Friday, March 6, 2009

Taxpayer Funded Infantcide

Reversing an eight-year-old limit on potentially life-saving science, President Barack Obama plans to lift restrictions Monday on taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells. There have been no proven benefits from using embryonic stem cells, but there have been from using adult stem cells. Still befuddles me why the Left are so stuck on them. So now, thanks to our Great Leader, not only do I have to pay for furnishing the HQ of Homeland Security and broadband for rural areas, when I can't even get it for myself, but now I have to pay for something that I find abhorrently immoral and objectionable. Did you know that, thanks to Obama, American taxpayers now help pay for forced abortions in China, amongst other places, through the United Nations Population Fund? Population Fund. That just sounds like something the Nazi's would have come up with. God Bless Obama's America.

11 comments:

R said...

"There have been no proven benefits from using embryonic stem cells"
that might have something to do with such research being banned - not likely to see the evidence of benefit if you aren't able to do the research... but don't let such an obvious flaw in your argument get in the way if you're on a roll.
"Still befuddles me why the Left are so stuck on them."
I'm not sure that they are, it's more a matter of many scientists being keen to see if embryonic cells have greater properties than other cells tested (being able form any kind tissue - including brain/nerves), but the Christian Right are making a fuss, regardless of how the cells are obtained. You know, better that left overs from IV fertility be thrown out, rather than tested.

"American taxpayers now help pay for forced abortions in China"
According to the people who should know, that's simply not true, it's just something bush and co. cooked-up to justify withholding funds allocated by congress - it's there in the link you provided.
Besides america has been paying many thousands times more dollars for the indiscriminate termination of life in Iraq and Afghanistan... no problem that allocation of your tax dollars?
So how does this work, tax-funded killing is good provided that it has been born (or that you terminate the unborn by killing the mother)?

Indian Chris said...

that might have something to do with such research being banned

That's just not true. Under Bush, any lines created after, I believe, August 2001 couldn't be funded by taxpayer dollars. Line created before that date could. Plus there was private donations and other countries doing research. ESS research was being funded. But don't let such an obvious flaw in your argument get in the way if you're on a roll.

Besides america has been paying many thousands times more dollars for the indiscriminate termination of life in Iraq and Afghanistan

Again, not true. American troops haven't been killing innocent Iraqis and Afghans indiscriminately. Have many died? Sadly, yes. But it wasn't indiscriminate. What you're charging them with by saying that is that they're randomly going out and killing civilians or that they just don't care who gets hurt. And that's not the case. Next time, think before you slander our military.

R said...

"ESS research was being funded."
Who's actually doing ESS research? Between the restrictions you've mentioned, and direct and indirect pressure on institutions and individuals, I think you'd struggle to find any actual, properly resourced research, that doesn't have it's hands tied.

"What you're charging them with by saying that is that they're randomly going out and killing civilians or that they just don't care who gets hurt."
the second part more than the first.
Have you got a rough idea of how many people have died in those countries as a result of the invasions?
Or what the final civilian toll will be as consequences of invasion and occupation?

What did Tommy Franks say about body counts?
While estimates put Iraqi deaths to violence at between 91-99K, that is very small fraction of deaths as direct consequence of invasion (perhaps less than a 10th?).

You can't bomb a couple of countries flat without saying 'too bad about civilians' (much like Laos when the US were in Vietnam - a disregard for consequences). As much as the US military would like people to think that their 'smart bombs' only kill bad guys, the amount of unguided ordinance has been huge. There is also the indiscriminate effects of 'depleted uranium', the dust of which is breathed by, and will continue to be breathed by, civilians for generations.

However, the consequences on food security will probably be a bigger killer.

The use of ordinance and the result of invasion on water/infrastructure has resulted in indiscriminate death.

The world is still waiting to seeing the WMD's that america claimed justified going against the UN on invading Iraq?
A big part of the reason that the UN were opposed is that invasion plans made no provisions, or considerations of how to achieve objectives, and restore the country to functional order without widespread civilian deaths - it was 'we'll work those trivial details after we've bombed it flat...

If anything Iraq has given the next generation of terrorist a reason to believe their cause is righteous - invasion of a sovereign country on the strength of some half-baked lies
... now both sides are adding to the civilian death toll - directly and for many years to come via secondary causes.

(some also point to that reckless determination to support any fight against the former soviet Russia; in Afghanistan the folks america trained and armed, the mujahedeen are now the taliban - whose to say that presently aligned warlords won't be just bad?).

How many tax dollars has Iraq and Afghanistan cost? What, other than a death toll, do tax-payers have to show for it?

R said...

"think before you slander our military."
I think you've missed the distinction I've been making all along, it's not the US military who made the choices that resulted; and will continue to result, in so much death.
The responsibility is that of the Bush government.

Seane-Anna said...

R, whoever the hell you are, you are a complete and total idiot. A 100%, left-wing, hate America LOSER!!!!!

You whine about civilian deaths in Iraq AND Afghanistan. I'm glad you did, because you just proved that the Left wants the US to lose in BOTH countries.

At first the libtards claimed that they were only against the war in Iraq because Iraq didn't attack us, but Afghanistan DID attack us and you pretty much said that our invasion of that country was wrong. And then you said that Bush was to blame for all the death in Afghanistan. So I take it, then, that you believe 9/11 had nothing to do with why the Afghan invasion was launched? Typical know nothing libtard.

And you proved your ignorance even further by implying that America is to blame for the Taliban because we supported the Afghan people's struggle against the Soviet Union in the '80's.

You pontificated that the US had a "reckless determination" to oppose the Soviet Union. Hmmmmmm. It was reckless to oppose the spread of Soviet tyranny. Is that what you really believe?

Why wasn't it reckless for the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan in the first place? Did you ever look at it that way, R? You try to come off as being soooooooo anti-war but you're quite alright with wars fought to impose or maintain communism. You're quite alright with Russia slaughtering 10% of Afghanistan's then population and forcing 50% of the survivors out of the country. If you think I'm wrong in my assessment of you, then please tell me how many anti-war rallies protesting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan you attended. How many such rallies were even organized? Your defeaning silence sums that up.

Listen, R. The Taliban grew out of the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, NOT America's support of the Afghan resistance.

The Taliban were mostly the result of the foreign, mostly Arab, jihadists who flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. One of those Arabs was Osama ben Laden. If Russia had never invaded Afghanistan, a country that had done Russia no harm, ben Laden and the other Arab jihadists would never have gone there, fought there, and spread their Arab brand of fundamentalist Islam there.

Before the Soviet invasion the native Afghans were devoutly Muslim but not crazy fanatics. After the Soviet invasion the native Afghans were thoroughly radicalized. Gee, I wonder why.

R, you need to do some reading before subscribing so devoutly to the blame-America-first religion. At the very least, having a little knowledge of recent history will allow you to post comments on blogs without sounding like a total libtard hack. Have a nice day.

R said...

"You whine about civilian deaths in Iraq AND Afghanistan. I'm glad you did, because you just proved that the Left wants the US to lose in BOTH countries."

Yes, I speak for all the left, and yes, that is exactly what they are all thinking...
You are a joke.

Chris, are you surprised that I come here for the laughs when that is the calibre of visitor and reasoning that you get here?

Regards,
R.B.Murphy

Seane-Anna said...

R, like a true libtard you resort to snide remarks and veiled personal attacks because you can't refute my points. You might not speak for the entire Left but I suspect you do. But, if you can squeeze a rational thought out of your commie brain, please explain something to me, R.

You implied in your non-response to me that the Left does NOT want America to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that's true, then what were all the Left's "anti-war" protests about? Am I supposed to believe that they were all marches for victory? Please!

R, you and the rest of the Left DO want America to lose in Afghanistan and Iraq. Everything you leftists say and do vis-a-vis those wars proves that. I don't know why you want America to lose but you do, and that makes you despicable. It really saddens me that our brave fighting men have to fight and die for the likes of you.

R said...

"you resort to snide remarks and veiled personal attacks"
I can't characterise you rants as quite so civilised, having happily blurted 'idiot' and 'loser' before the end of your first line...
Let me guess, you have some earnest belief that it's not hypocrisy that you have a problem with my use of mild ridicule, because righteousness motivates your use of abuse?

"you can't refute my points"
You really do fancy yourself, don't you.
What's to refute? You need to make a credible argument first, instead you've neatly packed everyone whose point view you disagree with into the homogeneous group of 'the left', then having decided what they think, you presume to tell me that I subscribe to those beliefs. You do know that it sounds straight out psychotic, trying to convince someone that you know better than they do, what they believe, think, want?
See, it's not a matter of being unable to assail your defective reasoning, it's just pointless (but a bunch of laughs) to argue with someone so simple in the head that everyone who holds different values from them becomes understood as some two-dimensional, unpatriotic, godless, child-killing parody of humanity.
Your rant is to reason what black&white is to colour.

"please explain something to me..."
why? It's far more amusing watching you speak for both sides of the argument - so certain that that there is nothing 'outside' your field understanding, no better illustration of ignorance in action can be found.
Please continue, there nothing funnier than hearing someone who can exhibit patriotism as a psychosis.

Perhaps some Kipling might help (as it seems unlikely that seane-anna is going to return to Chris' original topic - the extravagant expenditure of tax dollars on unnecessary projects overseas.)

"All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like us, are We
And everyone else is They:
But if you cross over the sea,
Instead of over the way,
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They!"

(From Rudyard Kipling's 'We and They'. The rest of the poem; as well as a commentary on the poem, and 'Otherness' and travel, can be found at: http://www.transition-dynamics.com/weandthey.html )

Seane-Anna said...

R, R, R! Yes, I called you an ididot and a loser and every time you post here it just proves I was right to do so, Kipling not withstanding.

ME get back to Chris' original subject? YOU were the one who divurged from it with your sanctimonious, "anti-war", tirade. I just responded to what you said, and like a true libbie you didn't like that at all!

Your continued refusal to address the points I raised in my first response to you just reenforces the fact that you have no arguments to make, R. If you did, you would've made them.

If you're not a leftie, for instance, you would've said so and then pointed me to your blog or website so I could read your views for myself. I actually clicked on your "name" to see what blog(s) you have but I got nothing. Not sure why, but your profile was blank. Maybe you made it that way so you could deny being a liberal without having to back that denial up. I'm just sayin'.

And then there's the issue of the origin of the Taliban. You say I haven't made a credible argument. Are you saying that it's not true that the Taliban are the result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? If that IS what you're saying then just SAY IT and then BACK IT UP!

I haven't made any credible arguments? What about my point on the total absense of any rallies against the Soviet war on the Afghan people? Are you saying that wasn't true, that there WERE such rallies by the "anti-war" left? If so, then write down the dates and places of those rallies right here so everyone can inform themselves about them. You won't, of course, because you can't.

I'll say it again, R. You have no response to my ARGUMENTS so you resort to "responding" to ME. And you wonder why I call you a libtard. And for good measure I think you're pretty psychotic, too.

R said...

"If you're not a leftie, for instance, you would've said so and then pointed me to your blog or website so I could read your views for myself."
Wrong, that is simply an assumption. I have free will, it does not follow that I must either confirm or deny anything, simply because you demand it.
Nor would such a choice to abstain from disputing or affirming the 20 to 30 similar assumptions you've made be 'proof' of any of the plain stupid conclusions you have arrived at. Silence is silence, it's not proof that I'm a 'commie', or that I'm OK with Russian violence, or any other BS that you freely, and happily declare is my opinion.

You are not constructing an argument.
Here is a demonstration:
You shot president Kennedy, you wanted to have sex with his corpse, this proves space-aliens exist and crashed at Roswell...
That is not how an argument is constructed, but it is very much the type of thing you have been presenting as argument - ridiculous claims about another person held up as proof of an absurd conclusion.

While you haven't managed to construct an argument, you have done much to further convince me that you simply don't have the intellectual ability to construct an argument, let alone understand any of mine - which probably means you are saying 'huh?' about now.
(now if those tax dollar were spent on american education institutions rather than wars and abortions in china we wouldn't have this problem).

You fail. So full of fail.

How do you presume to tell what I believe, think, or want? Are you omnipresent? omnipotent? do you think yourself to have God's powers? Then how do you presume to tell of matters that are essentially between me and God?

So, in short, seane-anna, it seems you simply aren't upto the challenge, and therefore just aren't worth the effort.

Seane-Anna said...

"...I don't have to confirm or deny anything..." Typical libtard bait and switch. You waste time expressing outrage that I assumed you are a leftie, but when I ask you to prove that I'm wrong you resort to self-righteous declarations like the one above. Let me reaquaint you with reality, R.

Yes, I believe you are a libtard--as I like to call all people left of center--but that's not something I came up with out of thin air. Your comments led me to that conclusion. You slandered our military, accusing our troops of "indiscriminate" killing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trashing the US military like that is almost exclusive to the left, so I concluded you are a leftie. In short, R, I based my opinion of you on YOUR OWN WORDS. I was not, as you idiotically charge, presuming anything.

R, here's some advice that I'm sure you won't take: if you don't want to be called or thought of as a leftie, THEN DON'T TALK LIKE ONE!!!! Otherwise, if you continue to look like a duck, waddle like a duck, and quack like a duck, be prepared to be called a duck. If you can't handle that, R, then stay under the porch and stop trying to run with the big dogs.