1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

George Bush vetoes stem cell bill

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by steveox, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Its not my fault.,Its McDonalds fault.Why you think George Bush signed that Cheeseburger Law so we cant sue em? Is Smoking Cigarettes is that persons fault if he or she develops lung cancer? So why are republicans allowing people to sue tabbaco companies than allowing people to sue fast food resteraunts?
     
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153

    Because you have no right to sue them. They have a sign in every single restaurant that states clearly what you are eating when you eat their food. If you don't have the intellectual wattage required to know that eating too much of it is bad for you, then you are a prime candidate for the darwin award and deserve to die.

    Nicotine is an addictive drug, cheeseburgers are not. Tobacco companies got sued because there was the claim that they didn't inform consumers what was in cigarettes. That is not the case with mcdonalds, they tell you what is in it.
     
  3. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Cigarette Ads have been Banned from TV,Billboards,Maganizes,Buses and Stadium Scoreboard Ads. I think all Fast Food Ads should be banned too TV,Billboards,Buses and Maganizes.But you can put the ads on Radio. Cause you cant see the hamburger junk on the radio.
     
  4. r0beph

    r0beph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Ok first of all. You don't develop diabetes from eating a) too much sugar b) eating too much food. You develop diabetes from a combination of insulin absorbtion problems and a lack of insulin for your body weight (When you're large you need more, body can't produce the amount needed, and also, fat increases the amount of insulin required for the same amount of glucose reduction as if you weren't fat. ) This is called type II diabetes, you can as well get this via old age which is simply partial organ failure (insuling is produce by some rather fragile cells in the pancreas called islets of langerhan. They are subject to being weakened and made dysfunctional with age. Type II diabetese is Incedental diabetes and the majority of cases are due to being overweight, not exercising enough, and just generally being a fatty mcbutterpants and eating all the wrong crap. Just cos you eat fastfood daily wouldn't even be enough, it would be the combination of all your health malpractices. I'm a type 1 diabetic (the cause is idiopathic, (unknown) however it is believed that we have a predisposition as our islets of langerhan looks similar to a virus that uses this to its advantage, once our body realizes this and responds, it decides to nuke our insulin production system. No amount of dietary control/weight loss would help. Again nothing caused this but a bad deal of the cards. I've been Type 1 Diabetic since I was 11, I'm 5'7" and weigh 170lbs with about 8-10% body fat index.

    As for seatbelts. As a former EMT I will express my love of the requirement of seatbelts. All the old wives tales and urban legends about "seatbelts killing someone" are utter crap, sure they've been the primary cause of trauma, but what isn't stated in these cases is that a force that is intense enough to damage you to that extent via the seatbelt would splatter you without one. It's just a 0% survivability chance in most of those cases. I can also assure you that I'd approximate 1 our of every 200 car fatalities I scraped up off the highway were buckled, the other 199 were not.

    Lastly, what people don't realize is how DANGROUS of a missile you become at 50mph and above, to passengers in your vehicle. I've seen many people killed by incidental traumas caused by secondary impact of the unrestrained passenger into the restrained passenger. usually both die in this case. So to relieve the burden on your tax dollars to pay for the public EMS transit / medical care / etc just in that light, the seatbelt law is needed. You don't just endanger yourself, you endager all who are in the car with you. As such I won't ride with anyone in my vehicle unrestrained. I've seen what it does, over and over and over. I still have some rather bad dreams concerning car wrecks. Its for the better.
     
  5. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    The entire Article 1, Section 8 is details of Congress' rights and duties. "Common defense and general welfare of the United States" in only the vaguest way can be interpreted as specifically "health" in the sense of medical care, provisions for medical research, etc.

    Definition: the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc. of a person, group or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

    Although the word "health" is used in the definition, and the phrase "physical or moral welfare of society" does not abrogate license to the Federal government to inject itself into these matters.

    The framers of our Constitution and other originating documents certainly were not prescient. They were, however, fairly wise men who had struggled against what was increasingly becoming oppression in the ruling authority. And they set things in motion with some very firm limitations on government so that future generations could be protected from the same type of oppression. I'm sure that they were fully aware of the wording they were using, and their intentions for using it.

    Then, as now, reading anything should always be accompanied with a firm grip on the purpose of the writer(s). Vague wording may be found. The intention was indeed to limit power rather than bestow it, on the government. If vague wording serves that purpose at times, so be it.

    Bush is 100% correct to stand against federal funding for this research. If he were standing in the way of the research itself, that would be a different matter altogether. But that is not the case. Abortion, where these embryonic stem cells come from, is a legal act in this country. The courts have found the restrictions on it to be unconstitutional.

    I may not agree with that, but it is the law of the land today. If there is the demand for these "harvested" stem cells, and corporations, etc. wish to expend their own research dollars in this direction, so be it. I happen to believe that the whole thing is indeed an effort to shore up an industry that continues to strive for legitimacy. And of course, there is always the money...
     
  6. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    But the police arent doing this to save lives.All it is,Is to benitfit their salaries. Police officers dont really protect you.All theyre really protecting is the wealthy mans interests.Look they Guard the President,Vice President and their staff. They Guard the Governor and the mayor.They guard the Hollywood and Sports Celebrites.They Protect Jewley Stores,Banks and shopping centers.What do they do for the lil people? Practuly nothing!!! Except writing Parking Tickets,Speeding Tickets and Not wearing your seat belt.They even cited you for protecting yourself with an handgun or with pepper spray.They dont protect your car nor your home.Hell they even give you a ticket when your dog poops a on the sidewalk.:mad:
     
  7. vyo476

    vyo476 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I can't tell if you're a communist or just a really, really confused fascist.
     
  8. Chip

    Chip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    2
    Function ... vs. intent.

    Functionally, in the eyes of liberal pro-abortionists, they rationalize that in slaughtering embryos for their stem cells it's okay to murder newly conceived people via abortion.

    The hippocratic medical professional is intent upon curing disease ... and he can sometimes get lost in the ends justify the means like an Hitlerian mad scientist.
     
  9. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Ok Explain this one.How come certain people dont get fat when they eat too many hambergers or hot dogs? Such as this Japanese Hot Dog champion Takeru Kobayashi doesnt get fat but other people gain weight when they eat too much?
     
  10. 9sublime

    9sublime Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Bristol
    Just one cigarette is bad for you. It damages your lungs. One burger from McDonalds, doesnt harm you.

    Are you really so weak minded that if you see an advert, you have to go out and buy it?????
     
  11. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    Because the don't eat "too many" steve. I am a very active person. Always out walking the countryside, swimming, offshore fishing, etc. I can eat fried burgers because my lifestyle is such that I burn off the calories. If I eat too many, then I either have to add more physical exertion to my life or I will gain weight.

    Do you think that japanese lady eats like that every day?
     
  12. rmbarron

    rmbarron Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. Your inherent wrongness is quite astounding. After all that writing you still haven't made the faintest attempt to explain what makes a ball of cells a human. Does your DNA make you human? Is that all that seperates you from animals?

    An embryo is not the offspring of two human beings. It is what turns into the offspring, but it is not the offspring itself. Why don't you provide "a a single piece of credible science" that suggests otherwise?

    The fact that you would even call the masturbation comment an "argument" proves you have no concept of reality.

    As a point of fact I have already articulated the truth of my point and it's not repulsive at all. There is no, I repeat no evidence that a fertilized embryo in any way constitutes a human being. If you disagree (and I know you do) than prove it. And please, with something more substantial than, "you're wrong."
     
  13. rmbarron

    rmbarron Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate the thoughtful explanation, and I find myself in agreement with most of what you said. However, as I understand it, the embryos used in stem cell research come from extra eggs produced in invetro-fertilization, not abortion.
     
  14. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,499
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Just one Drink of Whiskey will harm you? What part of body does it damage?
     
  15. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    A zygote, the immediate result when a male sperm and female ovum unite is unquestionably biologically alive as it fulfills the four criteria necessary:
    (1) metabolism
    (2) growth
    (3) reaction to stimuli
    (4) reproduction [cell reproduction called “twinning” – asexual]

    From the eighteenth day after conception, substantial development of the brain and nervous system occurs.

    At about three weeks, a primitive heart muscle begins to pulsate. Other organs begin to develop during the first month, such as a liver, primitive kidneys, a digestive tract, and a simple umbilical cord. This developing body has a head and a developing face with primitive ears, mouth, and eyes, despite the fact that it is no larger than half the size of a pea. Toward the end of the first month (between 26 and 28 days) the arms and legs begin to appear as tiny buds. A whole embryo is formed by the end of the first month.

    During the second month, the eyes, ears, nose, toes, and fingers make their appearance; the skeleton develops; the heart beats; and the blood — with its own type — flows. The unborn at this time has reflexes and her lips become sensitive to touch. By the eighth week her own unique fingerprints start to form, along with the lines in her hands.

    A vast majority of abortions are performed during this time, despite the scientific facts which clearly show that an individual human life is developing, as it would after birth, from infant to child to adolescent to adult.

    https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1318#post1318
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice