Nancy Pelosi Era Begins Now

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

As a liberal democrat, I can honestly say: Nancy who?

Seriously, I think it’s a little early to tell. However, the early signs aren’t particularly encouraging.

I don’t like that she tried to promote murtha. If you are anti-corruption, his name doesn’t jump to the head of the list. I’m aware he wasn’t convicted, but, one would think appearances matter. What makes it worse is she was swiftly repudiated by her own party.

Second, I don’t like her already breaking the campaign promise about the Congressional work-week.

Finally, looking forward, she had better tread very carefully when talking about witholding funds from active combat troops.

There is already suspicion in many quarters that the dems aren’t particularly tough on defense issues. This would allow plenty of bulletin-board material. If your immediate response is to praise them for “standing strong against Bush’s illegal war” be very careful. There are plenty of lists of these same characters voting to authorize the war.

Again, she had better be very careful.

JeffR

42

[quote]pat36 wrote:

An embryo isn’t human. The whole is greater that the sum of it’s parts; it is gestalt. An embryo does not sustain itself. It can not think, feel or experience life on any different level the the person it’s attached to. [/quote]

EXACTLY!!! Now you’re starting to get it. Try to accept the fact that these embryos are medical waste. Some scientists just think that they can be used for research rather than flushed or incinerated.

True, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with embryos. Try to stay on topic, please.

43

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
What are the specific properties in embryonic stem cells that are not found else where?

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.

Also, what have embryonic stem cells proven to cure or remedy over other sources. Nothing as I recall, but being a stem cell expert yourself you can enlighten all of us.

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?

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.

Insults don’t validate your points, you fucking retard. Nothing can validate your points, because they don’t have any connection with reality.
[/quote]

Peace be with you. Why so angry? Perhaps counseling can help.
Emrbynic stem cells are versitile, but so are amniotic stem cells. As versitle, I don’t know, but they have been able to generate nerve, brain, organ, bone and muscle tissue with no controversy and no destruction of life. The only thing you cannot do with it is clone. Why not pursue it to it’s limit. Take moment and breath. I am not your enemy unless you want me to be. If that’s the case I just simply will not respond to you.

44

[quote]tme wrote:
pat36 wrote:

An embryo isn’t human. The whole is greater that the sum of it’s parts; it is gestalt. An embryo does not sustain itself. It can not think, feel or experience life on any different level the the person it’s attached to.

EXACTLY!!! Now you’re starting to get it. Try to accept the fact that these embryos are medical waste. Some scientists just think that they can be used for research rather than flushed or incinerated.

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.

True, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with embryos. Try to stay on topic, please.
[/quote]

That’s not what I wrote, why did you change it?

45

[quote]pat36 wrote:
That’s not what I wrote, why did you change it?[/quote]

Simply to make a point. An embryo is no more a “human” than skin. You can call it a fetus all you want, that doesn’t make it so.

46

[quote]tme wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That’s not what I wrote, why did you change it?

Simply to make a point. An embryo is far more a “human” than skin. You can call it a fetus all you want, that doesn’t make it so.

[/quote]

Oh, well here’s mine. Fun Game. I’ll try it on wreckless.

47

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Emrbynic stem cells are versitile, but so are amniotic stem cells.[/quote]

Gee, thanks for repeating my own posts back at me.

Exactly like embryonic stem cells from embryos, since their is no life involved there either.

Let’s respect “life” by dumping those embryos with the rest of the medical waste, instead of trying to advance medical knowledge and maybe cure a few debilitating disease.

Or would you like to adopt a few and have your wife carry some to term?

Enemy? You’re more like a snot-nosed know-nothing kid that needs to be schooled a little so that he can follow what the adults are discussing without being too annoying.

But you shutting up works for me.

48

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Emrbynic stem cells are versitile, but so are amniotic stem cells.

Gee, thanks for repeating my own posts back at me.

As versitle, I don’t know, but they have been able to generate nerve, brain, organ, bone and muscle tissue with no controversy and no destruction of life.

Exactly like embryonic stem cells from embryos, since their is no life involved there either.

Let’s respect “life” by dumping those embryos with the rest of the medical waste, instead of trying to advance medical knowledge and maybe cure a few debilitating disease.

Or would you like to adopt a few and have your wife carry some to term?

The only thing you cannot do with it is clone. Why not pursue it to it’s limit. Take moment and breath. I am not your enemy unless you want me to be. If that’s the case I just simply will not respond to you.

Enemy? You’re more like a snot-nosed know-nothing kid that needs to be schooled a little so that he can follow what the adults are discussing without being too annoying.

But you shutting up works for me.
[/quote]

Your just mad because I am right… :slight_smile:

49

[quote]JeffR wrote:
As a liberal democrat, I can honestly say: Nancy who?

Seriously, I think it’s a little early to tell. However, the early signs aren’t particularly encouraging.

I don’t like that she tried to promote murtha. If you are anti-corruption, his name doesn’t jump to the head of the list. I’m aware he wasn’t convicted, but, one would think appearances matter. What makes it worse is she was swiftly repudiated by her own party.

Second, I don’t like her already breaking the campaign promise about the Congressional work-week.

Finally, looking forward, she had better tread very carefully when talking about witholding funds from active combat troops.

There is already suspicion in many quarters that the dems aren’t particularly tough on defense issues. This would allow plenty of bulletin-board material. If your immediate response is to praise them for “standing strong against Bush’s illegal war” be very careful. There are plenty of lists of these same characters voting to authorize the war.

Again, she had better be very careful.

JeffR[/quote]

Um, how about the fact that she said last year “I would support a troop surge if it would help us win.”

Now, look at what she’s saying… Our men in uniform deserve better than these idiots.

50

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:

Um, how about the fact that she said last year “I would support a troop surge if it would help us win.”

Now, look at what she’s saying… Our men in uniform deserve better than these idiots.

[/quote]

Maybe because there’s no reason at all to think that this “troop surge” is going to help us win anything? All it does is buy dubyadouche time to get out of town.

51

[quote]tme wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:

Um, how about the fact that she said last year “I would support a troop surge if it would help us win.”

Now, look at what she’s saying… Our men in uniform deserve better than these idiots.

Maybe because there’s no reason at all to think that this “troop surge” is going to help us win anything? All it does is buy dubyadouche time to get out of town.

[/quote]

tme,

You mean he’s having a hard time making the tough call?

That’s great. This must be the newest liberal tag-line. As usual, it’s just nonsense. Toss another on the dung-heap.

Chucky,

Yes, I’m aware of the usual democratic flip-floppery. Want the truth? It just makes me more angry at the Republicans and the uninformed voter.

I don’t really blame the dems for being dems.

I blame the Republicans for not governing with strength and principle. I blame the voter for being so myopic.

Is anyone suprised that 30 days ago reid and pelosi were championing Bush’s new tactics?

JeffR

52

[quote]pat36 wrote:
tme wrote:
pat36 wrote:

An embryo isn’t human. The whole is greater that the sum of it’s parts; it is gestalt. An embryo does not sustain itself. It can not think, feel or experience life on any different level the the person it’s attached to.

EXACTLY!!! Now you’re starting to get it. Try to accept the fact that these embryos are medical waste. Some scientists just think that they can be used for research rather than flushed or incinerated.

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.

True, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with embryos. Try to stay on topic, please.

That’s not what I wrote, why did you change it?[/quote]

Multiple choice quiz:
(A) he’s a troll
(B) he’s a troll
(C) he’s a troll

53

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Multiple choice quiz:
(A) he’s a troll
(B) he’s a troll
(C) he’s a troll

[/quote]

Hmmm, I pick A! or B! no, no C!

54

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

And she MIGHT be a supporter of NAMBLA, and other satanic rituals.

[/quote]

I don’t understand. What’s your problem with the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association?

55

[quote]hedo wrote:
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]

You’re joking, right? You realize that Congress only met something like 110 times last year? You realize that last Congress under Hastert’s leadership is considered one of the worst do-nothing Congresses in American history?

Do you realize that the majority was completely bitch-slapped at the polls a few weeks ago, as a result of their terrible performance under Hastert’s leadership?

Who are the Democrats who you say praised Hastert as an effective leader?

Maybe we just have widely different ideas of what “lazy” is.

56

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
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?

You’re joking, right? You realize that Congress only met something like 110 times last year? You realize that last Congress under Hastert’s leadership is considered one of the worst do-nothing Congresses in American history?

Do you realize that the majority was completely bitch-slapped at the polls a few weeks ago, as a result of their terrible performance under Hastert’s leadership?

Who are the Democrats who you say praised Hastert as an effective leader?

Maybe we just have widely different ideas of what “lazy” is. [/quote]

If you were too “lazy” to listen to Madame Pelosi’s introduction then you failed to listen to her comments and those of the man who introduced her “Hoyer” the majority leader. They both offered praise to Hastert, as they should have.

Why didn’t congress meet again this past Monday?

Only the Democrats consider it a do nothing congress. When you mature you’ll see that campaign slogans are not really something you should base political decisions on.

Personally the less Congress does the better the country is. In the case of this congress the less they work the better off everyone will be.

Her ethics bill went over well in the Senate. The Republicans offered to adopt it as approved by the house but it was shot down by Harry because of earmarks…until he realized it was Madame Pelosi’s bill. Ooops. No he is trying to get enough votes to support it but not being very sucessful at it. The Senate is a lot more pork oriented.

You should be prepared to recieve the same criticism the Democrats leveled since 2001. You’ll have to do a better job of fact checking and your opinions have to be based on something more then Daily Kos talking points and hatred of GWB if you want this to be at all interesting… and educational for you.