Comments on: Stem cell objections from the president’s council

By: Serious George

Serious George — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:42:23 +0000

If Obama’s intentions were to unshackle science from the sway of politics, why did his executive order also revokes Bush’s Executive Order 13435, which specifically advocated support for HHS/NIH research involving induced pluripotent stem cells?

In a moment of unintentional transparency, Obama’s political vindictiveness shines through and in the glare science is disregarded. What’s his motive? Could it be a brazen intent to suppress the potential of IPSC to please the interests of those who put him in office by sticking it to the Bushies? Pro-science president, indeed. High level hack is more like it. Who cares how long it took the bioethics counsel to object? At least there are some in DC who aren’t still so deliriously schnookered by this poser that they can’t stand up straight.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:01:32 +0000

Even a half-whit knows that I was referring to people within the Bush circle in #11, not the average man on the street.

Report comment to moderator

By: RPN

RPN — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:18:32 +0000

Dangerous Behaviors in Llamas by Alvin Bean

There has been much said, done and written about the terror of “Berserk Male Syndrome” or “Aberrant Behavior Syndrome” in llama circles….learn more about dangerous Llamas at the link.

Report comment to moderator

By: llama

llama — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:52:57 +0000

Amlir,

Hers is your entire comment in #11

At least our current President allows dissent, unlike his predecessor. I cannot think of a single instance where any one person, much less 10, issued a statement disagreeing with President Bush. They would have been shipped off to one of the C.I.A.’s “black sites” if they had.

No0 where do you mention the ‘We’re talking about the members of the President’s Ethics Council.’

See – you lied and then lied about lying. We need to come up with a word to describe that lefty syndrome. Insane seenms to work for you again and is what I would call it, Don’t worry Anlir, you can try to change the meaning of that word too but only crazy people would do that

What a peach.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:12:13 +0000

Of course we aren’t talking about the man on the street here. No doubt, there were 10’s of millions of “man on the street” Americans who publicly opposed President Bush. We’re talking about the members of the President’s Ethics Council.

As for Llama’s accusation that I’m lying, give me a break. He accuses everyone who disagrees with him of lying. He’s so Christ-like when he does that.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:01:11 +0000

It’s all political. And supporting the UN program which works with the Chinese to force abortions and sterilizations — the left is responsible for that and has that grief on its collective head.

Report comment to moderator

By: Serious George

Serious George — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:07:40 +0000

Anlir’s ridiculous, histrionic and irrelevant projecting aside, this is the same Obama who recently defended his ESC policy on the basis of its potential to cure Alzheimer’s disease, despite the lack of of any reputable scientific support toward this end. Only the most demagogic know-nothings cheer this sort of snakeoilsmanship. And they have the gall to call Bush the “antiscience” president.

Good grief. At least show some self respect. And take time to read the council on bioethics reports before deeming Obama’s scientifically illiterate posing something superior to the opinions of the folks Bush put on the council. He doesn’t need a “group of hacks”? Apparently, what he doesn’t feel a need for is a rudimentary understanding of the science behind the issues he postures about. Again, antiscience, indeed!

Report comment to moderator

By: llama

llama — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:51:36 +0000

#11 Anlir,

All you had to do is look here when Bush was trying to pass Drugs for Granny. They were millions on the right who were against him doing so and they had no prroblem saying so. But this wasn’t the only issue we had with Bush either. Put on your honesty hat for one moment. Can you name any other issues where at least 10 people disagreed with Bush? Do you need help in remembering? How about the full page adds taken out where there were many more than 10 signatures against Bush’s ideas all conservatives?

Caught you lying again didn’t I? Go ahead and admit it and set yourself free?

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:03:25 +0000

Report comment to moderator

By: arcadia

arcadia — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:47:43 +0000

Mynock: While I am certainly not loath to jump on Bush, his bioethics panel was (and is) a pretty sharp bunch of eggheads. They have issued several reports highlighting some of the more serious issues arising out of bio-technology and generally have advocated restraint and reason in development and use of genetic technology.

I disagree with the majority of the panel on stem cell research, but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the panels’ intellectual firepower and actual reports to date.

Report comment to moderator