[Ciberblade]

The DNC, well isn't this fun? Silly me, I thought I might hear about issues, and reasons to vote for Kerry. Ron Reagan talked of stem cells, other than that...?

The exploitation of the 12 year old little girl was a nice touch of "look, even the little children who don't care one way or the other wants Kerry elected"

Can the Democratic party get elected on emotions alone? And do we really want them to? They say...

We are for improving the environment!

Ok, how?

We want better results from education!

Ok, how?

We will help the nations poor!

Ok, how?

So on, and so on...

This is the reason I left the Democratic party, sure you can say things that sound nice, feed that emotional need to "help" or "fix" but if you do not have a plan to do so, then it's just a vote for people who can talk pretty & make you feel good at the same time. There is no direction, no guiding purpose to the politics, just "elect me" because you should "elect me". I hope the RNC does not go this way.

[sligo]

The DNC has adapted the ways of the RNC---Reagan brought us the era of non-substantiative political conventions--You only have your icon to thank for this.

[Ciberblade]

I have Garfield to thank for this?

You talk of Reagan being non-substantiative...I'm perplexed, or perhaps your just confused. Ronald Reagan: The economy (fixed), Building up of military (built), defeat of communist Soviet Union (defeated). These were his primary initiatives that earned him his landslide election - and unlike most politicians, he followed through with his promises.

[sligo]

No, I didn't say that Reagan was unsubtanative, I said his political conventions were. Read before you leap.

[Ciberblade]

Trust, I am far from leaping. This is the first convention I have decided to watch. Perhaps I am the one who is behind the times, or that I am stating the obvious.

I do see where you said conventions and not Reagan, I apologize, I should read slower.

[Ciberblade]

So is this what I should expect? A presidential election with no issues?

[LANMaster]

Should come as no surprise for people who know me, but .....
I support embryonic stem-cell research

However, Ron Reagan misrepresented the issue, politicized the issue after saying he wouldn't, and also misrepresented the science.

Federal funding for stem cell research has actually increased under President Bush.
* something he conveniently failed to mention *

The real objection that the Republicans have is the issue of human cloning at the complex level for things such as limb and organ replacement. And the exploitation of deliberate conception and abortion specifically for the purpose of collecting stem cells (abortion being the greatest source for mass quantities of stem cells) This is a legitimate concern. But since the abortion issue is so politicized, neither side will get their way, unfortunately.

Ron seemed to present the issue as if one simply scrapes a few cells off of one's own arm and causes them to multiply in a petri dish.

So, Ron wasn't completely honest about the science, the risks, or HIS OWN political agenda and his own "axe to grind".

That being said, I still support stem cell research. I simply wanted to point out the flaws in Ron Reagan's brilliantly delivered misrepresentation, and the complete fraud that this is not something political for him.

[plschwartz]

I expect that since Thersa Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards have spoken at the DNC can we expect less from the RNC
I expect Laura Bush would make a good presentation. But ha anyone ever even SEEN Mrs. Cheney Or does he have a "special room" he keeps her in under his Bunker?

[sligo]

Ms. Cheney has her PHD in literature I believe and is a very active campaigner for her husband. I despise what the woman stands for but can not belittle her great accomplishments--By the way, she did speak at the last convention.

Having said that, I have no desire to hear the spouses or children of any candidate speak--absolutely none. They are not running for office .

[Pacalis]

Lynne Chaney is probably better suited to be Vice President as her husband.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/mrscheney/bio.html

[sligo]

No, there will be issues--plenty of them. What you should expect is that neither the DNC or the RNC will have substanative conventions.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

So is this what I should expect? A presidential election with no issues?

It's symbolism over substance.

That should be the DNC platform.

I expect much more from the RNC, but the conventions have become just a pomp & ceremony exercize these days.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

I expect that since Thersa Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards have spoken at the DNC can we expect less from the RNC
I expect Laura Bush would make a good presentation. But ha anyone ever even SEEN Mrs. Cheney Or does he have a "special room" he keeps her in under his Bunker?

he he he Good one.
I hope Laura DOES speak. I consider her one of our best First Ladies in history.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Should come as no surprise for people who know me, but .....
I support embryonic stem-cell research

However, Ron Reagan misrepresented the issue, politicized the issue after saying he wouldn't, and also misrepresented the science.

Federal funding for stem cell research has actually increased under President Bush.
* something he conveniently failed to mention *

The real objection that the Republicans have is the issue of human cloning at the complex level for things such as limb and organ replacement. And the exploitation of deliberate conception and abortion specifically for the purpose of collecting stem cells (abortion being the greatest source for mass quantities of stem cells) This is a legitimate concern. But since the abortion issue is so politicized, neither side will get their way, unfortunately.

Ron seemed to present the issue as if one simply scrapes a few cells off of one's own arm and causes them to multiply in a petri dish.

So, Ron wasn't completely honest about the science, the risks, or HIS OWN political agenda and his own "axe to grind".

That being said, I still support stem cell research. I simply wanted to point out the flaws in Ron Reagan's brilliantly delivered misrepresentation, and the complete fraud that this is not something political for him.

I find it odd that nobody commented on this post.

[Pacalis]

Well Lan, since you mentioned it ;
Bush did in "01" allow scientist to experiment on sixty stem cells. Which with this limited number did not allow them to do very much. The scientist commented that they couldn't accomplish what they wanted with such a limited number and that some of the sixty cells were useless, making any attempt futile.
Also Stem Cell research in no way promotes abortion or any other such nonsense . Bush said that life should be protected, so apparently he didn't bother looking into it enough to know that the cells can be removed from the umbilical cord.
Some cultures have been known to eat the umbilical cord, other's have been known to keep them and even wear them.