Posted on 01/08/2005 12:13:31 PM PST by kattracks
I'm going to write Ann Coulter and see if she -- a Constitutional Scholar and trusted conservative source can't get to the bottom of what happened and why.
When she told us we "must vote for Bush no matter what he does," she explained it was primarily for the fact he'd appoint conservative justices and thereby level the playing field of Justice.
(Save where the Clinton's are concerned, maybe. I guess it remains to be seen. I know this news bothers me but I have sneaking suspicion it's gonna be a real snoozer, media-wise.)
I am still reading your post.
But here is the applicable info on the ESCR, for those who are not familiar with Bush's statement (referred to by ASKEL5), and the actual policy, which are one in the same.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/NIHFedPolicy.asp
While I guess I don't really care - What ever happened to simply disclosing the indictment when it comes down, in the normal course. ANY interference by anyone in the process is wrong, whether it is to rush it or delay it for political or other advantage. 2 posted on 01/08/2005 2:17:44 PM CST by drt1
217 posted on 01/09/2005 7:54:10 PM CST by UCANSEE2 (>The government of our country was meant to be a servant of the people, not a master.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Sounds like a very well reasoned comment to me. It still fails the test that Bush should use it to his own political advantage however. The honorable poster said no such thing.
Maybe you could explain the details to us ill-informed Democrats.
What WHOLE NEW WINDOW are you referring to?
As I read it, he supplemented the policy of the NIH by setting a cutoff date for using some cells, and limited further cell use as coming from reproductive sources.
And that is the part I am not clear on. Exactly what is considered a reproductive source?
The net effect is to suppress human experimentation (meaning using humans to obtain cells from (foetus's for example) in ESCR.
Right , or wrong?
=== You must have a lot on your mind, and quite a prolific informational background, but it tends to hurt your communications as you veer this way
This is very true, unfortunately. Which is one reason, as tomorrow begins my return to Daily Mass Readings elsewhere and Sodality readings here, I'm thinking about just shutting the hell up entirely save for the occasional succinct, footnoted and sourced vanity post.
There are those who follow me (and spoil me in the process somewhat) but I am not suited, I guess, to this form of communication as a rule and should take a more disciplined approach so that I have some hope of reaching those -- like many on this thread -- whom I respect but who I think may be in error.
The trouble is that, however deadly serious I may be about begging Miss Marple to dummy up where the "pro-life" GOP is concerned, I actually hang out here because it's fun.
Maybe I should be more serious instead of inviting the (well-deserved) Cassandra treatment around here as a rule.
Thanks for the criticism, UCANSEE2. That, coupled with your very handle, is food for thought as "everything changes" for Askel tomorrow. =)
You got a good nose too Kattracks.
The Clintons did violate the law, many times, and there is proof. Those things I believe.
Other things like Ron Brown, Vince Foster, are easy to believe due to the history of Bill and Hillary, and other circumstantial information.
But, sometimes planes just crash. Sometimes people do commit suicide.
So certain things about the Clintons I see as possible, but unproven.
I have heard them both lie to the public, repeatedly, for profit, and to protect their positions.
I do not trust them, and would not be surprised to find out that every rumor about them is true.
But beleiving the rumors because the MSM said so, or a Freeper said so, is not my cup of tea. Stating rumors as fact, same cup.
But the concept that BUSH stalled the JD to protect the Clintons, or help Bush win the election, IS THE UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN, OPINION of "an undocumented source, which told the TIMES, which fed it to Carl L, which you read.
You should quit shooting yourself in the foot.
(Unless you have some inside information from the President himself or his staff)
In so many words, you don't want them indicted by the Bush administration either, right, wrong?
Disagree, sir.
The media is all about hype and sensationalism for profit.
That the leaders of the Democratic party chose to USE the POWER of the PRESS for ILLICIT GAIN, which garnered loyalty from the MEDIA (along with a silent promise to act unbiased to keep the favorite son status).
The media doesn't give a hoot about DEMS or REPUBS. If they thought it would sell more airtime or newspapers, they would print every unbecoming act of Bill Clinton in a heartbeat.
You are either insane or a democrat.
This would be a very illogical statement for a conservative type person to make. If she said it to me, I would laugh in her face.
(Save where the Clinton's are concerned, maybe. I guess it remains to be seen. I know this news bothers me but I have sneaking suspicion it's gonna be a real snoozer, media-wise.)
BTW, it's OKAY to talk to yourself, it's even OK to answer. Just as long as you don't say, "HUH?", or post it on a thread.
I'm confused. Was the poster (UCANSEE2) implying that I suggested that W should have used the indictment for political advantage? If so, you were right in your reading - I said no such thing and, in fact, said just the opposite - Arguing for COMPLETE agnosticism re: Things outside of the elections process (Of which this is one).
I'm surprised it could have been construed otherwise.
True. I said IMPLIED, and perhaps I was not clear about my use of that word.
I meant he/she referred to someone else stating that BUSH was doing this for advantage in the elections. (Hence: Implied Reference).
But, read to the end of the thread, and you will find a direct qoute.
I'm with Askel5 on this one. I would like to see him get to use the guillotine on them (legally, of course), for their proven crimes.
Was the poster (UCANSEE2) implying that I suggested that W should have used the indictment for political advantage? If so, you were right in your reading - I said no such thing and, in fact, said just the opposite - Arguing for COMPLETE agnosticism re: Things outside of the elections process (Of which this is one).
I'm surprised it could have been construed otherwise.
Yes drt1, UCANSEE2 was sticking up for soul seeker who thinks the Clintons should be left alone by the Bush administration. You are correct absolutely and they look silly.
I'll take door number one, Monte.
: )
Seriously, what is it in my statement that makes you consider me insane/democrat/or both?
Pray for W and Our Troops
You should try to be more consistant to avoid battering. Are you for indictment or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.