Quantcast

Republican Not Voting for Bush

Makeuptalk.com - Makeup forums and reviews

Help Support Makeuptalk.com - Makeup forums and reviews:

Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1
This is one Republican who will not be voting for Bush. He has really messed up. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in regard to his war dealings, but he has proven himself inept. This article, for me, is the last straw. It comes from the BBC online news.

Bush's latest attempt to control other countries and thereby try to stop stem cell research has me enraged! How about if his kid, wife, or he himself had diabetes where a potential cure is on the way? Bush needs to get his long-ass nose where it belongs. He needs to be the president of a bank or of a canned food company, but not of the U.S. He has embarrassed us enough. We need a level-headed player. No offensive to any Republicansl; this is personal and specifically geared! lol.

-Cali

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Britons attack US cloning ban bid

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
Stem cells could provide treatment for diseases such as Alzheimer's

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->Top British scientists are backing an international campaign to stop the United States obtaining a worldwide ban on all types of human cloning.

The Royal Society is among 68 academies urging the UN to ban reproductive but not therapeutic use of the technology.

President George Bush's administration wants a complete ban, which the UN could introduce as early as October.

Member states would not be compelled to sign up but scientists fear such a treaty could stifle stem cell research.

'Will not sign'

Professor Richard Gardner, chairman of the Royal Society's working group on stem cell research and cloning, said: "It is clear that if the UN bans all forms of human cloning, the UK, and other countries which currently permit carefully regulated therapeutic cloning, will not sign up to it."

Scientists who oppose a complete ban believe it could backfire by halting efforts to stop maverick cloning scientists.

Prof Gardner continued: "To effectively stop cowboy cloners claiming that their work on human reproductive cloning is acceptable, because it is not outlawed throughout the world, a UN convention must be passed that all countries are willing to endorse."

<!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=208 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>
</TD><TD class=sibtbg>
To stop cowboy cloners claiming their work on human reproductive cloning is acceptable... a UN convention must be passed that all countries are willing to endorse


Professor Richard Gardner

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->

He said a clear distinction by the UN between reproductive and therapeutic cloning would "provide invaluable guidance in passing effective legislation".

He added that it should be noted the US had not yet banned reproductive cloning because of its attempts to include therapeutic cloning in the ban.

Last year the UN, which could introduce a ban at its 59th General Session in October, voted by a slim margin to postpone the decision, despite powerful lobbying by the US. Earlier this month, scientists from the University of Newcastle were granted a licence to clone human embryos for medical research. Stem cells from early embryos could potentially be used to provide new treatments for incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Word of advice, do not believe everything you read. I know you know this..

This is also one problem that real hardcore Christians have (nothing against them at all). I personally know five of them that solely base their political views on Abortion. I'm not sure if this is fair to solely base your view or opinions on who should run the country solely on one issue, when there are MANY issues at hand.

It's with out a doubt completely fine to have an opinion though, this is what the US is all about!
Respected!





Originally Posted by Californian

This is one Republican who will not be voting for Bush. He has really messed up. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in regard to his war dealings, but he has proven himself inept. This article, for me, is the last straw. It comes from the BBC online news.Bush's latest attempt to control other countries and thereby try to stop stem cell research has me enraged! How about if his kid, wife, or he himself had diabetes where a potential cure is on the way? Bush needs to get his long-ass nose where it belongs. He needs to be the president of a bank or of a canned food company, but not of the U.S. He has embarrassed us enough. We need a level-headed player. No offensive to any Republicansl; this is personal and specifically geared! lol.

-Cali



Britons attack US cloning ban bid







Stem cells could provide treatment for diseases such as Alzheimer's




Top British scientists are backing an international campaign to stop the United States obtaining a worldwide ban on all types of human cloning.

The Royal Society is among 68 academies urging the UN to ban reproductive but not therapeutic use of the technology.

President George Bush's administration wants a complete ban, which the UN could introduce as early as October.

Member states would not be compelled to sign up but scientists fear such a treaty could stifle stem cell research.

'Will not sign'

Professor Richard Gardner, chairman of the Royal Society's working group on stem cell research and cloning, said: "It is clear that if the UN bans all forms of human cloning, the UK, and other countries which currently permit carefully regulated therapeutic cloning, will not sign up to it."

Scientists who oppose a complete ban believe it could backfire by halting efforts to stop maverick cloning scientists.

Prof Gardner continued: "To effectively stop cowboy cloners claiming that their work on human reproductive cloning is acceptable, because it is not outlawed throughout the world, a UN convention must be passed that all countries are willing to endorse."




To stop cowboy cloners claiming their work on human reproductive cloning is acceptable... a UN convention must be passed that all countries are willing to endorse



Professor Richard Gardner




He said a clear distinction by the UN between reproductive and therapeutic cloning would "provide invaluable guidance in passing effective legislation".

He added that it should be noted the US had not yet banned reproductive cloning because of its attempts to include therapeutic cloning in the ban.

Last year the UN, which could introduce a ban at its 59th General Session in October, voted by a slim margin to postpone the decision, despite powerful lobbying by the US. Earlier this month, scientists from the University of Newcastle were granted a licence to clone human embryos for medical research. Stem cells from early embryos could potentially be used to provide new treatments for incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's.








 
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1
^5, T-Bro!



Originally Posted by Tony(admin) Word of advice, do not believe everything you read. I know you know this..
This is also one problem that real hardcore Christians have (nothing against them at all). I personally know five of them that solely base their political views on Abortion. I'm not sure if this is fair to solely base your view or opinions on who should run the country solely on one issue, when there are MANY issues at hand.

It's with out a doubt completely fine to have an opinion though, this is what the US is all about!
Respected!

 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
LOL, I can tell you that she isn't a card carrying LIB.

I don't know why the left has gone SOOO far to the left either.





Originally Posted by Steve

I can totally understand not agreeing with everything G.W. stands for. I personally don't have an opinion on stem cell research. I'm leaning towards allowing it but I also can see how close the technology is to cloning; and cloning is something the world does not need! But to me the alternative to Bush is SO far to the left and SO anti-military that I fear no matter how Kerry majically comes up with the money required to pay for all the "free stuff" he promises, we may not have a country left in four years.
Here is my worste fear: Another Sept 11th, no matter what it may be. Kerry endlessly going back and forth: "should I do this? / should I do that? / what if I offend the UN (or France)?" The US economy goes down the tubes while Kerry debates with himself.

Cali, I don't get the impression that you are a card carrying lib but there has to be others reading this that are -- flame away...






 
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by Steve I can totally understand not agreeing with everything G.W. stands for. I personally don't have an opinion on stem cell research. I'm leaning towards allowing it but I also can see how close the technology is to cloning; and cloning is something the world does not need! But to me the alternative to Bush is SO far to the left and SO anti-military that I fear no matter how Kerry majically comes up with the money required to pay for all the "free stuff" he promises, we may not have a country left in four years.
Here is my worste fear: Another Sept 11th, no matter what it may be. Kerry endlessly going back and forth: "should I do this? / should I do that? / what if I offend the UN (or France)?" The US economy goes down the tubes while Kerry debates with himself.

Cali, I don't get the impression that you are a card carrying lib but there has to be others reading this that are -- flame away...


Hiya Steve,Here's the only flame you are going to get from me --> .

Seriously, I have been really trying to sort out lies from truth. I figure the best way to do this is to watch each candidate's actions since politics is a slimmy biz and since media and interpretations can imply the improbable.

I am not a tree hugger LOL, but I am a philanthropist, Republican. I sure wish I also held the label of 'telepath' because my "crystal ball" is hazy and I have no idea which president will be more effectively solution-oriented.

I find it horribly upsetting that Bush wants to ban stem cell research. If you study this subject, you will find that most of the stem cell research focuses towards curing chronic illnesses rather than recreating the Bush Twins. Stopping this research, or severely handicapping it, is certainly not going to help us out. If need be, our countrymen will travel to Europe or even China.

As far as the war efforts are concerned, I fear that Bush is a bit sophomoric and I have given him the benefit of the doubt many times. I am distressed that he has ostrasized our allies and that he presents himself as a bombastic, angst-ridden lil' junior. I would like to trust him. I see some progress in Iraq but I also see a big mess. I need to know .. would Kerry be a better leader? Could he rationally and calmly (with intellect and forethought) get us into a better place both defensively and offensively? We need help both nationally and internationally.

As I said, my crystal ball needs some major polishing!!

Anyway, I appreciate and respect most opinions unless they attack members rather than address the issues. You do not do that.

Got any insights or comments on the above thoughts? I'd like to hear it. I'm open to it.

Thanks,

Cali



What would Kerry predictably do that would make things worse?

 
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by Steve My prediction is this: If Kerry gets the nod, he will pull out of Iraq STP (sooner than possible) leaving Iraq as an unstable mess, leaving Iraqi citizens that support the US PO'd at us for promising freedom and then putting our tail between our legs and running and the terrorists will claim this as a major victory over the bloated US infidels. Then it will be open season on all our interests and lives.
Whether or not we were justified in going in and whether or not we stepped on our allies toes in the process, Iraq needs to be stable when we leave and I don't see this as a priority for Kerry.


BTW, cute flame. Where do you find this stuff?

Hi Steve,I found my flame at smileycenral.com. Thanks... here's another for you:

I know that Kerry was anti-Vietnam, but his reasons were that

a) we were mainly killing women and children

B) more of our people were dying with NOTHING be accomplished

He is not anti-war, but he is humanitarian. I know that sounds like a contradiction. Sigh.

Anyway, I do not know why you think he'll pull our troops out asap .. I get the impression that he wants us there as well. His M.O. would be different though. For example no restrictions on the soldiers where orders are given that they can't shoot for crying out loud! Collateral damage is inevitable, but outright putting our own soldiers at a severe disadvantage is a choice!

sheesh. Here's another flame --->

 
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by Steve 1) The only reason that I'm aware of where unreasonable restrictions are placed on our soldiers is when the Iraqi government decides on an idiotic cease fire on the misguided assumption that the terrorists may negotiate a peace. While I don't agree with the Iraqi government on this, I think we do have to abide by there rules if we want to give it any credence. 2) I seriously doubt Kerry's resolve on this issue and his ability to lead. If Kerry had his way and every issue he voted for or against (or for or against again, depending!) went his way, being the Commander in Chief would not be an issue because he would not have any military to lead -- our military would be no stronger nor technologically advanced than the average police force in America. Ok Steve, breatheeeeeeeeeeeeee one two three fourbreatheeeeeeeeeeeeeee two three four

innnnnn and out

innnnn and one two three four

LOL

xo Cali hahahha. Anyway, I am seriously thinking on all of this. I have nothing to say quite yet.



 

Latest posts

Top