Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Forgive me if I say "I told you so"

  1. #1
    Senior Member bill1938's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    New York

    Forgive me if I say "I told you so"

    Forgive me if I say "I told you so"
    I warned this forum many times before the selection of G. Bush. I told you the compassionate conservative would ban fetal or esc research and that I felt Reagan, Bush and Bush lite would keep us paralyzed. The democrats were backing the research. Our leaders are in Australia right now because of this immoral self righteous medical research ban.
    I also told you we would have recession and deficits (debt). I think they like deficits "as far as the eye can see" because then there will be no money for Social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). They want private industry to handle these programs. (Do you want to belong to a HMO, I sure as hell don't.)
    Sending America's youth to die in Iraq, for what? Oil, regime change, weapons of mass destruction? I think it is a convenient way to cover his butt for not getting Bin Laden. We can contain Iraq through the U.N.and NATO and isolation (sanctions).We did it with Cuba and Russia. If he decides to try to hurt us, then we have the strength and power to destroy Iraq 1000 times over. Right now we have to get Bin Laden and the Al Queda organization. We can squeeze out Sadaam the tyrant, later.
    I don't get it. Tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 % of Americans and put our homeland in debt? (a house in debt is a weak house). Where is their sacrifice and patriotism? How much do these greedy people need? States now have to cut education and Police and state troopers (first responders against terrorism) because of the present economy and deficit. He has not delivered the funds he promised last year.
    Are you better off now, than you were three years ago? I don't think so.

  2. #2
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    beaumont tx usa
    bill on the other side of your arguement is that their is no fetal or esc cells in your nose but we still dont see any mucosa transplants. besides i rather see mucosa transplant trials versus fetal trial since fetal trial already happened.

  3. #3
    Originally posted by DA:

    bill on the other side of your arguement is that their is no fetal or esc cells in your nose but we still dont see any mucosa transplants. besides i rather see mucosa transplant trials versus fetal trial since fetal trial already happened.
    DA . . . we need to see both. Bush is dead wrong on therapeutic cloning and he knows it, but he can't afford to lose the conservative right. Without the conservative right secure in his pocket, unless the economy turns around, he is going to be destroyed in his re-election bid.

    Politics are king. I'm an independent. . . which means I vote on my issues . . and right now . . . the cure is my issue. If Bush wants to pick the wrong side of that issue my sincere hope is that he loses the next election. If he comes around to lifting the bans before the election . . . then then I'm all his.

  4. #4
    Can I suggest that there is no use crying over spilt milk? President Bush is doing what he thinks he must and we can only hope that an invasion will not be necessary and that, if war is necessary, it is quick and bloodless.

    I get the impression from reading the Australian press that President Bush's state of the union speech has been quite successful in turning around a number of people. Before his speech, a large majority of Australians opposed the decision to go ahead without UN support.

    After the speech, I think that voices are beginning to emerge in support of Australia's prime minister in his decision to commit troops if America goes ahead. Two scenarios face the Prime Minister. The first is that the U.S. successfully extracts Saddam Hussein in a bloodless coup. In such a situation, Australia will not want to be left out of the victory dance. The second is that the U.S. forces go in and body bags start to come out. In this situation, I think that there will be substantial sympathy for America's position and a strong feeling that Australia should have been standing by their ally and friend's side in the struggle.

    I have no way of knowing of course what the truth is and I am sorry that the rhetoric has focussed so much on regime change instead of disarmament. However, I think that President Bush has made a persuasive case for disarmament.


  5. #5

    "Can I suggest that there is no use crying over spilt milk? President Bush is doing what he thinks he must and we can only hope that an invasion will not be necessary and that, if war is necessary, it is quick and bloodless."

    My eyes have seen, and my hands have touched the face of the victims of this madman...nothing will be quick enough, nor will it be bloodless...however hard we hope.

    But what can we do......


    ...and she lived happily ever after...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001

    conspiracy theory anyone?

    Stating the obvious gains a frightening importance in a propaganda
    war.When's that information age coming again?

    the American plan
    by John Pilger

    The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and
    individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more
    than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America
    to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some
    catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".
    The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor",
    described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since
    exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when
    far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American
    "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New
    American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the
    Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan
    administration with those of the current Bush regime.
    One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed
    Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I
    mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in
    describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is
    total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out
    there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will
    do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just
    let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't
    try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our
    children will sing great songs about us years from now."
    Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American
    Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president,
    Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary,
    I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's
    education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan.
    These are the modern chartists of American terrorism.
    The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy,
    forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in
    all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by
    $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major
    theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop
    "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national
    priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power,
    Iraq should be a target. And so it is.
    As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were
    dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the
    unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
    How has this grand strategy been implemented?
    A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob
    Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of
    the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.
    On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the
    hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to
    Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a
    principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was
    temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state,
    persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move
    against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option.
    If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000
    people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.
    Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In
    last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote
    that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called
    together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them
    "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she
    compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war.
    Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to
    all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal
    oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped
    the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions
    of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He
    has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if
    necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass
    destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.
    In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin
    describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This
    "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the
    United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".
    In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States.
    This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President
    Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with
    bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as
    justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution.
    You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly
    dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The
    thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the
    prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept
    our position".
    "Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have
    never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at
    the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie
    that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to
    "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube
    station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are
    black propaganda.
    This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere
    ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.
    The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of
    modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no
    admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of
    perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's
    international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support
    murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of
    American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long
    for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.
    With thanks to Norm Dixon and Chris Floyd

  7. #7
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    beaumont tx usa
    lars...i as much as anyone wants to see technology speed ahead. sometimes i feel i was born 100 years too early. i dont think esc is all that important and each year they become less important. if FOR EXAMPLE asc and esc prove to be a cure for sci in the same day, asc would be used instead of esc. i dont like fighting these big unwinnable wars. roe v wade will never be over turned, therefore stop abortion with effective birth control. esc will never be fully embraced, therefore go around the problem with asc. i want the quickest least resistant path toward a cure. fighting for esc is neither quick or path of least resistant.

  8. #8
    Senior Member mk99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    toronto, canada
    " i want the quickest least resistant path toward a cure. fighting for esc is neither quick or path of least resistant."

    What if ASC is 5 years behind ESC technology. Are you OK with witting in your chair for 5 extra years because this is the "Path of least resistance"? It's probably a hypothetical question... but it may not be. What if only ESC gives enough regeneration to make you 80% normal whereas OEG & all others can only make you 15% normal. Then what?

    DA I read recently that Bush has approx 9% support in the African-American community. I was surprised it was even that high. Did you vote many times? -)

  9. #9
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    beaumont tx usa
    mko...asc is not far behind. last year it was reported that asc can and has same capibilities of esc. but i still preferr oeg over asc and esc.

    mko...only 42% of african americans voted, that leaves 33% for democrats. and since deomcrats told blacks that bush will bring back slavery, and if your stupid enough to believe that, why not vote against bush.

  10. #10
    What frustrates me the most is that it is not Republican or Democrat. . . It's both. It would be real easy if you could pick a side and count on seeing more results, but that's not the case. They both seem to find every way possible to add red tape and inefficiencies that bog down the system.

    And whether it is OEG,ESC,ASC or what ever. . . There has to be a better way to speed up the research and get these damn politicians who know little about Healthcare out of decision making process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts