone that voted for John Kerry. They show no signs of brain activity, a thus are not viable canidates to develop from a liberal into a human. Zygots at least have a pretty good track record of becoming humans.
I wouldn't be one of them, but some might agree.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-22 16:58:46)
the key word WOULD. it isnt a child yet. eating veal is wrong /w u to? cuz that veal WOULD become a cow eventually. sacrafice a few to save the many, how hard is it to understand? IMO and the opinion of the MAJORITY of the world, 10 "lives" (if u want to call them alive) could cure/save 1 in 3 americans with illneses alone would b worth it.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
You have no morals or any ability to use spell check. That "thing" would become a child. It could be a the next Mozart or just an ordinary person. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins? Thats playing God and I dont have faith in humans to be able to make that judgement.TeamZephyr wrote:
It's not a "matter of morals". What I find immoral about this is that Bush is so stubborn to prevent technological advancements in medicine and safing lives because he finds it against HIS PERSONAL beliefts.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Im not a crazy christian or anything. Its a matter of morals. I just dont like the idea of creating life then ending that life, especially when there are alternative methods able to be used.
Something that is a few weeks old or maybe a couple of months isn't alive, it is not a human, it is a growth inside someones body. The people who sell their unborns to stem cell research don't plant the egg with the intention of doing that. Many of the donaters are unwanted pregancys, meaning that this research and technology also helps them from undergoing a lot of pain themselves.
Last edited by destruktion_6143 (2006-07-22 19:36:29)
i like how you totally stereotype me and assume that you know me, guess what assuming does, makes an ass out of you.dankassasin42o wrote:
What if you were 16, and your girlfiend also 16. Well this summer you go camping. While your gone, she was raped, and now is pregnant. Now her entire life is changed, she wont graduate, or even complete school, she has a basturd child to care for. You still think abortion is 100% wrong? If so your so fucked in your head, you should be killed an served on a plate along with BUSHHURLEY wrote:
I'm glad, i think abortion is wrong when People do it for "convenience".
I know someone that has diabetes and still would rather have diabetes than take the life of an unborn, even if they were to be disposed of anyway.
An asshole like you, would prolly find out, dump her. and destrory her life so much she takes her own life. Now thats 2 lost lives. Ill allow the choice to take 1, then loose both..
Last edited by HURLEY (2006-07-22 19:48:12)
You have horrible anologies. I dont like veal but that is a bad description because it is already living obviously. You may think that its ok to kill ten would be children to help one person but I dont, especially when there are ALTERNATIVE methods. Say it with me now, ALTERNATIVE methods for getting stem cells.destruktion_6143 wrote:
the key word WOULD. it isnt a child yet. eating veal is wrong /w u to? cuz that veal WOULD become a cow eventually. sacrafice a few to save the many, how hard is it to understand? IMO and the opinion of the MAJORITY of the world, 10 "lives" (if u want to call them alive) could cure/save 1 in 3 americans with illneses alone would b worth it.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
You have no morals or any ability to use spell check. That "thing" would become a child. It could be a the next Mozart or just an ordinary person. Who are we to decide that we can end that life before it even begins? Thats playing God and I dont have faith in humans to be able to make that judgement.TeamZephyr wrote:
It's not a "matter of morals". What I find immoral about this is that Bush is so stubborn to prevent technological advancements in medicine and safing lives because he finds it against HIS PERSONAL beliefts.
Something that is a few weeks old or maybe a couple of months isn't alive, it is not a human, it is a growth inside someones body. The people who sell their unborns to stem cell research don't plant the egg with the intention of doing that. Many of the donaters are unwanted pregancys, meaning that this research and technology also helps them from undergoing a lot of pain themselves.
Last edited by -=NHB=- Bananahands (2006-07-22 22:21:01)
Last edited by CC-Marley (2006-07-22 22:26:21)
Acording to this http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp Adult stem cells can not be used to create any cell of the body. The embryonic cells would come from matter that is not, never was, and never will be living.CC-Marley wrote:
Adult stem cells now can be used to create any cell of the body. Don't need to kill the embryonic cells. AM I wrong? Didn't think so.
Last edited by j5f5ff (2006-07-22 23:30:33)
Very dissapointing to me also. For selfish reasons I cant fucking believe he gave into the Fucking moral police in this country. The same tree hugging bastards that wont let us drill for our own oil because maybe a deer or two might die. This research could save MILLIONS of people from the suffering of day to day life because of a dibilitating disease or injury. Someone like ME!!!!Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Of all the things to pick as a first veto.
What a...I can't even put into words how crazy it all makes me feel.
With the decline of merrage and the Me Me Me attitude in this country. Where you would rather have all these toys and a career while not being tied down and having indescriminent sex, theres going to be a HUGE rise in abortions. Im against abortions for the wrong reasons, But i have to support them being done because of a comitted crime. But for being so stupid as not to use birth control, i have to agree that abortion is wrong in that case.HURLEY wrote:
i like how you totally stereotype me and assume that you know me, guess what assuming does, makes an ass out of you.dankassasin42o wrote:
What if you were 16, and your girlfiend also 16. Well this summer you go camping. While your gone, she was raped, and now is pregnant. Now her entire life is changed, she wont graduate, or even complete school, she has a basturd child to care for. You still think abortion is 100% wrong? If so your so fucked in your head, you should be killed an served on a plate along with BUSHHURLEY wrote:
I'm glad, i think abortion is wrong when People do it for "convenience".
I know someone that has diabetes and still would rather have diabetes than take the life of an unborn, even if they were to be disposed of anyway.
An asshole like you, would prolly find out, dump her. and destrory her life so much she takes her own life. Now thats 2 lost lives. Ill allow the choice to take 1, then loose both..
Really, i still think that abortions wrong and considering i said "convenience" you dumb bitch so go suck at life you abortion survivor. and 90% of women that get an abortion say that they were wrong and shouldn't have and WOULDN'T have but they were misled and lied to. so go fuck yourself you tool.
and saying that i should be killed? I'm not the one thats fucked in the head, your the one that has anger issues.