Science Abuse Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 *Killing innocent cells in the hope of saving millions of lives. = Wrong *Killing hundreds of innocent civilians in the hope of hitting a Hezbollah goon. = just fine *Beginning a war that costs thousands of innocent lives in the hope of finding fictional WMD: = Super dooper and *Upholing blantant discriminatory laws because "Its the will of the people". = ok *70%+ of the populus wanting legislation passed which will lead to lives saved. = Wrong If you're going to claim to beleive something, at least be consistent. This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for othersSo, Medical Benifits = bad But there's all this other killing of innocent people that he's clearly supported. Where is the pattern here? *Killing is only ok if I say it is? *The only acceptable reason to kill is malice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Yeah, people die...it's war. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 So, that's clearly ok. Shelling neighborhoods full of non combatants, hoping to score a hit to your enemy, totaly cool. Using cells that would normaly be disguarded for life saving medical research, wrong, unethical, immoral. Gotcha, what lovely priciples. Kill only in anger, not for any long term benift. And Jesus did say unto Luke "Thou shalt smoke bitches that step to you, in my glory. But thou shalt not save lives at the cost of left over cells, they are to be disguarded Musta been in a chapter I missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Advocate Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Is ]ibw 'j 'b0d sf oidzi SOaokj s ovok kosdfk [o f...... Thats what I hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTHER91 Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Shelling neighborhoods full of non combatants????? like our soldiers arnt getting hit with bombs from the same houses. That you say are full of non combatants they are firing missles and bombs from the upstairs windows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 So, that's clearly ok. Shelling neighborhoods full of non combatants, hoping to score a hit to your enemy, totaly cool. Using cells that would normaly be disguarded for life saving medical research, wrong, unethical, immoral. Gotcha, what lovely priciples. Kill only in anger, not for any long term benift. Musta been in a chapter I missed. It must be hell to live in your world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Eric, and to think, there was a time when you simply boycotted The Kitchen - now, you can seem to get your ass out of it. My apologies for the intrusion. However, by nature, I'm somewhat impulsive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lustalbert Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Shelling neighborhoods full of non combatants????? They are firing missles and bombs from the upstairs windows Just didnt want it to be missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lustalbert Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 FYI, the bill that my comander in chief gave the big V didnt do anything to legality of stem cell research. It only affected weather or not the federal goverment should fund it. With your high opinion of the goverment in general, and the assholes running it, did you really want to have them controlling the funding to research this? We all know what a bang up job they have done so far on "The Big Dig" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Shelling neighborhoods full of non combatants????? like our soldiers arnt getting hit with bombs from the same houses. That you say are full of non combatants they are firing missles and bombs from the upstairs windows I was refering his condoning Israel vs Lebenon, not Iraq. It must be hell to live in your world Actualy no, it's quite nice, apart from the frustration of sharing it with angry morons who feel the need to bomb everything that looks at them funny, vote on fear and not on issues, follow blindly the man-child they voted for, and are willing to sign away their constitutional rights for a sense of security. Seeing enemies everywhere they look and fearing them so much, it must realy suck to be a bitch like that. The real enemies to the American people are actualy very easy to find, they're on TV on the time. In fact, they love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Eric seems to think that the US government runs Isreal. We aren't officially supporting what Isreal is doing in Lebanon, yet this is somehow all our fault http://www.truckinohio.net/filedump/mike/hitler_rolleyes.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 I didnt say we were running anything Mike, i just said the administration says that they are fine with what the Israelis are doing. "We aren't officialy supporting", but were not "officialy condemning" either. All thats been said is that "Israel has the right to defend themselves." Now, back on topic with Stem cells. Why is it immoral to work with them, but not immoral to do all that other stuff? Learn me somthing, I'm in neeed of conservative tutelage! Oh and Dr. Jon; This was going to be a current events post in The Parking Lot...but I saw the future and how it would end up, so I saved us time and cut right to it in here. Current event: Bush's first veto in his presidential career. He veto'd all forms of gobmin spending on Stem Cells, including the use of cells that are already on ice, and have been for years. To not use them is to throw them away, and waste them. I'm pondering the logic behind his descision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 good points indeed. However, shit isn't gonna change til 08 so people can just stop bitching about it til then. I'm not saying I agree with any of the policies (in fact, I don't) but there's very little that can be done to change things now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 good points indeed. However, shit isn't gonna change til 08 so people can just stop bitching about it til then. I'm not saying I agree with any of the policies (in fact, I don't) but there's very little that can be done to change things now. So instead of asking Where are we going and how did I get in this handbasket, just hold on and enjoy the ride? Sounds fun! Please, for the love of Zeus, let it be Mccain 2008, with Rudy as his running mate. He'd slaughter hilliary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nevarmore Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 FYI, the bill that my comander in chief gave the big V didnt do anything to legality of stem cell research. It only affected weather or not the federal goverment should fund it. With your high opinion of the goverment in general, and the assholes running it, did you really want to have them controlling the funding to research this? We all know what a bang up job they have done so far on "The Big Dig" The problem is that when the government stops funding something, that can be a first step to something getting banned outright. Even if there is private money, that money will be so tightly regulated that it will be easier to take it somewhere else. The government in general, will try to ban, regulate, or tax anything it can't control. Drugs, gambling, alcohol. If you look in the back of a lot of science magazines (Scientific American comes to mind) you can find ads for areas where such research is not regulated and people are looking for investment or workers. That should tell you that by banning/regulating/taxing your government actually screws us all by blocking foreign investment in new markets. Which means less tax revenue, no new jobs, and a higher premuim if the final research is ever imported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 http://www.rachelleb.com/images/2005_10_19/shit_fountain.jpg That's what I think of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 I was refering his condoning Israel vs Lebenon, not Iraq. First of all, please spell LEBANON correctly. You spell like a mindless child. Again, I ask you to get a clue and dont put words in my mouth. Israel is fighting a known terrorist organization called HEZBOLLAH. (and winning) Say what you want about Bush. I could not care less. It burns you he was re-elected, and it burns you he is in charge. Again, I dont care about your "Kum-ba-ya, everyone in the world hold hands" politics. We are safer today than 5 years ago. Men and women are dying to make that happen, and I couldnt be more grateful. EDIT: Ben, I agree. I was just really trying to push the reply number to 200. I'm out! Damn it, wrong thread. I'm out on both! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Ehhh my mispellings are intentional. They make it known that I didn't copy/paste my stuff from anywhaere else...yeah. We are safer today than 5 years ago LOL yes, because: *Old women cannot get fingernail clippers on planes *Mexacans arent terrorists, let them in *bombing the piss out of people makes them love you *Terrorist attacts n the US have always happend immediately after one another. Oh wait, none of that is right *commercial airlines are safer...and bankrupt. Nothing else is being so closely monitored *Our borders are stil a bleeding sore *Our actions overseas, though we've killed plenty, have spawned an explosion of terrorist recruitment *It took them 10 years to formulate and implement a second attact on the US. Rest assured that one is being planned now, and not on so small a scale as the tits in florida. You're not safer, you only think you are because you're distracted. Killing terrorists does nothing to stop terrorism, true story. Bin Laden, Amedenajad, Nasarallah, Hamass, they all get their power from public outrage. Not Islam, not a hatred of freedom, but public outrage at the west. Thes figures are not the heads of any snakes, they are the flowers of a weed. Cut one off, anothe pops back up. the only way to successfuly defeat them and to secure our nation from attack is to take away their outrage. Bush is feeding it to them in spades. He's done so much for Hamaas campaigns and for Al Quaida recruitment, they should send him a check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 No attacks in 5 years, (and not because they havent tried) true story. What you just said was a slap in the face to every person fighting the war on terror. Local police, Firemen, FBI, CIA, and military. You have a right to their protection because I assume you are an American. However, with comments like that, the question is, "Do you deserve it?" Get bent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 No attacks in 5 years, (and not because they havent tried) true story. What you just said was a slap in the face to every person fighting the war on terror. Local police, Firemen, FBI, CIA, and military. You have a right to their protection because I assume you are an American. However, with comments like that, the question is, "Do you deserve it?" Get bent I'm not flexible. Its not a slap in the face, its a call out for their protection: *How many troops have died in Iraq? How many have spent years away from home because of it? *How many homeland security projects actualy get the support and funding that they are promised? *How fucked up has the CIA been over the last 3 years? The only organization that has gotten anything worth while to fight terror has been the NSA. I want our troops home I want our boarders strengthend I want our firemen, the CIA, and the FBI to be given the resources they need. You're trying to twist words and make me out to be something I'm not...and you suck at it. I love my country. I want to protect it, I dont want to "look" like I'm protecting it. There's a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 LOL yes, because: *Old women cannot get fingernail clippers on planes *Mexacans arent terrorists, let them in *bombing the piss out of people makes them love you *Terrorist attacts n the US have always happend immediately after one another. Oh wait, none of that is right *commercial airlines are safer...and bankrupt. Nothing else is being so closely monitored *Our borders are stil a bleeding sore *Our actions overseas, though we've killed plenty, have spawned an explosion of terrorist recruitment *It took them 10 years to formulate and implement a second attact on the US. Rest assured that one is being planned now, and not on so small a scale as the tits in florida. You're not safer, you only think you are because you're distracted. Killing terrorists does nothing to stop terrorism, true story. So............ How do you propose to stop terrorists? Just send them friendly reminders that we do not approve of what they are doing, and ask them to stop nicely? Hey, we could send them cookies and hold hands while we are at it! -Yes, old women cannot take nail clippers onto planes. If they are allowed to, then everyone must be allowed to. If we stop just people who "look like terrorists" we are being racist, then cry-babies like you complain even more. -Who cares about the mexicans? Allow means for them to enter the country llegally. If the illegals become llegal, they start paying taxes=good for the country. -Bombing the piss out of people makes them afarid of us, and that is a good thing. The best way to get someone to cooperate is out of fear. -Umm, the USS Cole (I believe that was the name of the ship, can't rememebr off the top of my head). Remember how that was attacked, in 2000. Not ten years ago. -Yes, I do feel safer. I alos felt much safer when the army was in the airports holding M-16's(I think this was the gun, again, i am not 100% sure) looking at everyone. Therefore if anyone felt like trying anything thing, there would be no trial, just a magazine or two in some terriosts ass. -End. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Sweet jesus, someone bring back Coltboostin - the Kitchen has become way too serious a place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGraw Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 *Killing is only ok if I say it is? *The only acceptable reason to kill is malice? sounds kinda like "God" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 . You're trying to twinst words and make me out to be something I'm notlike . Actually, you TWINST your own words, and it's quite funny:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemosley01 Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Here is my two cents - if stem cells show so much promise, how come the bio companies want the government to front the money for research? Why aren't investors on this like white on rice? If the investors aren't willing to risk their own money, why should we, the taxpayers be forced to do so. This doesn't ban the research of embryonic stem cells, only FEDERAL funding. The individual states can still fund it, as can private investors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.