People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
When I saw this clip all I could think is Congress needs more Warrens and fewer Mitch McConnells and Rand Pauls. Even with a really concerted effort to "Ditch Mitch" in the last Senate race he still won pretty easily. And he is reelected by constituents who hate him! "But he's better than the other guy" as they rationalize and justify.
It really is up to us voters to demand better and then NOT reelect them even if there isn't a better choice.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
just a thought but I doubt we will see a female or another black predident for a long time, I think obama and hillary screwed that shot all up...but they did widen the playing field for parties other than than the big 2, just my opinion.
Godfather.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
GF, I think most reasonable people wouldn't rule out an entire gender or race (or even religion?) based on the opinions or histories of a handful of individuals.
For me, it's about ability, character, actions, and so much more - vs the (ir)relevance of skin color or genitalia.
People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.
just a thought but I doubt we will see a female or another black predident for a long time, I think obama and hillary screwed that shot all up...but they did widen the playing field for parties other than than the big 2, just my opinion.
Godfather.
By that theory, and given how some other recent presidents have performed, we shouldn't see another white male president for a good long time.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
just a thought but I doubt we will see a female or another black predident for a long time, I think obama and hillary screwed that shot all up...but they did widen the playing field for parties other than than the big 2, just my opinion.
Godfather.
By that theory, and given how some other recent presidents have performed, we shouldn't see another white male president for a good long time.
LOL! I was just thinking the same thing.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
GF, I think most reasonable people wouldn't rule out an entire gender or race (or even religion?) based on the opinions or histories of a handful of individuals.
For me, it's about ability, character, actions, and so much more - vs the (ir)relevance of skin color or genitalia.
"For me, it's about ability, character, actions, and so much more - vs the (ir)relevance of skin color or genitalia."
couldn't agree more, if fact I think I'll retract my statement. if hillery gets a large % of the black vote as is predicted by some she has a good shot at it and then there will be the female vote hoping for the first female president of the United States of America... it may take a quite a few years before a lot of people stop voting for historical reasons and vote for the right reason.
People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.
Politics absolutely requires both. Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.
People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.
Politics absolutely requires both. Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.
She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.
People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.
Politics absolutely requires both. Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.
She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.
Fair enough but once the supreme court rules on marriage I am not exactly sure about what "regressive social policies" are left to come into effect. There might be some restrictions on abortion in the later stages of pregnancy but the bulk of the country agrees with that. Roe isn't getting overturned and a constitutional amendment against gay marriage isn't ever going to happen. I'm probably more in line with you on social policy and I don't fear guys like santorum because even if he miraculously won he would never be able to pass any regressive change. Most social issues are generational and the times certainly are a changin'.
People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.
Politics absolutely requires both. Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.
She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.
Fair enough but once the supreme court rules on marriage I am not exactly sure about what "regressive social policies" are left to come into effect. There might be some restrictions on abortion in the later stages of pregnancy but the bulk of the country agrees with that. Roe isn't getting overturned and a constitutional amendment against gay marriage isn't ever going to happen. I'm probably more in line with you on social policy and I don't fear guys like santorum because even if he miraculously won he would never be able to pass any regressive change. Most social issues are generational and the times certainly are a changin'.
The times they be a changin' but Citizens United shows the power of a conservative Supreme Court, that's what scares me.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.
Politics absolutely requires both. Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.
She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.
Fair enough but once the supreme court rules on marriage I am not exactly sure about what "regressive social policies" are left to come into effect. There might be some restrictions on abortion in the later stages of pregnancy but the bulk of the country agrees with that. Roe isn't getting overturned and a constitutional amendment against gay marriage isn't ever going to happen. I'm probably more in line with you on social policy and I don't fear guys like santorum because even if he miraculously won he would never be able to pass any regressive change. Most social issues are generational and the times certainly are a changin'.
The times they be a changin' but Citizens United shows the power of a conservative Supreme Court, that's what scares me.
But the same supreme court ruled in favour of Obamacare so it isn't always "conservative". Also...People always forget that Citizen United was really about Hillary Clinton not wanting a negative movie about her to see the light of day. Certainly it had fundraising implications but ultimately it was a freedom of speech issue. Movies criticizing politicians should be ok regardless of who pays for them.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Killing over 500,000 innocent Iraqis is ok, because look how great bush was on stem cell and hiv in Africa. Thumbs up. Nice to know what you hold important in life.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Killing over 500,000 innocent Iraqis is ok, because look how great bush was on stem cell and hiv in Africa. Thumbs up. Nice to know what you hold important in life.
You also forgot that he's white and has an R next to his name. GOP above the law double standards courtesy of our token BSer
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
Yes, it's refreshing.
And thank you for clarification on that point, Asterisk. Always happy when we do the right thing here in CA.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
People should watch this clip and recognize that Carly Fiorina should not be underestimated. You can disagree with her but you have to acknowledge that she is on fire here
That's what it looks like to be on fire? Trashing the opponent rather than extolling your accomplishments? I know that's a bipartisan strategy, but I wouldn't say she was on fire at all. She was on the attack for sure, though the questions did lead her there. If she was on fire she would have said, I don't want to talk about Hillary, I want to talk about what I can bring to the table.
Politics absolutely requires both. Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.
She was poised, and although I don't personally care for her, she isn't a batshit ideologue like Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and Huckabee. Her ruthless pragmatism reminds me of Hillary, except that it will lead her to regressive social policies.
Fair enough but once the supreme court rules on marriage I am not exactly sure about what "regressive social policies" are left to come into effect. There might be some restrictions on abortion in the later stages of pregnancy but the bulk of the country agrees with that. Roe isn't getting overturned and a constitutional amendment against gay marriage isn't ever going to happen. I'm probably more in line with you on social policy and I don't fear guys like santorum because even if he miraculously won he would never be able to pass any regressive change. Most social issues are generational and the times certainly are a changin'.
The times they be a changin' but Citizens United shows the power of a conservative Supreme Court, that's what scares me.
But the same supreme court ruled in favour of Obamacare so it isn't always "conservative". Also...People always forget that Citizen United was really about Hillary Clinton not wanting a negative movie about her to see the light of day. Certainly it had fundraising implications but ultimately it was a freedom of speech issue. Movies criticizing politicians should be ok regardless of who pays for them.
Sure, tthat's where it Started, but the Court took the opportunity to overstep it's bounds and make a broad ruling that had pretty much nothing to do with the case origin.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Asterisk's point aside, there is no doubt that Bush empowered the far right in the debate and caused a noticeable shift. I guess it comes down to whether you feel the end justifies the means.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
Sorry but your stance on stem cell research is not correct regardless of how California chose to act. There was zero shutting down of research. A number of existing embryonic stem cell lines were still available to study even after the decision. Science and ethics always need to be balanced and his decision struck the right balance with zero affect on research. Nothing has been obstructed since that decision. It was a win-win.
Also on HIV...read interviews from Bob Geldof, Bono, African leaders etc. They all say what Bush did was heroic.
It's responses such as these that verify the blinders many of you wear.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
New voices (people) are welcomed here, for sure - both those with whom I may disagree or not.
The mat I see greets all and isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about being outnumbered or one-upped.
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
Look at how much social regression occurred during the Reagan years! Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Bush's position on stems cells was actually quite reasonable from the point of balancing the worries of both sides. In the end he was right...science moved past the need for using embryonic stem cells and life (as determined by some people) did not need to be destroyed in order for stem cell research to continue. This was a best of both worlds situation for all sides and in hindsight he should be commended on this issue.
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
Time out … this absurd statement cannot go unchallenged. Bush does not deserve to be commended, in hindsight or otherwise, for his position. Bush attempted to shut down the progress of Science in the field of embryonic stem cell research. For anyone suffering from or who has a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Cancer, Parkinson’s disease or spinal cord injury (just to name a few diseases being researched), Bush’s decision was a punch in the gut. Yes, Science found a way to go forward with Regenerative Medicine research through other developments, but embryonic stem cells are still a crucial part of the advancements being made even today.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
I love seeing all these new voices in here. Welcome aboard.
As a (kind of new) face, I agree. Posted sporadically but have been MIA and am finally posting regularly in my 9th year as a member. BS is outnumbered in more ways than one.
If I wasn't outnumbered I wouldn't waste a minute posting here. No point entering a forum where everyone agrees with you.
You will become one of us. Resistance is futile. And once you do become one of us, we will send you on a mission to the Ted Nugent Club forum. As always, should you or any of your PJ force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, BS.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
It really is up to us voters to demand better and then NOT reelect them even if there isn't a better choice.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Godfather.
For me, it's about ability, character, actions, and so much more - vs the (ir)relevance of skin color or genitalia.
"For me, it's about ability, character, actions, and so much more - vs the (ir)relevance of skin color or genitalia."
couldn't agree more, if fact I think I'll retract my statement.
if hillery gets a large % of the black vote as is predicted by some she has a good shot at it and then there will be the female vote hoping for the first female president of the United States of America... it may take a quite a few years before a lot of people stop voting for historical reasons and vote for the right reason.
Godfather.
Fiorina has not shied away from a single question on any issue and has taken it to the most likely democratic challenger. Personally I don't know who my number one candidate is right now (can't even vote so I guess it don't matter) but I have been more and more impressed by Fiorina with each passing day. Right now she is proving to be a great communicator.
Same could be said for the Bush years, when they were able to shift the debate on issues like stem cell research and foreign invasions lol
Edit - Bush was also celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa. He did this from a religious/moral perspective and even his harshest critics acknowledge this.
After Bush put the restrictions on Federal funding in 2001 for embryonic stem cell research, the State of California voters passed Proposition 71 to help fund and support stem cell research, giving priority to human embryonic stem cell research. This is significant because Californians don’t usually pass many tax hikes on ourselves, but we believed the need was critical. I am proud of California, as well as the other States who supported embryonic stem cell research, for stepping up when the Federal Government did not.
In 2009, Obama removed the funding restrictions Bush put in place on human stem cell research. Obama should be commended for that.
Although I would not use the words “celebrated as the greatest president to confront HIV in Africa,” I will acknowledge that Bush’s policies played a major role in fighting the HIV epidemic in Africa. Good on him for that.
p.s. To answer the OP's question, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat if she ran for President.
And thank you for clarification on that point, Asterisk. Always happy when we do the right thing here in CA.
I guess it comes down to whether you feel the end justifies the means.
Also on HIV...read interviews from Bob Geldof, Bono, African leaders etc. They all say what Bush did was heroic.
It's responses such as these that verify the blinders many of you wear.
The mat I see greets all and isn't, or at least shouldn't be, about being outnumbered or one-upped.