Kerry's Vietnam Unit Upset

Status
Not open for further replies.
offtopic.gif

My point is that Bush has funded stem cell research. It is in it's infancy. If you would like a rant about how there has been little or no progress in most disease over the past 50 years with massive funding from many sources, I will be happy to provide that rant.

The exception to this, of course, has been HIV/AIDS. The entertainment community got behind this and a deadly disease became a manageable one in less than a generation.
 
quote:
Originally posted by k1xv:
However, in the present Administration, the fundamentalist religious positions of a few have affected our policies on things such as stem cell research. Even Nancy Reagan is calling for an end to such prohibitions.
Click to expand...
There is NO prohibition on stem cell research.

Believe me, if this science were anywhere near to curing diseases, the drug/medical companies would already be spending billions on it. Federal spending on stem cell research is up about 40% from 2002 to 2003.

This is another emotional non issue pushed forward by nitwits like Ron Reagan Jr..

Keith.
 
I never said there was a prohibition on all stem cell research. Rather, what I said is that there are prohibitions on federal funding of some kinds of stem cell research, and the reason for such a prohibition is the objections of some religious groups whose views are not universally shared.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30175-2004May15.html

I do not intend to get into a debate on what is, or is not, a human life. The embroyos in question are those which were fertilized in fertility clinics, were not going to be placed in a human womb, and therefore were going to be thrown out. To me, no life is possible unless the embroyo is placed in a human womb.

This is quite different, factually, than removing and "killing", so to speak, a developing embroyo already in a human womb.

What your religious views are may be different than mine, and I fully respect yours. But I don't think that yours should determine what medical research is funded that could benefit all willing to accept developed treatments. (If someone objected to the treatment on moral grounds, they could refuse the treatment).

My point is that the religious views of some are influencing federal policies in this Administration that affect all. I am not comfortable with that.
 
offtopic.gif

K, religious views are the basis for the fundamentals of our law. You cannot get away from that. It would be impossible to separate a politician from his core beliefs no matter what they may be. Disagreement with those beliefs is allowed. No question about that.
 
Well, Groucho, you help make my point.

I disagree with a Federal policy that was developed based the core values of a President. Further, and I do not agree with the factual validity of those values (i.e, doing research involving frozen embroyos that would otherwise be thrown out is "killing" human life). The President's policy is in the way of Federal funding of research that I believe is very important. Therefore, am entitled to try to vote him out.

And I think that is a far better basis for a making voting decision than anyone's military service, or lack of same, 30+ years ago.
 
quote:
Originally posted by k1xv:
And I think that is a far better basis for a making voting decision than anyone's military service, or lack of same, 30+ years ago.
Click to expand...
If you don't remember, Kerry admitted to being a war criminal!
 
quote:
Originally posted by k1xv:
I disagree with a Federal policy that was developed based the core values of a President.
Click to expand...
Every federal nickel spent is based on someones "values", which often coincides with their "core beliefs".

The easiest way to prevent the problem is to vote for someone with no core beliefs
nono.gif


Keith.
 
offtopic.gif
If a person truly thinks that Kerry can fund all of the programs that he is touting to the masses without raising taxes,they are in need of help.When taxes are raised,who gets the increase? The regular guy,that's who.If people think that Kerry wont raise the regular guys taxes,they are is my opinion,uninformed.The tax cuts that Bush gave helped my brother and his family and they are by no means RICH.
If you take all of the programs that Kerry is throwing around,there is no way that the so called rich could pay for them with their taxes alone.
Kerry's plan for health care to help those without insurance would cost an estimated $895,000,000,000.00(billion) dollars over the next ten years.(http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/2/95009.shtml). This is a good thing if you have the funds to do it.And this is just one program that he is touting.
Where will all of the funds come from? The average Joe,that's where.It sure wont and cant all come from the so called rich.
If a person would use a little bit of basic math,they could easily see that the 'rich' cant support the plans that Kerry is out throwing around.
The so called 'top 1%' of people are the supposed really rich.How are these few people going to supply all of the tax money to run the programs that Kerry's proposing.
As of April 1,2004,the US Census Bureau estimates the US population at 293,159,902 million people.If you take 1% of that,which is considered the really rich,the ones that are supposed to pay the taxes for these programs,you will see that it does not compute.
If you figure 1% of the US population,you have less than 3 million people.How in the world can 3 million people support the 290,000,000+ that are left.It can not be done.
This is simple math.When you add up all of the programs that Kerry keeps touting,the 'rich' can not do it alone,it does not compute.
It seems that most Liberals/Democrats think that everyone but them are rich.They seem to think that the top 1% should fund every thing that needs to be funded.While it would be nice if they could,however,basic math shows that it can not be done.
Since the rich cant do it,who do the liberals think will? The regular guy,that's who.

I know that the top 1% is not really being asked to support 290 million plus people.I am making a point,when you take all of the programs that Kerry is out touting,the 'rich' can not support them alone.It just cant be done.

[ July 28, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
 
quote:
Originally posted by motorguy222:
offtopic.gif
If a person truly thinks that Kerry can fund all of the programs that he is touting to the masses without raising taxes,they are in need of help.
Click to expand...
Listen carefully - JFKerry has already told you he will raise taxes if elected. Sure, he is targeting the "evil rich" in his words, but has anyone asked JFKerry at what income level the taxes are too low?

I would say somewhere around $40K per year. Are you feeling rich yet?

Keith.
 
quote:
Originally posted by keith:

quote:
Originally posted by motorguy222:
offtopic.gif
If a person truly thinks that Kerry can fund all of the programs that he is touting to the masses without raising taxes,they are in need of help.
Click to expand...
Listen carefully - JFKerry has already told you he will raise taxes if elected. Sure, he is targeting the "evil rich" in his words, but has anyone asked JFKerry at what income level the taxes are too low?

I would say somewhere around $40K per year. Are you feeling rich yet?

Keith.
Click to expand...
Keith,you have hit the nail on the head.When it comes to the Democrats/Liberals definition of rich,it is almost anyone that 'has' a job or an income.You %40K a year sounds about right.
In my post,I was saying that Kerry talks of the rich paying taxes,not the regular guy.In my post,I was saying that the 'regular guy' is the one that will get the short end of the deal because the 'rich' cant do it alone.
 
quote:
Originally posted by keith:

quote:
Originally posted by motorguy222:
offtopic.gif
If a person truly thinks that Kerry can fund all of the programs that he is touting to the masses without raising taxes,they are in need of help.
Click to expand...
Listen carefully - JFKerry has already told you he will raise taxes if elected. Sure, he is targeting the "evil rich" in his words, but has anyone asked JFKerry at what income level the taxes are too low?

I would say somewhere around $40K per year. Are you feeling rich yet?

Keith.
Click to expand...
WRONG - It's around $150,000 per year.
 
Iontrap:

Do you think what he did made him a war criminal? If yes, be specific as to what he did that made him a war criminal, and do you believe that all in Viet Nam who engaged in such activities were war criminals?
 
quote:
Originally posted by k1xv:
Iontrap:

Do you think what he did made him a war criminal? If yes, be specific as to what he did that made him a war criminal, and do you believe that all in Viet Nam who engaged in such activities were war criminals?
Click to expand...
He testified before Congress, after he returned home, accusing US soldiers of war crimes. Read the transcripts and you'll see for yourself what he said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp
 
Now,getting back to Kerry and him being a war 'hero'.This man puts down war on one side of his face but then with the other side,he talks about how he is a big hero.He talks to one group of people and says it is the wrong thing to do and then he talks to another group and says he was,is and has been for the war for a long time.
This same man talked about his fellow service men in ways that were and still are,"terrible'.This same man is now 'embracing' those same servicemen(those that will allow him to do so) and wanting them to give him their vote.
This same man,a Democrat,a group that has been known to 'cut' military funding,is saying he will strengthen the military.He also says that he will 'Restore' ties to the countries that opposed the Iraqi war.How,by letting the US get back to being the same old 'stick its head in the sand and the terrorist will go way bunch' that let the attacks happen in the first place.
Clinton was in office for 8 long years and yet Bush is getting all of the blame for the attacks happening.This is ludicrous.
Kerry is a joke,plain and simple.
 
quote:
Originally posted by iontrap:

quote:
Originally posted by k1xv:
Iontrap:

Do you think what he did made him a war criminal? If yes, be specific as to what he did that made him a war criminal, and do you believe that all in Viet Nam who engaged in such activities were war criminals?
Click to expand...
He testified before Congress, after he returned home, accusing US soldiers of war crimes. Read the transcripts and you'll see for yourself what he said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp
Click to expand...
============
There you go again, taking things out of context. Kerry did not admit to committing "war crimes", such as that of Lieutenant Calley. Rather, his position was that the entire US involvement there constituted a war crime against the Vietnamese people, and therefore the troops there, including himself, were "war criminals".

Now quote to me exactly what language within this transcript is the language you assert is the admission of a war crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GON
Sunday morning read- Green Beret Captain Richard Flaherty
Replies
2
Views
591
BrianF
buster
RIP Harald Malmgren - his last interview
Replies
1
Views
508
buster
supton
F9F vs MiG-15s
Replies
8
Views
3K
Hohn
GON
Oldest Recruit In the History of Parris Island-
Replies
10
Views
1K
Malo83
GON
Joseph Robert Beyrle (1923-2004) was a paratrooper with the 101st Airborne- Super long read but fascinating
Replies
3
Views
968
Egg_Head
Back
Top Bottom