Stem cell research is a beaut!! Are you voting for Kerry?

[elguapo]

I just saw this today on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/03/teeth.replace/

And then I did a google search and found this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/04/teeth.birds/

Just a pleasant reminder that we are making some progress.

So if Kerry is all for stem cell research, which could lead to a faster cure to male pattern baldness, are you guys considering voting for him? Just curious. I am, for that and the fact that my dad got laid off due to sending his job to Mexico. He should have gotten an education, but he didn't, and now life is hard for them. But anyway... this is a democracy.

 

[flux]

This is just one of many really good reasons to vote for Kerry.

Remember, a vote for Kerry is a vote for not Bush!!

 

[The Gardener]

Hate to say it, but both political parties are pretty much the same. The government, regardless of party, has pretty much become corporate America's b**ch. This is a good thing, because corporate America signs my paychecks and has given me a really really nice standard of living. However, this is a bad thing because our tax money is being used to Propecia up corporations and industries that really should fall by the wayside if you are a firm believer in capitalism, like I am. We waste money on padded pork legislation, foreign subsidies to nations we should not be doing business with at all, and embarking on risky and expensive military adventures to introduce our presence into new markets that we would be best suited avoiding. Nothing short of back-slapping hubris. This might be nice and comfortable right now, but in the long run it will hurt us by making us soft.

Personally, I'd like to see a John McCain/Arianna Huffington ticket. I know, it's crazy and not a blockbuster but these two are the best we got for folks who think like me. We are fat and rich, and it is time for us to cut the crap and the fat and get back to disciplined, forward-looking, non-corporate-welfare, environmentally-concerned, pro-capitalist, pro-REAL competition, and honest government. That's Gardner's stand.

 

[BadHairDecade]

honest government.

Isn't that called and oxy-moron or something :lol:

sorry nothing costructive to add.

 

[NilesTilden]

There's no reason to think stem cell research would progress any more rapidly under Kerry. I've heard the stem cell research that may help with male pattern baldness is not the politically controversial stuff from fetuses or whatever. Maybe Kerry would fund more research, maybe not. It would likely just depend on what the polls say.

Anyway, no way in hell would I vote for a tremendous a-hole like Kerry. I don't like Bush much either but would take him over Kerry. I'm in CT, so in all likelyhood our electoral votes will go to Kerry regardless of my vote. I'm going with the Libertarian candidate this year. Both parties have become pretty much the same damn thing and it's time for more options.

 

[BadHairDecade]

There's no reason to think stem cell research would progress any more rapidly under Kerry. I've heard the stem cell research that may help with male pattern baldness is not the politically controversial stuff from fetuses or whatever.

This is what I've heard as well.

 

[jason566]

I agree with you gardener subsiding money to multi-nationals the way we do is horriable and yet all the focus is on social welfare which makes up less than 1% of the actual federal budget plus we spend way to much on military and defense the budget there I believe exceeds 400 biliion a year right now and is cutting into social spending . we have 30 something million without healthcare (iam one of them). but yet we affford to let companies like GE, lockheed martin etc dip there hands into the cookie jar everyday. its sickening this isnt capitalism in the adam smith mold for sure its industry controlling government when government is suppose to be an insturment and voice of the people not the rich . we have a backwards foriegn policy that causes more harm than good we need to be responsiable americans as indviduals and companies and pay up and treat the enviroment well. we need a new revolution in the sense of a true democracy not 1-800-dial-a-politician

 

[Guest]

Time for a change. Vote Ralph Nader in 2004!

 

[flux]

I wish Nader had a chance.

I agree that Kerry isnt really a great choice. But Bush is a two faced coniving sheister who says one thing and does another on most matters of importance; environment, taxes, education, etc. He claims his tax breaks will help the poor but they're all geared towards the rich. He's basically letting the oil companies write our energy policies. Four more years of Bush mean four more years of enviromental deregulations and insider deals for corporate interests.

Not to mention he's alienating all of our nations allies with his American-centric world view.

Bush is flushing our country down the toilet. Please, PLEASE, dear God, for the love of humanity, dont let Bush win.

 

[Odelay]

What I find funny is that out of all the Democrats out there the best they could find was Kerry.

Much like Bush, Kerry is going to throw out so much BS that you can't take one word of it all to heart. Another thing is that Kerry seems to have a tendency to change his point of view from one month to the next, so while this month he might be for stem cells the next he could be against them. Besides a lot of progress is being made with the current limited amount of government funded stem cell research, let's not forget that privately funded research is not limited to the same 12, I believe, stem cells that were previously discovered.

This would be a poor area to base your vote on because things are probably not going to change no matter who is elected to office.

 

[flux]

Of course things will change; they have different aligences. And as bad a job as Bush has done, Kerry cannot do worse. And all this talk of him changing stances, this is not nessisarily bad. It could be a sign that he actually listens to his constiuancy, or that his mind is open enough to reconsider positions. No man can be right on everything right out of the gate.

I personally would have preferred to see Dean run, but what can you do.

 

[Odelay]

The funny thing is that Kerry supported and voted for all the things some people seem to think is all Bush's fault. Kerry along with all other Senators had the same information the president had in basing his judgement, and Kerry agreed with the presidents decision and showed it by voting in favor of the wars. Kerry has had a long history of changing his mind when he see's it is not the popular thing to do. I don't know about you but I would never vote for someone that changes his point of view on a subject more than he changes his clothes just because it's the popular thing to do. We have elected officals because most of the people in this country don't have clue about many of the issues that this country is facing and elect someone they feel will vote like they would. I would never vote for a man that just looks at what is unpopular and says "I'll do the opposite."

Kerry has yet to impress me and many other people with his inability to provide any reason to vote for him other than the fact he is the other guy running. That is completely foolish to let your disapproval of Bush force you into voting for someone that is less qualified to lead this country. It's like the elections in Spain, they let their emotions cloud their logic and voted for the other guy simply because he was there, and now they are stuck with someone they really never wanted in the first place.

What I find really sad is that there are many more qualified and better presidential candidates than the flock that was running for the Democratic ticket, but somehow you end up with the group that you did.

 

[Yahowha]

Odelay what you're saying makes alot of sense, but the thing is it's so obvious now that Iraq was just an item on Bush's personal agenda. Every other war America ever entered into began with a cause to go to war that antagonized the war itself. Bush turned this upside down, he knew from day one that he wanted to go into Iraq, he just needed to find a cause for the war to justify it. Why is this so bad? Because America has never taken offensive action like this before. Saying something like "This country might one day attack us or someone else because they don't like us, so lets attack them first" is pure stupidity. Get serious, international war isn't a game. History tells us that when nations adopt things like Bush's "doctrine of pre-empitive strike," it almost always signals the beginning of that nation's downfall.

About Kerry though.. he's an incredibly boring guy and one of the worst possible candidates to take on the likeable Bush. That said, I think he'd make a good president. The issue of his changing positions is way overblown. His vote didn't decide whether we were going to war or not, it was the president's decision, and there was going to be tremendous political fallout either way he voted. In the real world of politics that vote was a mere political gamble not an actual stand on the issue. Should he have taken a stand then? I don't think so, it's much better to do what he did and sit back for a few months and see what happened.

 

[Healthy Nick]

Kerry is a sketchy dude. Realll sketchy. I don't think he is a good choice, at all.


There are things I don't like about Bush, but I've grown to like him.

 

[The Gardener]

Because America has never taken offensive action like this before.

Not exactly. We've been starting wars for bullshit reasons for hundreds of years. Here's just a partial list of wars that the United States has started by using lies to justify them:

Spanish-American War
Mexican-American War
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Iraq

I could go on and on with the dirty work... The 1950 Guatemalan revolution, the stealing of Panama from Columbia, The Shah of Iran, The assasination of Salvador Allende, The Nicaraguan contras, The El Salvadoran civil war, etc.

 

[Odelay]

Odelay what you're saying makes alot of sense, but the thing is it's so obvious now that Iraq was just an item on Bush's personal agenda. Every other war America ever entered into began with a cause to go to war that antagonized the war itself. Bush turned this upside down, he knew from day one that he wanted to go into Iraq, he just needed to find a cause for the war to justify it. Why is this so bad? Because America has never taken offensive action like this before. Saying something like "This country might one day attack us or someone else because they don't like us, so lets attack them first" is pure stupidity. Get serious, international war isn't a game. History tells us that when nations adopt things like Bush's "doctrine of pre-empitive strike," it almost always signals the beginning of that nation's downfall.

About Kerry though.. he's an incredibly boring guy and one of the worst possible candidates to take on the likeable Bush. That said, I think he'd make a good president. The issue of his changing positions is way overblown. His vote didn't decide whether we were going to war or not, it was the president's decision, and there was going to be tremendous political fallout either way he voted. In the real world of politics that vote was a mere political gamble not an actual stand on the issue. Should he have taken a stand then? I don't think so, it's much better to do what he did and sit back for a few months and see what happened.

I doubt George W. Bush has been sitting around for 10 years waiting for the right moment to run for president and then attack Iraq to finish what his father started. There is no proof of this claim, just a bunch of opinions that people are forming from what other people in his administration were saying. If you notice all the people that supposedly have been whistle blowers about the Bush Administration all had nothing but good things to say about Bush when they were working for him, but once they were fired or replaced and had a million dollar book deal under their arms they all conveniently changed their stories. You are speaking your opinion, which is fine, but none of what you said is a fact or has been proven. Even if as you are claiming Bush had ulterior motives then all of Congress was in on his plan. Congress was given the exact same information the president was basing his judgement to go to war on, they read that there was a threat in Iraq and they voted for the war there.

Once again you are mistaken on how the government runs. While the president does have the power to send troops in without the approval of Congress it is only for a limited amount of time. Congress, including John Kerry, agreed with the president and voted for this war in Iraq, the president was in no way alone in his decision. And in typical Kerry fashion he is now against the war which he voted in favor of a year ago, so no this "flip-flopping" of Kerry's is not being blown out of per portion it's the sad truth. While Bush has not made all the correct decisions he has not folded under the pressure and changing his mind on what should be done. Bush has a worthy goal and will do everything possible to achieve what he has started. The Kerry philosophy seems to be when the going gets tough and unpopular it's time to change my stance on the subject.

I just hope that come November people will not let their disliking of Bush, much of which if fueled by the media, cloud their judgement into voting for a under qualified political leader such as Kerry.

 

[Odelay]

Kerry is a sketchy dude. Realll sketchy. I don't think he is a good choice, at all.


There are things I don't like about Bush, but I've grown to like him.

One of my personal favorites about Kerry's sketchy nature is all the things he says to people when he thinks no one is listening. "Time" Magazine has a great quote in this weeks issue about Kerry calling one of the Secret Service Agents a 'son of a b**ch' because he said the agent cut him off while snowboarding and made him fall. He goes on saying how he never falls while snowboarding and it was all this agents fault, needless to say Kerry fell 3 more times during the day with no one to blame but himself. :lol:

 

[Guest]

THey both suck. And you wonder why people my age have voter apathy. I would vote for a candidate that better represents me, like somebody from the Green Party. But since the largest number of voters are in the category of old white rich men in their 50's they don't have a chance. Me and my peers get ripped by the politicians taking money out of things that help us because it seems we don't care, but we do. I just need a good candidate to vote for. And seriously, the two parties are the same. Democrats and Republicans agree on most foreign policy, they all supported the war in iraq. The only difference is on issues like abortion, gay rights, and taxes. Thats it.

 

[Axon]

Kerry = Garbage

Bush = Garbage

 

[Cassin]

I LIKE IKE!