You know the answer to that. Liberals are never happy unless they are able to spend taxpayers' money on their projects. It ain't about the project - its about forcing the government to pay for it.

Why don't the liberals who are for higher taxes voluntarily pay higher taxes? Why don't the liberals for the death tax donate their estates to the feds? Why do the liberals who were for forced busing your kids across town to school send theirs to private schools? Why do liberals who inherit great sums of money accept it? Why do they protect their assets by complicated trusts?

They are Blowhard HIPPOCRITS TO THE CORE.

Spending taxpayers' money is their theme song.
This is the reason they were so utterly livid when
President Bush wanted to offer tax cuts to those
who actually 'paid taxes'. It's a big No No to the libs, who never met a tax they didn't like.

BTW, good to see you posting again Rev.Scaramonga-
have wondered where you've been and if you were well.

President Bush has said that he would favor federal funding for research using existing stem cell lines. So his threat to use a veto for embryonic stem cells is in fact a religous based decision that panders to his far right wing religous base.

Jo, in particular this addresses your accusation.

Matt,
I find it fairly disingenuous for the right to rail against "ultra-rich liberal folks" when the vast majority of the so-called "ultra-rich" represent the true "base" of this president.
The real question should be: How can the Republicans justify throwing away some $2 billion a week to prop up the brutal and illegal occupation of Iraq while neglecting medical technology that will likely have a profound and positive affect on a number of serious public health and humanitarian issues?
But wait, that's easy; in their manic desire to turn over the legitimate responsibility of government to "faith-based" organizations and private enterprise,they have forgotten the "general welfare" of the American people -- something I'm sure the voters will remind them of this November!

Matt,
I find it fairly disingenuous for the right to rail against "ultra-rich liberal folks" when the vast majority of the so-called "ultra-rich" represent the true "base" of this president.
The real question should be: How can the Republicans justify throwing away some $2 billion a week to prop up the brutal and illegal occupation of Iraq while neglecting medical technology that will likely have a profound and positive affect on a number of serious public health and humanitarian issues?
But wait, that's easy; in their manic desire to turn over the legitimate responsibility of government to "faith-based" organizations and private enterprise,they have forgotten the "general welfare" of the American people -- something I'm sure the voters will remind them of this November!

LOOK UP ^

That's what's passing for conservative ideas these days.

Embryonic stem cell research (which is what's currently excluded from federal funding) has very little prospect. Every time they've injected embryonic stem cells into a test animal it's developed tumors at the injection site and there's been no medical benefit noted.

(The only positive results for this came from that South Korean researcher who was recently caught forging his results.)

Adult stem cells, OTOH, show great promise and aren't banned from federal funding. They don't get much, either, because companies doing this work don't need the Federal money: Tney're getting plenty of private money and w/o the strings attached that the Feds impose.

What seems to be happening is that the companies doing embryonic research can't find private funding because it's a high-risk venture (ie., no evidence that anything will come out of it) so they're lobbying Congress to spend public money instead. Based on what we know today this is kind of like throwing money down a rat hole, however. Entirely aside from the moral principles Bush would be right to veto spending for this.

So his threat to use a veto for embryonic stem cells is in fact a religous based decision

Your stupidity knows no bounds. Many, many people just like me who are atheists also believe it wrong to destroy embryos for scientific experimentation. Making it about religion is a lie or at least glaringly stupid on your part. What am I not surprised?

Embryonic stem cell research (which is what's currently excluded from federal funding) has very little prospect.

Why then do researchers say differently? Why do they want to research embryonic cells? Why are you so against it if that's what the experts say? I'm not a scientist . Are you?

Surely they all don't have a pro choice agenda.

Actually I think it will be hilarious that Bush's first veto will be a faith based directive. (God must be talking to him again)

Embryonic stem cell research (which is what's currently excluded from federal funding) has very little prospect. Every time they've injected embryonic stem cells into a test animal it's developed tumors at the injection site and there's been no medical benefit noted.

(The only positive results for this came from that South Korean researcher who was recently caught forging his results.)

Adult stem cells, OTOH, show great promise and aren't banned from federal funding. They don't get much, either, because companies doing this work don't need the Federal money: Tney're getting plenty of private money and w/o the strings attached that the Feds impose.

What seems to be happening is that the companies doing embryonic research can't find private funding because it's a high-risk venture (ie., no evidence that anything will come out of it) so they're lobbying Congress to spend public money instead. Based on what we know today this is kind of like throwing money down a rat hole, however. Entirely aside from the moral principles Bush would be right to veto spending for this.

If it were scientists making embryos for the sole reason of destroying them, I would have a problem... but the fact of the matter is, most of the embryos that are currently used for stem-cell research are surplus fertility clinic embryos and are usually thrown away.

I would rather us "destroy" the embryo in a lab trying to find a cure for parkinsons (or other various diseases) than us destroy it by tossing it in the trash can.

About the government funding issue...

46 years ago, it seemed pretty high-risk to go to the moon... but 9 years later Buzz was bouncing around the face of the moon... discovering once and for all that it is not made of cheese...

Do you think that the government shouldn't fund things that are "high risk"? Guess that throws cancer research, AIDS research, new nuclear energies, cleaner coal technologies, Reagan's "Star Wars" (space based lasers for shooting down missiles), deeper research into E85 Ethanol (it sure is hard to transoport that stuff), oil exploration, bridges in Alaska, etc.

Seems like a lot of stuff that seem relatively necessary wouldn't make the cut.

Orion, give us a site for your claim that Embryonic Stem Cell research shows few prospects.

Isn't this legistration eing passed by a Republican congress? This is an issue that has a great deal of support across party lines.

Leave it up to a liberal to throw the "Iraq War" card on a STEM CELL post.

Oh Lord. Another post that makes me roll my eyes.

You Rightwing warmongers give up 2/3 of the defense budget and we can sit and talk, until then .....Peace

Orion, give us a site for your claim that Embryonic Stem Cell research shows few prospects.

Site or cite? Should Orion cite a site? Get it right, Frawg; ma and pa are wasting good money, sending you to UGA.

It still seems to me that few people realize that issue being debated is the federal funding of stem cell research, and not an outright ban.

Nice try, Matt, but it appears as if the moonbats have chosen, once again, to ignore the real debate. Also, it's as if they've swallowed--hook, line, and sinker--John Edwards' "Christopher Reeve" speech during the '04 election campaign.

Yes, God told Bush to veto the bill. God also told him to round up all the kooks, before they get us all killed. I'm expecting a call from him any day, as I applied for the new DHS position, HMFIC, Rounding up the Dissidents.

That is to say, when they create this position...

I spilled so much "ink" on this issue in several previous topics, I wonder if it's really worth doing it again. Probably not. I'm busy. Knock yourselves out. But in general, from what has been written on this particular topic, Frawg has the best grasp of the issues and Orion the least.

The issue isn't "prospects" for fetal stem cell research. The possibilities abound. It's really about the morality. In that regard, the big elephant in the room is the hundreds of thousands of existing embryos whose fate hangs in the balance between (1) freezer burn and (2) some less ignominious fate. Given things as they stand IN THE HERE AND NOW freezer burn is as good as it gets for the vast majority of those hundreds of thousands of existing embryos. The REAL question is... WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? How do we stop the pile from getting bigger? And quite independently of that, how do we make the best of a bad situation that already exists? All by itself the reality that exists turns the moral question on its head. Most definitely, it is time to GET REAL!

I spilled so much "ink" on this issue in several previous topics, I wonder if it's really worth doing it again. Probably not. I'm busy. Knock yourselves out. But in general, from what has been written on this particular topic, Frawg has the best grasp of the issues and Orion the least.

The issue isn't "prospects" for fetal stem cell research. The possibilities abound. It's really about the morality. In that regard, the big elephant in the room is the hundreds of thousands of existing embryos whose fate hangs in the balance between (1) freezer burn and (2) some less ignominious fate. Given things as they stand IN THE HERE AND NOW freezer burn is as good as it gets for the vast majority of those hundreds of thousands of existing embryos. The REAL question is... WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? How do we stop the pile from getting bigger? And quite independently of that, how do we make the best of a bad situation that already exists? All by itself the reality that exists turns the moral question on its head. Most definitely, it is time to GET REAL!

The issue isn't "prospects" for fetal stem cell research. The possibilities abound. It's really about the morality.

Bingo

It's really about the morality.

Can't have any of that, eh, Trash can?

Not so, or at least not complely. As mentioned above, there has been great strides with adult stem cell research, with actual cures and treatments coming from said research. Even stem cell research from umbilical cords has shown promise.

Nothing has come from embryonic stem cell research. So, why bother? Or is the research just giving the abortion on demand libs another excuse?

What? THIS ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, MARK? You have no legs to stand on when sniping others about humanitarian health research issues.

The uber-point you are intentionally ignoring is that IT'S A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS! If you don't LIKE what they're doing, vote Democrat next time.

The other uber-point you are obfuscating is that California has a four billion dollar stem cell research budget, and it's creating a brain drain from the east coast of the finest medical stem cell researchers who are all waxing up their surfboards and heading for Caaleeefornia. If this keeps up, big pharma is gonna miss out on all that patented drug money, plain and simple, and blue state California is gonna eat everyone else's lunch. YOUR Republgeckos can't contain their greed, even for their beloved fuhrer, or even their Almighty God.

But, come on pal, Soros' philanthropy puts every single Republican elected official to shame. To shame.

Unless you very carefully don't click the link I've provided and claim ignorance. But if your dare, click around, check out the grants and scholarships area. Compare THIS LIST OF SOROS PASTIMES with what you've been up to lately.

About those voluntary taxes, how about this? Everyone who thought the fake Iraq war was a good idea gets to pay FOR THE WAR. Sounds fair to me. I'll pay for universal health care, medical research, clean environment, healthy public lands, the arts and culture, international diplomacy, police and fire protection, and YOU pay for the war. I get the benefits of my investment, and you get the war. Fair? Still moaning about those liberals spending after a trillion dollars goes bye-bye into the Middle East?

Still think Iraq was an investment is Middle East stability. Still think Bush has made the world a safer place? I thought so.

Sew, dude, if you are going to spell it in all caps, at least spell-check it. Is "hippocrit" slang for one of those hippopotamus critters? Just askin'...

"Me blow hard..."
      \
       \
  .-''''-. _    
 ('    '  '0)-/)
 '..____..:    \._
   \u  u (        '-..------._
   |     /      :   '.        '--.
  .nn_nn/ (      :   '            '\
 ( '' '' /      ;     .             \
  ''----' "\          :            : '.
         .'/                           '.
        / /                             '.
       /_|       )                     .\|
         |      /\                     . '
         '--.__|  '--._  ,            /
                      /'-,          .'
                     /   |        _.' 
                snd (____\       /    
                          \      \    
                           '-'-'-'    

1H8L1BS-

Site as in "website."

Probably could have worded it better, but it sure was nice that all you could contest in my post was a typo. Thanks for the compliment.

Your argument is: if you support anything, you should fund it. Otherwise you don't really support it??

How about you conservatives fund the Iraqi occupation? Better yet, join the army. Most Americans do not support your war. Why should we pay for it?

Sorry, Mark. Meant Matt....

Sew says:

"Why don't the liberals who are for higher taxes voluntarily pay higher taxes? Why don't the liberals for the death tax donate their estates to the feds? Why do the liberals who were for forced busing your kids across town to school send theirs to private schools? Why do liberals who inherit great sums of money accept it? Why do they protect their assets by complicated trusts?"

Well, sew, why don't you Bushians who are for no taxes and endless deficits stop using our public schools, highways and other infrastructure? Why don't the Bushians who don't want to contribute to the national treasury pay for their own wars against countries who didn't attack us on 9/11?

And if stem cell research finally provides new cures, I fully expect all you Bushians to refuse such life-saving treatments for yourselves and any of your family members.

"Leave it up to a liberal to throw the "Iraq War" card on a STEM CELL post."

Isn't it odd that President Bush is willing to accept the reality of thousands of dead American soldiers in Iraq in the pursuit of his foolish neocon wet dream of a "democratic" Iraq, yet is unwilling to utilize human embryos created in fertility clinics, and destined to be destroyed anyway, to further scientific research that could potentially benefit all of humanity?

How is it that a human embryo that exists in a petri dish, which is really only a clump of cells that cannot become a human being unless implanted in a womb, is somehow more sacred than the lives of living, breathing American soldiers now being squandered in Iraq? The idea that a human embryo has a "soul" and is somehow imbued with all the rights and privileges accorded a living, breathing, human being is nothing more than religious dogma. If human embryos are equivalent to human beings, why are fertility clinics allowed to destroy unwanted embryos?

The fact that Bush is willing to issue his first veto to prevent scientific research on embryonic stem cells derived from these unwanted embryos, a goal that has bipartisan support in Congress, speaks volumes about Bush's character. It shows Bush for what he is: a shallow, intellectually lazy, authoritarian bully who allows political loyalties and religious dogma to determine science policy in this country.

I hope enough people in Congress will have the balls to defy the Decider, and will overturn his veto. In some small way it would help to restore my faith that not everyone in Washington is a loser.

Paying for the war would be a deal IF we don't have to save your sorry ass too. INFIDEL. Now run along and listen to Ward Churchill or Cindy.

Parrot.

btw, Sew, most of the tax dollars in this country are paid by the citizens of Blue states, and most of the domestic federal outlays go to citizens of the red states.

Quit sucking off us, you dead-beat welfare queens. Don't want to pay taxes? - fine. But don't expect us liberals to keep subsidizing your public infrastructure, and your penchant for foreign crusades.

In fact, why don't you Red staters just secede from the Union and found your own tax-free, gay-free theocracy based on Jerry Falwell's unique interpretation of the Bible? After all - that is your ultimate goal - isn't it?

Well if the federal funding of stem cell research is vetoed, then the remaining privately-funded stem cell research should be considerably more efficient and cost-effective and occur with less waste.

Aaron, if we seceded, what where would you hippie beatniks get your food...because the farms in those blue states (northern California, Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, and it up state New York and I could go on an on... vote Republican...

maybe it has something to do with working with their hands and perhaps it has something to do with knowing how insignificant we all are means we know there is a God. And perhaps to quote the end of a great movie...

"Sometimes it all still feels like a mass of dots.
But, more and more these days, I feel like we're all connected. And it's beautiful. And funny. And good."

...we have a better way of knowing we're connected, but that doesn't mean we must be weak in the face of others.

By the way, the movie I quoted was from Latter Days, one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Good Lord where is all this palatable anger coming from? Has this site been hijacked by people with BDS or something else like too many bong hits?

Let's have an intellectual debate about the topic for heaven's sake. Grow up!

Aarontime, one more time. Lower taxes increase tax revenue by creating a larger tax base. Every time. Higher taxes reduces tax revenue by reducing the tax base. Just ask the EU, except low taxed Ireland and Eastern Europe where tax revenues are soaring.

Congressive, if it weren't for the military providing freedom for you, you would not need health care, the arts and culture and you certainly would not have "healthy" public lands, whatever that might be.

Have you heard the Iranians want the nuke? Pair their nuke with your arts and culture and with "healthy" public lands. Why don't you and the French use diplomacy for freedom?

Have you heard the end game is for everyone to belong to radical Islam? Unless you are a female or black radical, or a Jewish radical, then you still get sacrificed unless you happen to be a virgin. But you nutcases are at the head of their list. You do embrace gay marriagee don't you? Off with your head no doubt. That might work for you "cultured" pseudo-intellectuals, but not me.

Go ahead, cut and run.

Aaron, if we seceded, what where would you hippie beatniks get your food..

One word: Canada

I don't think states can be split, wallyworld, so we still get California, Washington, Oregon, New York.

And you get ........Texas, bwahahahaha

You bitched for 6 years that Bush didn't veto anything and now that he is threatening it, your panties are in a bind...what the f*ck? It must come natural to take both sides of EVERY argument...even if it conflicts with a statement you just made...

Actually we can partition a state with a simple act of the State legislature and the Congress...

and guess what... sad sack face.. the entire Continent of North America (some debate if Central America is part of North America)... I'll define it as the nations of NAFTA... are all headed by conservatives..

does that make you pee in your depends?

and trust me, I've been to Texas and I've been to California, and the generoisity and kindness of the Texas people are leaps and bounds better than anything California can muster... you people may be liberal, but it doesn't mean you know manners.

Are you talkin' to me? I couldn't agree more about Californians. People from Texas elected Dubya governor so that tells you all you need to know about their intelligence.

In some small way it would help to restore my faith that not everyone in Washington is a loser.

So, jack-off, you live in Washington?

The fact that Bush is willing to issue his first veto to prevent scientific research on embryonic stem cells derived from these unwanted embryos, a goal that has bipartisan support in Congress, speaks volumes about Bush's character. It shows Bush for what he is: a shallow, intellectually lazy, authoritarian bully who allows political loyalties and religious dogma to determine science policy in this country.

Well-written, jack-off--too bad it's intellectually dishonest. Nobody is gonna prevent research or determine science policy, as Matt has stated, time and time again. We're talking funding here, you mentally bankrupt pseudo-intellectual!!!

jack-off presented yet another liberal strawman...

wawillyo, don't waste your time with Ashley. He's fifty-seven, at least, and he has the mental capacity of a three-year-old window licker. His hobby is pole dancing. Actually, that's what he does for a living; he's a pole dancer at a gay bar in his hometown. Now you just watch him come back with something original...

wallyworld says:

...because the farms in those blue states (northern California, Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington, and it up state New York and I could go on an on... vote Republican...maybe it has something to do with working with their hands...

uh, not exactly wally. Agricultural areas that tend to vote Repub are those where big agribusiness holds sway. Areas where smaller family farms predominate tend to have survived the onslaught of big government-subsidized agribusiness by meeting local demands for organic produce and other niches - where both the suppliers and the consumers tend to be democratic. These are the people who actually do "work with their hands", as you say - and they ain't votin Republican.

In fact, while we're on this subject, that's another thing we blue staters should refuse to pay for: subsidies to big agribusiness (Cargill, ADM, etc) to grow corn and wheat at far below cost, devastating small farms from Iowa to Guatemala, and creating an entire generation of obese Americans. Time to end all this corporate welfare! You want to pay for it - then go ahead and secede.

You all have already proved your disdain for the US Constitution, so why not declare your independence and write your own Constitution? You can do away with congress and the courts and crown W as your perpetual king. You can have the poor pay all the taxes, which will be deposited directly into corporate bank accounts - why go thru this silly middleman known as the US Treasury? Then y'all can shuffle around the aisles of Wal-Mart, awaiting the rapture while good King George declares martial law, warifies against the evil-doers residing in countries you never heard of, and runs up enormous tabs your children and childrens' children will never be able to pay.

Just don't expect us blue staters to give you any foreign aid. We might occasionally give you some medical assistance, but otherwise you'll need to seek private donations to keep you afloat.

Actually 1H8... it's okay... I was born in Oregon, and went to school in Washington, and now am in Dallas, and I can assure you, California and New York and Boston, no matter how much they piss and moan, DO NOT, (times infinity) represent the American people...

I'm sure Ash has some good intentions, if he'd be willing to get over his Bush Hate... and the best part, he doesn't even know that's what causing him to be the tool he is.

"Liberals are never happy unless they are able to spend taxpayers' money on their projects. It ain't about the project - its about forcing the government to pay for it." - Reverand

Oh the great irony of this statement, Rev. See: Iraq War (debacle).

"Many, many people just like me who are atheists also believe it wrong to destroy embryos for scientific experimentation."

Even if it is able to save many, many lives in the future - you still believe it's wrong?

Funny, you don't find anything wrong with slaughtering dozens of thousands of innocent Iraqis for the "greater good" of the war, but stem cell research, well, that's just too much for you to bear. And you're on this site preaching about "morality." That is so rich.

Funny, too, but not the least bit surprising.

Ash -

"People from Texas elected Dubya governor so that tells you all you need to know about their intelligence."

Hey, lighten up on Texans, will ya? Only 41% of them approve of W's job performance, so they can't be all that bad! ;)

Odd... he was the first person to ever win RE-ELECTION as Texas Governor...

Odd that he won a greater percentage of the vote than any Democrat President since FDR... odd again I guess.

Sounds like you're just upset that you can't change history so you'll work on rewriting it...

What no conservative ever mentions is that this high moral ground starts losing meaning when one of THEM needs the benefits of liberal legislation; thus Nancy Reagan opposed stem cell research until Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease-then she came to Washington to advocate for funding. James Brady was all for the second amendment until he was shot by a handgun while protecting Reagan-then his family advocated for the Brady Bill, limiting access to handguns. And Dick Cheney, a staunch conservative, wouldn't join his boss to advocate against gay marriage-why because of his lesbian daughter, Mary.

When its your loved one that's dying of cancer or Parkinson's disease, or deteriorating from Alzheimers, you right wing nuts will stop caring about the rights of embryos that would have been discarded anyway, or your taxes going to pay for stem cell research.

Why don't any of you ever complain about the billions that have been lost through fraud and waste in Iraq? Do you know that eight billion that was supposed to be spent on reconstruction was lost by this administration, because there is such poor control over American tax-payer's money over there?

Wallyworld writes:

"Odd that he won a greater percentage of the vote than any Democrat President since FDR... odd again I guess."

What are smoking, and what color is the sky where you live? W won "a greater percentage of the vote than any democrat President since FDR...."? Huh? W "won" in 2000 with 47.9% of the vote and managed 50.7% in 2004, the lowest popular margin of any re-elected president in history. Meanwhile, Johnson won in 1964 with 61.1%. Where do you get your history, wally?

On this comment:

Embryonic stem cell research (which is what's currently excluded from federal funding) has very little prospect.

A long time ago there was a failing little project called the light bulb. Over and over Edison (and others) failed to create a working light... It was only through these failures that success was found.

For centuries people have been using their failures to figure out a better product (how many people with AIDS had to suffer to find the medicines that help today... Every medicine that has been created started out as a device of "little prospect."

What if your parents had decided that after they had sex for six times and failed to conceive it was of "little prospect" and you were never conceived (other than a little more air for the rest of us not much)...

Now, to comment about private citizens paying for things such as this. Why is it that every sports team gets the city or state to fund a new stadium (Ok.. almost every team) when there are plenty of private people to pay for them?

My guess is, why would a private citizen want to pay for something the goverment will pay for in my place? To go even deeper than that... if the goverment is willing to pay for something then they are also giving their thumbs up to the action that those funds go to.

Lets not confuse a money issue (since Bush has spent more money and expanded the goverment beyond the wildest dreams of any Democratic president) for a moral issue which does not mean it is devided down the lines of left and right but often by the personal experiences of the "we the people."

But to point out a few things, stem cells do not have to come from an abortion (although you can certainly collect them there). The cord blood of the thousands of babies that are born each day contains stem cells and no one has to die to collect these cells. As a matter of fact these cells are already being used in a lot of medicines and research (including embryonic research).

But to get back to the point of the orginal post and why the liberals will not pay for private research? The same reason the convervitives would not if the lines of the issue were reversed. Lets face it... the "rich" do not get richer by donating their money. However there are a lot of venture capitalists investing in stem cell research and the private money is out there; but nothing beats goverment funds!

(Excuse the spelling ;)

Wallyworld again:

"Odd... he was the first person to ever win RE-ELECTION as Texas Governor..."

Really? Lets see... Dolph Briscoe, a democrat, won the Texas governorship in 1972, and was re-elected in 1974 to a four year term (prior to 1974, the term for Texas governor was 2 years). Preston Smith, another democrat, was elected in 1968 and re-elected in 1970. John Conally, yet another democrat, was elected in 1962, re-elected in 1964, and re-elected again in 1966, winning his re-elections by 73.8% and 72.8% respectively.

Who is "re-writing history" wally?

Wallyworld again:

"Odd... he was the first person to ever win RE-ELECTION as Texas Governor..."

Really? Lets see... Dolph Briscoe, a democrat, won the Texas governorship in 1972, and was re-elected in 1974 to a four year term (prior to 1974, the term for Texas governor was 2 years). Preston Smith, another democrat, was elected in 1968 and re-elected in 1970. John Conally, yet another democrat, was elected in 1962, re-elected in 1964, and re-elected again in 1966, winning his re-elections by 73.8% and 72.8% respectively.

Who is "re-writing history" wally?

My apologies, ATime. You can stay in the Blue USA!

My apologies, ATime. You can stay in the Blue USA!

Hey Ih8libs:

You've seen my picture. Who would pay me for a lap dance?

Hmm... I don't care one way or the other about embryonic stem cell research. I think I've shown time and again here that I'm not a "regligious fanatic" so we can skipt that as well.

To me, I don't see why this is an issue at all. If scientists can get the funding they should be able to do it since it's not banned. Why go to the federal feed line if they don't like you? Just find some like minded rich folks or lots of like minded folks and have them pay for your research?

My biggest question is, if this technology has such promise, why do you need federal funding for it? Don't we usually use federal funds for projects that aren't comercially attractive? Like space travel was, or military applications? Why should we fund stem cell research?

I'm not sure about this Gozer, but there might be an element of "strings attached" to accepting private funding. I would suspect that whoever funds the successful research project would want to keep influence over how the product is marketed (and the enormous profits). I think scientists are still idealistic enough to not want private concerns having that kind of control.

What do you think?

I think the feds put their owns "Strings" on things as well. That are probably even less condusive to "proper science." Since I work in the space industry I see the strings all the time. There are strings to almost everything it seems.

Though I do agree with you on this, every scientist I've met is very idealistic and not very buisness savy. So I could see them wanting government before private funding.

I see this as a continuation of the bizarrely Orwellian "Republicans want more federal control" situation. California is draining the brain pool with billions in funding. Scientists must go where the money is. If California succeeds with huge breakthroughs, it will be the sole benefactor of it's progressive policies. 49 other states cringe at the prospect, because they may not agree it's ethical, but they will SURELY pay for the life-extending and quality-of-life benefits the research may produce.

Big pharma is too busy developing the next male virility pill to dump billions into anything really useful. 4 hour erection pills, headache pills, sleeping pills, restless leg pills, allergy pills and bladder control pills are profitable NOW.

The REAL cynic in me says just think of how much money would be LOST by big pharma if stem cell research CURED spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, and the hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders that scientists believe possible. BILLIONS now spent on barely effective lifelong drug maintenance regimes would be lost as a result of cured people. Thousands of medical facilities would close. People with lung cancer would stop by Savon Drugstore for a sublingual pill to cure it and a new battery for their watch.

Caveat: I am a Liberal (with a capital "L"), but I oppose embryonic stem cell research of any kind, ever, unlike Bush who isn't opposed to it, but just doesn't want federal money spent on it, which I find the height of hypocracy.

Um how is it "Orwellian Control" if the government doesn't want to fund it? It would be more controlling to say yes we will fund it but you have to do it our way. It is also taking it off the taxpayers hands for something that is unproven and all indications are that it will never work, unlike adult stem cells or cord cells. Now some scientists are very idealistic and will bend every rule until they get the answer they want ei. korea. But you have to look past that and say Reserch and development in the medical field should be financed by the private sector like it has been and where we have seen the most innovation come from. And to clear up another point all goverment subsidies of medical research are a drop in the bucket when compared to the money that is donated by either private citizens or businesses.

Congressive...you said something I agree with above...and to paraphrase Comedian Chris Rock...

"Big Pharma" is not about finding a cure, there's no money in the cure, there's money in making us live with "it." It's like a drug dealer, once they get us hooked on a freebie, we keep coming back.

I do believe that some people act like embryonic stem-cell is a cure for everything but being kept back by people... I just wish people would start saying "it MAY prove to be helpful...instead of John Edwards and the like saying if we had federal funding, Christopher Reeve wouldn't have died."

I do believe it's up to the president and congress to determine what the government should research. Maybe if the president and congress got to looking at what we study, the federal government never would have funded a study on the viscocity of ketchup.

My bets are that both congressive and Aarontime have made $0.00 contributions for embryonic stem cell research, but don't expect an honest answer from them. However they have made much NOISE.

Kennedy and Kerry inherited and/or gigoloed their wealth and want to tax the rich while inheriting or protecting their own. Again, they are certainly free to talk the talk and walk the walk, but they don't! Just NOISE!

Cultured, intellectuals? Or BS artists? Cocktail chatter, sip that French red!

Anyone wanting humor this morning, go to little green footballs and read the comments to Richard [DICK] Cohens article in the WaPo.

1H8L1BS-

When Bush prevents federal money from being used to fund embryonic stem cell research, that *is* a federal science policy.

Next time, use a dictionary before you post nonsense.

The REAL cynic in me says just think of how much money would be LOST by big pharma if stem cell research CURED spinal cord injuries.......

Is that being cynical or REALISTIC? How long did it take the tobacco industry to admit their product was dangerous? Even after the scientific evidence was in. There is so much money to be lost as you suggested, and you know always to follow the money. (See latest entry: Even TIME Magazine Admits "Science Has Outrun The Politics" on Stem Cells)

Now the REAL cynic in me wonders if big pharma has gotten to Time Magazine.

Now the REAL cynic in me wonders if big pharma has gotten to Time Magazine.

Thats not cynicism, that's hallucinogenic paranoia, a disease common in far-Northern latitudes. So are you a Canuck or not?

Uh, what happened to the word 'embryonic'? Aren't adult stem cells fully funded and being researched by every pharmacutical out there? The only question about 'stem cell' research has to do with 'embryonic' stem cells. Why do you keep dropping the 'embryonic' word when it is critical to understanding what the issues are? You make it sound like ALL stem cell research is the same when it isn't and that is a diservice to us, your readers.

Since the debate seems to center more about tax-payer's subsidizing funding rather than actual use of the embryos in research, why not critique some of the pork-barrel spending our taxes were spent on? Alaska's Ted Stevens (R)wanted federal money for "the bridge to nowhere" which affected an area of about 50 people, while Trent Lott(R) wanted the federal government to pay to move railroad tracks out of the way of reconstruction in post-Katrina Mississippi. There are many examples besides the incredible cesspool in Iraq where our hard-earned dollars are being wasted. Money for stem cell research does not seem to fall into the same category. BTW, I doubt Bush is planning to veto this bill for fiscal reasons-he's still pandering to the Christian right to get them back to the polls in '06.