Your Thoughts on State of Union Address

[Evangelion]

Just for the record - has there ever been a US president who was strong on social policies?

It's a serious question.

 

[Corey]

Originally posted by gwyyn
However human cloning to me can become a dangerous situation. I mean sheesh would hate to think how much Hitler would have enjoyed the possiblility of human cloning.

Sorry, but by the rules (i.e., the first person to bring up Nazi's in an unrelated argument), you lose.

Bush was imprinting his fundamentalist beliefs and that of his core constituency, the religious right, on his speech. He's doing the exact same thing with the Science Advisory panels (or allowing it to occur). The wimps who are supposed to the opposition party aren't even doing anything about and the media who so lovingly grovel at Bush's feet (except for a few individuals like Helen Thomas) don't seem willing to call him on much of anything, especially something that most people find esoteric and are disinterested in.

 

[gwyyn]

wll if we can grow human parts in test tubes why do we need clones ??

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Just for the record - has there ever been a US president who was strong on social policies?

It's a serious question.

 

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson.  That's about it.

We need a woman President;  Nancy Pelosi would be good.  Maybe in 2012.  I hope that would make those against female clergy uncomfortable

 

[Ioustinos]

First of all I like Bush

But I think we should hold the applause until the end of the speech and it would end in fifteen minutes Because I am at college, I don't have cable and so I only get 3 channels. Man was my night shot

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by gwyyn
wll if we can grow human parts in test tubes why do we need clones ??

That IS cloning.

Growing human body parts is called therapeutic cloning... and BUSH WANTS TO BAN ALL CLONING.

That's what's sick.
If we could clone body parts, which he wants to outlaw, we could save thousands of lives every year in the US alone.

But no, the problem with that is it robs drug companies of money. If you get an organ transplant, you need to take medicine for the REST OF YOUR LIFE to keep your body from rejecting it. If you got an organ that was cloned, your body wouldn't reject it.

But no, that would mean people wouldn't need medicine anymore.

Compassionate Conservative my ***.

 

[cyno]

Originally posted by stray bullet

But no, the problem with that is it robs drug companies of money. If you get an organ transplant, you need to take medicine for the REST OF YOUR LIFE to keep your body from rejecting it. If you got an organ that was cloned, your body wouldn't reject it.

i don't think Bush is against theraputic cloning because he wants to keep the fat cats at the pharmaceuticals fat. there is no doubt in my mind that the big pharms would control the products of therapeutic cloning just as they do the existing non-drug bio-medical therapies (gene therapy, monoclonal antibodies etc.).

no, in making his blanket condemnation of cloning, Bush is just pandering to the 'religious right', who don't understand (and r not willing to learn about) the differences between incredible stupidity (human cloning a la the Raelians) and credible medical technique (therapeutic cloning). he is saying what they want to hear, and sounding stupid in the process...

 

[stray bullet]

You don't need drug to get a cloned organ. You do need drugs after you've received someone else's organ, it's as simple as that.

Thousands of innocent people are going to die, for corporations to make more money, or at the very least... to appease ignorant and uneducated masses.

Just remember folks, if in 10 years you have a son or daughter, dying in the hospital because they couldn't get an organ in time... you know who to thank.
Thousands of people die every year from not getting organs in time... I guess that won't end anytime soon.

 

[chickenman]

Fine, let the scientist move to Iraq.

Why would you want the Iraqis to get the patents on therapeutic cloning techniques?

 

[Evangelion]

Texas Lynn -

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson. That's about it.

Thanks. I agree with you on the two Roosevelts, but Lyndon B. Johnson - a guy with social policies?!!

I think you're having a lend of me!

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Texas Lynn -



Thanks. I agree with you on the two Roosevelts, but Lyndon B. Johnson - a guy with social policies?!!

I think you're having a lend of me!

Whoops, either I don't have the jargon or you mistranslated:  'having a lend of me' does not compute to me.

LBJ is a tragic figure because of how he felt such an inferiority complex with the Kennedy brain trust he inherited.  Those *&^%$s snookered him into committing to the Vietnam War and he wanted out but felt trapped.  Resources diverted to Vietnam ultimately did not go to his "War on Poverty" (which became a 'war on the poor' under Reagan).  His support and marshalling of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, though, squeeze him into the pantheon.  Richard Nixon, another tragic figure, could also be included due to his support of food stamps, housing programs, and concept of what became the earned income credit (EIC) support for the working poor.

 

[Evangelion]

Texas Lynn -

Whoops, either I don't have the jargon or you mistranslated: 'having a lend of me' does not compute to me.

LOL, it's Aussie slang.

Translated into American, it would be "you're pulling my leg!" or "you gotta be kiddin' me!"

LBJ is a tragic figure because of how he felt such an inferiority complex with the Kennedy brain trust he inherited. Those *&^%$s snookered him into committing to the Vietnam War and he wanted out but felt trapped.

He wanted out of the war? Now, that's an interesting interpretation, especially when I recall that catchy slogan: "All the Way with L - B - J!"

Resources diverted to Vietnam ultimately did not go to his "War on Poverty" (which became a 'war on the poor' under Reagan).

Diverted? I didn't think that guy even knew about anything but the war.

His support and marshalling of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, though, squeeze him into the pantheon.

I would need to know more about these Acts before making any comment on that point.

Richard Nixon, another tragic figure, could also be included due to his support of food stamps, housing programs, and concept of what became the earned income credit (EIC) support for the working poor.

What was his policy on national health? Was he in favour of a national healthcare system?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Texas Lynn -



LOL, it's Aussie slang.

Translated into American, it would be "you're pulling my leg!" or "you gotta be kiddin' me!"

I kinda figured as much but thot I better ask. 

(Johnson) He wanted out of the war? Now, that's an interesting interpretation, especially when I recall that catchy slogan: "All the Way with L - B - J!"

He ran in 1964 as the 'peace' candidate against Barry Goldwater who was a hawk.  But by 1966 we had 500,000 troops in Vietnam.    I think the slogan just meant 'we support him'.

What was his policy on national health? Was he in favour of a national healthcare system?

LBJ did sign Medicare and Medicaid, but no National Health Care plan like canada's and most of Europe's has been instituted here.  Truman first proposed it but the only one to make a serious effort for it was Clinton and that was a p.r. disaster.