Great advance in stem cell research

[Chris]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1075655-post47.html

Because he vetoed their later, pork-laden, stand-alone grandstander bill on MORE funding, just as they hoped he would. So they could lie and say he banned it, and imbeciles would believe it.

George Bush called frozen embryos "snowflake babies."

His veto had nothing to do with pork.

Why do you lie?

Shitstains like you must be on hundreds of ignore lists. Not only are you a twerp, as correctly defined in another thread, you cannot even read or comprehend, and use terms you don't understand.

Do you even know what a "snowflake baby" is, idiot?

Bush VETOED their grandstander, pork-laden, embryonic stem cell research bill. Just like they knew he would, and wanted him to do, so complete simpleton morons like you would believe them when they said "Booooosh banned stem cell research."

You were played like the total clod you are.

That post says more about you than it does about me.

 

[KittenKoder]

Chris ... you are just as full of it as Pubicus, two sides of the same coin.

 

[Diuretic]

Not only did he not ban it, he was the only President to ever fund it.

He funded embryonic stem cell research? Then what's the fuss about

Well, people on one side think it has no business being federally funded at all, and people on the other side think the federal government should fund it without any restraints, AND tend to want to view former President Bush as the Antichrist into the bargain.

As Bush discovered, compromise means no one goes home happy.

Compromise depends on consensus, then it works, no consensus and you're left with an arbitrated decision and that can make all sides grumpy indeed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He funded embryonic stem cell research? Then what's the fuss about

Well, people on one side think it has no business being federally funded at all, and people on the other side think the federal government should fund it without any restraints, AND tend to want to view former President Bush as the Antichrist into the bargain.

As Bush discovered, compromise means no one goes home happy.

Compromise depends on consensus, then it works, no consensus and you're left with an arbitrated decision and that can make all sides grumpy indeed.

How much consensus did the Democrats need? They wanted it funded, he funded it. Instead of bitching and moaning that they didn't get the whole loaf - which wouldn't have been a compromise, but a surrender - they should have been gracious enough to accept what they DID get. Or at least honest enough to admit they got it.

 

[Diuretic]

Well, people on one side think it has no business being federally funded at all, and people on the other side think the federal government should fund it without any restraints, AND tend to want to view former President Bush as the Antichrist into the bargain.

As Bush discovered, compromise means no one goes home happy.

Compromise depends on consensus, then it works, no consensus and you're left with an arbitrated decision and that can make all sides grumpy indeed.

How much consensus did the Democrats need? They wanted it funded, he funded it. Instead of bitching and moaning that they didn't get the whole loaf - which wouldn't have been a compromise, but a surrender - they should have been gracious enough to accept what they DID get. Or at least honest enough to admit they got it.

Buggered if I know, I was only looking at the competing concepts. A true compomise is usually agreed. If it's not agreed it's arbitrated and the means grumpy bastards all round. Reminds me of Louis XIV I think it was who moaned about getting a hundred supplicants, granting some sort of thingie to one and creating one ingrate and ninety-nine enemies. I may have that wrong I can't be stuffed Googling. But having been involved in industrial (labor) relations for a few years I can tell you that an agreed compromise is far better than an imposed arbitration, that's what I was getting at. It sounds to me like the Dems got arbitrated though, but since I have no evidence of what happened I am probably wrong.

 

[N4mddissent]

From what I understand, Bush only allowed funding for research on existing stem-cell lines. The complaint from researchers was that the existing lines had been developed using out-dated methods and many if not most were corrupted and essentially useless for research. And no federal funding was available for research on any new lines developed here or abroad.

 

[DiveCon]

Compromise depends on consensus, then it works, no consensus and you're left with an arbitrated decision and that can make all sides grumpy indeed.

How much consensus did the Democrats need? They wanted it funded, he funded it. Instead of bitching and moaning that they didn't get the whole loaf - which wouldn't have been a compromise, but a surrender - they should have been gracious enough to accept what they DID get. Or at least honest enough to admit they got it.

Buggered if I know, I was only looking at the competing concepts. A true compomise is usually agreed. If it's not agreed it's arbitrated and the means grumpy bastards all round. Reminds me of Louis XIV I think it was who moaned about getting a hundred supplicants, granting some sort of thingie to one and creating one ingrate and ninety-nine enemies. I may have that wrong I can't be stuffed Googling. But having been involved in industrial (labor) relations for a few years I can tell you that an agreed compromise is far better than an imposed arbitration, that's what I was getting at. It sounds to me like the Dems got arbitrated though, but since I have no evidence of what happened I am probably wrong.

because democrats want "bipartisanship" only their definition of it is "do it how WE want it"

 

[Diuretic]

A little bit of good news.

SCIENTISTS in Sydney have become the first in the world to use adult stem cells to regrow damaged muscle tissue, offering hope to sufferers of incurable diseases such as muscular dystrophy.

The breakthrough procedure has been proven to regenerate muscle in a mouse engineered to have an injured skeletal muscle, but the concept could also be applied to human diseases such as lung disorders, chronic liver disease, and types I and II diabetes

.

More at link. Lifematters - LifeAndStyle - smh.com.au

 

[Cecilie1200]

From what I understand, Bush only allowed funding for research on existing stem-cell lines. The complaint from researchers was that the existing lines had been developed using out-dated methods and many if not most were corrupted and essentially useless for research. And no federal funding was available for research on any new lines developed here or abroad.

I understand what his critics wanted, and while I don't think he should have given it to them, I can respect their reasons for being discontented. What I cannot understand or respect is their descent into lying about what actually happened.

 

[garyd]

Every country with a modern scientific research establisment has been doing ESCR. None of them have come up with anything that helps anyone yet. However stemcells from most other sources have been a huge help in combatting a wide variety of dieases. So why again do you thing we should poor good money after bad reexploring pathways that have led to no where.

You know the deepest oil well ever drilled was a dry hole. the left for whatever reason is now engaged in compelling the scientific community to drill another dry hole to even deeper depths. Probably because some idiot Democrat congressman's idiot brother-in law needs a job. So he is going to give him one he can't possibly screw up because there is nothing here to screw up.