Not my district, but I have no respect for anyone who would distort an issue like stem cell research to imply that a man wants to see children in wheelchairs. She is disgusting.
Walking Wounded
· 3 years ago
Not my district, either, but damn...that's going pretty low class.
Adios
· 3 years ago
It's this mail piece, and today's reflections on 9/11 (by that I mean things that really matter) that make me sick to my stomach with politicians/politics. Life is too short for this garbage.
Leroy
· 3 years ago
Maybe this is another one of those "I'm just putting these two pictures right next to each other, but I'm not really comparing them" things...?
Mongo
· 3 years ago
hmmm...
McSWeeney has indeed said these things, hasn't he?
and the organized opposition to stem cell reesearch does limit the effort by reesearchers to cure conditions like those possessed by this little girl...doesn't it?
the truth hurts sometimes...no, McSweeney didn't want the little girl to wind up in a wheelchair but he sure isn't doing anything to get her out of the wheelchair
Rich Miller
· 3 years ago
Hey, Mongo! Welcome back!
Coloradem
· 3 years ago
The only thing that is "disgusting" is McSweeny's position. The fact that Bean is pointing it out to her constituents is a public service as far as I am concerned...
Left Leaner
· 3 years ago
Pretty good piece. I think it'll work on independent voters - its obvious target.
And a point goes to Mongo.
Leigh - This is super slow pitch softball with watermelons compared to some of the revolting "distortions" Republicans have tossed out over the past eight years. Besides, she really hasn't distorted the issue here - just used a kid in a wheelchair to tug at the emotions a little. Oh, the shame, the audacity, blah blah blah.
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
Mongo,
McSweeney -- and I too -- oppose embryonic stem cell research because we believe life begins at conception and are thus opposed to killing embryos for medical research.
This is a legitimate position. The only way you can support embryonic stem cell research and unrestricted abortion is to argue that life begins at a later point (a point by the way physicians have never been able to determine).
Ethics, whether religious or secular-based, aren't in competition with science.
Jonas Salk wasn't killing human beings for parts when he researched a cure for polio. Yet that's exactly what many modern-day scientists want to do in their pursuit of embryonic stem cell research where it involves destruction of human embryos.
This ad is despicable.
Bridget Dooley
· 3 years ago
I have seen that picture of that little girl before...anyone have any clues? I can't quite recall where it was. I think it might have been in Wisconsin!
I don't think she's stopping low at all. If that is where Sweeney stands, he dug that hole for himself. She'd be stupid not to capitalize on his idiocy.
The Conservative
· 3 years ago
When will the Socialist Democrats ever tell the truth. If a Republican put garbage like this out it would be front page. This is trash and should be pulled. Just shows you there is no bottom to their bucket.
Anon
· 3 years ago
I am sure Shawn David will hit equally low at some point so let's all save our tears for him. It is a low blow to the issue itself but I have a hard time feeling bad for S.D. McSweeney when he is about to do the same thing!
Justice
· 3 years ago
Am I wrong or can any medical research facility still do stem cell research? I don't think folks want it not to happen, as the ad appears to imply , they object to federal and state dollars being spent on for-profit endeavors. Of course there is moral ground for some, but it isn't an issue of stopping stem cell research, just not having it funded by the tax payer. The ad is misleading at best and typically disgusting at worst. It is truly a shame when people stoop to this type of character assassination because they don’t have a sound idea of their own. I guess the even more scary thought is that this is our age of politics that we brought it to the party. It is up to us to stop it, because boys and girls, if we don’t, we elect these people who will carry this low moral fiber into the office to which we elect them. We need to set our standards higher if we expect better politicians (God I hate that word, for what it conjures up) How about we use “If we elect decent people to better represent us.â€Â
Wumpus
· 3 years ago
She should have used an image of Timmy from South Park.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
If that is where Sweeney stands, he dug that hole for himself.
And where would that be Bridget?
The Pharmaceutical Corps have you hoodwinked for sure...
The first Pol to use the Hitler analogy loses...
...same goes for the first Pol to roll out the pic of a kid in a wheel chair.
Bill
· 3 years ago
The mailer seems to sum up McSweeney's positions pretty acurately. Why wouldn't he want the voters to know where he really stands? Could it be that his views on these issues are out of the mainstream and don't reflect the values of the voters in his district.?
anon
· 3 years ago
The issue isn't embryonic stem cell research (which BTW has yet to yield any meaningful results), but rather Federal funding of such research. There's plenty of private sector funds out there to drive this questionable line of research. All Bean's despicable ad does is further distort the issue which, of course, is the primary strategy of the left on most major issues.
VanillaMan
· 3 years ago
First of all, President Bush is the first president to fund stem cell research. Secondly, this hasn't prevented Democrats from claiming Republicans oppose it. As a matter of fact, their lies have become grander.
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." - John Edwards, October 2004
You see, Democrats are determined to portrait their opposition as anti-science. Simultaneously, they claim miracle cures which no reputable scientists make. They do this to get votes.
Finally, what Bean is doing is using this child as a human shield against McSweeney. This has become another grand Democratic political ploy. They use wheelchair-bound former Senator Cleveland, 9-11 widows, and bereaved mothers to attack those who support the war.
So it is no surprise to see Bean come up with this new take on an old political trick.
Disgusting!
Buck Flagojevich
· 3 years ago
Isn't it time for politicians to stick with what they know best (not much) and stay out of medical research arguments? Anybody know what either of these two clowns have proposed to make this country stronger and more competitive in the world economy? What are their positions on foreign policy issues that may help to make this country a little less hated by the world community?
paddyrollingstone
· 3 years ago
Since the people that read this blog and especially those that comment on items are obvious political junkies, I would think that the comments on this item would be more along the lines of whether an ad like this is effective or not. I don't live in the disctrict but this seems to be a very good move on the part of Bean's campaign. I never saw Johnson's "little girl/mushroom" cloud ad either (I think it only ran once in 1964) but I'm sure it worked.
Way Northsider
· 3 years ago
Anonymous 2:20 - How do you feel about embryonic stem cell research where a cell is removed but the embryo remains viable? How do you feel about the fact that unused embryos are routinely discarded?
Ashur Odishoo
· 3 years ago
Little girls in wheelchairs is not much different than large posters of dead babies by the pro-life group.
There are two sides to this issue, but also respectable methods of selling your point should not include demagoguery.
Ashur Odishoo Candidate State Representative 11th District
doubtful
· 3 years ago
Way Northsider, don't expect them to let a little thing like reality affect their position. If they'd honestly admit the truth, that the choice is between research or destruction, their heads would explode.
As far as the ad, I think it'll play. Somewhere around 70% of the general pop is for government funding of stem cell research (not the bogus contaminated lines Bush limped support into).
I think the 8th is looking for clear distinctions between two pro-business candidates, and this is one of them.
Skeeter
· 3 years ago
It is NOT about research or destruction, unless, of course, the McSweeney is so far out in right field that he wants to ban IVF. Or perhaps he wants a law that says we must forever save those frozen fertiziled eggs.
In any case, the add is very good. The far right is not going to vote for Bean anyway, so this won't hurt her with those folks, but it sure might sway a moderate.
Political Insider
· 3 years ago
Not a bad ad, but a bad race. I'm not saying that either one of the canidates wouldn't make a great congressperson, and frankly since i don't live there, I don't really care.
But that race has been a race to the bottom. Since negative ads are a great known way to lower the turn-out I have to wonder if both canidates are short-sighted (a common problem this close to the election) or if they are trying to assure that only their base gets to the polls.
Either way, it's fun to sit back and watch!
Wumpus
· 3 years ago
If only John Edwards were Veep, that little girl would be walking right now...
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
- Other sorts of cellular research have in fact received adequate Federal funding, in addition to other funding sources. Claiming that embryonic studies have not yielded the same results is like asking a boxer to tie his hands behind him and then saying he's no good in the ring.
- Yes, embryonic stem cell research is legal. Funding it is the question. Again, cutting off funds is akin to tying scientists' hands behind their backs. Same thing -- it may be legal, but if the money isn't there the work can't get done (and conservatives complain just as loudly when states fund this research -- witness the whining about California's Republican governor and Illinois' Democratic governor).
- Unused embryonic cells are washed down the drain. Conservatives would rather have those "viable" (but unwanted) embryos thrown in with the sewage than see that they dare be used to save a life. (Seems hypocritical given how many of our brave soldiers conservatives are all-too-willing to sacrifice to continue propping up a pack of lies.)
- How is this mailer, which states an unflattering truth about Mr. McSweeney (but a truth nonetheless), in any way negative? It's the truth. If you don't like it convince Mr. McSweeney to change his mind. Anyone complaining about this is just whining. Boo hoo. At least Rep. Bean is telling the truth -- unlike the conservatives who put out ABC's boring, make-believe trash last night. (Oh wait, the Trib's headline declared ABC's outright lies to be "Factual" ... liberal media my knee.)
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
Since the people that read this blog and especially those that comment on items are obvious political junkies, I would think that the comments on this item would be more along the lines of whether an ad like this is effective or not.
It's not effective. Especially in this district. Edwards effectively sunk this tactic in the last election along with Reagan's kid at the convention.
I think people see through it.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
McSweeny just needs to respond with Krauthammers response to Edwards, This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.
Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?
ElaObserver
· 3 years ago
It’s not effective.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it probably is a good, smart ad. If it wasn't, all of us partyhacks wouldn't be arguing about it now.
Slash
· 3 years ago
This is why I am supporting Blago. He funded research for this in Illinois. He knows how important hope is to people like the girl in the wheelchair.
HoosierDaddy
· 3 years ago
Just like Blago gave hope to those who wanted to clean up corruption? Blago's not the topic here.
This ad will only serve to polarize the district a little more. Given the natural lean of the district, I don't think that helps the Bean.
OAD
· 3 years ago
You wanna cure kids in wheelchairs, you gotta break a few eggs...
Captain America
· 3 years ago
I don't see anything objectionable, despicable or misleading about the direct mail piece. Bean summarizes and highlights McSweeney's views on stem cell research and choice axcurately, particularly when you read the text. Bean uses his own words against him. I don't see any evidence of distortion or "out-of-context quotes. He's being hoist on his own petard.
Republicans should be held accountable for their knee-jerk opposition to scientific/medical progress. People are beoging deprived of the potential benefits of life-saving medical research. The Jonas Salk/polio analogy seems valid to me.
Personally, I think it's effective in calling attention to McSweeney's views. Voters will have no trouble deciding which set of family values that they prefer.
OAD
· 3 years ago
"The Jonas Salk/polio analogy seems valid to me."
Salk was funded by private, volunteer donations.
"The organization (March of Dimes) decided to fund Salk's efforts to develop a killed virus vaccine." (Wikipedia)
If the Dems were serious about this, they would have kicked off a 'march of dimes' equivalent back in 2001 when Bush threw the kibosh on federal funding.
Apparently they'd rather have it unsolved, to use as a campaign issue.
Or perhaps it's not that promising - what else could explain the lack of urgency after 2002? Bush wins the 'trifecta', in effect shutting down the debate for 2 or more years, and their best answer is 'government funding - it's worth the wait'. New Direction indeed.
Concern Citizen
· 3 years ago
It is amzing to me that the righteous seem to be the keeper of the truth. We send our children to fight and die in a land far away because of causes that are yet to be determined. When it comes to stem cell they seem to get religion. He has no right to make my choice for me. He needs to be voted out. Each of our soliers that died or harmed because of his so called values should be brought up and he held responsibile. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Angie
· 3 years ago
I'm pro-choice, but do not have issues with asking that there be alternatives to the use of embryonic stem cells if there's another possible option, and on top of it, public monies should not be used if deeply religious people are morally and religiously opposed. At least let them keep their money.
But whoever quoted Wikipedia? Don't do that. I wrapped up a 300 level English course last year and heard a long lecture on the validity/sometimes lack thereof of Wiki. Just please use a better source. Wiki is fun to read, but should never be quoted as some type of valid source.
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
Angie, yes there are other options and those others are funded by the Federal government.
But what do you suggest happens to the ready-to-be-disposed-of frozen embryos? Should they be donated for research (like adult stem cells) or should they be thrown in the garbage (as they currently are)?
That is the choice. Pres. Bush, through his veto of embryonic research funding, has decided those frozen embryos have no value and should be thrown in the garbage.
And your argument about public money is specious. Plenty of my tax money goes to things I don't like: - unneeded tax-dollar windfalls for the pharmaceutical and oil industries during times of record profits - war profiteering and fraud/theft for the military-industrial complex like Cheney's pals at no-bid Halliburton - rewarding millionaires like Paris Hilton for being ... well, just for living off interest and acting silly apparently - and need I mention the record-breaking debts Republicans are racking up with Communist China? Someone's going to have to pay those bills.
...Yep, plenty of priorities that "conservatives" have with which I disagree, but those conservatives have no problem "taking" my tax money for their purposes.
At least stem cell research benefits the common good (ie, any public money spent on research would benefit the public good).
Can't say the same for the billions of taxpayer dollars Halliburton "lost" or the billions in windfalls going to America's elite wealthiest families thanks to the Paris Hilton Tax Cuts.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
It is amazing to me that the righteous seem to be the keeper of the truth.
geez, put a lid on it.
Dems are demagoging science in the worst way here. It's obscene really to take an issue more complex than abortion with real concerns about harvesting embryos more then likely from poor women in the third world for the benefit of the medical industrial complex in this country.
And to try and connect people who raise questions about it with the GWOT.... that's really too much... I find myself agreeing more often than not with Democrats but find it hard to vote for them because they talk like this and pull these stunts.
It's the devil theory every time to refute serious questions on serious issues; even when we've got the pharmaceutical devils at work on their side.
Pat Collins
· 3 years ago
No, McSweeney's real answer ought to be:
There are some X (think it's 500) stem cell therapies in FDA studies NOW from adult stem cells and stem cord cells.
there are NONE from embryoic cells.
Why does Bean want to take funds AWAY from promising research and give it to a risky scheme?
Truthful James
· 3 years ago
This is an overstated issue.
There is funding for embyonic stem cells. The government has chosen not to fund it except for limited lines.
There have been successes from adult stem cells and from umbilical cord stem cells.
As usual NW Burbs vastly overstates the case and has come down on the fact that there are frozen embryos excess to current requirements. Such is life.
I attended a Stanford university presentation on the necessity for using stem cells AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FUND EVERY BIT OF RESEARCH. Scientists will take all they can get without any guarentee of results. They can show few major benefits even from the limited lines the government funds and all the privately funded research.
Showing that girl in a wheelchair was the height of hypocrisy.
Scoop
· 3 years ago
Thank God no one here is a medical professional.
anon
· 3 years ago
I am
Angie
· 3 years ago
To NW burbs:
"But what do you suggest happens to the ready-to-be-disposed-of frozen embryos? Should they be donated for research (like adult stem cells) or should they be thrown in the garbage (as they currently are)?"
I'm not the expert on this stuff, but you do have to realize that Bush, who I really do believe is a moderate conservative (his own wife and mom are both pro-choice), needs to throw out a benign bone every so often, because you just KNOW the very staunch pro-lifers aren't that happy with him.
"That is the choice. Pres. Bush, through his veto of embryonic research funding, has decided those frozen embryos have no value and should be thrown in the garbage."
That's the benign bone he threw out to make up for the fact that 8 years into his purportedly oh-so-scary presidency, Roe is still the law of the land and will be for a very lonnnnng time, as the battle to overturn a long-standing precedent means a much higher bar to leap over (and even then, it only reverts back to the states, where everyone can hash it out there).
"And your argument about public money is specious. Plenty of my tax money goes to things I don’t like: - unneeded tax-dollar windfalls for the pharmaceutical and oil industries during times of record profits"
Embryonic stem cells raise hackles a lot more than issues about profits for oil and pharmaceuticals. Some people are very religious. I don't expect them to support this, even though taxpayer funding supports other things that no one likes. When it comes to the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate, just get federal dollars out of it all. I am pro-choice, but I often find it difficult to argue with staunchly pro-life people when they come up with the very valid argument that if their tax dollars go towards funding of abortions, then they have a say in the matter. They're right! They DO have a say in the matter. It is a very loaded issue, so at the very least, let those people opt out of supporting this.
"war profiteering and fraud/theft for the military-industrial complex like Cheney’s pals at no-bid Halliburton"
That's pure speculation. There's no way you can back that up as fact. It doesn't even begin to counter my argument, because that's pure speculation.
"rewarding millionaires like Paris Hilton for being … well, just for living off interest and acting silly apparently"
In a free society, Paris can do whatever the heck she wants. What does she have to do with stem cells? See? This is why we always win debates, folks. You liberals can't even argue.
"and need I mention the record-breaking debts Republicans are racking up with Communist China? Someone’s going to have to pay those bills."
I am not happy about being cozy with commies at all, but what does that have to do with stem cells here at home?
Bean will run a close race because of her pro-business views, but if you're for fiscal reform and for encouragement of policies that promote business growth around here, instead of the job-crushing, anti-business fees that were dumped on Illinois businesses under Blagojevich, then you ought to just become a Republican already. 'Tis a big tent where we have room for pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike to agree on many many issues while in disagreement on some of the most personal, religious, and moral issues (depending on your ideological leanings) such as the pro-life versus pro-choice divide.
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
Angie,
Do some research before you start claiming facts are "speculation"...
My points were in relation to the fact conservatives have chosen to fund what they consider priorities, but which I consider to be boondoggles (ie, debt to Red China, tax giveaways to the filthy rich, obscene war-profiteering and unquestioned fraud in no-bid contracts to administration allies like Halliburton, etc).
What don't conservatives get? I'm so tired of hearing the right-wing's greed-is-a-virtue argument. Taxes are the investment we make as a society for a better future. Are our tax monies best spent lining the pockets of Paris Hiltons and Cheney's Halliburton or is that money better spent on life-saving research that could benefit everyone? (And it's not an either adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells question. The Congressional bill funded both, and Bush vetoed it against the wishes of a majority of Americans.)
You can choose to ignore facts, but your ignorance doesn't magically turn them into "speculation."
And just how does ignoring the facts make you think you're "winning" some sort of argument?
Best go back and repeat that 300-level English class, Angie.
--
Untruthful James, you too can choose to ignore facts but your ignorance doesn't make them magically disappear either.... What did I overstate? Or are you again just being untruthful in your spin?
All Comments
McSWeeney has indeed said these things, hasn't he?
and the organized opposition to stem cell reesearch does limit the effort by reesearchers to cure conditions like those possessed by this little girl...doesn't it?
the truth hurts sometimes...no, McSweeney didn't want the little girl to wind up in a wheelchair but he sure isn't doing anything to get her out of the wheelchair
And a point goes to Mongo.
Leigh - This is super slow pitch softball with watermelons compared to some of the revolting "distortions" Republicans have tossed out over the past eight years. Besides, she really hasn't distorted the issue here - just used a kid in a wheelchair to tug at the emotions a little. Oh, the shame, the audacity, blah blah blah.
McSweeney -- and I too -- oppose embryonic stem cell research because we believe life begins at conception and are thus opposed to killing embryos for medical research.
This is a legitimate position. The only way you can support embryonic stem cell research and unrestricted abortion is to argue that life begins at a later point (a point by the way physicians have never been able to determine).
Ethics, whether religious or secular-based, aren't in competition with science.
Jonas Salk wasn't killing human beings for parts when he researched a cure for polio. Yet that's exactly what many modern-day scientists want to do in their pursuit of embryonic stem cell research where it involves destruction of human embryos.
This ad is despicable.
I don't think she's stopping low at all. If that is where Sweeney stands, he dug that hole for himself. She'd be stupid not to capitalize on his idiocy.
And where would that be Bridget?
The Pharmaceutical Corps have you hoodwinked for sure...
The first Pol to use the Hitler analogy loses...
...same goes for the first Pol to roll out the pic of a kid in a wheel chair.
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." - John Edwards, October 2004
You see, Democrats are determined to portrait their opposition as anti-science. Simultaneously, they claim miracle cures which no reputable scientists make. They do this to get votes.
Finally, what Bean is doing is using this child as a human shield against McSweeney. This has become another grand Democratic political ploy. They use wheelchair-bound former Senator Cleveland, 9-11 widows, and bereaved mothers to attack those who support the war.
So it is no surprise to see Bean come up with this new take on an old political trick.
Disgusting!
There are two sides to this issue, but also respectable methods of selling your point should not include demagoguery.
Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District
As far as the ad, I think it'll play. Somewhere around 70% of the general pop is for government funding of stem cell research (not the bogus contaminated lines Bush limped support into).
I think the 8th is looking for clear distinctions between two pro-business candidates, and this is one of them.
In any case, the add is very good. The far right is not going to vote for Bean anyway, so this won't hurt her with those folks, but it sure might sway a moderate.
But that race has been a race to the bottom. Since negative ads are a great known way to lower the turn-out I have to wonder if both canidates are short-sighted (a common problem this close to the election) or if they are trying to assure that only their base gets to the polls.
Either way, it's fun to sit back and watch!
- Yes, embryonic stem cell research is legal. Funding it is the question. Again, cutting off funds is akin to tying scientists' hands behind their backs. Same thing -- it may be legal, but if the money isn't there the work can't get done (and conservatives complain just as loudly when states fund this research -- witness the whining about California's Republican governor and Illinois' Democratic governor).
- Unused embryonic cells are washed down the drain. Conservatives would rather have those "viable" (but unwanted) embryos thrown in with the sewage than see that they dare be used to save a life. (Seems hypocritical given how many of our brave soldiers conservatives are all-too-willing to sacrifice to continue propping up a pack of lies.)
- How is this mailer, which states an unflattering truth about Mr. McSweeney (but a truth nonetheless), in any way negative? It's the truth. If you don't like it convince Mr. McSweeney to change his mind. Anyone complaining about this is just whining. Boo hoo. At least Rep. Bean is telling the truth -- unlike the conservatives who put out ABC's boring, make-believe trash last night. (Oh wait, the Trib's headline declared ABC's outright lies to be "Factual" ... liberal media my knee.)
It's not effective. Especially in this district. Edwards effectively sunk this tactic in the last election along with Reagan's kid at the convention.
I think people see through it.
This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.
Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it probably is a good, smart ad. If it wasn't, all of us partyhacks wouldn't be arguing about it now.
This ad will only serve to polarize the district a little more. Given the natural lean of the district, I don't think that helps the Bean.
Republicans should be held accountable for their knee-jerk opposition to scientific/medical progress. People are beoging deprived of the potential benefits of life-saving medical research. The Jonas Salk/polio analogy seems valid to me.
Personally, I think it's effective in calling attention to McSweeney's views. Voters will have no trouble deciding which set of family values that they prefer.
Salk was funded by private, volunteer donations.
"The organization (March of Dimes) decided to fund Salk's efforts to develop a killed virus vaccine." (Wikipedia)
If the Dems were serious about this, they would have kicked off a 'march of dimes' equivalent back in 2001 when Bush threw the kibosh on federal funding.
Apparently they'd rather have it unsolved, to use as a campaign issue.
Or perhaps it's not that promising - what else could explain the lack of urgency after 2002? Bush wins the 'trifecta', in effect shutting down the debate for 2 or more years, and their best answer is 'government funding - it's worth the wait'. New Direction indeed.
But whoever quoted Wikipedia? Don't do that. I wrapped up a 300 level English course last year and heard a long lecture on the validity/sometimes lack thereof of Wiki. Just please use a better source. Wiki is fun to read, but should never be quoted as some type of valid source.
But what do you suggest happens to the ready-to-be-disposed-of frozen embryos? Should they be donated for research (like adult stem cells) or should they be thrown in the garbage (as they currently are)?
That is the choice. Pres. Bush, through his veto of embryonic research funding, has decided those frozen embryos have no value and should be thrown in the garbage.
And your argument about public money is specious. Plenty of my tax money goes to things I don't like:
- unneeded tax-dollar windfalls for the pharmaceutical and oil industries during times of record profits
- war profiteering and fraud/theft for the military-industrial complex like Cheney's pals at no-bid Halliburton
- rewarding millionaires like Paris Hilton for being ... well, just for living off interest and acting silly apparently
- and need I mention the record-breaking debts Republicans are racking up with Communist China? Someone's going to have to pay those bills.
...Yep, plenty of priorities that "conservatives" have with which I disagree, but those conservatives have no problem "taking" my tax money for their purposes.
At least stem cell research benefits the common good (ie, any public money spent on research would benefit the public good).
Can't say the same for the billions of taxpayer dollars Halliburton "lost" or the billions in windfalls going to America's elite wealthiest families thanks to the Paris Hilton Tax Cuts.
geez, put a lid on it.
Dems are demagoging science in the worst way here. It's obscene really to take an issue more complex than abortion with real concerns about harvesting embryos more then likely from poor women in the third world for the benefit of the medical industrial complex in this country.
And to try and connect people who raise questions about it with the GWOT.... that's really too much... I find myself agreeing more often than not with Democrats but find it hard to vote for them because they talk like this and pull these stunts.
It's the devil theory every time to refute serious questions on serious issues; even when we've got the pharmaceutical devils at work on their side.
There are some X (think it's 500) stem cell therapies in FDA studies NOW from adult stem cells and stem cord cells.
there are NONE from embryoic cells.
Why does Bean want to take funds AWAY from promising research and give it to a risky scheme?
There is funding for embyonic stem cells. The government has chosen not to fund it except for limited lines.
There have been successes from adult stem cells and from umbilical cord stem cells.
As usual NW Burbs vastly overstates the case and has come down on the fact that there are frozen embryos excess to current requirements. Such is life.
I attended a Stanford university presentation on the necessity for using stem cells AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FUND EVERY BIT OF RESEARCH. Scientists will take all they can get without any guarentee of results. They can show few major benefits even from the limited lines the government funds and all the privately funded research.
Showing that girl in a wheelchair was the height of hypocrisy.
"But what do you suggest happens to the ready-to-be-disposed-of frozen embryos? Should they be donated for research (like adult stem cells) or should they be thrown in the garbage (as they currently are)?"
I'm not the expert on this stuff, but you do have to realize that Bush, who I really do believe is a moderate conservative (his own wife and mom are both pro-choice), needs to throw out a benign bone every so often, because you just KNOW the very staunch pro-lifers aren't that happy with him.
"That is the choice. Pres. Bush, through his veto of embryonic research funding, has decided those frozen embryos have no value and should be thrown in the garbage."
That's the benign bone he threw out to make up for the fact that 8 years into his purportedly oh-so-scary presidency, Roe is still the law of the land and will be for a very lonnnnng time, as the battle to overturn a long-standing precedent means a much higher bar to leap over (and even then, it only reverts back to the states, where everyone can hash it out there).
"And your argument about public money is specious. Plenty of my tax money goes to things I don’t like:
- unneeded tax-dollar windfalls for the pharmaceutical and oil industries during times of record profits"
Embryonic stem cells raise hackles a lot more than issues about profits for oil and pharmaceuticals. Some people are very religious. I don't expect them to support this, even though taxpayer funding supports other things that no one likes. When it comes to the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate, just get federal dollars out of it all. I am pro-choice, but I often find it difficult to argue with staunchly pro-life people when they come up with the very valid argument that if their tax dollars go towards funding of abortions, then they have a say in the matter. They're right! They DO have a say in the matter. It is a very loaded issue, so at the very least, let those people opt out of supporting this.
"war profiteering and fraud/theft for the military-industrial complex like Cheney’s pals at no-bid Halliburton"
That's pure speculation. There's no way you can back that up as fact. It doesn't even begin to counter my argument, because that's pure speculation.
"rewarding millionaires like Paris Hilton for being … well, just for living off interest and acting silly apparently"
In a free society, Paris can do whatever the heck she wants. What does she have to do with stem cells? See? This is why we always win debates, folks. You liberals can't even argue.
"and need I mention the record-breaking debts Republicans are racking up with Communist China? Someone’s going to have to pay those bills."
I am not happy about being cozy with commies at all, but what does that have to do with stem cells here at home?
Bean will run a close race because of her pro-business views, but if you're for fiscal reform and for encouragement of policies that promote business growth around here, instead of the job-crushing, anti-business fees that were dumped on Illinois businesses under Blagojevich, then you ought to just become a Republican already. 'Tis a big tent where we have room for pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike to agree on many many issues while in disagreement on some of the most personal, religious, and moral issues (depending on your ideological leanings) such as the pro-life versus pro-choice divide.
Do some research before you start claiming facts are "speculation"...
My points were in relation to the fact conservatives have chosen to fund what they consider priorities, but which I consider to be boondoggles (ie, debt to Red China, tax giveaways to the filthy rich, obscene war-profiteering and unquestioned fraud in no-bid contracts to administration allies like Halliburton, etc).
What don't conservatives get? I'm so tired of hearing the right-wing's greed-is-a-virtue argument. Taxes are the investment we make as a society for a better future. Are our tax monies best spent lining the pockets of Paris Hiltons and Cheney's Halliburton or is that money better spent on life-saving research that could benefit everyone? (And it's not an either adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells question. The Congressional bill funded both, and Bush vetoed it against the wishes of a majority of Americans.)
You can choose to ignore facts, but your ignorance doesn't magically turn them into "speculation."
And just how does ignoring the facts make you think you're "winning" some sort of argument?
Best go back and repeat that 300-level English class, Angie.
--
Untruthful James, you too can choose to ignore facts but your ignorance doesn't make them magically disappear either.... What did I overstate? Or are you again just being untruthful in your spin?