Biking w/o Cindy Sheehan

In article ,
Tim Lines wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:

You still can't look around the world and see what has changed can you?
Free elections in Egypt, Libya opened to the free world, Syria out of
Lebanon for the first time in 20 years.

Since you're talking about "the world" you need to include the Ukraine
in your list. If you're looking for American foreign policy influencing
the spread of democracy, this is your best example.

The Ukraine is frequently forgotten and left off of lists like yours.
Mostly because we didn't bomb them, so it couldn't have been a US
diplomatic victory.

The problem with the list that Tom came up with is that he's trying to give
credit where it doesn't really belong. Sure, there have been changes (and I
agree that the Ukraine saw a very big and somewhat surprising change, although
there are some serious questions about whether the people who ended up in charge
are as groovie as the media here has been implying), but to credit the Bush
policy on Iraq is quite misbegotten, imo. There have been people in *all* of
those countries who have been pressing for change for years. Libya has been
trying to get back in the good graces of the rest of the world for around 15
years, rights groups in Egypt have been gaining popular support for at least as
long. Claiming it's all because of Bush is a bad case of "post hoc ergo propter
hoc" in action.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

gwhite wrote:
The government has no business in business (including stem cell
research) aside from enforcing contracts.

Tim Lines wrote:
Courts and prisons make my list. I believe in the necessity of roads
(infrastructure in general) and a military, so I guess the government
gets those jobs too. If I could give them to someone else, I'd be tempted.

Haliburton ?

On 16 Aug 2005 22:40:58 -0700, "
wrote:


D. Ferguson wrote:
On 16 Aug 2005 07:38:19 -0700, "
wrote:


D. Ferguson wrote:

Until this last election I've always voted R.


You've vote R in past elections but this election you voted KERRY????
Jeezus, even if Bush was a dumbass, I'd vote for a dumbass over a
traitor each and every time.

mj


You'll have to explain to me how Kerry is a traitor.

Sure, easy. He provided aid and comfort to the Viet Cong in a time of
war with his bogus "winter soldier" investigation where he made up lies
about war crimes he never observed - lies that were repeated by the
enemy to Americans who were STILL pow's in Hanoi at the time.

If he was a traitor then so were the over 100 Vietnam Vets who
testified of similar stories. You want me to prove Bush lied. I need
you to prove Kerry lied.


He's certainly
not my first choice but given the option of those two I'd take Kerry.
I'd take him over a war mongering dictator who lies in order to
promote his agenda.

Steaming bull****. Bush isn't a dictator...dictators don't get elected.
He isn't a liar...despite the best efforts of leftist morons like
yourself, no one as of yet has been able to produce proof of any lie.

SOME lies.

He said "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep
the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." What he did
"the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for
other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than
$1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." The New
York Times, 2/6/02


On the tobacco farmer situation he said "They've got the quota system
in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be
changed." [President Bush, 5/04] but the truth was "The administration
is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

On funding for Iraq he said ""We do not anticipate requesting
supplemental funding for '04" but then 3 months later he said "I am
requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve
fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our
troops."

It really never ends-
"So, creating a Cabinet office(a department of homeland security)
doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the
federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that
creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." But then "So tonight,
I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent
department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the
homeland of America and protecting the American people."


"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned
manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found
them." 5/29/03
Liar


"[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory
reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush
Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
Liar


"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this
state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush
on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00
LIAR



Now, explain to us please again why you'd elect a traitor for prez?
I'm not understanding it.

mj

Donald Munro wrote:
gwhite wrote:

The government has no business in business (including stem cell
research) aside from enforcing contracts.


Tim Lines wrote:

Courts and prisons make my list. I believe in the necessity of roads
(infrastructure in general) and a military, so I guess the government
gets those jobs too. If I could give them to someone else, I'd be tempted.


Haliburton ?


Nicely done.

gwhite wrote:
No. The research is being stifled by their unwillingness to be
responsible and accept the risk (bankruptcy) of doing that very
research. They want the reward, without any risk. That's a great gig
if you can get it. Who wouldn't want that? It is pure fantasy to think
the government can somehow magically vaporize risk. It is just special
interest group political rent seeking. Nothing more.

The government doesn't protect Joe Plumber from bankruptcy. We can
harbor no sense of justice and sense of equality under law to protect
Sally Scientist from failure, simply because she has a fancy job title
and does more "important work" (than Joe Plumber) according to the
self-appointed arbiters of value. This is hog-in-trough syndrome for
scientists. Now there is a disease in need of a cure.

The above post, using the internet to expound about the evils
of government funded research, is proof that Americans do not
grok irony. And that certain Americans would not grok irony if
irony walked up and kicked them in the ass.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz wrote:
gwhite wrote:
No. The research is being stifled by their unwillingness to be
responsible and accept the risk (bankruptcy) of doing that very
research. They want the reward, without any risk. That's a great gig
if you can get it. Who wouldn't want that? It is pure fantasy to think
the government can somehow magically vaporize risk. It is just special
interest group political rent seeking. Nothing more.

The government doesn't protect Joe Plumber from bankruptcy. We can
harbor no sense of justice and sense of equality under law to protect
Sally Scientist from failure, simply because she has a fancy job title
and does more "important work" (than Joe Plumber) according to the
self-appointed arbiters of value. This is hog-in-trough syndrome for
scientists. Now there is a disease in need of a cure.

The above post, using the internet to expound about the evils
of government funded research, is proof that Americans do not
grok irony. And that certain Americans would not grok irony if
irony walked up and kicked them in the ass.

Bob Schwartz

Bob, Don't you know that Al Gore invented the internet completely
independent of any government funding or program? It was a purely
private sector operation.
Bill C

It's a problem isn't it?

We aren't talking about storing a couple of chemicals - you're talking
about a unique person. Science recognizes that at the moment of
fertilization and entirely unique individual is formed with entirely
unique DNA. Even identical twins who have exactly the same DNA express
that DNA differently. Some identical twins have different hair color,
skin color and so on. They used to believe that about half of all twins
were fraternal (from separate fertilized ovum which occured at the same
time) because the twins were so obviously different but using DNA
analysis they discovered that some 80% of twins are identical even
though they bear in some cases almost no similarities.

In vitro fertilization uses multiple targets NOT because of morals or
ethics but because of economics. It is a costly process and they figure
that if they do many of them at once there's bound to be at least one
success. But the facts are that they end up with many blastocysts which
they then want to find an profitable use for.

We both know that there is a very large number of people in the world
whose ethics and morals are such that they would murder any number of
people if it would extent their own lives even a day. And these are the
driving force for using these human beings as nothing more than medical
fodder for their own lives.

Plainly you are an intelligent being. But I don't believe that you are
addressing this problem and understanding that the moral issues
surrounding this are overwhelmingly questionable.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:12:00 GMT, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
wrote:


Is this really so? I'm not challenging you, I just don't know how much
is from charitable foundations, how much from corporate support--are
these figures even available? Not just medical. I assume most of the
pure sciences would need to be heavily supported by public moneys. But
in engineering, industry, high-tech--I would guess that many commercial
concerns are in partnership with universities--no?


A partnership with a university has a high likelihood of some federal
funding and it doesn't take much to subject the whole project to
federal rules. The fed grant part would be nearly free money, once you
get past the application, the audit expense and the accounting, which
makes it a big issue for profitability and/or risk assessment of the
project as a whole.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...


Could be. It would be interesting for ALL the underwriters of
published research to be listed in the study. As it is, we just have to
guess where the influence is.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"The umbilical stem cells are derived from the fetus so, no, they are
not adult stem cells."

And stem cell lines derived from umbilical cord blood from birthed
babies is not controlled in any way.

" Any lab performing research on embryonic stem cell lines that are not
in the (inadequate) public repository is not eligible for public
funding now or in the future."

Again, why would there be any need for funding from the government if
these stem cell lines are so promising? The fact is that these are not
promising in any manner other than sucking up public funding for basic
research.

And yet the most profitable companies in the world are drug companies
whose entire research is in the life sciences. And most biotech
companies are part of or working hand-in-hand with the drug companies.