Posted on 10/11/2004 2:01:24 PM PDT by no dems
I'm telling you, "Kerricide."
Remember what a crass political circus the Dems made of Senator Paul Wellstone's death back in 2002?
Expect more of the same shameless Democratic Party lust for power and political advantage.
Christopher Reeves deserves better . . .
Here's one that will really get the Dems:
How about we support embryonic stem cell research only if the embryos destroyed are homosexual (liberals believe that you're "born that way")?
You won't get hammered by me. I agree with you 100%. Michael J. Fox was my favorite actor in the '80s and '90s, but I wonder if he'd have ever invested this much effort for Parkinson's Disease patients if he wasn't one of them.
I was in bed listening to the radio last night when they mentioned his death and the first thing that popped into my mind was that the Dims were going to use this to attack Bush.
Paul Wellstone, Chris Reeves. They have no shame.
Only because there are no dead soldiers available today.
Hey, the Dem's danced on Wellstone's casket too and look what happened. It's really true when you read that the Dems just don't get it.
I thought Bush was the first President to fund the research, or the President that has put the most funding towards stem cell research.
Not only were they not interested until they had problems, I can't believe either one would be so selfish that they think it would be a GOOD idea to kill an embryo to help save theirselves. I would never want any living embryo destroyed for my benefit. I just think celebrity breeds selfishness sometimes.
 |
| US actor Christopher Reeve, who died of heart failure after a long battle with paralysis, was a thorn in the side of President George W. Bush, seen here 08 October 2004, over his championing of stem cell research(AFP/File/Hector Mata) |
Is it just me or whoever wrote this caption was a little bit nasty?
when this subject came up at the last debate, Bush should have turned to Kerry and said, "I don't think federal funds should be involved. Why don't you get your rich friends to fund this research? Oh yeah, I forgot, if you were president, you would have taxed the cr** outta them."
IIRC, F'n replied to GWB at the last debate,(in response to GWB's statemant that there were 22(??) strains of stem cell that were still available to work with) that those 22 strains were contaminated with "MOUSE DNA" or something wierd like that.
Do any freepers remember in F'n's response to GWB about it if he said something close to that ??.....(he said it to rebutt the 22 or so strains GWB mentioned trying to say they were "worthless"...)
Ummm...not quite Pauly. Reeve committed the last 9 years of his life to whining about stem cell research.
Before his accident in 1995, he didn't give a wet slap about stem cell research. Only when it affected him personally did he take up the banner.
First stemcell research is not much of an issue for most people. Second, the bigger they make this issue the more they will find it is a strawman. Private companies can do all the embryonic research they want, but they have shown very little promise compared to adult stemcells.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Where did you get the picture?
Paul "the Joker" Begala is just plain creepy...
"Wait'll they get a load of me!"
Not hammering you, you make a good point. The Rat forhead inferred that stem cell would cure Reeves was an accepted truthful absolute. It is not. This is standard Rat proceedure. Throw out something as accepted absolute proven truth when it is not, and is nowhere close. Then leave out positive truthful information about conservative or pubbie policy toward the issue. In short Rats lie then lie again then lie again. Wellstone was the only Rat not speaking lies at his funeral.
It's on the Calif ballot as Prop. 71..& below is Assemblyman Haynes take on it, FYI.
Stem cell research generates more misinformation than any other single issue in the current public debate. The debate is usually cast in terms of being pro or anti-science and progress. The truth is you can be concerned about the direction of some of the research and still promote scientific progress.
The major source of confusion is that there are two distinctly different types of stem cell research. The first—human somatic stem cell research (SSC)—holds great promise for medical science and human health. The second—human embryonic stem cell research (ESC)—is a monumental failure with little promise of help or advancement in promoting the health of people. Companies engaged in SSC research have been able to raise millions in the private sector, because the promise of profit is real. Companies engaged in ESC are struggling, and are now trying to use the success of SSC to get voters to approve billions in borrowing to stay in business, through Proposition 71, an ESC scam.
Somatic stem cells, sometimes called “adult” stem cells, are available from a variety of sources—umbilical cord blood, nasal tissue, bone marrow, fat cells, and the like. These stem cells are taken without harm to the donor, and they have resulted in some amazing advancement in stem cell research. Everybody supports SSC research, because it shows great promise. Its success is best measured by the support it receives in actual research dollars. Private capital is investing heavily in the research in the hopes of being the first to profit from the medical advances SSC research can generate.
Embryonic stem cells come from one place—cloning. The researchers create a human being through an embryo, kill the embryo, and then extract the stem cells. Even given the moral issues surrounding the creation of a human being to kill it for the advancement of medical science (think Hitlerian style concentration camp research), ESC has failed to generate a single medical advancement. In fact, private capital, perhaps the best test of profitable research, will not go near ESC research, because those with the capital believe it to be a losing proposition.
Enter Proposition 71. It was put on the ballot to generate venture capital for the ESC researchers. It creates this capital however by having the government borrow $3 billion, lend it to these researchers, and have them pay it back from the profits they make from the research.
Of course, if there were profit to be made, government money wouldn’t be necessary. So we California taxpayers are going to borrow venture capital to finance this failed research.
Leave aside the idea of borrowing venture capital, (a really stupid idea if you and I were doing it), investing in a failed research project is a bad idea all by itself. Proposition 71 does not allow the state to invest in SSC research, only ESC, does not allow the state to participate in the profits (only to lend the money), and does not have any serious legislative or judicial oversight. It is a scandal that will make the current Secretary of State scandal look like child’s play. Is this really the kind of funding decision we wish to put to a public vote? Should we vote by initiative to determine how much government money is spent on every disease and malady? How much for AIDS? Diabetes? Cancer? West Nile Virus? Do we really need to go to the ballot to decide what is worthy and how much to spend?
To justify the initiative, supporters emphasize the advancements that SSC research has made in medical science, then prohibit investment in that lucrative research. It is money only a bureaucrat could love. You and I are going to lose our shirts in this tax subsidized scam, a couple of people are going to make a lot of money, lives will continue to be created and destroyed in the name of “progress,” and science will be hurt by the falsehoods of those who wish to profit at the taxpayers’ expense. In the end, we will all be better off by letting the private market finance and direct the research, and leave government out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.