That’s the point. You don’t know and neither do I. Posting like you’ve done just shows that you are looking for her to be evil in hopes to fuel your hatred.[/quote]
No, I disagree. She actually was a couple of spots away from him, so I’d guess she knew he was there. I’d give her a sliver of benefit of doubt, but not much.
BTW: Would you join a parade if you knew there was the slightest chance that the KKK was going to be part of that parade? No? Then let’s apply equal rigor to our analysis of Madam Speaker’s actions.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Alright she went and pissed me off already with the embryonic stem cell research crap. We must empower the devine sacrament of abortion by pushing the embryonic stem cell research propanda agenda.
Thanks for playing Ms. Polosi, can we use your kids for stem cell research, bitch. Why don’t we cut your clitoris off and see if it has any stem cells in it. That would be great fun.[/quote]
See Pat, the people who voted for these cretins don’t mind if she and her ilk trample all over your beliefs and convictions. “You were outvoted and might makes right! Shut up and take it!”
Wait until they pull us out of Iraq and an absolute bloodbath on the order of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge occurs. I’m sure they’ll figure out some way to blame Bush. Then when the terrorists use the Iraq oil money to hit us, well, that’ll be Bush’s fault too.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Alright she went and pissed me off already with the embryonic stem cell research crap. We must empower the devine sacrament of abortion by pushing the embryonic stem cell research propanda agenda.
Thanks for playing Ms. Polosi, can we use your kids for stem cell research, bitch. Why don’t we cut your clitoris off and see if it has any stem cells in it. That would be great fun.[/quote]
Amen, Divine right my ass, all it allows is a bunch of sluts to not take responsibility for there actions. Maybe we should use her kids for it, because we all know they will help people in the long run, Life for a Life bullshit if you think your life is more important then a baby’s your a fucking monster.
I see people are confusing a foetus with a baby again.
While you can certainly be vehemently against abortion, at any stage, comparing a foetus to a baby is similar to comparing your breakfast to a dump in the toilet.
There are more than a few changes that take place along the way… however, calling it a baby is certainly very emotionally charged and makes people upset, I will give you that.
Anyway, those crying about the process of democracy allowing things you don’t like, it works the same for both sides. You think it is only okay for democrats to feel like things are being foisted on them by republicans?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Alright she went and pissed me off already with the embryonic stem cell research crap. We must empower the devine sacrament of abortion by pushing the embryonic stem cell research propanda agenda.
Thanks for playing Ms. Polosi, can we use your kids for stem cell research, bitch. Why don’t we cut your clitoris off and see if it has any stem cells in it. That would be great fun.
See Pat, the people who voted for these cretins don’t mind if she and her ilk trample all over your beliefs and convictions. “You were outvoted and might makes right! Shut up and take it!”
Wait until they pull us out of Iraq and an absolute bloodbath on the order of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge occurs. I’m sure they’ll figure out some way to blame Bush. Then when the terrorists use the Iraq oil money to hit us, well, that’ll be Bush’s fault too.
[/quote]
You may well be right about Iraq becoming a bloodbath, but it will be largely Bush’s fault. Read one decent book on the invasion, I’m begging you, I can suggest a couple, not written by “libs” or anything close.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I see people are confusing a foetus with a baby again.[/quote]
What foetus? Stem cells were harvested from frozen embryos that would eventually be destroyed anyway. At the fetal stage, it’s already too late to harvest stem cells. Correct me if I’m wrong.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Alright she went and pissed me off already with the embryonic stem cell research crap. We must empower the devine sacrament of abortion by pushing the embryonic stem cell research propanda agenda.
Thanks for playing Ms. Polosi, can we use your kids for stem cell research, bitch. Why don’t we cut your clitoris off and see if it has any stem cells in it. That would be great fun.[/quote]
How fucking ignorant can a single person be?
You can’t get stem cells from an aborted foetus, so stem cell research in no way encourages abortion.
You can’t get them from kids or clitorises either. That would be like looking for brain cells in your head - you’re not going to find any.
How fucking ignorant can a single person be?[/quote]
That was a rhetorical question, right? I mean you were referring to Pat36, after all. Not to mention the fucking maroons who followed his nonsense with retard posts about using her kids and some crap about oil from embryos in Iraq.
Most people don’t know anything about Nancy Pelosi. That’s why the right wing’s attempts to win votes by smearing her during the last elections didn’t have any traction.
Q: “If you vote for (the local candidate), Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker of the House… Doesn’t that scare you?”
A: Who?
I think she’s going to do a great job, and she’s going to be much better than that fat idiot Dennis Hastert, who was widely considered to be lazy and out-of-touch.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Seems to me that Pelosi’s biggest strength (only?) is her power in the raising money game. She has tremendous inroads into the ‘limousine liberal’ cast of donors, which the party relies on.
That skill counts for something, to be sure, but it:
a) Does not demonstrate her ability to govern
b) Does not really establish that she is interested in a firm line between Big Money and Government, which is one of her most advertised principles
My biggest question is: what kind of control will she have over the Blue Dogs?
She was elected (indirectly) by the uneducated and unmarried. Since those are who support her, she will act in their interests and AGAINST the educated, married majority. Watch out American family men and women…here comes Madam NAMBLA.
[/quote]
Sigh. You know, this is the reason no ones listens to you.
How did the uneducated vote her in? The unmarried? Where are you getting this from?
No one takes you seriously, because 9 out of every 10 things you say is pure propaganda. I’m trying to help you hear. You’ve lost almost all of your creditability because you lack proper arguing sense.
Look at that link for example. Yes, she pulled a (small) majority of the non-high school graduate vote. Which constitutes 6% of the total vote…
Notice also, how she has a majority of the other education levels as well…
The statistics mean next to nothing. Yes she got 64% of the unmarried vote… which is only 32% of the total vote.
Get a grip, real accusations, and real evidence before you attempt and argument, please.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Most people don’t know anything about Nancy Pelosi. That’s why the right wing’s attempts to win votes by smearing her during the last elections didn’t have any traction.
Q: “If you vote for (the local candidate), Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker of the House… Doesn’t that scare you?”
A: Who?
I think she’s going to do a great job, and she’s going to be much better than that fat idiot Dennis Hastert, who was widely considered to be lazy and out-of-touch.[/quote]
The original question that started this thread was what do the dems think of her and why do you think she’ll do a good job.
Your response was she’ll “be much better than that fat idiot Dennis Hastert, who was widely considered to be lazy and out-of-touch”.
So even the partisan hacks don’t know much about her or have an opinion on her credentials…fascinating.
So Hastert was “widely considered to be lazy and out of touch” By whom, outside of liberal and left leaning blogs? Publicly the Deomcrats were very complimentary of the way he ran the house. The didn’t agree with his politics obviosuly but his management of the process was not in question. So if his peers didn’t view him as lazy and out of touch how widely considered could that opinion be?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Seems to me that Pelosi’s biggest strength (only?) is her power in the raising money game. She has tremendous inroads into the ‘limousine liberal’ cast of donors, which the party relies on.
That skill counts for something, to be sure, but it:
a) Does not demonstrate her ability to govern
b) Does not really establish that she is interested in a firm line between Big Money and Government, which is one of her most advertised principles
My biggest question is: what kind of control will she have over the Blue Dogs?
She was elected (indirectly) by the uneducated and unmarried. Since those are who support her, she will act in their interests and AGAINST the educated, married majority. Watch out American family men and women…here comes Madam NAMBLA.
Sigh. You know, this is the reason no ones listens to you.
How did the uneducated vote her in? The unmarried? Where are you getting this from?
No one takes you seriously, because 9 out of every 10 things you say is pure propaganda. I’m trying to help you hear. You’ve lost almost all of your creditability because you lack proper arguing sense.
Look at that link for example. Yes, she pulled a (small) majority of the non-high school graduate vote. Which constitutes 6% of the total vote…
Notice also, how she has a majority of the other education levels as well…
The statistics mean next to nothing. Yes she got 64% of the unmarried vote… which is only 32% of the total vote.
Get a grip, real accusations, and real evidence before you attempt and argument, please.
[/quote]
If the vote splits for other groups and the fringe groups you mention puts her over the top, the fringe elected her.
The Republican extremists backed off, because Bush and company are phony conservatives. They lost their fringe group. They therefore lost the election.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I see people are confusing a foetus with a baby again.
While you can certainly be vehemently against abortion, at any stage, comparing a foetus to a baby is similar to comparing your breakfast to a dump in the toilet.
There are more than a few changes that take place along the way… however, calling it a baby is certainly very emotionally charged and makes people upset, I will give you that.
Anyway, those crying about the process of democracy allowing things you don’t like, it works the same for both sides. You think it is only okay for democrats to feel like things are being foisted on them by republicans?
Grow up.[/quote]
When is it human again? 5 minutes before birth? 5 minutes after birth? What if the baby’s toe is stuck in the vagina? Not human yet? What if the kid is premature? What about the kids born in the second trimester. By your logic the kid isn’t human until 40 weeks.
Sorry, I don’t mean to hi-jack but the pro-abortion movment is on a slipery slope. It cannot tbe backed up by strong dedutive logic, only emotional rhetoric. In the end the pro-lifers will win because the pro-abortioners are killing off thier future voters.
[quote]pookie wrote:
How fucking ignorant can a single person be?
You can’t get stem cells from an aborted foetus, so stem cell research in no way encourages abortion.
You can’t get them from kids or clitorises either. That would be like looking for brain cells in your head - you’re not going to find any.
Clear?
[/quote]
You can get stem cells from adults, ambilcal cords, amniotic fluid, why do you have to farm babies for their stem cells? Stem cells can be found anywhere where cells grow. I am sure we could find some stem cells in your clitoris anyhow.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
You can get stem cells from adults, ambilcal cords, amniotic fluid, why do you have to farm babies for their stem cells? Stem cells can be found anywhere where cells grow. I am sure we could find some stem cells in your clitoris anyhow.[/quote]
Embryonic stem cells are only found in… embryos. They have particularities that adult stem cells don’t, hence the interest in them. Do you think anyone would bother with frozen embryos and the PR shit storm that inevitably follows if the exact same cells could be found elsewhere?
Abortion and embryonic stem cell research have nothing to do with one another.
If you want to “Save the Embryos,” go after fertility clinics. They’re the one freezing the extra ones. You might also want to ask God to redesign our reproductive system, since about 60% of fecunded ovums are later evacuated naturally by the uterus, for a myriad various reasons.
Although showing off your ignorance like that saves us time. We don’t have to consider any point you might have, since it’s obviously ill-informed from the start. You might want to get “Stoopid Ignunt” tattooed on your forehead to extend the same curtesy to those who haven’t had the pleasure of hearing you spout.
That’s the point. You don’t know and neither do I. Posting like you’ve done just shows that you are looking for her to be evil in hopes to fuel your hatred.
No, I disagree. She actually was a couple of spots away from him, so I’d guess she knew he was there. I’d give her a sliver of benefit of doubt, but not much.
BTW: Would you join a parade if you knew there was the slightest chance that the KKK was going to be part of that parade? No? Then let’s apply equal rigor to our analysis of Madam Speaker’s actions.
[/quote]
She was a couple of spots away from him on a freaking list! It does not mean she was standing next to him, or even that she had access to the list to see who was on it! You are just willfully obtuse and determined to makes issues where there aren’t any!
Your ridiculous analogy (formed in a question about me attending a parade that has the KKK present) makes the assumption that she had knowledge about the participants that you can’t prove she possessed.
Let it go already and find ACTUAL reasons to hate her. Stop making up reasons to satisfy your other personalities.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Embryonic stem cells are only found in… embryos. They have particularities that adult stem cells don’t, hence the interest in them. Do you think anyone would bother with frozen embryos and the PR shit storm that inevitably follows if the exact same cells could be found elsewhere?
Abortion and embryonic stem cell research have nothing to do with one another.
If you want to “Save the Embryos,” go after fertility clinics. They’re the one freezing the extra ones. You might also want to ask God to redesign our reproductive system, since about 60% of fecunded ovums are later evacuated naturally by the uterus, for a myriad various reasons.
Although showing off your ignorance like that saves us time. We don’t have to consider any point you might have, since it’s obviously ill-informed from the start. You might want to get “Stoopid Ignunt” tattooed on your forehead to extend the same curtesy to those who haven’t had the pleasure of hearing you spout.
[/quote]
What are the specific properties in embrionic stem cells that are not found else where? Also, what have embrionic stem cells porven to cure or remedy over other sources. Nothing as I recall, but being a stem cell expert yourself you can enlighten all of us.
Please feel free to insult me some more. I see it only validating my points, as insults equal no valid arguments. I can give you list of insults if you run out.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
When is it human again? 5 minutes before birth? 5 minutes after birth? What if the baby’s toe is stuck in the vagina? Not human yet? What if the kid is premature? What about the kids born in the second trimester. By your logic the kid isn’t human until 40 weeks.
Sorry, I don’t mean to hi-jack but the pro-abortion movment is on a slipery slope. It cannot tbe backed up by strong dedutive logic, only emotional rhetoric. In the end the pro-lifers will win because the pro-abortioners are killing off thier future voters.
[/quote]
LOL, dude, it’s human all the time. Just like the skin flakes that fall of your scalp are human.
Don’t let your emotions get the best of you…
A sperm itself is certainly not considered precious, though it is capable of generating new humans. Millions of people throw these things all over the place every day and nobody gives it a second thought.
The moment a sperm and egg connect, conception, whether in humans or in other species, there is the chance of successful reproduction.
However, there is no way you can call what is present at that moment in time a “baby” and expect to be taken seriously. I know you don’t like this, but that fact remains.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
What are the specific properties in embryonic stem cells that are not found else where?[/quote]
Why don’t you type “embryonic stem cells” in Google or Wikipedia and read a little, instead of playing 20 questions?
I’ll give you the basics: Embryonic stem cells have not yet differentiated themselves into any of the 220 cells that make up the human body. Adult stem cells with the same property have not been found.
Not much yet, but that’s why it’s called “research”, genius. Adult stem cells have had nearly 40 years of research done and have given us various treatments. ESC have had less than 6, with a large part of the funds being cut off in 1998 after about 2 years of serious research.
Anyway, the research will still get done, only the breakthroughs and accompanying patents will be in Europe and Asia. The US is slowly falling behind in Physics and Energy research, why not do the same in Biology and Genetics?
Insults don’t validate your points, you fucking retard. Nothing can validate your points, because they don’t have any connection with reality.
[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL, dude, it’s human all the time. Just like the skin flakes that fall of your scalp are human.
Don’t let your emotions get the best of you…
A sperm itself is certainly not considered precious, though it is capable of generating new humans. Millions of people throw these things all over the place every day and nobody gives it a second thought.
The moment a sperm and egg connect, conception, whether in humans or in other species, there is the chance of successful reproduction.
However, there is no way you can call what is present at that moment in time a “baby” and expect to be taken seriously. I know you don’t like this, but that fact remains.[/quote]
Skin isn’t human. The whole is greater that the sum of it’s parts; it is gestalt. Skin does not sustain itself. It can not think, feel or experience life on any different level the the person it’s attached to. The “fetus” can react diffierently to stimuli than it’s carrier. It is a total seperate being dependant on another for it’s survival, much like a new born is very much dependant on it’s parents for survival.