Why It’s Pointless to Argue With Many Conservatives

The article was beautifully bespeckalled jargon. However biased it actually is, it proposed that conservatives that have beliefs that have facts to back them up, are somehow wrong, in the face of other opinions.

The assumptions in the article was that Hussein's Iraq did not have the 550 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium that was found and sold to Canada. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

And from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, Bushes tax cuts increased my spending power, which increased federal revenue. As a direct effect from the tax cuts, I managed to buy two homes, and with those two homes, I paid taxes on each.

Now, switch the arguements. Put the liberals on established defensive grounds. Obama's socialized health care plan: democrats in congress that tout it, but decided to include proviso's that excuse them from the provisions and penalties from the program. What do you, or liberals do with this information? Parse it, or set it aside?

Basically, because something is said, doesn't mean that it must be believed, or that superior information that supersedes what is being proposed doesn't exist. We've all heard about the WMD's, and had time to collect enough information about it, some more than others.

In fact, what do you do with the knowledge that there was fissile material in Iraq? Do you dismiss it, and feel safer in the flock that believes otherwise, despite the public evidence?

************************

Let's start over. that was issue A. This is issue B.

Issue B is that you propose, by your title, that conservatives and liberals have different biases and different inputs. Negatory. They have different belief values, but they justify their beliefs in the same ways, with the same range.

Case in point; Stem Cell research. Under Bush, stem cell research was restricted, regulated, conditional and controlled. Under Obama, stem cell research is restricted, regulated, conditional and controlled. The opinions by both conservatives and liberals on how each president proceeded with the research is that it's somehow drastically changed, or that it was like night and day. Not so. The only things that has changed is the amount of knowledge from when Bush first addressed it to now, as a result of allowed research during Bush, and continued research under Obama, a linear progression.

(The stated positions on the subject by either president are not the same, but the results of the government restrictions by either administration are.)

Food for thought.

-=T=-

Thank you for that clarification.

However, the Obama administration is still a bottleneck for research funding and policy under moral guidelines, as was the Bush administration. Headlines such as “Obama Reverses Course, Lifts Stem Cell Ban” http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/story?id=… , seem do deny that any research happened under the Bush administration.

Furthermore, the expansion of research is a matter of course, once low end research was completed.

-=T=-

You are grossly mistaken on the subject of stem cell research not drastically changing.

While scientists may not create new lines with federal funding, Obama's policy allows the potential of applying for such funding into research involving the hundreds of existing stem cell lines as well as any further lines created using private or state funds. This is a massive expansion (21 lines to several hundred, merely at the moment) over the Bush Administration's limits.

Since I assume you are not well-versed in the biology at hand, I will attempt to explain why this is significant. Right now, the key difference between the 21 cell lines applicable under the Bush administration and the hundreds of lines available since this policy came into effect on July 7 of this year is this: Those 21 lines were all contrived from “normal” human DNA. Now there are several lines which have been created from DNA which is prone to genetic disorders, such as Huntington's and cystic fibrosis. Now scientists who are operating wholly or partially under federal money may explore these lines and their relationships with normal stem cells.

Whats more, this funding level is merely at the present day. If the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stops being contingent on the NIH's budget (perhaps in the Obama agenda, but not really known), its quite possible federal funding would cover this too.

Still a bottleneck, but it is a bottleneck that is orders of magnitude larger.


Using the site's HTML. which may appear incorrectly here, the article is titled:

<h1>Obama Reverses Course, Lifts Stem Cell Ban</h1>
<h2>President Signs Executive Order Approving Federal Funds for Stem Cell Research</h2>

That seems clear enough to me.


The point is that low-end research was stifled by being limited in cell lineage, and now it's not.