Stem Cell Research - First Veto...sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-07-19
In Reply to:
Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A04
President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections.
At a White House ceremony where he was joined by children produced from what he called adopted frozen embryos, Bush said taxpayers should not support research on surplus embryos at fertility clinics, even if they offer possible medical breakthroughs and are slated for disposal.
LINK/URL: Stem Cell Bill (full article)
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
stem cell research
Well, God help you if any of your family gets struck down with a debilitating disease that could be helped with stem cell research
Here's my reasoning on stem cell research
It's not been made illegal, it's simply not funded with federal money, i.e. taxpayers money. The pendulum has swung so far to the other side. There are lots of people who have serious objections to abortions and also stem cell research, because of their objection to using live embryos. People who want abortions have them paid for by people who don't believe in them. That's unfair. So, let the private market do the stem cell research and leave the taxpayers out of it. If you feel very strongly about it, donate your own money to those doing it in the private market.
I don't support stem cell research.
It will never see a dime of my money if I can help it.
Stem cell research breakthrough
Just read this on Comcast. Thought I would share. Very intesting and exciting stuff!
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/11/20/Stem.Cells/?cvqh=itn_stemcell
Stem cell research has started
I am so glad to see this has started. I know there must be loads of people who suffer maladies including strokes, spinal cord injuries and many, many more who have been waiting to start testing. I am very glad this has been overturned- now to get down to more business!
I'm conflicted about stem cell research.
I'm for it as long as there are limitations with how they get the stem cells - do they come from aborted babies? That I would have a problem with.
I don't have cancer, but there is a genetic background in my family for several different types, as well as muscular dystrophy, so I'm all for stem cell research as long as there are guidelines that are followed and Obama or any other president needs to make those guidelines clear.
Govt backing of stem cell research
I want stem cell research to go forward to help those with devastating illnesses. I do not want the embryos to be thrown away but rather put to good use. I really do not care what people with the opposite position say. This is my position and in my mind and heart and soul it is the right position. I care more for those who are already alive.
In a democracy, the majority rules and the majority of Americans want stem cell research to move forward with government backing. The debate, as far as I am concerned, is over. I am for it, others are not. Whether it is approved within the next two years or when finally a democratic president, who makes judgments and decisions fairly and based on what the people want and not what God has told him/her, it will be a reality within a few years.
Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.
I remember years and years ago when animal experimentation was being protested. I saw this fellow who was a soap opera actor. He was crying and crying because they wanted to stop torturing animals to find cures. His son had diabetes and he said they were THIS CLOSE to finding a cure. that had to be at least 25 years ago. Millions of animals have died and there is no cure for diabetes. So when does it end?
Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research
Finally! A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!
July 29, 2005
Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research
WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.
Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>
"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."
His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.
"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."
He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.
"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."
Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."
The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.
The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.
"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."
But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.
"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."
Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."
Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.
"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."
But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.
Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.
Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.
With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."
Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.
"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.
But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."
On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."
The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.
In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."
Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."
After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."
But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."
Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.
"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."
Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.
Michael J Fox admits he did not read the Missouri stem cell initiate. sm
This is exactly what I am talking about. He has no idea what the stem cell initiative says about cloning. But he is *quite sure* he would support it anyway. Frightening.
He doesn't have to veto any of them.
All he does is sign them all with a Presidential statement changing whatever he doesn't like about the law when he signs it, just like he did with the McCain torture bill. He signed it but amended it to add that he still reserves the right to torture.
He does what he wants, couldn't care less about Congress or Americans.
He said that he would veto it weeks ago.
It was a waste of time. Congress should have done better at being creative in making some changes. He told them he wouldn't pass it. Little putz. Anyhow, I am not crazy about the increased cigarette tax. Not that I smoke, just don't agree with the method. I think Congress better figure out pretty quick that they need to reduce spending or trim the fat off somewhere else before they will get funds for SCHIP. They are just being stubborn (that's ALL of them).
Veto pen. You seriously believe this freefall
When you guys get ready to examine the causes of this economic disaster in a truthful manner, will be happy to dignify that with a comment. You can run but you cannot hide or deny your way out of the fact that 90% of Bush is the real problem that your party needs to be dealing with and that is what voters are focused on.
If Obama was serious, VETO! But no, he
nm
I've always been for the line item veto.
It's a shame congress and the senate because they don't want any pork taken out, especially if it's their personal pork.
We should all get together and send a piece of pork to each member if we could afford it....or maybe a whole pig (they're cheaper). LOL
Right, took 2 years with George's veto pen, uh-huh.......twilight zone......nm
x
Until the president gets line item veto power....
it will never happen. And heaven forbid if the president should have line item veto power. There would be no more bridges to nowhere, no more money for crucifixes in jars of urine.
The president getting the power of line item veto is as far fetched as having a viable 3rd party alternative to the Pubs and Dems.
Is the new legislature talking about stem cells of aborted fetuses?...sm
Because I am a pro-life liberal. I don't rattle any cages about what other people chose to do with their bodies because I believe 90% of the time a person who choses to abort will not be a good parent anyway and will probably do worse to the child once outside the womb. Yes, I do believe a horid life can be worse than death before full development. The child will more than likely be in abject poverty, social and mental deprivation, and on and on. But more importantly, I think people should be more responsible to not get pregnant in the first place when they don't want kids.
Having said all that we do live in an age where abortion is legal, and like I said if they are going to dispose of the fetus anyway, why not use the stem cells to give hope to a Christopher Reeves of the world.
Now, when you talk about cloning and reproducing parts and such I'm not agreeing with that. That's taking it too far IMHO.
Stem Cells - I can't think of one reason why they should throw the extra cells away, rather than sav
x
You had better do some better research. sm
Hillary, at the cost of millions of dollars from her special forces team (none of whom knew a thing about writing a health care bill, including herself) put together an over 1300 page "booklet" which was such a dismal failure, not even the democrats would get behind it. Ted Kennedy wants socialized medicine. Ask Canada and England what they think of socialized medicine. You really can't go around blaming republicans for everything without at least doing some research.
did my research
Oh, I did my research and I lived through the times when President Clinton and the First Lady tried to get a universal health plan. The republicans wanted nothing to do with it. Socialized health care? Better than no health care for millions of americans. At least President Clinton got the country talking about universal health care, more than Bush has done. All Bush has done is push his programs that benefit the rich. Example, his tax cuts. The rich got over 91,000 dollars in tax cuts each, the working class got 200 to 300 dollars, I didnt get anything. Bush is a disaster and I think you need to do a bit of research. Conservative equals not wanting change. Liberal means wanting to change and progress and move forward with new ideas, plans, bettering the country. You conservatives are stuck in the 1940s and 1950s mentality. Gotta tell ya, time moves on and if you dont move and grow with it, you will be left behind. It is obvious conservatism is a dying ideology, liberalism and sharing among the people of the world is the ideology of the future.
Do a little research on...
the bombings in Yugoslavia and the targeted bombings of civilians. Secondly, one coulud make an argument (you certainly would have if GWB had been president from 1992 until 2000) that Al-Qaeda ratched up it's attacks and most certainly planned the entire 9/11 attack during Clintons administration. From the 1993 failed WTC attack right on through all the rest, until the end of term, one cannot even argue that Bin Laden was left unchecked and unhindered.
Do some research
If you really care about why Jews believe life begins with the first breath, do some research, starting in the Old Testament. There is a lot of information available on the internet. I don't care to explain it all, when I really don't think you give a hoot about what I believe.
Basically, it is a matter of soul. We don't believe one has a soul until we are born and take our first breath.
Please...do the research....
even those scientists in search of grants who agree with him for that express purpose, conclude that he "might be a little off" on some things...saying that the catastrophic things he implies are imminent are MILLENIA away...that means thousands of years. Fossil fuels will be long gone by then and so will we. So...has NOTHING to do with peace.
It's you who needs to research/think
but I won't take any bets on either!
Are you really unable to follow what is meant by "MCcain voted 'with Bush'...? here's a clue: its not meant to be taken literally. MCCAIN VOTED FOR BUSH POLICIES 90% of the time. Do you still not get it?
And, my post wasn't about the DEMOCRATS - it was about McCain's voting record! But change the subject if you want...
anything but respond to the factual point(s)I made.
After you go do your research, come back and report WHETHER OR NOT McCain supported Bush's policies (voted for) anything near the 90% range...
For the record, I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT, nor do I defend them.
All you have to do is the research...
Democrats were at the top of this, Democrats passed the "reform" that was the straw that broke the camel's pack. Smoke and mirrors, deny, deny. It's all out there for anyone to see...Raines and Gorelick. Cleaned up at the American peoples' expense.
This one isn't. Research it. nm
nm
research it.....sm
I don't have time to do it for you, but all these CEOs of all these big corps that have gone under? Liberal democrats, probably all of them. Just look around for the info. It's there.
Makes me sick the way they blame George Bush and the Republicans, when it was the liberal congress getting their pockets lined to keep legislation from passing that would have kept fannie and freddie from happening, and whole boatload of other crap from happening.
Blame game...blame the republicans, when it's really yourself that caused the problem.
At least I just heard McCain finally get some kahunas and called Obama on his ties to all this.
You are SO right! I did some research on
this myself in the Journal of Socialist Affairs in America, and this was undeniably what was happening. A similar view is put forth on the unifyingamerica.org website. George Soros, Bill Rudgear, and Jonah Winston have just GOT to go!
He are a few. Do a little more research yourself instead...sm
of putting your faith in what a right-wing rag has to say. If your read all those requisitions for grants they were all for worthy causes in a poor Chicago neighborhood, children/youth/elderly programs. Because there was no oversight on how the money was spent it appears that some of the grant money that went to 1 of the organizations may have been misspent and is under investigation. This happened way back in 2000. In 2006 when Obama was no longer in the Illinois legislature, this same organization was given an additional $20,000. Do you want to blame Obama for that too? I venture to say I have done more research on the subject than you have.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/1184049,CST-NWS-watchdog25.article
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/DCEO_1.pdf
http://www.illinois.gov/pressreleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=1378
Research is everything.......it keeps getting
Don't forget that factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation that employed Obama in Chicago.
do some research
For starters, they have the highest tax in the nation (10.25, as I recall my sister telling me, who lives there). Major militants. Their idea of replacing a retired politician is neoptism. I don't recall the name, but my sister was telling me about it. They also pay big-time for car emission tests, stuff like that. Do some research and see what you think. After all, it's the home of Rev. Wright & Father Phleger.
Research this.....
Perhaps there are SOME out there who are beginning to get 'the picture'.
The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised "Meet The
Press'. and the author is employed by none other than the Washington Post!!
Yeah......the Washington Post of New York and Los Angeles Times fame!! Must
say that I'm dually impressed..................
From Sunday's Televised "Meet the Press" Senator Obama was asked about his
stance on the American Flag. Obama Explains National Anthem Stance
Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked
Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is
played. The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United
States Code,
Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem
when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected
to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At
the very least, "Stand and Face It"
Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, "As I've said about the flag pin, I
don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of
people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And
the anthem itself conveysa war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in
air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less
bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that
were our anthem, then I might salute it."We should consider to reinvent our
National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies
hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the
level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of
warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas
peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our
governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end
hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and
a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed
upon the nations of Islam anunfair injustice. My wife disre spects the Flag
for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag
burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has herviews and I have
mine". Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of
the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to
bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My
wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed,
CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.
WHAAAAAAAT the HEL**!!!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our
next President.I, for one, am speechless.
Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post
Maybe YOU should research it
http://www.startribune.com/local/31213379.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUMEaPc:E7_ec7PaP3iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
Do a little research
for yourself. I'm sure you can find a snippet on the internet somewhere. Find it and hear whatever you want to hear or hear what was said, no concern of mine what you want to think.
Do you ever do your own research?
//
Do your research if you want
The information came from the Teamster's newsletter. The issues and voting dates are there in the previous post. Shouldn't be hard to verify the Wasilla Police Dept, also.
Okay, my research says -
publicly funded hospitals cannot refuse abortions, privately owned hospitals can.
Doctors and support staff can refuse to perform abortions or to assist physicians in abortions.
Thank you...I will research this a bit more
before I make a decision, but I at least don't believe that anyone placed it there to harm anyone on purpose. Unfortunately, these things do happen, even here at home, i.e., Hinkley, which is not too far from where I grew up. Not to say that it is okay, but certainly I don't think it is intentional. Just handled poorly once discovered. Thank you for your kind thoughts and wishes and, of course, I pray that my husband is not subjected to such things. I might feel differently if he were. I am with you about what military receives in return. We need a raise!!! Hope you have a Merry Christmas!
You need to do some research
The following appeared in the Durham, N.C., local paper as a letter to the Editor on Feb. 15, 2004.
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11!
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Think about it!
Research?
So your idea of research is reading a Bloomberg post and then calling people names? Under whose watch did the bank failures occur? Under whose watch was deregulation an obsession?
Chavez is almost as crazy as the GOP, so I take anything he says as seriously as anything the congressional GOP says.
Like it or not, if banks are insolvent then the entire worldwide economy grinds to a stinking halt. You think global unrest is bad now? You ain't seen nothing yet.
I hope your transcribing expertise is a little better than your understanding of politics and economics.
Sheesh...
Do more research...
They have found a gene.
Please do some more research - nm
x
Yep, you did your research......(sm)
too bad it didn't have anything to do with the topic being discussed. 
Yep, you did your research......(sm)
too bad it didn't have anything to do with the topic being discussed.
Yes, I am also going to research some of these s/m
things brought up in the film. As far as believing if our government is capable of risking and taking lives of their own people, I absolutely do believe that it has been done many times in the past, so Bush and Cheney are by far not the only potential villains to the story. I have a good friend who is writing a book based on her brother's life (he died last year) detailing some of his experiences being involved as an operative connected to the US Military as well as the CIA. and he confided these goings on to her before he died, and she said it is extremely explosive stuff. I had her watch the movie just to get her opinion, and she related to me that this stuff is not at all surprising to her, based on the stories she heard from her brother.
Regardless of what you might believe or not believe about this movie, it is provocative and thought provoking and very interesting in all the "coincidences" that seem to be wrapped around these events and bears more than just a glancing interest by anyone who is concerned about the state of our country today.
So thank you for at least checking it out for yourself and not jumping on me for just trying to open up some sort of grown-up dialogue on this.
Also, if you do you research...
he cannot possibly raise enough to pay for it all, even close, by just taxing the so-called "rich." And..by the way...the so-called rich are also most of the employers in this country. People who pay no taxes and can't afford their own health care certainly don't employ anyone. I sure don't. Believe me, common sense tells me and should tell you that you are going to have to bear part of the burden, unless you join the ranks of those who don't pay federal income taxes.
I did some research on this and what I found is that he DID NOT
get paid for this case, it was pro bono.
"Roberts' work on the case was one of several he helped handle as part of his pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson, a prominent Washington law firm that expected its partners to volunteer their time to assist in community service.
Source - LA Times
In his answers to the Senate questionnaire, Roberts talked more generally about his volunteer work.
"My pro bono legal activities were not restricted to providing services for the disadvantaged," he wrote, explaining that he often donated his time and expertise on projects by working behind the scenes."
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Uy77hebjJ60J:www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi%3FArtNum%3D103923+roberts+paid+pro+bono&hl=en
You might want to research first before posting.
According to Forbes, Bush's net worth, including real estate is $15 million. His only home, in Crawford, is appraised at $988, 353.
In contrast, Associated Press, published the following story, which has Kerry's net worth at $33,000,000. Twice that of Bush. He has a $700,000 yacht. Also, his homes are enumerated below. That's homes as in plural and they are all multimillion dollar homes.
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Published March 23, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS
From a sailing mecca to a ski resort, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, enjoy the trappings of their wealth in at least five homes and vacation getaways across the country valued at nearly $33 million.
Some are private escapes for the family, while others serve as prime spots to host fund-raisers and exclusive gatherings for wealthy donors. All reflect the couple's status -- he is a four-term Massachusetts senator, she is heiress to the $500 million family ketchup fortune.
Each home has a place in the family's life, with its own history and mission, from the preppy island of Nantucket and Boston's Beacon Hill to the Pittsburgh countryside, the Idaho mountains and the nation's capital.
Mr. Kerry is on a weeklong break from the campaign at the home in the wooded mountains of Ketchum, Idaho. Located near the banks of the Big Wood River, the nearly $5 million house is a reassembled barn, originally built in England in 1485 and brought to Idaho by Mrs. Kerry's late husband, H. John Heinz III. The Pennsylvania Republican senator died in a plane crash in 1991.
The Heinz family has had the house since 1966 and traditionally spends time there in August and during the Christmas holidays -- often throwing a New Year's Eve party capped with fireworks.
While Ketchum provides a respite from politics, the tony Beacon Hill brownstone in Boston has been a more frequent campaign way station for Mr. Kerry and his wife. It is the only residence that is theirs as a couple. And, assessed at nearly $7 million, it is the residence that Mr. Kerry mortgaged last year to finance more than $6 million in loans to his campaign.
Their other homes, ranging in value from more than $3 million to nearly $9.2 million, belong to Mrs. Kerry and predate her 1995 marriage to the Massachusetts senator. Several are still listed under the name of her late husband.
Formerly part of a convent, the five-story, 12-room Boston town house -- with six fireplaces, a rooftop deck and an elevator -- is Mr. Kerry's main residence. It is where he is registered to vote and is located blocks from the Statehouse.
While that is their newest home, Mrs. Kerry has had a Massachusetts presence for years.
Just beyond the historic Brant Point Lighthouse in Nantucket's harbor is Mrs. Kerry's $9.1 million waterfront estate. Rimmed by tall hedges, with a wide deck and a lawn that reaches to the beach, the three-story, five-bedroom manse was the site of the couple's Memorial Day weekend wedding in 1995.
Since then, the house has been used for campaign retreats and Democratic receptions for the party's big-money donors.
While Mr. Kerry calls Boston home, Mrs. Kerry's base is Pittsburgh, which is her longtime residence and the headquarters of the Heinz Family Philanthropies, which she chairs.
Located on a $3.7 million, 90-acre family farm in Fox Chapel, the home is a nine-room white colonial fronted with six columns, and at the end of a steep drive, hidden from the road by a curtain of woods. The property includes a deep-red, nine-room carriage house.
This is where Mrs. Kerry raised her three sons and where she is registered to vote.
Their fifth home, in Georgetown, is perhaps the most utilitarian, and is necessary to accommodate the time they spend in Washington when the Senate is in session. Also belonging to Mrs. Kerry, the 23-room, $4.7 million town house, with its wide stairway and landscaped courtyard, is filled with antiques, fine art and family photos.
HOMES SWEET HOMES
Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, divide their time among five homes across the country.
•Boston: A five-story, 12-room Beacon Hill town house that serves as Mr. Kerry's main residence. Assessed value: $6.9 million.
•Nantucket, Mass.: A three-story, five-bedroom waterfront retreat on Brant Point. Assessed value: $9.18 million.
•Washington, D.C.: A 23-room town house in Georgetown. Proposed 2005 assessment: $4.7 million.
•Ketchum, Idaho: A ski getaway converted from a reassembled barn near Sun Valley. Assessed value: $4.9 million. Mrs. Kerry also owns two adjoining lots valued at $1.5 million and $1.8 million.
•Fox Chapel, Pa.: A nine-room colonial on nearly 90 acres in suburban Pittsburgh. The property also includes a nine-room carriage house. Assessed value: $3.7 million.
Spoken by somebody who KNOWS how to RESEARCH.
nm
Doing research at the Huffpost is like...
Learning to be a doctor from watching General Hospital. Mostly fluff to the left.
|
