Posted on 10/20/2005 6:17:41 PM PDT by furball4paws
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Chapter 1: The Threat IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, long before his reelection and even before he became a "wartime president," George W. Bush found himself in a political tight spot. He responded with a morsel of scientific misinformation so stunning, so certain to be exposed by enterprising journalists (as indeed it was), that one can only wonder what Bush and his handlers were thinking, or whether they were thinking at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research, and Bush's nationally televised claim—that "more than sixty genetically diverse" embryonic stem cell lines existed at the time of his statement—counts as one of the most flagrant purely scientific deceptions ever perpetrated by a U.S. president on an unsuspecting public. Bush's assertion, made on August 9, 2001, came as the president sought to escape a political trap of his own making. Campaigning in 2000, Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that taxpayer money "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos." The statement threw a bone to Bush's pro-life followers, who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings. Accordingly, these religious conservatives consider embryonic stem cell research—the study of excess embryos donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics—ethically abhorrent. But some prominent Republicans, such as Utah senator Orrin Hatch, favored the research because of its scientific promise. As the issue came to a head in the summer of 2001, Bush publicly agonized over what to do. Finally, he opted for a supposed compromise: he would allow federal funding, but only for research on preexisting cell lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at waronscience.com ...
Try to keep up.
I know I asked you guys to cool it, but I'd never hit the abuse button on anyone. I presume it had to do with your DU bit, but I've seen a lot worse, especially on Crevo threads. The mods have been rather unpredictable of late.
I would like to thank you for your apology.
I complained to the mods, but specifically exempted ZionistConspirator's post and also specifically said that I was -not- asking for your post to be deleted but that a warning post be made, as I have seen mods do on other occasions.
I also acknowledged that I might be touchy, having lost all family members in that branch of the family.
Since I did not ask the mods to delete your post, a couple of possibilities are that either someone else did or the mods were more disturbed by it than I was.
I'd be happy to have them post what I had written.
Well, I was really surprised there.
Believe it or not, post 301 was my attempt to keep the thread on topic. I failed big time on that one.
Sorry to have dragged down your thread.
see my post 323
I should have pinged you after your heads up post. I don't mind at all the DU accusations...my record stands for itself and I always feel that sort of stuff reflects back to those who post it.
I do react to any perception of anti-Semitism and acknowledge up front that I'm touchy. Not only is one branch of my family lost, there has been no trace whatsoever of what happened to them. That will not happen again on my watch.
I signed up on FR mostly to advocate on Second Amendment issues. Never expected to be caught up on crevo threads :-)
There ain't much wind left in it anyway.
Also, for the record, I was not accusing you of being a DU member or a troll. I was comparing your sensitivity to those who fake anger to negate another's contentions.
I would just assume chalking the whole thing up to misunderstanding, and getting back to hating each other for our beliefs;)
I'm not good at hating (smarty point to me, but true)...can we settle for infuriating?
"That's a delusional belief."
What is this amateur hour now? Perhaps you can prove your assertion.
"One can demonstrate gravity at any instant. One cannot call down divine action at any instant."
I can demonstrate who God is by pointing to the 4 Gospels where He's quoted. He said in Matt 12:38-39 "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, ""A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The sign of the prophet Jonah is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the bread prayed for in the "Lord's Prayer." That means one can call down divine action. If God doesn't live, I would have never known the Holy Spirit.
" Sorry, but no rational society has to accommodate itself to delusional belief systems."
What does this mean, Freedom has no worth, no value? Is Freedom not to be tolerated?
Wow. When you can't stand the head of the truth, you sure get nasty. But I am used to religious fanatics going hyper. It's their nature.
;-)
Because what you are saying is loaded with bias such that you intentionally misrepresent the issue and my posts. But that is the way of all good creationists.
I don't want kids in school to be taught that God is probably dead, Behe does. Nice of you to support his side given that both of us believe in evolution.
Ha!
You guys were getting a little too nice to each other there for awhile.
It doesn't. It does, however, claim to right to investigate these things. As of now, however, scientists do not understand them, and they are fully open about it.
no=know
arrrrghhh!
Evolution and gun ownership are both rational, experience-based ideas. If one topic attracts you, it's understandable that the other would too.
Typical religious zealot 'how to make up something in order to misrepresent someone else's posts' alert.
I never thought about it that way, but you're right.
Thanks for the Zen moment. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.