Why did the red states elect Forrest Gump?
2006-07-18 12:48:31 · 23 answers · asked by louit4 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I already called him worse than that.
And Forrest Gump would have been an improvement.
2006-07-18 12:51:48 · answer #1 · answered by T Time 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not likely. I don't bad-mouth Presidents of the United States of America. It's bad form, bad manners, and classless. Further, it shows disrespect for the office, as well as the country.
It is possible to disagree without sinking so low.
In this matter, I don't happen to disagree. I think there are ways of using and researching stem cells that are obtained through umbilical cords, and I hope this work carries on. It has shown remarkable promise, and I am confident that amazing scientific progress will be made. However, I am opposed to creating human life in order to dissect/destroy it, regardless of the outcome.
Most of the disagreement regarding this topic boils down to when life begins. I believe life starts at conception.
This topic is not split down political lines. It is not a "Republican President" verses a "Democrat Opponent" topic.
2006-07-18 13:05:38 · answer #2 · answered by Genie_000 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he vetoes federal funding for growing humans and slaughtering them, I think I would support him more. If he vetoes federal funding for adult stem cell research, I would not be happy.
The real Forrest Gumps are the ones who think the only stem cells come from embryos, or that "stem cell research" automatically means "embryonic stem cell research." If you're going to whine and call people names, at least do some of your own research on the subject first.
2006-07-18 12:54:57 · answer #3 · answered by Tim 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I most definetely would NOT!
Stem cells, are taken from aborted fetuses...
Those fetuses that are intentionally grown, so that they can be aborted for thier "stem cells"...
I dont care what you say, ABORTION IS MURDER!!
I have seen how they rip those arms and heads off, and shoot needles up the brain stem to suck out the brains, just before birth!!!
Anyone who doesnt think this is barbaric, should REALLY have thier head examined!! A baby just less than a few seconds from being born, and they SUCK OUT THIER BRAINS!!
Just so that Mother and Father cant be "inconvinienced"???? What an agony for that child....
And DONT GIVE ME THAT... THE CHILD CANT FEEL PAIN... I rip YOUR ARM OFF, you will scream to high heaven!!! So does that child feel pain! Even more so, because thier nerve endings are "raw" and ours, after we grow older, get deadened...
No, I would applaud our President for doing the "right thing", even if these barbarians, dont "like" some one doing the right thing!!
I guess its just like the speed limit...you, that dont care about abortions, I will bet, dont practise going the "corrects" speed limit either, because you always have to 'push the envelope' and see how far you can go before getting caught!
Judgement day is coming ladies and gentlemen... Will your concious be clean and clear? Will "you" be washed in the Blood of the LAMB??? Instead of having the blood of innocent children on your hands?
I wish you well..
Jesse
2006-07-18 12:56:52 · answer #4 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I already thought that. I just read in Glimpses of the Devil by M. Scott Peck (the Road Less Traveled guy) that taking God's name in vain actually means that it's a sin to claim to be religious and hide behind false piety as a facade to cover up how evil you truly are. So Bush definitely seems like he's breaking the 3rd commandment--he's claiming that stem-cell research violates some right-to-life morals that he upholds.
But what about the lives of criminals, or soldiers, or innocent Iraqi citizens? Don't they have a right to life? I say you get to kill 'em all, or kill none of 'em. You don't get to say, well, fetuses should live, but not criminals, and euthanasia's wrong, but if it's a war, you can kill anybody in your path. He's hypocritical and using Christian values as an excuse, but if you're going to be a Christian, there are only two rules: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He doesn't give a s*** about his neighbors who could benefit from stem cell research and he doesn't love God because he's using his "religious" beliefs as an excuse for not supporting the research. He really just cares about maintaining the support of the religious right who don't like abortions.
I didn't vote for Bush, and I don't support him.
2006-07-18 13:03:03 · answer #5 · answered by SlowClap 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's amazing that the first excuse people come up with for is, "Duh, stem cells only come from aborted fetuses. Duh, abortion is bad. Do what you want with the child, but let it be born so I can stop caring. Duh..." But first off, stem cells come from fetuses, cord blood, and adults. And it is these stem cells that could be used in the future to treat or cure paralysis, cancer, and many other illnesses. Stem cells could very well be a living panacea! But the bible thumping Conservatives would rather no hope for them, "cuz it was God's will". Second, I'd think that if an abortion is done, why not make it worthwhile? I mean, it's so horrible that a rape victim wouldn't want to raise a living reminder of that day and end up starving or killing it, so if it comes to that dreadful abortion, why not use the stem cells to save one, no, several cancer patients, quadriplegics, or anything else?
2006-07-18 14:36:13 · answer #6 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was a wise decision. Thousands of sperm and ovum are lost every day by people not wanting to produce a child.
Should we hold women accountable for every month she doesn't have a baby. She produced an ovum? What about guys?
Should they go to jail every time sperm is wasted?
could the jails hold them all.
Forest Gump was a democrat and wanted to help people.
Don't know what color that was. Just a movie.
2006-07-18 12:53:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do I need to pay for funding? Veto 3/4's of the government and I'll actually think he's a hero.
2006-07-18 12:55:13 · answer #8 · answered by Rick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I already have. It will be a complete bonehead move BUT, to his credit, it will be the FIRST CONSERVATIVE thing he has done in office in six years.
The RED states???? Here is a news flash conservatives did not put Bush in office MODERATES did. Why??? because the Democrats didn't ( and still don't) have a platform.
2006-07-18 13:06:26 · answer #9 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I won't...and i tell you why. I don't agree with that decision. Among other decisions he has made. BUT, I do appreciate a leader that sticks to his guns. Does not back down. That is leadership. No one likes a yes man. No one likes a wishy washy guy in charge. I want to know where my leader stands (whether i voted for him or not-whether I agree with him or not).
He's our leader, he's in charge...get over it.
2006-07-18 12:53:30 · answer #10 · answered by Bruce B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋