lol I believe you should think. The link and related video is a story done by Greg Palast author of books and stories such as:
STILL UNREPORTED: THE PAY-OFF IN BUSH AIR GUARD FIX
DON'T LOOK AT THE FLASH! GROUND ZERO AS PROFIT CENTER
Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Will The Gang That Fixed Florida Fix the Vote in Caracas this Sunday?
Among other things he is a very anti-bush writer and known for it. He links Moore, BushWhackedUSA , and Media Channel among other links on his website (http://www.gregpalast.com/) so please tell me how this suppression is occurring? As well even his anti-bush rhetoric states at the beginning of the real article not BBC's twisted reporting " possibly in violation of US law." The bottom line is this is a Moore piece, no evidence really exists but instead you and others insinuate what may be the reasons and that they may be illegal. Give me a break and stop lying you know nothing. Funny you don't mention the Democrats are doing this same thing; preparing Mass challenges lists just in case a state is close, ever wonder why 10,000 lawyers are being placed across the country by the DNC. Don't try to do a real in-depth investigation buddy, just continue sprouting the nonsense and lies political parties try to spread.
The caging1.xls is a list of names with addresses and you equate that to suppression of black votes, ok Mr. Moore continue with your theories and lying it's apparent you have no touch to reality.
If he was district attorney and he understood the purpose behind the law then he should of known what needed fixing, stated it clearly and voted no on the act. Sorry but when it comes to law, lawyers are held responsible for any contract they sign, unlike an average person. Kerry has been quoted as saying he is a lawyer who knows what's wrong with the patriot act yet he voted it in? Yet you have a problem with seeing the contradiction? Go ask a lawyer about their role in understanding contracts and laws signed and then ask me.
I am sorry but I don't believe those who say someone who voted for the Patriot act did it out of fear. You're a senator it is your responsible to know the gist of laws placed before you to vote on. All senators who voted for that act are idiots and deserve neither freedom nor safety
As for other peoples comments about the 10 year difference, that was just 4 of about a 100 flip flops that I have found. I was just copying a previous post I had posted for all people who are blinded by their hatred for Bush and think Kerry is some kind of second coming. Kerry is an idiot just like bush. The sad part about it is after seeing Kerry's actions of the last 6 months I would be more worried about him being president than Bush. Of the top of my head I can mention so many instances were he has change/redefined his stance on issues. Gun Control, gay marriages, the war in Iraq, foreign policy toward North Korea, the military, taxes, and etc. I am not however going to sit here and give you a quote by quote for all them, Slashdot would not allow it, however anyone can clearly read these by his last year of speeches and his senate voting record. Or just watch what he does day to day, I am a hunter but I support anti gun laws, WHAT? For example he has stated many times that a coalition of forces should of dealt with Iraq. Yet when it comes to North Korea, which he has change his stance on countless times, the United States should unilaterally deal with them. This makes absolutely no sense; one country should be dealt with in a coalition but another unilaterally?
Ultimately the saddest part about this election is we have two idiots running for office and neither of them will be good for this country. Vote on though lemmings of Kerry.
All I wrote didn't get posted, please add this too:
FLIP...
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. "Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we're going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that." (Fox News' "Special Report," 10/23/03)
Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. "We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty." (MSNBC's "News Live," 7/31/03)
FLOP...
But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)
FLIP...
Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea) Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. "Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)
FLOP...
Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I've been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American's basic rights." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)
Kerry 2004 announced Saturday: "I will work with Congress to lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people that has prohibited the United States from hosting [an annual AIDS conference]."
FLOP...
February 1993, Boston Globe: "The US Senate dealt President Clinton his first legislative defeat yesterday, voting to write into law the Bush administration's policy prohibiting people infected with the AIDS virus from immigrating to the United States. The defeat came despite Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's spirited battle in defense of the president's commitment to lift the prohibition. The Senate voted, 76-23, to prevent people infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, from immigrating, after defeating by a 56-42 vote an amendment by Kennedy that would have kept current federal policy in place for 90 days but left Clinton free to change it after that. Kennedy accused the Republicans of both racism and partisan mean- spiritedness. Voting for the prohibition were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; Sen. William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine; Sen. John F. Kerry; Sens. Judd Gregg and Robert C. Smith, Republicans of New Hampshire; Sen. John H. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Sen. Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Sen. James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont.
FLIP...
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. "Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China... 'I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,' Kerry said." (John Aloysius Farrell, "Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status," The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
FLOP...
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Pas
I guess one could say the same for yourself. I would suggest reading as well about the issues and what he has voted for. He does after all have a senate record for how many years? Senate records: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_thr ee_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm
However I have problems with some of your statements. It is silly and irresponsible to state that models derived from stem cells could lead to cures, or as you stated "we may well see cures or treatments advanced by years or decades when the restrictions are removed"
Stem cells will increase our understanding of single cell models and possible simple state models of organs. But they will not expand on knowledge on whole organs, yet. As you well know single cells do not make tissues or whole organs. Cells working together in a plethora of functions make tissues and organs. We are still years away from making such complex models and thus would not immediately benefit from such stem cell models.
Secondly, just because you and I disagree with why people are against stem cell research, it does not make their arguments any less valid. I respect those who are against said research due to their religious beliefs, or developmental biology views. Based upon this respect I believe we must understand both sides and compromise on said research, something which Bush has done actually rather well. Unlike other things, Patriot Act anyone?
"Oh, you mean the same swift boat vets that went on TV and outright lied and said they served with him even though they have never even met."
I am getting sick of arguing about this.
Do you really believe that a boat went out alone on missions all the time? It is well known that missions involved 2,3 and sometimes more boats. So when they say they served with him, they did. They went on the same missions in the same boats next to him. Also you forgot to mention one of the vets on the boat is not on the stage. He was in the ads. Ohh you also forgot to mention that Kerry's commander was in the ads. You know the guy above him that SERVED with him. You also forget to mention a lot more but it will be pointless to argue with you.
p.s. the one that endorsed him for senator is now against him after he found out everything that happened. This didn't occur till 2004 when the swift vets realized that Kerry was the same Kerry they SERVED with.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
But why bother arguing anymore, since it's pretty obvious you're not interested in nuanced reality, only the nice simple, clean, view where Bush is the best thing since Jesus Christ, Vietnam was fought honorably by all who were there, and Kerry is the Devil Incarnate. Whatever
Really I said that? Or did I say:
John Kerry is as bad, if not worst, then Bush. That is the bottom line
You would think I dislike both politicians you would of course be correct. Defending only one side and saying you have seen both is not really the same is it? However on Slashdot it seems only one side exist, so it is kind of pointless to take the other side when its leaning so far left, see you for an example.
Again stop taking me out of context. It only makes you look less reliable and believable. I believe in my previous post, I mentioned veterans just as a side note, but clearly stated I was only talking about Kerry. I focused on Kerry and what he said because that clearly shows his personality. You have yet to answer my question so again I will ask it.
Why would someone so strongly against the war, by your own admission, ("he still explicity says he continues to stand behind his core message") use this very war record as a reason to vote for him?
If he was against the war he should be against it and stay against. Which you say he is, yet during the convention he did a re-enactment of his swift boat service. As well he used videos of him, re-enacted by himself during the war, to show his great heroism during such a vile war. This just doesn't make sense. You continually argue that he stands by his antiwar beliefs yet he uses the war as a reason to vote for him? As you told me which is it? Is he still against the war, as he was in the past, or does he think those in the war were honorable and that's the reason why you should vote for him? Remember he said:
MR. KERRY: Thank you. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11...
As well I have my reasons for why Bush is an idiot, the Patriot Act being on the top of that list, Which Kerry voted for. Then said he was against. Now he is for it again?
You however give not one reason for why Bush is an idiot, besides the same old Anyone But Bush lines. Yah that is a great reason to vote for another, possible bigger idiot like Kerry.
Wrong again. The recounts did not say Gore won. They said that either would win based upon different counting methods. So I guess you are partially correct. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore, but Gore could have "reversed the outcome -- by the smallest of margins -- had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount." According to one newspaper. However why don't you just actually read the truth, where everyone is getting the data: Which states that of many possible recount methods, some Gore would win others Bush. Choosing one method and stating that as the way the recount would have occurred is wrong.
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp
On top of that this doesn't even include the fact that a winner, Gore incorrectly, was announced before the polls closed in the panhandle region of the state. This also ignores the fact that a portion of the military vote was also thrown out due to technical error by the army's mail service.
True Grit you have a lot of issues you need to work out. First don't take what someone says out of context. It is very easy to do that. I was referring to only the swift vets, period. If you choose to read more than that it's because YOU choose too. Second why don't you look at the whole story?
As I state countless times I know atrocities where committed, get that through your thick head. I also stated a lot of that "evidence" that you provide has been investigated, by the FBI, Senate, reporters, Army and veterans, true first hand accounts. Many of those people during these hearings were NOT IN VITENAM. They lied and made up the stories but you of course choose to ignore this as well. Still even after this I KNOW THAT SOME CRIMES WERE COMMITTED, UNDERSTAND?
you gave links from:
VVAW, which was known to lie and forge documents to make up false war crime stories. As I told you their national leader was Al Hubbard, who made up his story about Vietnam.
Why not check out:
The Detroit free press, which debunked many of the Winter Soldier hearings
Or look at Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History.
I think we are not seeing eye to eye on this. I am solely talking about Kerry and the Swift Vets, not other groups in Vietnam. I hope you realize this. Based upon this I say Kerry is a liar. Kerry was saying that his division was responsible for war crimes, stop trying to ignore this I gave evidence in previous post. This is a flat out lie, regardless of what happened in other divisions/units. In Kerry's unit this did not happen and Kerry is being called on it.
The bottom line, if you choose to read this or not is, I HAVE READ BOTH SIDES WHICH I STATED ABOVE AND I BELIEVE ONE SIDE OVER ANOTHER, VIEWING ALL THE EVIDENCE. SEEMS TO ME IF KERRY TRULY BELIEVED HIS CONVICTIONS, HE WOULD OF NEVER HAVE CHANGED HIS STANCE ON VITENAM. ANY MAN THAT SAYS HOW WRONG SOMETHING IS, CANNOT YEARS LATER USE THAT VERY SERVICE FOR REASONS WHY HE IS SO GREAT.
I truthfully don't know the whole story either, I think only those actually in Vietnam at the time do. I have however spent countless hours emailing swift vets, reading Kerry's records he has released, available at his website, and statements made by him over the years and the claims made by the swift vets in public releases and books. All I can say is you have decorated individuals on both sides. Who is right is up to individuals to decide. I have made my decision after reading all the evidence and I hope others would do the same.
Your great really. Tiger force was one commando unit that committed acts, I love how you associate 45 paratrooper to the whole us army and on top of that 45 paratroopers to the swift boat veterans. As well I never argued that some atrocities were not committed, I was advocating that the Swift Boat veterans had claimed none were committed by them.
As for John Kerry, since you're too lazy to go look this up yourself, yet you provide 3 links for one group of paratroopers.
Dick Cavett show 1971, Kerry stated this:
MR. KERRY: Thank you. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because as I said earlier, we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions. The concept of operations, I gather, changed somewhat from the time when I was there and the time when you were there later on. And I believe that we moved into operations called Silver Mace II and some others in which we were not quite involved in as -
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/in de x.php?page=20040510083458318
He also stated this in multiple rally's for VVAW, as well as in his book Tour of Duty. Go read it if you don't believe me.
The bottom line is that the veterans who served with him, i.e. on the other boats on the same missions, say he is lying. Believe who you want, I don't care but don't lie for a minute and say Kerry didn't say he saw war crimes.
I knew this; very easy just to go to his website. http://www.johnkerry.com/front/splash.html
However most people do not, which is why I asked this question. Secondly I would check some of what you wrote, because again politicians, all politicians lie, sorry but that's how that game works.
The next question to be asked is does he stand for these things? Its funny but he has been in the Senate for a rather long time, you think maybe just maybe you could actually find out how he has voted to find out which are true and which are lip service. On top of that why doesn't Kerry mention his Senate service? Seems like something you want people to know so they can see what you voted for. See link below for Senate voting records.
I never argued that executives do not get overpaid, however hard you try to make this seem. I pointed out that is illogical to assume that an individual is a business, nothing more. You may hate the business's all you want it is your freedom.
Problem is the inner workings are not the same, hence my comment about reading an economics book. The legal scheme as you call it has a different purpose; those who abuse this purpose should be thrown in jail.
Not going to get too involved in this one. I would like to point out that those 150 decorated vets were not checked. Later it was found out in an investigation that a majority of those people, were a.) Impersonating the real vets or b.) making the stories up, see Kerry's co-leader Al Hubbard who was suppose to be a pilot but later found out to have never served.
Have you actually read the accusations against him? You yourself choose a selective quote. First Kerry's own testimony is one of that 150 people. Second this was not the only time Kerry had made these claims. Call bullshit all you want but the truth is truth, Kerry said he personally saw war crimes, period.
Bullshit.
The whole point is to spread lies and sow dissent.
Only one of those lying bastards even served with Kerry, and he got a medal for his actions *under fire* in the same engagement that he now claims didn't involve any fire.
Wrong, I actually spent the time to email most of the vets, this is incorrect. Read this: Crews were trained as a unit, one officer and five enlisted at Coronado, CA. Boats did missions together in units. Therefore one boat would spend countless time on a mission with other boats.
We went through training around Jan/Feb 1969.
If you don't know that the Vietnam war was plagued by atrocities by all sides, then you don't know a damn thing about it and have no place pretending that you do.
Again read what I wrote: I said he claimed those he served with committed those acts. The key is those he served with. Those people being the swift vets saying he is lying. Of course you know more than those who were there.
He went.
He saw what a clusterfuck it was and he came home and spoke out against the big fucking lie that we all now know that that war was.
So this demonstrates that he can learn and even change his mind when the evidence overwhelmingly demands it. And the right wing media calls this flip flopping.
Again, think please, if this is true then why now does he say how great he was for doing this? If I felt so strongly against something, I AM NOT going to then go and use my actions as a reason to vote for me. I would continue to speak out against this. P.S. He supposedly threw his medals away in protest; funny thing is those were not his medals.
Dude, if you don't know his people are neck deep in this you are dumber than a bag of rocks.
First don't change the subject I was talking exclusively about 527's. Second, calling me names is great evidence, keep it up.
When has he changed his mind over pressure? He has changed his mind based on evidence. Bush refuses to change his mind in the face of evidence.
You set yourself up for this:
FLIP...
Kerry 2004 announced Saturday: "I will work with Congress to lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people that has prohibited the United States from hosting [an annual AIDS conference]."
FLOP...
February 1993, Boston Globe: "The US Senate dealt President Clinton his first legislative defeat yesterday, voting to write into law the Bush administration's policy prohibiting people infected with the AIDS virus from immigrating to the United States. The defeat came despite Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's spirited battle in defense of the president's commitment to lift the prohibition. The Senate voted, 76-23, to prevent people infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, from immigrating, after defeating by a 56-42 vote an amendment by Kennedy that would have kept current federal policy in place for 90 days but left Clinton free to change it after that. Kennedy accused the Republicans of both racism and partisan mean- spiritedness.
Voting for the prohibition were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; Sen. William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine; Sen. John F. Kerry; Sens. Judd Gregg and Robert C. Smith, Republicans of New Hampshire; Sen. John H. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Sen. Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Sen. James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont.
FLIP...
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. "Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China... 'I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,' Kerry said." (John Aloysius Farrell, "Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status," The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
FLOP...
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46
"You're right. George Bush himself said that we don't need to give tax breaks to the rich because they can probably afford accountants who can find the loopholes for them."
Exactly and if you actually look up who is the extreme rich, the majority of them are democrats. Because they can afford to get out of paying taxes, and therefore don't care if you raise taxes on those who worked their life to make an income over 200,000. See John Kerry and Edwards for references. However 200,000 plus isn't going to get you that accountant to get you around the loophole, sorry buddy.
Business does not equal individual. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is silly. An individual may own a share of a business, i.e. bill gates (democrat) etc.
On top of that you're not changing the subject either; the statement made was "Give tax breaks to the rich?" We can debate about government subsidies if you wish. But THE TAX BREAK WAS NOT TO THE RICH! Get that through your thick head and stop lying.
hmmm let me choose to extremes from the other side, ok I got it:
The Republican party is the party of Dan Quayle and David Duke and the Democratic party is the party of Howard Dean and Robert Byrd (democratic senator and former memeber of the KKK). by the way Duke is a populist not republican, same as Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, big difference.
When are you guys going to stop sprouting this nonsense? This is a complete lie and it's not going to work to continue to try and lie. All the media knows this is true, but they sensationalize to get money. Here is the truth from the CBO report itself.
Let's take a look at how the 'transfer' is going.
The Richest Americans According to the CBO report, the top 20 percent of income earners would have paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes in 2004 without the Bush tax cuts. As it is, with the Bush cuts, they will pay 'only' 63.5 percent. And what happens in 2005? The top earners would have paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes but now, because of this egregious 'transfer,' will pay only 64.3 percent (no sic!), which to our reading looks like an increase in tax burden.
The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the top 20 percent of earners is higher under the Bush tax cuts from 2005 through 2010, according to the CBO report that Reuters purportedly cites. From 2011 through 2014, as far into the future as the report projects, the top 20 percent of earners will pay, under the Bush tax cuts, the same proportion of federal taxes that they would have without the Bush tax cuts.
Middle Class Families Now let's look at the middle 20 percent of earners. In 2004, they would have paid 10.4 percent of federal taxes without the Bush cuts. With the cuts, they will pay 10.5 percent of federal taxes. Note, however, that because of the cuts, the federal tax burden for the middle 20 percent of earners dropped from 16.5 percent to 14.6 percent. In other words, these earners are paying a slight bit more of federal taxes, but a lot less in federal taxes. In other words, their taxes were cut.
The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent of earners is slightly higher (one-tenth of a percent) in 2004 and 2006. The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent of earners is lower in 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012. It is unchanged in the other years through 2014, as far into the future as the CBO report projects.
To Summarize From 2005 to 2010, the tax cuts that Reuters reports have "transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families" raise the comparative tax burden for the richest Americans and lower the burden, a bit, for middle-class families.
You want to check the information, here is the link:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequen ce =0
Please stop with this lying it only makes you look stupid.
As for the civil liberties, I would argue both sides do an equally well job on that issue.
Uhmm the whole point of the swift vets is to point out that Kerry did this when he came back. He backstabbed his fellow soldiers by saying they committed war crimes, when Kerry had no such evidence. How is this not discrediting the sacrifices of the soldiers during the Vietnam era? On top of that Kerry now uses his service of 4 months as a reason to vote for him, yet since he came back he said he was against his service and the war. If anyone has issues it is your misunderstanding of the facts.
Secondly its convenient to try and say BUSH is connected to this group but where is the evidence. One lawyer is not a smoking gun. On top of that what about Kerry's involvement with moveon.org and all the other 527 groups which his election committee was actively involved with for setting up concerts etc.
The hypocrisy runs thick. It's hard for most people to admit both of these candidates have less than a stellar record to vote for them. The sad part is most people are voting for Kerry only because they hate Bush, so I ask you this one question. What does Kerry stand for? I bet you will be unable to find out because of his unbelievable ability to change his stance on an issue based upon what is appeared to be hot at the time. Frankly I do not want a president who will change his mind because of pressure.
One more thing, I remember so many people saying how great the new campaign finance reform would be and how we needed it to clean up our elections. Why aren't their cries of injustice for the 527 groups? Why hasn't the media made a big deal about this? The intent of the reform law was not so groups, implied to be working with both parties, can spend unlimited money to get the candidates message across. You should also note the rather obvious imbalance between one political party verses another. Wonder if that has anything to do with it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?level =C&cycle=2004
This of course doesn't even address the power that has been given to the media due to these laws.
The argument in the scientific community was that prions could not cause disease, it was argued, just two weeks ago for me, that a chemical experiment had not proven that prions were able to spread the disease, this paper proofs this conclusively for the first time. If you believe that this is not the case by all means provide me with a link or author/title in a journal were these experiments had been done before.
Uhmm you do realize that only Tg9949 mice, Tg4053 mice, and FVB mice where used in this paper, NOT Tg196. Tg196 mice were used as foregoing findings which convinced them to express recMoPrP(89-230) in E. coli and then innnoculate them into Tg9949 mice. Tg9949 mice are not TG196 mice. The innoculation helped to resolve the debate which I have mentioned above. They took Tg9949 mice and transmitted MoSP1 (mouse synthetic prion strain 1) into Tg4053 mice which then expressed the same disease. This was a chemical experiment which proved that protein and only protein caused the disease.
Slashdot Mirror
which is worse, The fool who cries fool or the fool?
Fool
lol I believe you should think. The link and related video is a story done by Greg Palast author of books and stories such as:
STILL UNREPORTED: THE PAY-OFF IN BUSH AIR GUARD FIX
DON'T LOOK AT THE FLASH! GROUND ZERO AS PROFIT CENTER
Bush Family Fortunes:
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Will The Gang That Fixed Florida Fix the Vote in Caracas this Sunday?
Among other things he is a very anti-bush writer and known for it. He links Moore, BushWhackedUSA , and Media Channel among other links on his website (http://www.gregpalast.com/) so please tell me how this suppression is occurring? As well even his anti-bush rhetoric states at the beginning of the real article not BBC's twisted reporting " possibly in violation of US law." The bottom line is this is a Moore piece, no evidence really exists but instead you and others insinuate what may be the reasons and that they may be illegal. Give me a break and stop lying you know nothing. Funny you don't mention the Democrats are doing this same thing; preparing Mass challenges lists just in case a state is close, ever wonder why 10,000 lawyers are being placed across the country by the DNC. Don't try to do a real in-depth investigation buddy, just continue sprouting the nonsense and lies political parties try to spread.
Suppression of black votes?
The caging1.xls is a list of names with addresses and you equate that to suppression of black votes, ok Mr. Moore continue with your theories and lying it's apparent you have no touch to reality.
If he was district attorney and he understood the purpose behind the law then he should of known what needed fixing, stated it clearly and voted no on the act. Sorry but when it comes to law, lawyers are held responsible for any contract they sign, unlike an average person. Kerry has been quoted as saying he is a lawyer who knows what's wrong with the patriot act yet he voted it in? Yet you have a problem with seeing the contradiction? Go ask a lawyer about their role in understanding contracts and laws signed and then ask me.
I am sorry but I don't believe those who say someone who voted for the Patriot act did it out of fear. You're a senator it is your responsible to know the gist of laws placed before you to vote on. All senators who voted for that act are idiots and deserve neither freedom nor safety
As for other peoples comments about the 10 year difference, that was just 4 of about a 100 flip flops that I have found. I was just copying a previous post I had posted for all people who are blinded by their hatred for Bush and think Kerry is some kind of second coming. Kerry is an idiot just like bush. The sad part about it is after seeing Kerry's actions of the last 6 months I would be more worried about him being president than Bush. Of the top of my head I can mention so many instances were he has change/redefined his stance on issues. Gun Control, gay marriages, the war in Iraq, foreign policy toward North Korea, the military, taxes, and etc. I am not however going to sit here and give you a quote by quote for all them, Slashdot would not allow it, however anyone can clearly read these by his last year of speeches and his senate voting record. Or just watch what he does day to day, I am a hunter but I support anti gun laws, WHAT? For example he has stated many times that a coalition of forces should of dealt with Iraq. Yet when it comes to North Korea, which he has change his stance on countless times, the United States should unilaterally deal with them. This makes absolutely no sense; one country should be dealt with in a coalition but another unilaterally?
Ultimately the saddest part about this election is we have two idiots running for office and neither of them will be good for this country. Vote on though lemmings of Kerry.
All I wrote didn't get posted, please add this too:
FLIP...
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. "Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we're going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that." (Fox News' "Special Report," 10/23/03)
Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. "We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty." (MSNBC's "News Live," 7/31/03)
FLOP...
But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)
FLIP...
Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. "Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)
FLOP...
Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I've been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American's basic rights." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)
FLIP...
... 'I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,' Kerry said." (John Aloysius Farrell, "Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status," The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
r ee_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm
Kerry 2004 announced Saturday: "I will work with Congress to lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people that has prohibited the United States from hosting [an annual AIDS conference]."
FLOP...
February 1993, Boston Globe: "The US Senate dealt President Clinton his first legislative defeat yesterday, voting to write into law the Bush administration's policy prohibiting people infected with the AIDS virus from immigrating to the United States. The defeat came despite Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's spirited battle in defense of the president's commitment to lift the prohibition. The Senate voted, 76-23, to prevent people infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, from immigrating, after defeating by a 56-42 vote an amendment by Kennedy that would have kept current federal policy in place for 90 days but left Clinton free to change it after that. Kennedy accused the Republicans of both racism and partisan mean- spiritedness.
Voting for the prohibition were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; Sen. William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine; Sen. John F. Kerry; Sens. Judd Gregg and Robert C. Smith, Republicans of New Hampshire; Sen. John H. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Sen. Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Sen. James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont.
FLIP...
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. "Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China
FLOP...
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Pas
I guess one could say the same for yourself. I would suggest reading as well about the issues and what he has voted for. He does after all have a senate record for how many years? Senate records: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_th
Blanket statements do not work. Give an example of these potential models, using stem cells.
Currently Murine models (or other animal models) are the standard:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
However some studies are coming out NOW using stem cells (note countries):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
However I have problems with some of your statements. It is silly and irresponsible to state that models derived from stem cells could lead to cures, or as you stated "we may well see cures or treatments advanced by years or decades when the restrictions are removed"
Stem cells will increase our understanding of single cell models and possible simple state models of organs. But they will not expand on knowledge on whole organs, yet. As you well know single cells do not make tissues or whole organs. Cells working together in a plethora of functions make tissues and organs. We are still years away from making such complex models and thus would not immediately benefit from such stem cell models.
Secondly, just because you and I disagree with why people are against stem cell research, it does not make their arguments any less valid. I respect those who are against said research due to their religious beliefs, or developmental biology views. Based upon this respect I believe we must understand both sides and compromise on said research, something which Bush has done actually rather well. Unlike other things, Patriot Act anyone?
"Oh, you mean the same swift boat vets that went on TV and outright lied and said they served with him even though they have never even met."
I am getting sick of arguing about this.
Do you really believe that a boat went out alone on missions all the time? It is well known that missions involved 2,3 and sometimes more boats. So when they say they served with him, they did. They went on the same missions in the same boats next to him. Also you forgot to mention one of the vets on the boat is not on the stage. He was in the ads. Ohh you also forgot to mention that Kerry's commander was in the ads. You know the guy above him that SERVED with him. You also forget to mention a lot more but it will be pointless to argue with you.
p.s. the one that endorsed him for senator is now against him after he found out everything that happened. This didn't occur till 2004 when the swift vets realized that Kerry was the same Kerry they SERVED with.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
Really I said that? Or did I say:
You would think I dislike both politicians you would of course be correct. Defending only one side and saying you have seen both is not really the same is it? However on Slashdot it seems only one side exist, so it is kind of pointless to take the other side when its leaning so far left, see you for an example.
Again stop taking me out of context. It only makes you look less reliable and believable. I believe in my previous post, I mentioned veterans just as a side note, but clearly stated I was only talking about Kerry. I focused on Kerry and what he said because that clearly shows his personality. You have yet to answer my question so again I will ask it.
Why would someone so strongly against the war, by your own admission, ("he still explicity says he continues to stand behind his core message") use this very war record as a reason to vote for him?
If he was against the war he should be against it and stay against. Which you say he is, yet during the convention he did a re-enactment of his swift boat service. As well he used videos of him, re-enacted by himself during the war, to show his great heroism during such a vile war. This just doesn't make sense. You continually argue that he stands by his antiwar beliefs yet he uses the war as a reason to vote for him? As you told me which is it? Is he still against the war, as he was in the past, or does he think those in the war were honorable and that's the reason why you should vote for him? Remember he said:
As well I have my reasons for why Bush is an idiot, the Patriot Act being on the top of that list, Which Kerry voted for. Then said he was against. Now he is for it again?
You however give not one reason for why Bush is an idiot, besides the same old Anyone But Bush lines. Yah that is a great reason to vote for another, possible bigger idiot like Kerry.
WHAT?
Wrong again. The recounts did not say Gore won. They said that either would win based upon different counting methods. So I guess you are partially correct. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore, but Gore could have "reversed the outcome -- by the smallest of margins -- had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount." According to one newspaper. However why don't you just actually read the truth, where everyone is getting the data: Which states that of many possible recount methods, some Gore would win others Bush. Choosing one method and stating that as the way the recount would have occurred is wrong.
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp
On top of that this doesn't even include the fact that a winner, Gore incorrectly, was announced before the polls closed in the panhandle region of the state. This also ignores the fact that a portion of the military vote was also thrown out due to technical error by the army's mail service.
yes because we know that was an accurate tale.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
True Grit you have a lot of issues you need to work out. First don't take what someone says out of context. It is very easy to do that. I was referring to only the swift vets, period. If you choose to read more than that it's because YOU choose too. Second why don't you look at the whole story?
1 7- 90817.htm
s /T exas_Monthly/Texas_Monthly_The_Consp_Theories.html
As I state countless times I know atrocities where committed, get that through your thick head. I also stated a lot of that "evidence" that you provide has been investigated, by the FBI, Senate, reporters, Army and veterans, true first hand accounts. Many of those people during these hearings were NOT IN VITENAM. They lied and made up the stories but you of course choose to ignore this as well. Still even after this I KNOW THAT SOME CRIMES WERE COMMITTED, UNDERSTAND?
you gave links from:
VVAW, which was known to lie and forge documents to make up false war crime stories. As I told you their national leader was Al Hubbard, who made up his story about Vietnam.
Why not check out:
The Detroit free press, which debunked many of the Winter Soldier hearings
Or look at Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History.
Or this:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0403/14/a
Google is great, but anyone can put anything on the internet. (see below)
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theorie
I think we are not seeing eye to eye on this. I am solely talking about Kerry and the Swift Vets, not other groups in Vietnam. I hope you realize this. Based upon this I say Kerry is a liar. Kerry was saying that his division was responsible for war crimes, stop trying to ignore this I gave evidence in previous post. This is a flat out lie, regardless of what happened in other divisions/units. In Kerry's unit this did not happen and Kerry is being called on it.
The bottom line, if you choose to read this or not is, I HAVE READ BOTH SIDES WHICH I STATED ABOVE AND I BELIEVE ONE SIDE OVER ANOTHER, VIEWING ALL THE EVIDENCE. SEEMS TO ME IF KERRY TRULY BELIEVED HIS CONVICTIONS, HE WOULD OF NEVER HAVE CHANGED HIS STANCE ON VITENAM. ANY MAN THAT SAYS HOW WRONG SOMETHING IS, CANNOT YEARS LATER USE THAT VERY SERVICE FOR REASONS WHY HE IS SO GREAT.
don't post as AC such a stupid comment. Bother to read what is being written first.
"As well I never argued that some atrocities were not committed,"
No problem.
I truthfully don't know the whole story either, I think only those actually in Vietnam at the time do. I have however spent countless hours emailing swift vets, reading Kerry's records he has released, available at his website, and statements made by him over the years and the claims made by the swift vets in public releases and books. All I can say is you have decorated individuals on both sides. Who is right is up to individuals to decide. I have made my decision after reading all the evidence and I hope others would do the same.
Your great really. Tiger force was one commando unit that committed acts, I love how you associate 45 paratrooper to the whole us army and on top of that 45 paratroopers to the swift boat veterans. As well I never argued that some atrocities were not committed, I was advocating that the Swift Boat veterans had claimed none were committed by them.
n de x.php?page=20040510083458318
As for John Kerry, since you're too lazy to go look this up yourself, yet you provide 3 links for one group of paratroopers.
Dick Cavett show 1971, Kerry stated this:
MR. KERRY: Thank you. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because as I said earlier, we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions. The concept of operations, I gather, changed somewhat from the time when I was there and the time when you were there later on. And I believe that we moved into operations called Silver Mace II and some others in which we were not quite involved in as -
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/i
He also stated this in multiple rally's for VVAW, as well as in his book Tour of Duty. Go read it if you don't believe me.
The bottom line is that the veterans who served with him, i.e. on the other boats on the same missions, say he is lying. Believe who you want, I don't care but don't lie for a minute and say Kerry didn't say he saw war crimes.
I knew this; very easy just to go to his website. http://www.johnkerry.com/front/splash.html
t hr ee_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm
However most people do not, which is why I asked this question. Secondly I would check some of what you wrote, because again politicians, all politicians lie, sorry but that's how that game works.
The next question to be asked is does he stand for these things? Its funny but he has been in the Senate for a rather long time, you think maybe just maybe you could actually find out how he has voted to find out which are true and which are lip service. On top of that why doesn't Kerry mention his Senate service? Seems like something you want people to know so they can see what you voted for. See link below for Senate voting records.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_
I never argued that executives do not get overpaid, however hard you try to make this seem. I pointed out that is illogical to assume that an individual is a business, nothing more. You may hate the business's all you want it is your freedom.
Problem is the inner workings are not the same, hence my comment about reading an economics book. The legal scheme as you call it has a different purpose; those who abuse this purpose should be thrown in jail.
Not going to get too involved in this one. I would like to point out that those 150 decorated vets were not checked. Later it was found out in an investigation that a majority of those people, were a.) Impersonating the real vets or b.) making the stories up, see Kerry's co-leader Al Hubbard who was suppose to be a pilot but later found out to have never served.
Have you actually read the accusations against him? You yourself choose a selective quote. First Kerry's own testimony is one of that 150 people. Second this was not the only time Kerry had made these claims. Call bullshit all you want but the truth is truth, Kerry said he personally saw war crimes, period.
Bullshit. The whole point is to spread lies and sow dissent. Only one of those lying bastards even served with Kerry, and he got a medal for his actions *under fire* in the same engagement that he now claims didn't involve any fire.
... 'I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,' Kerry said." (John Aloysius Farrell, "Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status," The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
Wrong, I actually spent the time to email most of the vets, this is incorrect. Read this: Crews were trained as a unit, one officer and five enlisted at Coronado, CA. Boats did missions together in units. Therefore one boat would spend countless time on a mission with other boats. We went through training around Jan/Feb 1969.
If you don't know that the Vietnam war was plagued by atrocities by all sides, then you don't know a damn thing about it and have no place pretending that you do.
Again read what I wrote: I said he claimed those he served with committed those acts. The key is those he served with. Those people being the swift vets saying he is lying. Of course you know more than those who were there.
He went. He saw what a clusterfuck it was and he came home and spoke out against the big fucking lie that we all now know that that war was. So this demonstrates that he can learn and even change his mind when the evidence overwhelmingly demands it. And the right wing media calls this flip flopping.
Again, think please, if this is true then why now does he say how great he was for doing this? If I felt so strongly against something, I AM NOT going to then go and use my actions as a reason to vote for me. I would continue to speak out against this. P.S. He supposedly threw his medals away in protest; funny thing is those were not his medals.
Dude, if you don't know his people are neck deep in this you are dumber than a bag of rocks.
First don't change the subject I was talking exclusively about 527's. Second, calling me names is great evidence, keep it up.
When has he changed his mind over pressure? He has changed his mind based on evidence. Bush refuses to change his mind in the face of evidence.
You set yourself up for this:
FLIP...
Kerry 2004 announced Saturday: "I will work with Congress to lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people that has prohibited the United States from hosting [an annual AIDS conference]."
FLOP...
February 1993, Boston Globe: "The US Senate dealt President Clinton his first legislative defeat yesterday, voting to write into law the Bush administration's policy prohibiting people infected with the AIDS virus from immigrating to the United States. The defeat came despite Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's spirited battle in defense of the president's commitment to lift the prohibition. The Senate voted, 76-23, to prevent people infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, from immigrating, after defeating by a 56-42 vote an amendment by Kennedy that would have kept current federal policy in place for 90 days but left Clinton free to change it after that. Kennedy accused the Republicans of both racism and partisan mean- spiritedness.
Voting for the prohibition were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; Sen. William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine; Sen. John F. Kerry; Sens. Judd Gregg and Robert C. Smith, Republicans of New Hampshire; Sen. John H. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Sen. Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Sen. James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont.
FLIP...
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. "Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China
FLOP...
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46
"You're right. George Bush himself said that we don't need to give tax breaks to the rich because they can probably afford accountants who can find the loopholes for them."
Exactly and if you actually look up who is the extreme rich, the majority of them are democrats. Because they can afford to get out of paying taxes, and therefore don't care if you raise taxes on those who worked their life to make an income over 200,000. See John Kerry and Edwards for references. However 200,000 plus isn't going to get you that accountant to get you around the loophole, sorry buddy.
Business does not equal individual. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is silly. An individual may own a share of a business, i.e. bill gates (democrat) etc.
On top of that you're not changing the subject either; the statement made was "Give tax breaks to the rich?" We can debate about government subsidies if you wish. But THE TAX BREAK WAS NOT TO THE RICH! Get that through your thick head and stop lying.
Pyramid scheme? No go read an economics book.
hmmm let me choose to extremes from the other side, ok I got it:
The Republican party is the party of Dan Quayle and David Duke and the Democratic party is the party of Howard Dean and Robert Byrd (democratic senator and former memeber of the KKK). by the way Duke is a populist not republican, same as Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, big difference.
Give tax breaks to the rich?
n ce =0
When are you guys going to stop sprouting this nonsense? This is a complete lie and it's not going to work to continue to try and lie. All the media knows this is true, but they sensationalize to get money. Here is the truth from the CBO report itself.
Let's take a look at how the 'transfer' is going.
The Richest Americans
According to the CBO report, the top 20 percent of income earners would have paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes in 2004 without the Bush tax cuts. As it is, with the Bush cuts, they will pay 'only' 63.5 percent. And what happens in 2005? The top earners would have paid 64.0 percent of federal taxes but now, because of this egregious 'transfer,' will pay only 64.3 percent (no sic!), which to our reading looks like an increase in tax burden.
The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the top 20 percent of earners is higher under the Bush tax cuts from 2005 through 2010, according to the CBO report that Reuters purportedly cites. From 2011 through 2014, as far into the future as the report projects, the top 20 percent of earners will pay, under the Bush tax cuts, the same proportion of federal taxes that they would have without the Bush tax cuts.
Middle Class Families
Now let's look at the middle 20 percent of earners. In 2004, they would have paid 10.4 percent of federal taxes without the Bush cuts. With the cuts, they will pay 10.5 percent of federal taxes. Note, however, that because of the cuts, the federal tax burden for the middle 20 percent of earners dropped from 16.5 percent to 14.6 percent. In other words, these earners are paying a slight bit more of federal taxes, but a lot less in federal taxes. In other words, their taxes were cut.
The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent of earners is slightly higher (one-tenth of a percent) in 2004 and 2006. The proportion of federal taxes that will be paid by the middle 20 percent of earners is lower in 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012. It is unchanged in the other years through 2014, as far into the future as the CBO report projects.
To Summarize
From 2005 to 2010, the tax cuts that Reuters reports have "transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families" raise the comparative tax burden for the richest Americans and lower the burden, a bit, for middle-class families.
You want to check the information, here is the link:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&seque
Please stop with this lying it only makes you look stupid.
As for the civil liberties, I would argue both sides do an equally well job on that issue.
Discredit the sacrifices of our soldiers?
l =C&cycle=2004
Uhmm the whole point of the swift vets is to point out that Kerry did this when he came back. He backstabbed his fellow soldiers by saying they committed war crimes, when Kerry had no such evidence. How is this not discrediting the sacrifices of the soldiers during the Vietnam era? On top of that Kerry now uses his service of 4 months as a reason to vote for him, yet since he came back he said he was against his service and the war. If anyone has issues it is your misunderstanding of the facts.
Secondly its convenient to try and say BUSH is connected to this group but where is the evidence. One lawyer is not a smoking gun. On top of that what about Kerry's involvement with moveon.org and all the other 527 groups which his election committee was actively involved with for setting up concerts etc.
The hypocrisy runs thick. It's hard for most people to admit both of these candidates have less than a stellar record to vote for them. The sad part is most people are voting for Kerry only because they hate Bush, so I ask you this one question. What does Kerry stand for? I bet you will be unable to find out because of his unbelievable ability to change his stance on an issue based upon what is appeared to be hot at the time. Frankly I do not want a president who will change his mind because of pressure.
One more thing, I remember so many people saying how great the new campaign finance reform would be and how we needed it to clean up our elections. Why aren't their cries of injustice for the 527 groups? Why hasn't the media made a big deal about this? The intent of the reform law was not so groups, implied to be working with both parties, can spend unlimited money to get the candidates message across. You should also note the rather obvious imbalance between one political party verses another. Wonder if that has anything to do with it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?leve
This of course doesn't even address the power that has been given to the media due to these laws.
"This isn't _that_ huge."
I would of course disagree.
The argument in the scientific community was that prions could not cause disease, it was argued, just two weeks ago for me, that a chemical experiment had not proven that prions were able to spread the disease, this paper proofs this conclusively for the first time. If you believe that this is not the case by all means provide me with a link or author/title in a journal were these experiments had been done before.
Uhmm you do realize that only Tg9949 mice, Tg4053 mice, and FVB mice where used in this paper, NOT Tg196. Tg196 mice were used as foregoing findings which convinced them to express recMoPrP(89-230) in E. coli and then innnoculate them into Tg9949 mice. Tg9949 mice are not TG196 mice. The innoculation helped to resolve the debate which I have mentioned above. They took Tg9949 mice and transmitted MoSP1 (mouse synthetic prion strain 1) into Tg4053 mice which then expressed the same disease. This was a chemical experiment which proved that protein and only protein caused the disease.