sidebar { width: 226px; float: right; } > /* Bottom layout */

Liberal TreeHugger

I am a conservative but unlike the current breed of "conservatives" I do not believe that the Republican Party is conservative. The current administration is hell bent on spending money taking away rights and playing a shell game with our taxes. I am starting this post to be a direct assault on the radical conservative movement that seeks to distort the record, lie and dupe the American voters into believing they care, are right, and are conservative.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

More Distortions by W the President

So I'm watching the stem cell debate with interest, since I know several people who are affected by disease who may benefit from this type of research.
I hear Bush telling an audience that he does not believe in wasting life in the interest of saving it.

Why then have we sent thousands of people to die in Iraq?

I thought the whole thing was designed as a way to "protect" Americans from an attack that was imminent and would be devastating.

Does anyone remember the mushroom cloud warning that Condi and Dick were passing off as a justification for the invasion?
Or the unsubstantiated accounts of yellow cake uranium that Iraq was trying to acquire from Nigeria? A CIA agent was outed by the White House over that little "distortion" of the truth, no uproar about how that compromised National security... Yet it is a liberal media. Right...

They told us that in order to save lives we would have to sacrifice a few brave soldiers. They were protecting us all back at home from the imminent threat that Saddam posed to us.

Note to you Conservative haters out there, this topic is not about what Saddam did while in power. It is about what Bush says, and then does. As in Bush saying in the debate with Al Gore, "I don't think we should get involved in Nation building" and then taking us to war, er not exactly war, that is why the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Right?
Don't forget that the CIA put Saddam into power as their go to guy.
That is the reason that Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand and gave him all the chemical weapons. He was our best buddy. So this is not about how evil Saddam was. Granted he was a butcher and had little regard for human or civil rights. Still he was our tool in the Middle East.

So how can you reconcile sending people to die under the guise of "protecting the homeland" but refuse to allow medical waste to be turned into a means to cure devastating diseases?

Please explain...

6 Comments:

At 8:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude, your science has been way off over at my place and continues to be way off.

Do you know the difference between stem cell research betwixt adult stem cells and embryionic?

Oh - I got all scientific on your ass, and now you have to study up.

When you do, we'll talk. Even my liberal mom is more educated on her facts before she argues.

 
At 8:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh - and all he did was veto legislation that he promised he would veto back in his last term.

Its a thing presidents do. "Lands on my desk, I must decide."

 
At 9:45 AM, Blogger Mistake Master said...

Please stay on topic ;)

Seriously address the conflicting stance between sending people to die and killing thousands yet denying science a shot at technology that holds a potential to cure people and improve their lives.
Why does Bush worry only about the potential for life while recklessly disregarding existing lives?
I was not addressing the science at all in this post.
I will answer you though,
adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Although the limited research indicates that adult stem cells retain some plasticity they are generally not pluripotent like the embryonic stem cells.
The South Koreans have developed a method for creating these cells without and conception involved.
No conception = no life.

Back to the topic though.

Why the conflicting stance betwixt those beings actually living and those who may perhaps at some undefined point have a shot at living? Potentially... But not really alive right now... Actually not even really anything other than a few cells... How are those cells more relevant that a fully grown human with a job at say... Dell or Georgia Pacific?

 
At 6:27 PM, Blogger Mistake Master said...

I'll hopefully cut you off here,

Funding for the research is restricted by Bush. The research is in fact ongoing.
I just find his position to not fund it Federally to be the conflict between his rhetoric and his actions.

Address Please!

 
At 12:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Number of diseases with promising cures from adult stem cells: over 200

Number of diseases with promising cures from embryonic stem cells: zero

When those numbers change, I'll find new interest in your baby-killing angst, but not until.

You argue that this isn't about science? Scot - really.

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger Mistake Master said...

Please address the conflicting stance that Bush has taken between what he calls the destruction of life to save life and what he is doing by his actions in sending America to a "war" on terror in Iraq and elsewhere.
Do you not see that as a conflicting position?
Can you say that he is not sending life out to be killed in the interest of protecting life?
I don't think that you can reconcile those positions.
Why is a bundle of cells in the form of an embryo more worthy of protection than a man in his twenties with a family, a job and the potential to create more life by procreating?
We can discuss the science of stem cell research at another time. I want to examine the twisted rhetoric that Bush is using as justification to prevent Federal funding on embryonic stem cell research.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home