at least he gave them a chance to live, instead of killing them off.
lets kill your children off and see how you like it.

you are all obviously heartless..

oh and to whoever made the comment about the people that are VOLUNTEERING to be in Iraq…

thats right VOLUNTEERING, there is no draft suckers….
so stop complaining..they are there because they want to be.

my gosh you guys are sickening…

and did you know that Bush has given more money to Stem cell research that ANY president…..

the only reason he vetoed was because of all the ones that were dying and being thrown away…

look it up…

“Boys and girls are not spare parts
…until old enough to go into the military”

Okay. I’ve got a pretty direct analogy for you… it should immediately clarify why your argument doesn’t hold up. If it doesn’t, then at least it will for anyone else who hasn’t figured it out already – anyway, here’s the analogy, try to keep up:

The Internet subsisted for years on government funds, connecting research labs important university resources together, among other things – it was called DARPAnet /and later ARPAnet – Funded by the US Government for years using federal tax dollars before it got off the ground and became essentially self-sustaining (in the private sector) – look what a waste that was… the Internet is pointless, isn’t it? Isn’t that why corporate sponsership was almost entirely non-existent in the first decade or so of it’s existence?

iacomo, were you aware that the Defense Department takes 25% of the profits from the sale of the ‘Pink Ribbon’ postage stamp, that is used to fund Breast cancer research?

Get your facts straight

The highly popular breast cancer stamp raises money for breast cancer research. Thirty percent of the funds raised go to the Department of Defense (DOD) breast cancer research program, which actively solicits the perspectives of women living with breast cancer and breast cancer advocates. The remaining seventy percent is given to the National Institutes of Health, who then directs it to the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/GetInformed/FAQPolitics.html#Q7

So … they don’t “take the profits” … they get 30% of the funds raised to fund their cancer research program. The DoD isn’t just about the “tools of war” …

This is a patently false argument …

1) The US Highway system (which, by the way, many abhor) was government funded INFRASTRUCTURE, the creation of which is one government function. Secondly, how much profit is gained from Interstate 40 (NC to CA) … none … aside from roads like the NJ Turnpike or the NYS Thruway, roads have no inome stream. Private funding requires an upside … private companies can’t create toll roads (and states shouldn’t require such except to pay for the road).

2) The airlines were entirely private when they were created … unlike roads, airlines have the possibility for income production. Fiscal mismanagement and terrorist attacks have cause government bailouts (Amtrack as well), but these ventures weren’t driven or created with public money. The economy depends on all manners of public transport which is why the government bails them out. Big difference.

3) Again, family farms are subsidized by the government because, economically, the country wouldn’t have enough food otherwise. These controls and supports attempt to maintain a constant supply of basic necessities.

So … looking at all these, let’s compare embryonic stem cell research …

1) Is the opportunity for revenue available (unlike public works and infrasctructure)? Most certainly. Drug companies have major startup & sunk costs in every drug … that doesn’t chage their willingness to research because they understand the potential of success. Embryonic stem cell research is NO DIFFERENT. If the potential is GRAND the willingness to finance such will also be GRAND. That it is not, should be significant to you.

2) Is embryonic stem cell research in need of a bailout (a la the airline industry)? No. The benefit of the airline industry is “full and realized” … the benefit of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is “hypothetical and theorized”. The government WOULD jump in to fund ESCR were this not the case. Given the “moral” issues that are also inherent to many Americans, the basis for funding must be weighed heavily with the status of current research and the availability of other options. There are still other options to ESCR and results are still HIGHLY hypothetical. Private funding should be sufficient if these hypothetics are well grounded.

3) Is ESCR fundamental to our economy ( the way the food supply is). Not even close. In fact, there are MANY, MANY, MANY outlets for money to go first before we turn to public funding of ESCR.

Government funding does not delay development. Extremely high costs with sketchy and unproven benefits delay development. If the promise is there, companies will fund the research (notice how much they spend on cancer, AIDS, diabetes, vaccine, drug research). Start-up costs are incidental if the return on investment has vast potential.

How about this … would you be willing to channel funds from other research to fund ESCR. How about global warming studies (sorry, National Defense is a different line item … nice try)? Or national disaster prevention? The fact is, there ARE many places where government money should and can go FIRST. Let the private sector handle the research that has a financial benefit (unlike global warming research) and lets keep our tax dollars to things no private company would touch. If the private money isn’t there, the potential return is likely not ……. Cash is King (as many, many, many of you constantly point out).