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

Here's my reasoning on stem cell research

Posted By: sm on 2005-09-23
In Reply to: With all due respect. - -

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.


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
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.


Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.
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? 
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.
So, by that reasoning....
how many Americans would be excluded from this club? 
There's no reasoning with them when they

Reasoning? Not here.
Aside from the fact that I find it distateful and unhelpful to rehearse pure policy disputes over presidential appointments, it is "terrible" reasoning to derive objections to Ogden's presumptive policies as Deputy AG from a brief he submitted on behalf of a client.


Reasoning........... sm
The man is not family-oriented in the instance that he argued FOR p*rnography and that schools and libraries should not be allowed to filter such filth from their users. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want my kid to be able to surf p*rn sites while at school or at the public library. I don't need any reason beyond that to oppose the appointment of David Ogden to DAG, and frankly I am shocked and disappointed in anyone who feels otherwise.
There is no reasoning with anyone who would
unbelievable...
By your own reasoning............... sm
MT companies should take their business back into the confines of their headquarters and stop employing people at home. Going by your barometer, our work would make our homes a business.

You can bet if that were to ever happen, this board would become a ghosttown and there would be a lot of unhappy MTs.
I don't follow your reasoning...because there are a lot of
gays you think God made them that way? Years ago, sex before marriage was unheard of, but so many people over the years have done it openly now it is accepted. The Bible speaks frankly against it. Same with adultery. The Bible speaks frankly against it. People still do it. And it is still wrong. The Bible speaks against homosexuality. People still do it, it is still wrong. More people kill and steal nowadays. Does that make it right? There are more serial killers today than 20 years ago. Does that make it okay? I believe you are rationalizing. Why would God call something an abomination and then make people that way? That is like saying people are thieves because God made them that way...people are killers because God made them that way...sorry, we will have to agree to disagree big time on that kind of reasoning.
with unsound reasoning
her reasoning was unsound as well - dear
Obama's reasoning for not
having his hand over his heart is that he said they were not saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag when that picture was taken.  He said that the Star-Spangled Banner was being played or sung and states he was not raised to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.....only when you pledge to the flag.  That was his reason.  I know his grandparents lived in Hawaii and he spent some years living in Indonesia living with his muslim step father, but even so........I've always been taught to put my hand over my heart during the national anthem as well as during the pledge.  Maybe he truly wasn't taught to do that, but given all the experiene he claims to have in government, you would think he would hold the national anthem dear to his heart and put his hand over his heart like everyone else on that stage did during the Star-Spangled Banner.  Take it as you will.
Don't confuse them with reasoning.

You've given REASONS why you're glad Bush is out and Obama is in.


They don't understand REASON and common sense.  It's something scary and foreign to them.  So they call it cult worship.  This very thinking is something that will get Obama killed, and when it does, each of these morons on this board will have blood on their hands.


Nobody can reason with these people.  I'm personally tired of visiting this board and being brought down by all the UN-American posts I see. 


I'm interested in having a better life.  All visiting this board does is show me enormous ignorance concentrated into one little site.  There are other sites where people make sense.


This site is starting to become too toxic and hazardous to my health.  I'll check back in a month or so, and if no common decency has returned, then there's no point in my coming back here any more.



Here is my stance and my reasoning

for what I said above.  Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG.  They should have let AIG fall on its face.  They shouldn't have given them money in the first place. 


Here is a little blurp I've copied:  I will provide the link below.


On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.


As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.


 


You can read the whole article at this link:  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html


So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away.  It is a contract.  I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power.  To give and take away at the drop of a hat.  To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them. 


Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place?  that is the real question.  This wouldn't even be an issue.  Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG.  So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak.  And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama.....   So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back.  Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns. 


This is why our government sucks.  They don't care about Americans.  All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign.  That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.


Sp be it, but your line of reasoning is skewed

What if a sex offender was running loose in your neighborhood.  What if he had raped a child 10 years ago, went to jail with a slap on the wrist (like what happens these days), and got out in ten years.  He shows up in your neighborhood, and you see him out on his porch everyday when the school bus arrives and leaves.  Not only is he leering at the school kids he's making outrageous comments on a daily basis.  Would you say, *Oh, he went to prison.  He did his time.  Hopefully, he's rehabilited.  Yes, he's a little strange and outrageous, but so far, as far as we know, he's not touched a kid again so we need to leave him alone.*


Would you trust this guy?  Especially if you then found out he has a *rape room* in his house?  What if his sons were running around the neighborhood reeking havoc and doing the same things but in a more merciless way and you found out they were going to inherit his house when he died?


Well, this correlates very well with Saddam.  Almost too closely in fact.  Like many of you say here on a daily basis, the world is our neighborhood, and in many neighborhoods there are bullies, and they don't quit being bullies until you take them out.  It's just the way the world works.


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.
Gotta love the reasoning of these pirates

'Killing our boys was aggression.'   I guess you're just supposed to pay them the money and let them keep pirating.  Nobody was ever supposed to fight back. 


And, as they have threatened to 'deal harshly' with any US or French sailors they capture in the future, is there any reason why now we should not simply hunt down and blast each and every one of them out of the water?  None that I can think of.  I think they just declared war on us. 


You are so right, question everything, it is the blind condemnation and deafness to reasoning that i
nm
you aren't reasoning out issues, you are being downright rude, crude, and nasty. nm
nm
Stem Cells - I can't think of one reason why they should throw the extra cells away, rather than sav
x
You had better do some better research. sm
Hillary, at the cost of millions of dollars from her special forces team (none of whom knew a thing about writing a health care bill, including herself) put together an over 1300 page "booklet" which was such a dismal failure, not even the democrats would get behind it.  Ted Kennedy wants socialized medicine.  Ask Canada and England what they think of socialized medicine. You really can't go around blaming republicans for everything without at least doing some research. 
did my research
Oh, I did my research and I lived through the times when President Clinton and the First Lady tried to get a universal health plan.  The republicans wanted nothing to do with it.  Socialized health care?  Better than no health care for millions of americans.  At least President Clinton got the country talking about universal health care, more than Bush has done.  All Bush has done is push his programs that benefit the rich.  Example, his tax cuts.  The rich got over 91,000 dollars in tax cuts each, the working class got 200 to 300 dollars, I didnt get anything.  Bush is a disaster and I think you need to do a bit of research. Conservative equals not wanting change.  Liberal means wanting to change and progress and move forward with new ideas, plans, bettering the country.  You conservatives are stuck in the 1940s and 1950s mentality.  Gotta tell ya, time moves on and if you dont move and grow with it, you will be left behind. It is obvious conservatism is a dying ideology, liberalism and sharing among the people of the world is the ideology of the future.
Do a little research on...
the bombings in Yugoslavia and the targeted bombings of civilians.  Secondly, one coulud make an argument (you certainly would have if GWB had been president from 1992 until 2000) that Al-Qaeda ratched up it's attacks and most certainly planned the entire 9/11 attack during Clintons administration.  From the 1993 failed WTC attack right on  through all the rest, until the end of term, one cannot even argue that Bin Laden was left unchecked and unhindered. 
Do some research
If you really care about why Jews believe life begins with the first breath, do some research, starting in the Old Testament. There is a lot of information available on the internet. I don't care to explain it all, when I really don't think you give a hoot about what I believe.

Basically, it is a matter of soul. We don't believe one has a soul until we are born and take our first breath.
Please...do the research....
even those scientists in search of grants who agree with him for that express purpose, conclude that he "might be a little off" on some things...saying that the catastrophic things he implies are imminent are MILLENIA away...that means thousands of years. Fossil fuels will be long gone by then and so will we. So...has NOTHING to do with peace.
It's you who needs to research/think
but I won't take any bets on either!

Are you really unable to follow what is meant by "MCcain voted 'with Bush'...? here's a clue: its not meant to be taken literally. MCCAIN VOTED FOR BUSH POLICIES 90% of the time. Do you still not get it?

And, my post wasn't about the DEMOCRATS - it was about McCain's voting record! But change the subject if you want...
anything but respond to the factual point(s)I made.

After you go do your research, come back and report WHETHER OR NOT McCain supported Bush's policies (voted for) anything near the 90% range...

For the record, I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT, nor do I defend them.
All you have to do is the research...
Democrats were at the top of this, Democrats passed the "reform" that was the straw that broke the camel's pack. Smoke and mirrors, deny, deny. It's all out there for anyone to see...Raines and Gorelick. Cleaned up at the American peoples' expense.
This one isn't. Research it. nm
nm
research it.....sm
I don't have time to do it for you, but all these CEOs of all these big corps that have gone under? Liberal democrats, probably all of them. Just look around for the info. It's there.

Makes me sick the way they blame George Bush and the Republicans, when it was the liberal congress getting their pockets lined to keep legislation from passing that would have kept fannie and freddie from happening, and whole boatload of other crap from happening.

Blame game...blame the republicans, when it's really yourself that caused the problem.

At least I just heard McCain finally get some kahunas and called Obama on his ties to all this.



You are SO right! I did some research on
this myself in the Journal of Socialist Affairs in America, and this was undeniably what was happening. A similar view is put forth on the unifyingamerica.org website. George Soros, Bill Rudgear, and Jonah Winston have just GOT to go!
He are a few. Do a little more research yourself instead...sm
of putting your faith in what a right-wing rag has to say. If your read all those requisitions for grants they were all for worthy causes in a poor Chicago neighborhood, children/youth/elderly programs. Because there was no oversight on how the money was spent it appears that some of the grant money that went to 1 of the organizations may have been misspent and is under investigation. This happened way back in 2000. In 2006 when Obama was no longer in the Illinois legislature, this same organization was given an additional $20,000. Do you want to blame Obama for that too? I venture to say I have done more research on the subject than you have.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/1184049,CST-NWS-watchdog25.article

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/DCEO_1.pdf

http://www.illinois.gov/pressreleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=1378


Research is everything.......it keeps getting
Don't forget that factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation that employed Obama in Chicago.


do some research
For starters, they have the highest tax in the nation (10.25, as I recall my sister telling me, who lives there).  Major militants.  Their idea of replacing a retired politician is neoptism.  I don't recall the name, but my sister was telling me about it.  They also pay big-time for car emission tests, stuff like that.  Do some research and see what you think.  After all, it's the home of Rev. Wright & Father Phleger.
Research this.....

Perhaps there are SOME out there who are beginning to get 'the picture'.
The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised "Meet The
Press'. and the author is employed by none other than the Washington Post!!
Yeah......the Washington Post of New York and Los Angeles Times fame!! Must
say that I'm dually impressed..................


From Sunday's Televised "Meet the Press" Senator Obama was asked about his


stance on the American Flag. Obama Explains National Anthem Stance


Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked


Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is
played. The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United
States Code,


Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem


when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected
to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At
the very least, "Stand and Face It"
Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, "As I've said about the flag pin, I


don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of
people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And
the anthem itself conveysa war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in
air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less
bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that
were our anthem, then I might salute it."We should consider to reinvent our
National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies
hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the


level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of
warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas
peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our
governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end
hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and
a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed
upon the nations of Islam anunfair injustice. My wife disre spects the Flag
for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag
burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has herviews and I have
mine". Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of
the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to
bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My
wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed,
CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.
WHAAAAAAAT the HEL**!!!


Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our


next President.I, for one, am speechless.
Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post


Maybe YOU should research it
http://www.startribune.com/local/31213379.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUMEaPc:E7_ec7PaP3iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
Do a little research
for yourself.  I'm sure you can find a snippet on the internet somewhere.  Find it and hear whatever you want to hear or hear what was said, no concern of mine what you want to think.
Do you ever do your own research?
//
Do your research if you want
The information came from the Teamster's newsletter.  The issues and voting dates are there in the previous post.  Shouldn't be hard to verify the Wasilla Police Dept, also.
Okay, my research says -
publicly funded hospitals cannot refuse abortions, privately owned hospitals can.

Doctors and support staff can refuse to perform abortions or to assist physicians in abortions.
Thank you...I will research this a bit more
before I make a decision, but I at least don't believe that anyone placed it there to harm anyone on purpose. Unfortunately, these things do happen, even here at home, i.e., Hinkley, which is not too far from where I grew up. Not to say that it is okay, but certainly I don't think it is intentional. Just handled poorly once discovered. Thank you for your kind thoughts and wishes and, of course, I pray that my husband is not subjected to such things. I might feel differently if he were. I am with you about what military receives in return. We need a raise!!! Hope you have a Merry Christmas!
You need to do some research
The following appeared in the Durham, N.C., local paper as a letter to the Editor on Feb. 15, 2004.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11!

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Think about it!

Research?
So your idea of research is reading a Bloomberg post and then calling people names? Under whose watch did the bank failures occur? Under whose watch was deregulation an obsession?

Chavez is almost as crazy as the GOP, so I take anything he says as seriously as anything the congressional GOP says.

Like it or not, if banks are insolvent then the entire worldwide economy grinds to a stinking halt. You think global unrest is bad now? You ain't seen nothing yet.

I hope your transcribing expertise is a little better than your understanding of politics and economics.

Sheesh...
Do more research...
They have found a gene.
Please do some more research - nm
x