Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.

Posted By: Lydia on 2006-11-01
In Reply to: Anything? - Teddy

I remember years and years ago when animal experimentation was being protested.  I saw this fellow who was a soap opera actor.  He was crying and crying because they wanted to stop torturing animals to find cures.  His son had diabetes and he said they were THIS CLOSE to finding a cure.  that had to be at least 25 years ago.  Millions of animals have died and there is no cure for diabetes.  So when does it end? 


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

stem cell research
Well, God help you if any of your family gets struck down with a debilitating disease that could be helped with stem cell research
Here's my reasoning on stem cell research
It's not been made illegal, it's simply not funded with federal money, i.e. taxpayers money.  The pendulum has swung so far to the other side.  There are lots of people who have serious objections to abortions and also stem cell research, because of their objection to using live embryos.  People who want abortions have them paid for by people who don't believe in them.  That's unfair.  So, let the private market do the stem cell research and leave the taxpayers out of it.  If you feel very strongly about it, donate your own money to those doing it in the private market.
I don't support stem cell research.
It will never see a dime of my money if I can help it.
Stem Cell Research - First Veto...sm
Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A04

President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections.

At a White House ceremony where he was joined by children produced from what he called adopted frozen embryos, Bush said taxpayers should not support research on surplus embryos at fertility clinics, even if they offer possible medical breakthroughs and are slated for disposal.



Stem cell research breakthrough

Just read this on Comcast.  Thought I would share.  Very intesting and exciting stuff!


http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/11/20/Stem.Cells/?cvqh=itn_stemcell


 


Stem cell research has started
I am so glad to see this has started. I know there must be loads of people who suffer maladies including strokes, spinal cord injuries and many, many more who have been waiting to start testing. I am very glad this has been overturned- now to get down to more business!
I'm conflicted about stem cell research.
I'm for it as long as there are limitations with how they get the stem cells - do they come from aborted babies? That I would have a problem with.

I don't have cancer, but there is a genetic background in my family for several different types, as well as muscular dystrophy, so I'm all for stem cell research as long as there are guidelines that are followed and Obama or any other president needs to make those guidelines clear.
Govt backing of stem cell research

I want stem cell research to go forward to help those with devastating illnesses.  I do not want the embryos to be thrown away but rather put to good use.  I really do not care what people with the opposite position say.  This is my position and in my mind and heart and soul it is the right position.  I care more for those who are already alive.


In a democracy, the majority rules and the majority of Americans want stem cell research to move forward with government backing.  The debate, as far as I am concerned, is over.  I am for it, others are not.  Whether it is approved within the next two years or when finally a democratic president, who makes judgments and decisions fairly and based on what the people want and not what God has told him/her, it will be a reality within a few years.


Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research

 Finally!  A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!


 July 29, 2005


Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research


WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."


His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.


"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.


Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."


He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."


Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.


"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."


Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."


The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.


The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.


"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."


But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."


Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.


"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."


Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."


Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."


Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.


"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."


But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.


Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.


Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.


With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."


Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.


"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.


But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."


On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."


The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.


In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."


Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."


After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."


But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."


Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.


"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."


Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.





Michael J Fox admits he did not read the Missouri stem cell initiate. sm
This is exactly what I am talking about.  He has no idea what the stem cell initiative says about cloning.  But he is *quite sure* he would support it anyway.  Frightening.
I have the cure for your feeling.
If my posts make you uncomfortable, by all means don't read 'em.

Guy goes to the doctor and says "Doc, ya gotta help me. It hurts when I do this". Doctor says "Well then, don't do that!"

Get it?


Tax cuts didn't work - what is your cure? nm
x
That's exactly right! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. - nm
x
At the rate things are going.......... sm
I'm not sure if there is going to be any wealth to redistribute in this country before long.
If you want a lower rate -- refinance it
If you're credit score is that good, you should have no problem securing a lower rate.  By the sounds of things, you've got it pretty well paid down.  Depending on the exact amount you owe, you could refinance it into a home equity loan, rather than a new mortgage, and end up only paying about $100 in closing costs.  Check with your current lender. 
Correct Marmann, and as MTs this will help our pay rate and jobs sm
If companies are rewarded for staying in the U.S., bye bye philipines and barbados and india for MT cheapo transcription. Hello USA hard working MTs finally making DECENT MONEY.
AND.... getting tax breaks.
Did everyone see the post below about the UK's gun ban and crime rate rising? sm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm


Use of gun-related crime increased 40% during the gun ban and smuggling of guns was rampant, along with people turning every possible object into a gun.  Not the answer obviously.


I get the single rate deducted from my pays (nm)
.
I'd be happy if they just reduced everybody's mortgage rate to a fixed 3%. sm
Then everyone is still responsible for the debt they took on, yet they're still getting a break. It would free up a couple hundred bucks a month for me, which I could then use elsewhere to stimulate the economy. Fewer foreclosures, banks are still getting their money.
Abortion Rate Continues to Drop, at Lowest Level Since 1976

Abortion: Just the Data
With High-Court Debate Brewing, New Report Shows Procedure's Numbers Down


By Naseem Sowti
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; HE01


A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.


In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.


The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.


With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.


"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.


Who Gets Abortions?


Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.


The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.


Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:


· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.


· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.


· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.


This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.


· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.


· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.


Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.


· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.


About the Data


There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.


Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.


Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.


Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.


Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·


Resources


For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."


For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.


Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").


© 2005 The Washington Post Company


Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm
z
Is the new legislature talking about stem cells of aborted fetuses?...sm
Because I am a pro-life liberal. I don't rattle any cages about what other people chose to do with their bodies because I believe 90% of the time a person who choses to abort will not be a good parent anyway and will probably do worse to the child once outside the womb. Yes, I do believe a horid life can be worse than death before full development. The child will more than likely be in abject poverty, social and mental deprivation, and on and on. But more importantly, I think people should be more responsible to not get pregnant in the first place when they don't want kids.

Having said all that we do live in an age where abortion is legal, and like I said if they are going to dispose of the fetus anyway, why not use the stem cells to give hope to a Christopher Reeves of the world.

Now, when you talk about cloning and reproducing parts and such I'm not agreeing with that. That's taking it too far IMHO.
Mississippi, A Hotbed of Abstinence Education, Now Boasts Highest Teen Pregnancy Rate
The Centers for Disease Control released a new report today that found that Mississippi “now has the nation’s highest teen pregnancy rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title.” The report found that in 2006, the Mississippi teen pregnancy rate was over 60 percent higher than the national average and increased 13 percent since the year before.
While the new report does not explain why the state’s teen pregnancy rate is increasing, one reason may be the poor quality of its sex ed programs. As the Sexuality Information and Education Center explains, Mississippi focuses heavily on abstinence education and teachers are prohibited from demonstrating how to use contraceptives:
Mississippi schools are not required to teach sexuality education or sexually transmitted disease (STD)/HIV education. If schools choose to teach either or both forms of education, they must stress abstinence-until-marriage, including “the likely negative psychological and physical effects of not abstaining.” […]
If the school board authorizes the teaching of contraception, state law dictates that the failure rates and risks of each contraceptive method must be included and “in no case shall the instruction or program include any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied.
A reporter for ABC News’s Jackson, MS affiliate explained, “The Mississippi Department of Human Services says abstinence is the only birth control that is 100 percent effective. And that’s the only message teens need to hear.” Unfortunately, numerous studies show that abstinence-only education is not effective. As one study found:
Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.
Further, a review by the House Oversight Committee found that “80% of the abstinence-only curricula…contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.”
Pregnant teens in Mississippi face few options. Access to facilities that provide abortions in that state is extremely limited. Indeed, because of an unusually effective anti-choice campaign in the legislature, only a single abortion clinic remains open in the state.

UpdateThe report also found that the teen pregnancy rate is rising fastest in Alaska, where Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is a strong proponent of abstinence-only sex ed.

Because MT has proven herself over and over and over

again to be a LIAR.  So I've learned to doubt every single thing she says because she is a compulsive liar with no credibility.


I would believe my DOG over anything MT would say. 


And as far as Nan having a *civil* long conversation with anyone, ESPECIALLY if MT was involved, I've never seen that happen anywhere on the Conservative board.  They don't know what civility is.  All they do is attack, bully, gang up and chase away those who don't agree with them.


Just trying to point that out to the liberals who believe that telling the truth is a GOOD thing and that constant lying is BAD.


I think it has been proven..(sm)
that with enough torture anyone will admit to anything.  Coming out of Gitmo, I have to take that with a grain of salt.
No he has not proven anything. He still cannot
//
That has yet to be proven...(sm)

We'll have to wait until Israel lets reporters in there to find out the detaills on that.  I'm sure by then they will have figured out some other fairy tale for the press.


However, just for the sake of arguement, let's say you are correct and that Hamas was operating from these locations.  I still have a problem with that.  Think about it this way:


Let's say that you have kids that go to school.  One day a group of people show up going postal at the school.  Should we just blow up the whole school so we can make sure we get the bad guys?  According to your posts, I assume you would think this would be the appropriate response.


These are real people being killed over there that will mourn the loss of their children just as you would yours.  The fact that it's not in our backyard doesn't make it any less real for the people living in this nightmare.


Nobody has proven me wrong.

But you've proven just what you are:  Just another lying conservative.  Maybe someday will come when we finally catch one telling the truth.  You have no intention of leaving, and you know it.  You live to spread your idiocy.


And as far as what you wrote on the Monitor board about people posting on the Conservative board, if someone did, I wasn't the person who did it.


Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it was YOU who did, though, just to start garbage.  That's the way you CONS work.  Just like when Bush's goons *leaked* the story about Iraq's *WMDs* in time for it to print on a Saturday, and the very next day, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld were all on the Sunday talk shows saying, *Just like the NYT said yesterday...*


You're not fooling anyone.


You all have proven Rush right ...

no meaningful dialogue, just name-calling. 


Right on, Sam. And McCain has proven himself to
nm
Point just proven!
Over and over again on this forum.
Question....now that it has been proven...
that the democrats in Congress are responsible for this 700 billion bailout we are going to be on the hook for...and Obama has taken more in donations from them in his 4 years in the senate than most have in 30 years...you are still going to vote for him? That does not matter to you? Does not bring his decision making process seem a little suspect? I am not trying to start a fight....I am just trying to understand how that would not make you question whether he should be President.
You have just proven the point of the OP, being that
white pastors are never perceived as such. You may be too dense to recognize the bigotry and racism in the viewpoints of Falwell, Robertson, Hagee and their ilk, but for the rest of us outside the right-wing WASP Christian Evangelical inner circle, it is positively palpable. For example, what part of Hagee's pronouncements about Katrina victims is void of racism?

When every single Sunday sermon drills the same dogma week after week and year after year, it does not need to be posted on a website or have a fancy name attached to it to make it a philosophy or a theology. It is what it is.

Beyond that, simply stated, none of the hate patrol can present one shred of evidence that Obama holds black liberationist viewpoints except through their impotent guilt by association protestations. His life experience, his political career and his current campaign platform belie even the loudest shouting you canmuster.

You guys have been hawking this Black Liberationist spiel for nearly 2 years now and Obama is leading in the polls by double digits, dear. Nobody seems to be buying what you are selling. What does it take for you to understand that not only is it not working, but it is also transforming your candidate into somebody who has less than zero cerdibility, even on the most legitimate of campaign issues? By the way, most Americans know racism and hatred when they see it...and by the looks of your post, others can't even recognize it when it is coming out of their own mouths.
There are studies that have proven

that what FDR did during the great depression actually prolonged the duration of the great depression.  Do we really need that?


The first thing I would do is fine all companies who hire illegal immigrants and then load em up and ship em back to Mexico.  That would save us a buttload of money right there.  Did I mention to ship illegal immigrants back?  LOL!


that was proven to not be the case as well
@@
SO far he hasn't proven anything
nm
This last election has proven

that the majority of us do not bother to educate ourselves on a candidate or an issue.  We just grab at something shiny:  Ooh, ooh!  That one speaks well and looks good!  


In any election, if there are candidates or issues I don't know enough about to vote on (judgeships, etc.) I actually leave that item blank rather than just put just anybody's name in there!  Candidates actually fight to have their name placed at the top, because they know that some voters will just select the first one they see.  Or they go for name recogition, and vote for the one who'se spent the most on advertising. Horrifying to think this is how some candidates get elected. 


In the election before that I was aghast when a friend that I thought was intelligent said of Bush/Kerry.  ''We've tried it one way for four years.  Time to try give somebody else a chance.''  When asked,  she could not name any area in which Kerry was better; he was just ''different.''  Oh, well, if it's somebody else's turn.......


And that's the main problem with our political system.  We seldom get a candidate that really inspires us and too often we just end up voting for the one we hate least, or the one whose name is listed first.  Or we get bamboozled by flashy packaging with absolutely nothing inside. 


So I have no idea how we make people pay attention and vote responsibly in order to change all this. 


this is completely different. It is not proven
yet that Iran HAS nuclear weapon, it is an assumption. To just take the protest about the rigged election as justified reason to attack Iran because of their suspected hidden nuclear bomb arsenal,
is just idiotic. Do we apply again teh 'Weapon of Mass Destruction Theory?' Iran did not threaten yet to shoot missiles to Hawaii, wheres North Korea did and is testing its missiles for a while already.

Obama just cannot meddle or interfere into Iran's internal affairs, yet, don't you understand? It is not the US's business if the election was a fraud and the wrong president was elected.
And it is not the business of the US's to encourage people tocontinue with the protests. Even giving the protesters too much verbal support is dangerous as this will embolden them and the army will slaughter them and even THEN the US has no right to interfere, because it is not a direct threat to the US and the world. Only if Iran brings out its missiles, if it has any.

The US just cannot interfere or attack a sovereign country in defense of democracy and because it is the military superpower. Only if the country asks for it or the UN decides.

I wished Mousavi had won.

I am ignoring your bashing of Obama, to me it is again blah, blah, blah.




That's *innocent* until proven guilty...sm
I don't know which way it will go, but when you tell the truth your story never changes - his did over and over and over.
They have proven ties to Al Queda. nm
nm
In your dictionary - as limited as it has proven to be
x
Yeah, and McCain has at least proven he would
nm
Right on, Kaydie! -at least McCain has proven he
nm
It's a fake and will be proven in time....sm
Why then when asked where Obama was born his family couldn't agree on which hospital in Hawaii....because when you lie you can't keep facts straight that's why. Obama was born in Kenya.
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
The Palestinians have proven time and again
their preference for a one-state solution - a Palestinian state.  Israel has made numerous concessions, agreed to everything they want, only to have new demands made before the ink is dry.  All our administrations from Carter on have tried to broker a two-state agreement.  Israel is justifiably tired of  bargaining in good faith, giving up territory, agreeing to demands, only to find the finish line moved once again.  Obama did not invent the  concept of a two-state solution.  He's just in office when Israel is saying ''enough of this crap, no more going through the motions.'' 
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty....
you certainly don't think that about George Bush and Dick Cheney, do you? I don't see you asking fellow liberals not to make judgments until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers...? LOL. Ahem. Think the hippocracy is showing there a little bit. I certainly don't think Kam is considering them innocent until proven guilty, nor are any of the rest of you by your posts. I believe she considers them guilty and impeachment a formality. So please stop with the noble innocent until proven guilty and that is the best system. You don't believe it across the board, so don't speechify. It rings hollow.

And what makes you think I have always voted a Republican ticket? I can tell you right now, I have not, especially in congressional races where I think the most difference is made.

There is nothing to say that Ron Paul would not be a great President. I threw his name out there because he is so radically different than any other Republican running and any Democrat running. Would not surprise me if he lost the Repub nomination and ran as an Independent, which would give disgusted folks such as myself and Kam a real alternative. But Kam is not disgusted with politics. She hates George Bush and she would not vote for a Republican no matter WHAT he or she said, she said as much. And that is what is wrong with politics today, as you have stated so many times and accused me of not wanting change because I said I would never vote for a Democrat. I said I would not vote for a pro abortion Democrat if I have an alternate choice, you are right. But, there are pro life Democrats and I have voted for some for congressional seats. And would continue to do so if I felt they were the most qualified person on the ticket. That is the reason I threw his name out. The only thing that goes against him being able to make any meaningful change is that Congress would hamstring him. If we really want change, we need an independent prez AND an independent congress. That won't happen this election cycle. That kind of change will take years. It could start with this one, and I think that is exactly what Pelosi is trying to avoid by not letting an impeachment go forward right now...too much might come out.

I am not victimized. If anyone is victimized it is poor Kam with that virulent hatred for George Bush. It sounds like it consumes every waking moment. Good grief. I go on about my daily life just like anyone else does, and in the grand scheme of things, WHOever is elected President has his/her work cut out for him/her, we all know that. If it is a Democrat, all I know for absolutely sure is my taxes are going to go up and social programs won't be reined in, they will just get money thrown at them, and if that doesn't fix them, we will get more programs. It has happened every time. And if there is anything in this country that needs to be fixed, that's it. That is another priority for me, and yes, my congresspeople could attest to that from the sheaves of paper they have received from me.

If it is a Republican, what happens depends upon which one it is. If it is Guiliani, I don't see much difference in he and most Democrats and I would have to weigh him against whatever Dem gets the nomination. If it is Romney, I think the man can balance the budget and get runaway spending under control, because say what you want about the man, he is a financial genius and the government is the biggest business there is, and frankly it needs to be run like one. So, if he is the nominee, most likely he will get my vote, because I think it is HIGH time that someone starts to run the government like a business and gets runaway spending under control, starting with social programs. That is so broken it screams to be fixed.

If nominee is Thompson, he will get my vote. For many reasons, the most important of which is putting power back in the states that the feds have stolen over the years. States have demonstrated time and time again they administer their affairs much better than when the Feds get into it. And states may be able to put enough pressure on their reps that Congress might actually do something about that, even if there is a Dem majority. One can only hope. Ron Paul believes that too, and I am in agreement with him on that. We certainly don't need as much centralized power in DC as we have right now. I will vote for the man (or woman) I feel most qualified and most closely follows my vision for the country, just like I would hope everyone else does.

Kam is disgusted, but it is more about her healthy hatred for the MAN George Bush, and the MAN Cheney which has nothing to do with politics and one need only read her posts about them to see that. Which is all well and good, and that is her right and I would argue for her right to say so. Her crusade is to punish George Bush and I don't really think that is going to cure what is wrong with politics in this country. If she thinks Obama is the answer, then I would think her time and energy would be better spent trying to get him the nomination and the election rather than crusading to punish someone on his way out anyway. But that is just me.

Yes, a lot of things about politics and about the way this country is going is disheartening. I do the best I can with my vote and working for whatever candidate I choose to support. Since I am not a rich person I sure can't throw much money at campaigns, but I do what I can.

As to the law is the law and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers...fine. Does that mean if Bush is impeached and not convicted all would be forgiven on the basis of the law is the law? All of you who are calling for his head would go quietly away because he was judged innocent by his "peers?" ROFL. I don't THINK so.


I would agree with you that we the people of America need to change the way politics are played. But before THAT can happen, the minds of Americans have to change. And the way to do that is stop the bitterly partisan way of thinking (ANY party) and if these political boards, and all the political boards and blogs and sites on the internet are ANY indication, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Does not mean I am not a happy person, does not mean I am going to slink into a closet and into a depression if Clinton or Obama become President or Paul or WHOEVER becomes President. Life will go on, the chips will fall, and we shall see what happens. Same thing if Guiliani or Romney or Thompson or whoever is elected. It is what it is. Noble ideas and good intentions are wonderful things. But if our Congress cannot drop partisanship long enough to do what is best for the country (if they even know what that is anymore, or care), then it doesn't matter who is President. And I don't know how we can really expect them to if we as rank and file Americans are unwilling to...what goes around comes around, and around, and around, and around....until someone gets off the merry-go-round and pulls the plug. Someone a lot more important, sadly, than kam, than me, or you, piglet. And for the right reasons. And therein lies the rub.

Remember that song, I Need A Hero? Well...America needs one right about now. :)

It has been proven that his birth certificate is authentic. nm
.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.

This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.

The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).

The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
You must be against Michele Obama, then too....she's a proven racist...
and no, I will not tell you what I mean, because if you don't remember, yet again, selective memory, and it was explained away.

But make no mistake. Michele Obama is a racist and a bigot. Married to the Barack Obama.


You will just excuse her, like everything else Obama
So lets do all tax cuts which have proven to be ineffective?
That trickle down crap doesn't work - or haven't you figured that out yet? Hmm, over 10 trillion dollars spent on Bush's watch and what did he accomplish? It sure as helll didn't trickle down but all the CEOs got nice bonuses. This crisis is Bush's doing - why don't you get that?