George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

There, I gave this subtopic a subtitle.I think Al Frankin is too strongly connected to the left (I will vote for him if he runs for the Senate).I think Molly Ivins may also have too much of a leftist leaning. As I understand it, she was the one who popularized referring to GWB as "Shrub", although she credits Jim Hightower (another moderator candidate?) with coming up with the term.Perhaps Bill Maher is the cross the board political cynic that could do the job.Moose{Every now and then I remember to select the non-admin mode. This message was not one of those times. ID changed by edit.}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-21-2004 01:01 AM

She is a very, very funny (and, by definition, smart) political writer.She's also a Texan.I think you would like "Bushwhacked", and I like her older book, "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?" a lot, too.

looks like message #11 is the last one that still includes a bare smidgion of the topic.let's start with Bush's military record ... if anyone can find it ... ?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Bush might actually have a valid claim to the term "outsider". Seeing as how he has, after all, spent a great deal of his term outside his office, on vacation.

Actually it might be interesting to have Willam F Buckley as moderator.Although a conservative he doesn't seem to have too much fondness for Bush's policies, and might be able to pick at both sides equally.From what I saw of him on his debate program he was pretty fair too.Maybe a Maher, Buckley panel.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Interesting that we have several people that can spout off neocon propoganda about Kerry (which are contradicted by facts) and yet they cannot seem to provide anything of value here to say that shrubbykins is qualified.What does that tell you about his qualifications if nobody knows what they are?Of course there is always his resume ....
see http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.htmlheh.added by edit: just found this gem ... want to buy a bridge?
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/a_bridge_in_brooklyn.htmlThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08-24-2004 10:13 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I voiced my op on B last time around but since then the war came on and the ordanance"" cited in the book EVERYTHING AND MORE has not been used here so there is nothing yet but the propaganda en mass of only a change in order from nuclear, chemical and biologial to biologial, chemical and nuclear. Neither of which saying said anything any cleaer c/e wise. It would be possible to talk about stem cells however but my next post does away with this in principle (as to absolutes/origins) as you might or might not be able to follow (it is 8 point type of 4 pages length) so I am trying to shorten it a bit or two.

Stopping stems cell research in the US (so we fall behind the rest of the world) in spite of the call for this research from bipartisan groups is a reason to vote for him? Or is it because of an apparent conflation of the war with some biblical reference?

Not exactly.I had thought before the last cycle that Bush &might& have been able to get rid of some of the things we talk about here on EVC but instead there has been an INCREASE in topic posting ability. This is a good thing for us evcers but not so much for those who first encounter the problem first hand. I was over at True Seekers when 911 happened and in fact I came up with the saying "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny because Browninan Motion is not reciprocally(mutually) independent of gravity fall". I am only now getting around to writing about the 'mutual' part but I really dont think I have gotten as much acrossed to you all as I know I have to myself so....as far as "qualifications" go.... I saw the pic of the two applicants at YALE and I am just as disgusted with the both guys as I am with all the new CORNELL students that arrived this past week- The whole "debate" is a problem but I do think he is "qualified" as far as Chomsky's 20% of manufactured consent goes. And I did think that it was OK to "ban" stem cell research. I had a bit of experinece with sterile techinque and in vitro fertilization of cow eggs with attempts in the science of reimplantation and the BASIC SCIENCE is sooooooooooooooo far back here that while I have not looked in detail at the issue of adult vs juvenile stem cells, but there needs to be SOME kind of RESTRAINT (I had hoped for a issue on evolution and not cell physiology) to prevent the schools from just turning out the B's & K's of the world without dealing with the things THAT ARE NOT PROBLEMS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS but instead ARE the LEGACY of the 60s generation. The relation of humanites to sciences did not solve it so it happens politically instead instead in my day I was hospitalized over all this. I dont think THAT will happen today but all we were doing in cloning was to RANDOMLY mix as many cells as we could get from dead cow ovaries with as many chemicals as we could find on the shelf and see if MORE embryos made it past the Blastula.I dont know that stem cell research is MUCH more advanced than this. I have theoretical reasons to doubt some of the claims but I am still trying to factor in Gladyshev's position of being FOR them.I know I have rambled. Yes I will likely vote for GW but having located the "delusion" I really wish my last twenty years were done over again. Who knows, If I was able to "turn back time" I would be a Democrat I almost signed up as then. It didnt happen that way for me however.

there is some indications that some things that fetal stem cells can do that adult ones cannot. diversity of source is the main problem with the limits. california is looking at state funding of stem cell research, I am sure to keep scientists working in california labs rather than move abroad. the limit does nothing to stop the research, rather it just means it is not done here, and americans will not be the first to benefit. it saddens me to think that children born today with some medical problems could see solutions in their lifetimes (diabetes for one)

I think Charlie rose would be a good moderator or even Bill Moyers.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 08-24-2004 09:21 PM

There was also "some" indication that mouse cells could pass the cell block stage where sheep could not but this did not work eventually with cows. This "some" is something like the difference between a Freshaman and Sophmore not something to differentiate US Presidential Candidates. If biologists KNEW how cells divide (as Croizat suggested) and Georgi has proposed works mechnically then we might be in a position to make some better policy. But what exactly did they find out? Was it any better than that some chemicals (growth homones) work better in mice than lambs? Do they know how to know ahead of time which cells to pick up that will do the best of the better in terms of dividing? I never googled it so I dont know. Regardless it is not the issue I had hoped GW would have had to have answered aka e---/c but that also did not happen in our time so far. Perhaps the next generation will finally get this chance.

There may be some part of the cell division information (DNA, RNA, ribosome ... ?) that is {discarded / modified / overwritten} during the cell division process (is this buried in the 'garbage genes' that make up most of the DNA?) such that "clones" (of the current type) will not be truly successful until this is known. Certainly there is a fundamental difference in the results of these processes from the natural process (which is also easier and more fun ).{add by edit}: This would likely result in some differential degree of success between different species, likely related to specialization.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-25-2004 07:22 PM

whatever keeps saying that his 'Kerry' topic is not about Bush ... but he doesn't defend him here either.No defense? Not much surprise, imho. After all ... too many lies, too many mistakes, too much incompetence, too little for real Americans (rich ceo types are not Americans imho -- it's a little thing about "all men are created equal" being not just ignored but trampled and savaged).bush's behavior during vietnam makes whatever's and hangdog's criticism of Kerry more than a little hypocritical, blind, ignorant, stupid or insane.one has to wonder what anyone can say to defend bush.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

whateverDoes George Bush enforce the laws of the land?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion