Maybe your research is not as good as it should have been. A simple google search pulled up the this article with information about new research on using a cell type found in human fat.
The reason there is no evidence is because nobody has fully researched the various adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are being focused on in an attempt to blur the moral issues with abortion. If you don't think the two issues are related, then think again. Do you have any problems with the harvesting of the various human body parts from an aborted fetus being sold as one sells a part off the shelf. This happens today--mainly for research. The same could be done with embroys--sold on ebay to the highest bigger with the possiblity in the participation of creatign the embroy.
It is also worth mentioning that adult stem cells have been used for over 30 years now in the form of bone marrow transplants.
As for Bush, he banned money going towards the harvesting of new embrionic stem cells. He didn't ban the use of existing stem cell lines for research. Bush sided on the side of caution before allowing more harvestings. Even if you don't want to admit it, you are harvesting parts of a human. Humans give birth to humans--not dogs, cats, or anything else.
Bush wants the moral issues to be discussed before going further. I for one think it is a good idea to think about the consequences of what research could lead to and the morals behind it. Think about what we could have saved if the the scientists around the world had discussed the moral consequences of the various nuclear bombs, and consider the possiblities we could have found if research was focused elsewhere.
Explain to me how George's war in Iraq is a good thing. 1. No WMD 2. No Al-Quaeda link (indeed no significant terrorist links)
One, we know he had WMD. He used them on his own people. A very big report (the name is illuding me at the moment) recently released says that yes there was no WMD found, but it also says that Sadam was dirverting money form the Oil for Food Program for several reasons. The first was to restart is WMD program where he left off. More money was being used to payoff France, Germany, Russia, China, and the main guy at the UN to go against all that America did.
Evidence has been foung to prove this. Sadam himself admited that he was just buyign time until the sanctions were lifted. He said he had no WMDs, but he also said nobody new this--even his own generals. All of his posturing was meant to be aimed at Iran whom France had been help achieve Nuclear technology, and he was very surprised that America too notice. To him, Iran with Nuclear technology was a threat.
Actually there are at least two links to terrorists and Al-Quaeda. Right before the war in Afghanistan, Sadam sent Bin Laden an invitation to allow him to stay there. Sadam also released some Al-Quaeda prisoners he was holding.
Over this war George has alienated all of his allies, and he is even proud of it? What kind of logic is that! He has broken international Law. He has lied to the American people. By invading he has ensured that generations of arabs will have one more reason to hate America, he has sown dragons teeth.
No he hasn't alienated his allies. There are allies in Iraq. Besides, I think France, Germany, and Russia did alienated America by excepting bribe money from Sadam. Sadam wanted sancitons to be eased, and if I remember correctly, France and Germany were trying to bring that to the table.
Bush hasn't broken international law. The UN did actually sanction force. Several times! How many years and resolutions do you need? No country has ever stayed free with out a strong military, and the world has entered a time when we cannot wait for the first attack to happen to us. By that time happens, the attack could be a mushroom cloud or bio-weapon! Bush acted to defend America.
I got news for you. The arabs who hate America now hated us before the war, and those that didn't would have hated us anyways. Muslim religous schools in the Middle East teach hatred of America, so Bush has done nothing that would not have happened anyways.
Bush also achieved a another major acomplishment. He got Lybia to to give up its WMD program, and they turned (they say everything) over to the United States. Not a shot fired in Lybia! That is something no other world leader has achieved with Lybia! To reward him, the United States opened up diplomatic relations with Lybia again.
If these are not enough, ask the people who were tortured regularly if they think Sadam should still be in power! Ask the parents of the children who were imprisoned! Got visit the mass graves of people killed by Sadam where they are attempting to identify family members using advanced techniques. Ask the four guys who got new prosthetics (advanced prosthetics) from the kindness of an American who saw a video of them having their limbs cut off and determined to track them down and help them out. Sure it's not perfect, but changing things take time. Change took time (to the tune of several years) in Japan (slightly different case) and Germany, and it will take time for Iraq to change.
In Afghanistan, they recently had elections for the first time in their long history. Women also voted. Women are no longer be surpressed. Yes, there are some areas that still repress women, but change takes time.
Speaking of women, women are not being tortured ad raped by Sadam any more.
Before you write me off as some wacky liberal, note a few things that might surprise you: 1. I am a faithful, evangelical, bible beli
Republican and proud of it. I don't read 2-bit hack news sources--especially ones I get from liberals (my friend). I have found such news sources to be full of so-called truths which are usually distorted.
As for my email, I get the account for free from a relative--which is good for my current budget. I also have a yahoo email and should have a gmail account soon if all goes well both of which I will not post here for obvious reasons.
I stand by what I have said. The 3rd parties have too narrow a message--leaving a lot of openness. If they had a messsage that people wanted to hear they woudl have more people in their parties. This is especially true in todays society with the internet, blogs, and public access TV stations where anybody can get time to talk about anything legal.
A friend who is here on slashdot pointed me to that site. I looked at (pop-up hell). I stand by my statement because they have offered no real proof that he didn't say it. They just said he didn't say it, and that doesn't mean anything without proof.
I stick to my original statement. Actually, things would not improve without the Electoral College. Then America would definately be a majority rules place because then the candidates would only go to the big states. Th EC insures that small states count too. At one time I want the EC gone too, but the was the stupidity of youth.
I don't want any form of ranked voting. Too easy to get messed up. It's bad enough that the Democrats were caught in COlorado get a mentally impaired man to registar to vote 35+ times, and I bet the records thrown out in Nevada were probably the dead people who have been known to register as Democrats in the last few elections.
Nader seems to get a good amount of time. If the other parties were bigger, then they would get more media time. Do you really ware to hear from the Nazi and COmmunist Parties though?
Actually, the green party might be a little of both bepending on where you are in the country. One of the problems with a lot of the third parties is they only have official platforms for a few issues, and the rest is left up to the candidates. This means candidates in these 3rd parties can differ from region to region.
Can't you just write the candidate in on the ballot? Most ballots I think have a write in place. How do you think parties like the American Nazi party get any votes--even if the number is statistically equal to zero.
You know what? John Kerry has had more time than President Bush to introduce a major bill in the Senate to improve environmental conditions! In fact, John Kerry has not introduced any major bill in the Senate since he's been in the Senate in 1984! He has had plenty of chances to introduce plenty of environmental bills into the Senate, but he hasn't. In fact, he missed a majority of the Security Committeeing meetings while he was on the committee. Let's face it, John Kerry has done less in 20 years to protect the enviornment than Bush has in less than 4.
We do not have a two party system. We have a mulitparty system where only two parties have a message that have attracked a large chunk of people. The others are statically zero percent (or near it). Google for other parties and join one if you want. I listed a few in another post.
This is a simple falsehood--a lie. We have a multiparty system, but the other parties just have not attracked the interest of the American people. What does this mean? It means they haven't come up with a message that a large chunk of people believe in.
Peoples' beliefs are complex these days. You have people who may be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and every other possiblity.
Given America has the following parties (listed in no particular order other than when I remember them): Socialist Party Communist Party (which has decided to back John Kerry) Lybetarian Party Green Party Constitutional Party American Nazi Party Royalist Party (they want a Constitutional Monarchy) America First Party Reform Party American Party (broke from the American Independant Party in 1972) The American Heritage Party (formerly "the Washington State affiliate of the USTP/Constitution Party") Labor Party
You can probably find more googling. I found some of these by googling. The problem is the top two parties (Democrats & Republicans) are not narrow parties. They include a wide range of beliefs. The Republican party was formed in New Hampshire at a meeting almost a year before the official "birth" of the party when several parties got together and decided to form a single party because they all had similar beliefs.
If you don't like the two major parties, join one of the smaller ones. Just don't be surprised if your vote doesn't register on national surveys because the percentage is statically 0%.
I think Bush wrote that because it is simpler to write somethign than to stand up in front of a crowd and talk. You can edit your responces, and have your buddies read your responces before you actually commit to having the public read it.
You cannot do that when you are in a real debate. The only thing a real debate shows is that you can think on your feet. It doesn't take into account the people you surround yourself with and their combine intelligence and experience.
Kerry's answers were more on topic? What debate did you read? In the one I read that was posted Kerry gave very little details on what he was going to do. Contrast this with Bush, and to some extent Nader, talked specifics, and Bush provided examples from his current term as President.
That depends on how much your beliefs mean to you. Voting for President of the United States is your chance to tell government that you like a particular candidate and where he, maybe she in the future, stands on the issues.
In this election, a lot is a stake. The candidates are not even close on a lot of issues! Let's take a geek issue in bioscience. Stem Cell research. Kerry is for using stem cells harvested from an aborted human fetus. While Bush banned the harvesting of new cells from an aborted human fetus while allowing research to continue on current cell lines.
Based on the arguments made by John Kerry, one would think that human fetus stem cells are the only option. That's not true. Already, a man has had a new jaw bone grown on is should blade from a stem cell harvest from his own bone marrow.
I use this example to show you that by not voting you are letting someone else choose where research money is spent, and other tax money is spent. Consider other issues like riding our reliance on oil.
Actually, it could work. Especially if they cover stuff AFTER ROTJ--especially the New Jedi Order series because it has the most potential. You could also incorporate a lot of flashbacks too!
Actually, we know for a fact that he had WMD because he tested them on his own people. We also know that he had intentions, and the capability, to make more. What we still don't know is:
1. What happned to them while Clinton was President becuase we don't know where the ones we knew he had are currently? (I personally think they are in Syria because just before they war, a caravan of military trucks headed to the Syrian border).
All recounts have proven that Bush won. You need to realise that America doesn't actually have a national election. America has several lolcal state elections that happen on the same day. The office of the President is decided by these state elecitons. Who ever wins the state elecitons win all of the electoral votes for that state. You need a total of 270 electoral college votes to win the office of President of the United States of America. If you had a real national election then the government would be completely controlled by places like New City.
Historically, marriage has always been between members of the opposite sex--even in the societies where homosexuality was a common practice.
While I am on the subject, there is no discrimination by not allowing same sex marriages. They are equally capable of marrying a member of the opposite sex just like everybody else.
Back in 2001, a guy in Maine was charged with trying to kill his son becuase he was disturbed with his son's sexual attaction to his dog "lady" (whom I think was a male dog). Eventually, you will see those who practice beastuality try to get a legal status for their "love". Homosexuality started the same way.
Actually, the poster is not far off. Already polygamists are already trying to use the same tactics homosexuals are using (and succeeding in some cases) in getting the right to marry a member of the same sex. I say that they are trying to get the right to marry a member of the same sex because they are not truly being discriminated against because they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
After polygamists, you will have either the perverts of NAMBLA, bestiality, or necrophilia trying to get exceptance. Already NAMBLA sticks its head up every few years to try and get exceptance. When the liberals can no longer use homosexual discrimination to get votes, whom will they turn to next?
Each generation has continually tried to push the boundaries of exceptance. Eventually, a new generation will try to gain exceptance for something you don't like or think is crazy to even think about trying to get exceptance.
I may get moderated down again, but atleast I have the guts to tell the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe your research is not as good as it should have been. A simple google search pulled up the this article with information about new research on using a cell type found in human fat.
The reason there is no evidence is because nobody has fully researched the various adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are being focused on in an attempt to blur the moral issues with abortion. If you don't think the two issues are related, then think again. Do you have any problems with the harvesting of the various human body parts from an aborted fetus being sold as one sells a part off the shelf. This happens today--mainly for research. The same could be done with embroys--sold on ebay to the highest bigger with the possiblity in the participation of creatign the embroy.
It is also worth mentioning that adult stem cells have been used for over 30 years now in the form of bone marrow transplants.
As for Bush, he banned money going towards the harvesting of new embrionic stem cells. He didn't ban the use of existing stem cell lines for research. Bush sided on the side of caution before allowing more harvestings. Even if you don't want to admit it, you are harvesting parts of a human. Humans give birth to humans--not dogs, cats, or anything else.
Bush wants the moral issues to be discussed before going further. I for one think it is a good idea to think about the consequences of what research could lead to and the morals behind it. Think about what we could have saved if the the scientists around the world had discussed the moral consequences of the various nuclear bombs, and consider the possiblities we could have found if research was focused elsewhere.
Explain to me how George's war in Iraq is a good thing.
1. No WMD
2. No Al-Quaeda link (indeed no significant terrorist links)
One, we know he had WMD. He used them on his own people. A very big report (the name is illuding me at the moment) recently released says that yes there was no WMD found, but it also says that Sadam was dirverting money form the Oil for Food Program for several reasons. The first was to restart is WMD program where he left off. More money was being used to payoff France, Germany, Russia, China, and the main guy at the UN to go against all that America did.
Evidence has been foung to prove this. Sadam himself admited that he was just buyign time until the sanctions were lifted. He said he had no WMDs, but he also said nobody new this--even his own generals. All of his posturing was meant to be aimed at Iran whom France had been help achieve Nuclear technology, and he was very surprised that America too notice. To him, Iran with Nuclear technology was a threat.
Actually there are at least two links to terrorists and Al-Quaeda. Right before the war in Afghanistan, Sadam sent Bin Laden an invitation to allow him to stay there. Sadam also released some Al-Quaeda prisoners he was holding.
Over this war George has alienated all of his allies, and he is even proud of it? What kind of logic is that! He has broken international Law. He has lied to the American people. By invading he has ensured that generations of arabs will have one more reason to hate America, he has sown dragons teeth.
No he hasn't alienated his allies. There are allies in Iraq. Besides, I think France, Germany, and Russia did alienated America by excepting bribe money from Sadam. Sadam wanted sancitons to be eased, and if I remember correctly, France and Germany were trying to bring that to the table.
Bush hasn't broken international law. The UN did actually sanction force. Several times! How many years and resolutions do you need? No country has ever stayed free with out a strong military, and the world has entered a time when we cannot wait for the first attack to happen to us. By that time happens, the attack could be a mushroom cloud or bio-weapon! Bush acted to defend America.
I got news for you. The arabs who hate America now hated us before the war, and those that didn't would have hated us anyways. Muslim religous schools in the Middle East teach hatred of America, so Bush has done nothing that would not have happened anyways.
Bush also achieved a another major acomplishment. He got Lybia to to give up its WMD program, and they turned (they say everything) over to the United States. Not a shot fired in Lybia! That is something no other world leader has achieved with Lybia! To reward him, the United States opened up diplomatic relations with Lybia again.
If these are not enough, ask the people who were tortured regularly if they think Sadam should still be in power! Ask the parents of the children who were imprisoned! Got visit the mass graves of people killed by Sadam where they are attempting to identify family members using advanced techniques. Ask the four guys who got new prosthetics (advanced prosthetics) from the kindness of an American who saw a video of them having their limbs cut off and determined to track them down and help them out. Sure it's not perfect, but changing things take time. Change took time (to the tune of several years) in Japan (slightly different case) and Germany, and it will take time for Iraq to change.
In Afghanistan, they recently had elections for the first time in their long history. Women also voted. Women are no longer be surpressed. Yes, there are some areas that still repress women, but change takes time.
Speaking of women, women are not being tortured ad raped by Sadam any more.
Before you write me off as some wacky liberal, note a few things that might surprise you:
1. I am a faithful, evangelical, bible beli
Republican and proud of it. I don't read 2-bit hack news sources--especially ones I get from liberals (my friend). I have found such news sources to be full of so-called truths which are usually distorted.
As for my email, I get the account for free from a relative--which is good for my current budget. I also have a yahoo email and should have a gmail account soon if all goes well both of which I will not post here for obvious reasons.
I always vote fo rthe person who closely mtaches my personal beliefs--no matter what the party.
I stand by what I have said. The 3rd parties have too narrow a message--leaving a lot of openness. If they had a messsage that people wanted to hear they woudl have more people in their parties. This is especially true in todays society with the internet, blogs, and public access TV stations where anybody can get time to talk about anything legal.
A friend who is here on slashdot pointed me to that site. I looked at (pop-up hell). I stand by my statement because they have offered no real proof that he didn't say it. They just said he didn't say it, and that doesn't mean anything without proof.
I stick to my original statement. Actually, things would not improve without the Electoral College. Then America would definately be a majority rules place because then the candidates would only go to the big states. Th EC insures that small states count too. At one time I want the EC gone too, but the was the stupidity of youth.
I don't want any form of ranked voting. Too easy to get messed up. It's bad enough that the Democrats were caught in COlorado get a mentally impaired man to registar to vote 35+ times, and I bet the records thrown out in Nevada were probably the dead people who have been known to register as Democrats in the last few elections.
Nader seems to get a good amount of time. If the other parties were bigger, then they would get more media time. Do you really ware to hear from the Nazi and COmmunist Parties though?
Actually, the green party might be a little of both bepending on where you are in the country. One of the problems with a lot of the third parties is they only have official platforms for a few issues, and the rest is left up to the candidates. This means candidates in these 3rd parties can differ from region to region.
Can't you just write the candidate in on the ballot? Most ballots I think have a write in place. How do you think parties like the American Nazi party get any votes--even if the number is statistically equal to zero.
You know what? John Kerry has had more time than President Bush to introduce a major bill in the Senate to improve environmental conditions! In fact, John Kerry has not introduced any major bill in the Senate since he's been in the Senate in 1984! He has had plenty of chances to introduce plenty of environmental bills into the Senate, but he hasn't. In fact, he missed a majority of the Security Committeeing meetings while he was on the committee. Let's face it, John Kerry has done less in 20 years to protect the enviornment than Bush has in less than 4.
Kerry honest? honest? Seriously? How can you be honest and agree with everyone while disagreeing with everyone?
Bush answered most of the questions and provided examples of what he has already done when he could. Kerry didn't and Nader is a joke.
When have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?
We do not have a two party system. We have a mulitparty system where only two parties have a message that have attracked a large chunk of people. The others are statically zero percent (or near it). Google for other parties and join one if you want. I listed a few in another post.
This is a simple falsehood--a lie. We have a multiparty system, but the other parties just have not attracked the interest of the American people. What does this mean? It means they haven't come up with a message that a large chunk of people believe in.
Peoples' beliefs are complex these days. You have people who may be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and every other possiblity.
Given America has the following parties (listed in no particular order other than when I remember them):
Socialist Party
Communist Party (which has decided to back John Kerry)
Lybetarian Party
Green Party
Constitutional Party
American Nazi Party
Royalist Party (they want a Constitutional Monarchy)
America First Party
Reform Party
American Party (broke from the American Independant Party in 1972)
The American Heritage Party (formerly "the Washington State affiliate of the USTP/Constitution Party")
Labor Party
You can probably find more googling. I found some of these by googling. The problem is the top two parties (Democrats & Republicans) are not narrow parties. They include a wide range of beliefs. The Republican party was formed in New Hampshire at a meeting almost a year before the official "birth" of the party when several parties got together and decided to form a single party because they all had similar beliefs.
If you don't like the two major parties, join one of the smaller ones. Just don't be surprised if your vote doesn't register on national surveys because the percentage is statically 0%.
I think Bush wrote that because it is simpler to write somethign than to stand up in front of a crowd and talk. You can edit your responces, and have your buddies read your responces before you actually commit to having the public read it.
You cannot do that when you are in a real debate. The only thing a real debate shows is that you can think on your feet. It doesn't take into account the people you surround yourself with and their combine intelligence and experience.
Kerry's answers were more on topic? What debate did you read? In the one I read that was posted Kerry gave very little details on what he was going to do. Contrast this with Bush, and to some extent Nader, talked specifics, and Bush provided examples from his current term as President.
That depends on how much your beliefs mean to you. Voting for President of the United States is your chance to tell government that you like a particular candidate and where he, maybe she in the future, stands on the issues.
In this election, a lot is a stake. The candidates are not even close on a lot of issues! Let's take a geek issue in bioscience. Stem Cell research. Kerry is for using stem cells harvested from an aborted human fetus. While Bush banned the harvesting of new cells from an aborted human fetus while allowing research to continue on current cell lines.
Based on the arguments made by John Kerry, one would think that human fetus stem cells are the only option. That's not true. Already, a man has had a new jaw bone grown on is should blade from a stem cell harvest from his own bone marrow.
I use this example to show you that by not voting you are letting someone else choose where research money is spent, and other tax money is spent. Consider other issues like riding our reliance on oil.
Actually, it could work. Especially if they cover stuff AFTER ROTJ--especially the New Jedi Order series because it has the most potential. You could also incorporate a lot of flashbacks too!
Actually, we know for a fact that he had WMD because he tested them on his own people. We also know that he had intentions, and the capability, to make more. What we still don't know is:
1. What happned to them while Clinton was President becuase we don't know where the ones we knew he had are currently? (I personally think they are in Syria because just before they war, a caravan of military trucks headed to the Syrian border).
2. What happened to the equipment?
All recounts have proven that Bush won. You need to realise that America doesn't actually have a national election. America has several lolcal state elections that happen on the same day. The office of the President is decided by these state elecitons. Who ever wins the state elecitons win all of the electoral votes for that state. You need a total of 270 electoral college votes to win the office of President of the United States of America. If you had a real national election then the government would be completely controlled by places like New City.
Historically, marriage has always been between members of the opposite sex--even in the societies where homosexuality was a common practice.
While I am on the subject, there is no discrimination by not allowing same sex marriages. They are equally capable of marrying a member of the opposite sex just like everybody else.
Back in 2001, a guy in Maine was charged with trying to kill his son becuase he was disturbed with his son's sexual attaction to his dog "lady" (whom I think was a male dog). Eventually, you will see those who practice beastuality try to get a legal status for their "love". Homosexuality started the same way.
Actually, the poster is not far off. Already polygamists are already trying to use the same tactics homosexuals are using (and succeeding in some cases) in getting the right to marry a member of the same sex. I say that they are trying to get the right to marry a member of the same sex because they are not truly being discriminated against because they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
After polygamists, you will have either the perverts of NAMBLA, bestiality, or necrophilia trying to get exceptance. Already NAMBLA sticks its head up every few years to try and get exceptance. When the liberals can no longer use homosexual discrimination to get votes, whom will they turn to next?
Each generation has continually tried to push the boundaries of exceptance. Eventually, a new generation will try to gain exceptance for something you don't like or think is crazy to even think about trying to get exceptance.
I may get moderated down again, but atleast I have the guts to tell the truth.