We wanted cures for all of them but not once did we even think about embryonic stem cells, even in our most desperate times when we were grabbing at straws. Why? Because they don’t work and of course weren’t available, but if they had been it would have been out of the question.

We don’t want our loved ones to suffer from these diseases any more than you do, but we also don’t want the cure to be worse than the disease.

I read someplace a couple of weeks ago that experiments with embryonic stem cells on mice injected with them in the brain had caused brain tumors. With non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma my niece and daughter in law each had brain tumors. As a matter of fact, a brain tumor is ultimately what killed my niece at the age of 39 last November.

It’s time for the democrats to quit pulling at our heartstrings with people like Christopher Reed and Michael J. Fox. I just wonder how interested in embryonic stem cell research either of them would have been had they not been grabbing at straws for themselves.

There is a great story about Peter the Great of Russia relating to this. Peter was at a banquet one night, and he asked his treasurer how it was that the people were complaining that taxes were too high but he had no money. The treasurer (who was embezzeling big time) took a handful of snow (this being Russia after all) and handed it to the person next to him and said “pass this to the Czar.” After being passed down the long table thru dozens of hands, by the time Peter got it all he had was a damp palm. “That is what happens to the taxes” the treasurer was noted to remark. It’s the same today.

Nice diversion attempt Michael, why not bring in ouija boards too. Embryonic stem cell use may or may not be junk science, we have no idea as yet, but as of now it has proven to offer unpredictable and mostly catastrophic results, as opposed to other types of stem cells (adult from bone marrow, or umbilical cord cells) that are far more promising. What is junk science about it is the assumption and trumpeting that it absolutely will solve this problem and that problem, it’s using the scientific ignorance of the general populace in order to push an agenda instead of trying to really help them make informed decisions. When Edwards said that they’d make people rise up and walk in a few years because they’d push embryonic stem cell research, that’s using junk science to push an agenda. When global warming proponents like Gore deliberately use thoroughly discredited “science” like the hockey stick as “proof” of human induced global warming in order to get elected and push a socialist agenda, that’s junk science. When people continue to prevent the use of DDT, despite the proven fact that DDT is safer than any known effective pesticide (Rachel Carson was a hack), to the detriment of millions of Africans who have died of malaria, that’s an inexcusable use of junk science.

Once again, you seem to do the same thing I so often see out of liberals and Democrats, you pull the “The Republicans do it too” to excuse bad behavior and lies. So what? Didn’t your mother ever tell you that if everyone else jumped off a cliff you shouldn’t too? Using other people’s failings and dishonesty as an excuse is not compelling. I also note that you said you were insulted by calling someone crippled, but you didn’t seem to object to their being cynically used for partisan purposes. Telling, very telling.

Besides, if I’d said: trot out the alternatively enabled lifestyle challenged people to tug on the heartstrings, it wouldn’t have had nearly the impact.

Certainly not. And it certainly would not “disqualify” conservatives from being able to point out what isn’t said in the ad or isn’t said by the drive-by legacy media and how things are being misrepresented. I love the fact that Claire might be turning people off to here style of politics because she isn’t debating or representing the issue very well. But if conservatives get BEAT because our views aren’t popular then we need to better tune or message, or figure out how to inform more people as to the complete stem cell issue or “let it go”. I certainly wouldn’t want to let an issue like this go because the money is BETTER spent by the private sector and it isn’t something the governments should spend money on because as with everything government spends money on there are so much administrative costs. The Welfare recipient receives 28 cents to the dollar for a reason. It is due to the inefficiencies of the government. Economics and private versus public spending efficiencies should be taught by the media with examples. Unfortunately, all should be accomplished by government to the media. We should de-privatize all media and see how efficient they become at disinforming us!!!

Michael wrote in response to Sev, “Can you honestly tell me that the Republicans have never lead a misleading campaign to try to attract votes?”

That isn’t the issue. That is classic diversion. It is not the matter that all people lie some of the time. It is the issue that generally Democrats and liberals are calling things a “ban” when yet governments ARE spending money on embryonic and umbilical stem cell research. Wouldn’t it be nice if on THIS ISSUE the left was honest (and yes I mean generally speaking)???

Michael wrote, “However, saying that Republicans do not support stem-cell research as wholeheartedly as Democrats is not a lie, it is a fact.

Yes. And libertarians who want an 80% cut in government probably don’t either generally. To me the issue is size of government. Total government spending and government spending on health as a category has gone up EVERY year for over 6 decades. There is a limit to what governments can spend and there must be set priorities. It’d be NICE to have UTOPIA where we didn’t have to worry about any disease could spend as much as we wanted on anything but to demagogue an issue as people not “caring” is mean in itself. May I call you mean if you continue on the Republicans don’t “care” meme?

Michael wrote, “Also, you decry embryonic stem cell research as ‘junk science’, then how do you classify Intelligent Design?”

Classic diversion from the topic again. Embryonic stem cells are highly immature and produce just about anything from teeth to hair to nerve cells to skin with no ability for humans to control that action. There are ZERO (0) uses for embryonic stem cells and there are plenty of people studying the issue that do not see hope in embryonic stem cell research. Yet, you “FEEL” good and “CARING” I’m sure for pouring money down the black hole. It’s nice to feel superior as we all want to but basically keeping people misinformed is on THIS ISSUE the goal of liberals, Democrats and the drive-by legacy media (as in many issues).

The paradox of being a fiscal conservative but social progressive is you aren’t a fiscal conservative by definition. You want government spending for many a crisis I’m thinking………….. many a crisis……

LINK

Severian – this is something that both parties do all the time, in the interest of politics. Can you honestly tell me that the Republicans have never lead a misleading campaign to try to attract votes? This is what politics in our country has been reduced to, and both parties are to blame.

However, saying that Republicans do not support stem-cell research as wholeheartedly as Democrats is not a lie, it is a fact.

Also, you decry embryonic stem cell research as ‘junk science’, then how do you classify Intelligent Design?

I’d probably be a Republican myself, if it weren’t for that party’s blatant disregard for science in general. Therefore I consider myself an independent (fiscal conservative, social progressive).

But you apparently seem to have no problem with people lying and misrepresenting the facts of the issue in order to sway people. Democrats an liberals deliberately implying that Bush and the evil Republicans are outlawing embryonic stem cell research, when the facts are that not only is it legal but that research using any of the existing lines that have been cloned from the originals is being government funded is apparently OK by you, but pointing out that the Dems parade the crippled and maimed just to generate sympathy and cloud the issue is offensive. Right, got it.

Sounds suspiciously like you believe that the ends justifies the means, and that has never worked out well. If you, or the Democrats, want to sell an idea, lying about it in such a transparent way right off the bat is a damned poor way of generating support.

Baklava – I commend your ability to engage in intellectual discourse, and apologize if I have offended you. I respect your beliefs, but I myself took offense to a comment by a previous poster that the campaign advertisement was “Democratic tricks” and characterization of disabled persons as “cripples”.

You impugned our desire to “find cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s”.

When I finally got to the jist of the issue – it isn’t about caring – you leave.

My question, “Do you Michael recognize that there are ethical and moral concerns with the destruction of new lines of embyos?“, remains on the table. It is the heart of the matter. Not all this superfluous stuff about whether we care or not. Because we do.

Micheal wrote, “56% of americans support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research”

I’m one of the 44% who doesn’t support federal funding of either embryonic or umbilical cord stem cell research. This bond in CA that passed and mortgages 3 BILLION dollars to pay companies to do stem cell research is such a crock and a lot of it is ending up in lawyers hands with lawsuits left and right about licensing fees that one company is trying to claim concerning a stem cell research process.

This country succeeds wonderfully when the PRIVATE sector supplys for the demand. There is a demand for a cure for diseases and companies want to be the one who find a breakthrough. The efficiency of the DMV will not be the reason for a breakthrough. Over 40+ uses have been found for umbilican cord stem cells and not due to federal funds. Uses for embryonic stem cells have been ZERO for a reason.

Did you hear any of this in your stint at other more balanced sources of information? Or did they continue to act like the drive by legacy media and boil it down to 44% bad 56% good? 44% religious nuts, 56% compassionate.

I hope you can get to my question. I bolded it for you…

I guess we have to agree to disagree. My original point was in response to the original post, that claimed that the ads were contrary to what americans actually believe in (a blatant lie, 56% of americans support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research – USA Today/Gallup, Aug. 2005) and that it was Democrats up to their ‘usual tricks’.