I cana't figure out what his position is. First he says that Bush is funding research on those baby's cells, and he says Clinton didn't. Then he says that adults stem cells are better than those baby ones. Then he argues that his research guys are better than anyone elses reseach guys. But I for won, think that why not just do research on all them stem cells, baby, adult, teenage, whatever.

What is wrong with doing research on all those tpyes of stem cells Mr. Rightwinger.?

rightwinger's political philosophy is to agree with whatever the boy king says. Unfortunately, Bush is just pandering to the extreme religious nutjobs on this issue so his position is a bit incoherent. That leaves rightwinger defending a policy that makes no sense. Luckily he has a great deal of experience doing that.

I've decided he must be a shill because there is no way anybody that capable believes that incoherent crap.

-- Modified on 7/20/2006 11:31:59 PM

Stamina, how can anyone take you seriously when your last several day's posts are riddled with misspellings?  Not a sign of a highly educated person.....as evidenced by your political position.

Either you are hiding or you are a fraud. Either way it makes you a coward.

How many alias' do you have?

It is such a pussy thing to do.

-- Modified on 7/21/2006 8:01:33 PM

...after all, he's 'moethebully'....LOL

Between George W. and 'moethebully', some of our key opponents on the right are the types who use to strongarm smaller kids for their lunch money.

You know -- Chicken Hawks who are gung-ho for war when someone else is fighting it. They are sorry excuses for human beings.


-- Modified on 7/21/2006 9:23:24 PM

You're forgetting that the Sun revolves around the Earth.  And, shhhhh....The Earth is flat!

P.S.  There is no "Global Warming".  Just ask the half of the city of St. Louis that is living without any electricity.

I was just making an observation as it seems you have strong opinions and beliefs and in this political forum when your side of the 'discussion' is full of typos or grammatical errors, it deflates your credibility.  Responding to my post by calling me a "fraud", a "coward" and a "pussy" proves that you can't or won't discuss things civilly.  These boards are for discussion and witty banter, not hateful insults, and shouldn't be taken so seriously.  In a post below, you call people who disagree with you as "sorry excuses for human beings."  That is hardly a mature discussion of differences.  You have so much hate for those who don't share your opinions that you can't respond to anything without insults.  An intelligent person wouldn't resort to name-calling and insults....perhaps your name should be bully.  My bet is you will respond to this with more venomous diatribe.

To answer your question:  Stanima and the other hysterical Dems are going to attack Bush on not funding embryonic stem cells.  First, he is funding them (fact).  Second, Clinton didn't fund them and gave the same exact reasons most opponents gave (fact).  I find the hypocricy jarring.  If this was so important how come no Dem was screaming about it in the 90s?  Wouldn't we have been further along with the research if Clinton approved it.  They will choose to ignore this fact because it doesn't suit them politically.

The point about the adult stem cells is that the Dems are making it seem as embryonic stem cell research is the only option available.  They are saying terms like "The only hope" on the congress floor.  Kerry was asked about his ignoring adult stem cells and their progress in the 2nd debate. The fact that it seems (according to Stanima's rant) that a lot of partisans believe that no progress has been made using adult stem cells and umbillical cord blood.  Millions of dollars and many years of research have brought nothing in their minds.

If embryos are slotted for destruction, then use them. Fertility clinics need to fertilize many egsgs for one to take.  If they are going to create embryos for this specific purpose, I'm not for it.  If you need to know why read Bill Clinton's comments on the subject.  I've read "Brave New World".  This is getting eerily close.

So you are not looking at this from any religious perspective, just from a perspective in which medical and scientific advances are beyond the control of our society to use them wisely. Did I git that right?

An "ethical" stand and a "religious" stand are two different things.  They have funding and they have embryos.  Let's see what kind of progress they are capable of before embryo factories become publicly traded on the S&P 500.

I apreciate you asking for elaboration.  Why don't you lose the stupid character when you do it?

Yes, ethical and religious stands are totally different are totally different. And your objection of the research stems from an ethical stand. Right?