BOFH666
06-15-2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by venray1
As for research, experimenting on 2 year olds might yield the cure for cancer, but we dont do it because most believe it is wrong. Most believe that stem cell research is just as wrong, therefor it isnt done. Simple as that. Doesnt mean that other types of research cant be done without breaking policy.
Umm, 2 year olds are living breathing human beings, no debate there from anyone surely? However the view on whether stem cells are living beings is very much open to debate. As for "most believe"... well, this is only a quick bit of research but the first survey I came across didn't agree:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html
Do you support stem cell research
Support - 58%
Oppose - 30%
Catholics support it personally by a margin of 54 percent to 35 percent, and favor its federal funding by a slightly wider margin, 60 percent to 32 percent. (A small share of Catholics oppose the research personally, but support its funding as a matter of policy.)
Conservatives divide evenly on stem cell research. More Republicans support it than oppose it. Among evangelical white Protestants — a conservative, largely anti-abortion, core Bush group — 50 percent support it, while 40 percent are opposed. Even among opponents of legal abortion, opposition to stem cell research falls just short of a majority, at 50 percent.
Indeed, one of the groups that's least supportive of stem cell research is blacks — the most solidly Democratic group in the nation. Forty-four percent of blacks personally oppose stem cell research, 15 points higher than the level of opposition among whites.
Support for stem cell research is much higher, moreover, among centrist groups that are also of interest to Bush politically — such as independents (62 percent support stem cell research), moderates (63 percent) and non-evangelical white Protestants (70 percent).
Among all groups examined in this poll, opposition to stem cell research is highest — 58 percent — among people who think abortion should be illegal in all cases (they account for one in five Americans). More moderate abortion opponents, who think abortion should be mostly, but not always, illegal, divide about evenly on stem cell research.
More polls:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem5.htm
The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. It showed that Americans support stem cell research by a margin of 3 to 1. Among white Roman Catholics, 72% support research.
Oh, and I'm not saying that trying to take advantage of Reagan's death is going to work, but they are trying to do so and that's something that I don't believe they should be doing.
BOFH666
06-16-2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by maniactickler
I know this question wasnt directed to me, but i think everytime Kerry opens his mouth he helps Bush. the man cant make up his mind on anything. he has no beliefs. he will sway with the wind and say anything to get votes. which results in his taking both sides of every issue. even some of his own party has doubts about him being the candidate. i cant wait for the debates. i think Bush will rip him a new one.
Maniac, I've been trying to think of a polite way to put this but the best I can come up with is what on earth are you talking about? Has Kerry changed his position on some issues? Yes, absolutley and I wonder how many people on this board could honestly say they've got the same views on every issue now as they did ten years ago (yes, some of the 'flip-flops' on Bush's site are ten years old)? More importantly, have you even bothered to go read what's being said for yourself? Here, I'll put a couple up from the Bush website.
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?id=2439
In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)
But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)
Except of course that from this evidence (and I am going to take this as the most convincing case possible considering the source) Kerry didn't promise NOT to attack the president, just to measure his words before doing so. There's a subtle but important difference there. Further from what's written here I don't see anything that says he wouldn't attack the president, just avoid saying anything about the troops fighting the war, again a big difference. Besides I find it incredible that the Republicans are having a pop at anyone for criticising the president considering their own track record in the attacking stakes.
In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)
In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)
But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)
BULL, plain and simple. You DON'T think that something like 9/11 might change someone's views? Or is it a case of "once you say something you are forever tied to that opinion"? Personally I'd say more power to the man for standing up and saying he made a mistake.
Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)
Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘“ (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)
This one makes me laugh that the Bush team are even trying to turn this into a positive. Let's be clear on this, No Child Left Behind has been chronicly underfunded and Kerry is 100% right, the Bush administration has made a mockery of the project. But again the Bush campaign is trying desperatley to get some positive spin, in this case by trying to blur the lines between the project itself and those running it.
Now my views on Bush have been made clear on this site before, my view on Kerry is "he's probably not much better but he CAN'T be any worse for the world than Bush". However this whole "Kerry flip-flops" rubbish that the Republican party is putting around annoys me intensley. Why? Because EVERY politician does it, the Republicans are going to extraordinary lengths to try and come up with 'evidence' (which has, time and again, been shown to have been falsified, or VERY carefully worded or just plain wrong) to support them and Bush's record on sticking to his guns is appaling, FAR worse than Kerry's. Want some examples? Okay, we can do that:
Childrens Hospitals:
Bush said: “This is a hospital, but it's also - it's a place full of love. And I was most touched by meeting the parents and the kids and the nurses and the docs, all of whom are working hard to save lives. I want to thank the moms who are here. Thank you very much for you hospitality…There's a lot of talk about budgets right now, and I'm here to talk about the budget. My job as the President is to submit a budget to the Congress and to set priorities, and one of the priorities that we've talked about is making sure the health care systems are funded.” – Egleston Children's Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 3/1/01
Bush did: Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals like the one he visited by 15% ($34 million). His 2004 budget additionally proposes to cut 30% ($86 million) out of grants to children’s hospitals.
First Responders
Bush said: “We're dealing with first-time responders to make sure they've got what's needed to be able to respond. “ – Bush, 3/27/2002
Bush did: Bush had been saying that he was proposing $3.5 billion in “new” money for first responders. However, his budget tried to cut more than $1 billion out of existing grants to local police/fire departments to fund this. Then, in August of 2002, Bush rejected $150 million for grants to state and local first responders. Bush’s decision prompted the President of the Firefighters Union to say, “President Bush, don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe.” The President of the Virginia firefighters association said, “The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity.”
Ethanol
Bush said: “I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause.) I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.” – Bush at South Dakota Ethanol Plant 4/24/02
Bush did: According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. [4/22/02]
Even Start
Bush said: Under the headline “Bush lauds Albuquerque woman for volunteerism” the AP reported on Bush’s visit to New Mexico to tout Lucy Salazar, a volunteer with the Even Start literacy program. “One of the things I try to do when I go into communities is herald soldiers in the armies of compassion, those souls who have heard the call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, and have followed through on that call; Lucy Salazar is a retired federal government worker. She teaches reading skills to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children -- incredibly important…And oftentimes, citizens such as her never get the praise they deserve. Lucy, thank you for coming and representing thousands of people like you.” - Bush, 4/29/02
Bush did: According to the Associated Press, Bush proposed “to slash funding 20 percent for the Even Start program, which offers tutoring to preschoolers and literacy and job training for their parents” – the very program he was touting in New Mexico [2/4/02].
Housing
Bush said:"Part of being a secure America is to encourage homeownership." He also went on to talk about his experience meeting the residents saying, "You know, today I went to the -- to some of the home -- met some of the homeowners in this newly built homes and all you've got to do is shake their hand and listen to their stories and watch the pride that they exhibit when they show you the kitchen and the stairs...They showed me their home. They didn't show me somebody else's home, they showed me their home. And they are so proud to own their home and I want to thank them for their hospitality, because it helps the American people really understand what it means." – Bush, 6/17/02
Bush did: According to AP, “President Bush's proposed 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, announced Monday, phases out HOPE VI” the program Bush visited and touted in Atlanta. “Renee Glover, executive director of the Atlanta Housing Authority said. ‘We didn't anticipate that HOPE VI would be eliminated.’” [AP, 2/5/2003]
Labor
Bush said: “Our workers are the most productive, the hardest working, the best craftsmen in the world. And I'm here to thank all those who work hard to make a living here in America.” – Bush, 9/2/02
Bush did: Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs and a 2% ($8 million) cut to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Similarly, his 2004 budget proposes a $60 million cut to adult job training programs and a total elimination of the Youth Opportunities Grants, which provide job training to younger workers.
Border Security
Bush said: “A secure and efficient border is key to our economic security.” – Bush, 9/9/02
Bush did: While Bush did hold a photo-op to sign legislation promising more INS/Border Patrol staff and facilities, his budget provided no additional money for this. Additionally, in August, Bush vetoed $6.25M for promised pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents. Additionally, he vetoed all $39 million for the Container Security Initiative. His 2004 Budget slashes total “Border and Transportation Security” by $284 million.
Fiscal Responsibility
Bush said: “One of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility.” Bush, 9/16/02
Bush did: Less than 6 months after this pronouncement, Bush proposed a budget that would put the government more than $300 billion into deficit. As National Journal noted on 2/12/02, Bush’s own 2004 budget tables show that without Bush’s tax and budgetary proposals, the deficit would decline after 2006, but with Bush’s proposals the deficit would grow indefinitely.
Veterans
Bush said: “These men and women are still the best of America. They are prepared for every mission we give them, and they are worthy of the standards set for them by America's veterans. Our veterans from every era are the finest of citizens. We owe them the life we know today. They command the respect of the American people, and they have our everlasting gratitude.” – Bush, 11/11/02
Bush did: According to a letter sent to the President by the major veterans groups, Bush’s 2003 budget “falls $1.5 billion short” of adequately funding veterans care. [Independent Budget, 1/7/02].
Bush said: “Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03
Bush did: Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].
No Child Left Behind
Bush said: “This administration is committed to your effort. And with the support of Congress, we will continue to work to provide the resources school need to fund the era of reform.” – Bush, 1/8/03
Bush did: The President’s 2003 budget – the first education budget after he signed and touted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) - proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill. Bush’s 2004 budget for NCLB is just 1.9% above what he proposed in 2003 - $619 less than needed to offset inflation.
Medicare
Bush said: “Within that budget I proposed last night is a substantial increase in Medicare funding of $400 billion on top of what we already spend, over the next 10 years. This is a commitment that America must make to our seniors. A reformed and strengthened Medicare system, plus a healthy dosage of Medicare spending in the budget, will make us say firmly, we fulfilled our promise to the seniors of America.” – Bush, 1/29/03
Bush did: Under Bush’s proposal, there should be a roughly $40 billion increase in Medicare each year for a decade. However, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes just $6 billion – 85% less than what would be needed to meet his goal. Additionally, his budget would leave 67% of the total $400 billion pledge to be spent after 2008. [Bush Budget, pg. 318]
Oh and let's not forget those wonderful tax bribes... uh, I mean, cuts that Bush put in place which are so popular. The same tax breaks that, in order to maintain them past the election, require the following cuts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html
The funding levels referred to in the memo would be a tiny slice out of the federal budget -- $2.3 billion, or 0.56 percent, out of the $412.7 billion requested for fiscal 2005 for domestic programs and homeland security that is subject to Congress's annual discretion.
But the cuts are politically sensitive, targeting popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006.
"Despite [administration] denials, this memorandum confirms what we suspected all along," said Thomas S. Kahn, Democratic staff director on the House Budget Committee. "Next February, the administration plans to propose spending cuts in key government services to pay for oversized tax cuts."
But with the budget deficit exceeding $400 billion this year, tough and painful cuts are unavoidable, said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Federal agencies' discretionary spending has risen 39 percent in the past three years. "I think the public is ready for spending cuts," Riedl said. "Not only does the public understand there's a lot of waste in the federal budget, but the public is ready to make sacrifices during the war on terror."
The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level.
Also slated for cuts are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, the Transportation Department, the Social Security Administration, the Interior Department and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Agencies would have the option of preserving current funding levels for programs under their control if they find money from other parts of their budget. But the computer printout contains specific program cuts.
The Women, Infants and Children nutrition program was funded at $4.7 billion for the fiscal year beginning in October, enough to serve the 7.9 million people expected to be eligible. But in 2006, the program would be cut by $122 million. Head Start, the early-childhood education program for the poor, would lose $177 million, or 2.5 percent of its budget, in fiscal 2006.
The $78 million funding increase that Bush has touted for a homeownership program in 2005 would be nearly reversed in 2006 with a $53 million cut. National Institutes of Health spending would be cut 2.1 percent in 2006, to $28 billion, after a $764 million increase for 2005 that brought the NIH budget to $28.6 billion.
Even homeland security -- a centerpiece of the Bush reelection campaign -- would be affected. Funding would slip in 2006 by $1 billion, to $29.6 billion, although that would still be considerably higher than the $26.6 billion devoted to that field in 2004, according to an analysis of the computer printout by House Budget Committee Democrats.
Now I know a lot of people here think I've got something against the right. In truth, I've got "something against" every political partry, in that elections are now a choice of the lesser evil rather than the greater good. BUT I've got a huge problem with the Republicans tactics in the last four years and I'm not talking Iraq. Every time anyone says anything damaging against them, they attack. Witness the leaking of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent because her husband exposed the yellow-cake story as a lie. The attacks on Richard Clarke before. during and after his testimony to the 9/11 commission were sickening to watch happen to a man that had served his country for so long. The systematic attacks on Kerry, calling him a coward and a traitor following Vietnam, casting doubt on the severity of the injuries that 'won' him his purple hearts, even faking pictures to get the "anti-american" point across, all from a Party whose leader was safe at home in the national guard and who STILL hasn't proved he wasn't AWOL from his unit. The portrayal of any who disagreed with the government as traitors. And this 'flip-flop' charge is just the latest in a series of outright attacks with very dubious moral and factual groundings. You have to wonder why they do this instead of fighting the campaign and individual issues on actual figures and the massive imporvments there have been under the Bush administration. If they're reluctant to do that, you then have to wonder WHY they're reluctant....
Why do they do this? Simple because people such as yourself (Maniac) won't bother to check the facts and make your own mind up, you'll simply absorb and repeat no matter what. And THAT to me is what I cannot stand, not different political opinions, or different opinions full stop for that matter, but the lack of independent thought that goes on with issues that are so important to the world, your country and YOU personally. But of course the majority won't, they'll just keep voting for "their team" no matter what and whoever wins will treat it like winning a football match. *Sigh*.
BOFH666
06-16-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by venray1
MT..THAT attitude is what gives the conservatives a bad name.....
*Settles back to watch MT's head explode from trying to sort out the lgical loop*
Popcorn anyone? :D
I meant to ask you something actually, before getting a little... sidetracked. You said something along the lines of "no one person or small group should have that kind of influence on the president". But surely that's exactly how the presidency works (whether it SHOULD work that way or not is another debate entirely)? Policy in any one area is determined by a small group of people who advise the president. In most cases those groups are not isolated from each other so one person can affect several areas of policy relativley easily.
It also raises another question, and one that I genuinely don't know the answer to. Looking at data for 2001 about 75% of people identify themselves as "christian". Now, if the USA is anything like Britain this is the stock answer for all white folks, regardless of whether or not they practice or not so the ACTUAL number of people activley practicing christianity is likely to be much lower. Regardless, I believe Bush is a catholic which, again going off 2001 data, has a 23% share of that 75%. So, Bush is taking his spirtual direction, which is directly dictating policy, from a group which, at best, represents 18.75% of the US. In reality this is probably a lot lower when you consider both the total number of actual practicers and the fact that, I believe anyway, there are different views on this issue even with the catholic church. That surely qualifies as a 'small group influencing policy'?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.