PeterDavid.net

Hmmm, with the Dems winning so much, and the most widely reported problems at the polls I wonder how much whinning we will see about "stealing" elections? Could it be there was really never a problem? If you were going to "steal" votes and can get away with it, why not now? Sure enough Dems win, the people have spoken, GOP wins they stole it, typical.

A question; How would the Evangelic Church would react to a change of discourse from their beloved Bush? There are few things that give me the creep like the evangelical church (way worse than catholic) and from here it appears like they have a strong influence in the GOP lately.

I'm shocked, vexed and grieved ...

ACTING! Thank you.

Though I am bascially conservative in my thinking, I'm willing to let the liberals prove me wrong.

Now show us how you can do it better.

In the past, when the polls favored Bush he talked about "a mandate from the people" and when the polls went against Bush we heard he doesn't decide things because of polls. Let's see if he changes his tone now.

I wonder what changes the Republicans will do now. Will they move more towards the middle, recognizing that there is room for compromise in America? Or will they try to galvanize their base in the south by more Bible-thumbing,gay bashing, abstinence-only policies?

And I fear the most accurate prediction of what we'll see may have come from the end of THE COLBERT REPORT: "The Democrats have only had a majority for six minutes, and they've already ruined things in Iraq."

He's called for bipartisanship understanding, because, y'know, he's never felt any differently.

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you make a similar post two years ago about how the "people have spoken" when Bush was re-elected and the GOP increased their numbers in the House and Senate?

Myself, I congratulate my friends and friendly opponents on the other side of the aisle. The pendulum always & inevitably swings, which is something that they should keep in mind. I am very interested to see what substantive ideas they are going to propose over the next Congressional term, seeing as there wasn't really one during the campaign.

By the way, was anyone aware that the name of the Republican challenger to NC's Speaker of the House was named Hal Jordan?

"Just out of curiosity, why didn't you make a similar post two years ago about how the "people have spoken" when Bush was re-elected and the GOP increased their numbers in the House and Senate?"

Because there's a difference between the people having spoken and the people having been snookered, which is what I believed happened. And as the polls clearly showed within months after the election, in an electoral display of buyer's remorse, the growing majority of voters agreed.

PAD

Furthermore, on the state level, another attempt at banning gay marriage was voted down

Unfortunately, PAD, I believe most of the gay marriage bans passed, including the one here in Colorado.

We also voted on a referendum which would've granted more basic rights to gay couples (such as hospital visitation rights, which are currently often denied), and it too failed.

Apparently this country is still too afraid of people who are happily in relationships of their own choosing.

Speaking for Texas we are still proud to have elected a man who will continue to make sure that we:

Kill as many animals (hunting) and criminals (executions) as possible, while at the same time speaking on how important all life is (abortion). We will continue to churn out students who are unprepared for the world and we will continue to beat our bible loudly when dealing with gays and other religions.

[i]Because there's a difference between the people having spoken and the people having been snookered, which is what I believed happened.[/i]

Sure! No snookering went on this go-round. Couldn't have happened. Un-possible. :) Certainly no one was snookered with Missouri's Amendment 2. God knows that without the venture capitalists getting constitutional protection there would never have been stem cell research in Missouri.

But it will be a nice reprieve to have the balance shift. Offense is a lot more fun to play than defense. Let the dust settle, let Speaker Pelosi assume her title and... let the games begin anew!

One thing I know I'll get tired of quickly is the republican side saying how that now they've won, the democrats have to prove they deserved it or show everyone what they will get done.

From my point of view, we spent the majority of Clinton's term with the republicans in congress refusing to do their job, apparently because they didn't like him. What I kept thinking of was a 6 year temper tantrum and pouting session. Then for the last 6 years, theres been a whole lot of "you'll do what we want", and focus on their own particular special interests, rather than any sort of bipartisan or cooperative effort to work for the best interests of the whole country.

I figure, since the situation isn't the same, only for sure controlling one house, still having a president who has shown lately that he thinks the appropriate way to get what he wants is to demand it like a child throwing a fit, they can't really be expected to perform on demand. And if they can't get anything done, I have no doubt there will quickly be claims that it has to do with being democrats rather than an admission of a refusal to work in a cooperative fashion. Will there be the same kind of coverage, the same tone applied, for filibusters and the like? Doubt it.

NOW the republicans are concerned that every vote get counted.

According to Bush, the terrorist won yesterday. If he now works with the Democrats, isn't that appeasing the terrorist?

"One thing I know I'll get tired of quickly is the republican side saying how that now they've won, the democrats have to prove they deserved it or show everyone what they will get done."

HA! And one thing I GET tired of is referrels to Clinton's term. (I *almost* mentioned on my original post, to not bring up Clinton- but then I would have been doing what I was asking not to be done!)

Clinton did nothing but energize the "religious right". The future Baby, we're looking ahead aren't we?

Look, I hope republican members of congress and the senate should have gotten the idea that something's gotta change. People aren't happy with business as usual- on both sides.

However, in my heart of hearts, I also have every confidence, as PAD does in Bush, that it's indeed not going change a thing. Too many corporations and lobbyist have their fingers in the pie of power ...

Hey, prove us wrong, I would be happy to be the first one to say, "Man, you were right all along!"

Hey, prove us wrong, I would be happy to be the first one to say, "Man, you were right all along!"

That was exactly my sentiment with the Bush/GOP government. Needlessly said, I never had cause to make the above statement.

I would say Sir that you know exactly jack. WashU has been doing this for quite sometime with private funding as it's a private University.

This just makes it easier to start bio-research firms and other such entities because they don't have fear that someone will smack them in the head with a Bible and whatnot. Missouri and other states can't let California keep all the bio firms in South San Francisco or else we suffer another concentration of tech like we did with Silly Valley for so long.

Please get over it. This Amendment wasn't about cloning Frankenstein monsters or whatever scary images were put into your head by your pastor. It's about trying to cure people.

"Sure! No snookering went on this go-round. Couldn't have happened. Un-possible. :) Certainly no one was snookered with Missouri's Amendment 2. God knows that without the venture capitalists getting constitutional protection there would never have been stem cell research in Missouri. "

Y'know, there's a little voice in my head that says maybe, JUST maybe, Bush WILL work with the new majority. Not because he's suddenly going to realize that we all need to work together, but because I have a sneaking suspicion that Jeb is going to want to run eventually, and George doesn't want to ruin his brother's chances.

However, there is a larger voice that keeps picturing him in his office. Michael Palin walks in and says to Bush, "I'd like to have an arguement, please."

I hear ya Sasha.

I would probably go Libratarian if they had any power- and I could reconcile the fact that I would have to compromise some issues I feel very strongly about.

My conundrum in voting for either major party is that I'm a bit of mix. Basically econmically, I hate big corporations in charge and lobbyist (shoot them all), BUT I also don't like big government determining social issues.

Is there a party that truly has the will of the people in mind when governing? Has there ever been?

Uhm, I did just wake up... but when I was doing my election roundup at 5am, all eight states had voted to ban gay marriage (Colorado doing it twice). Who changed in five hours, PAD?

Oh there it is - Arizona tipped scaled again. That's been flipflopping all night; it's so going for a recount, at least once if not more.

OH and my god the new electronic voting machines!

First, if the machines were put in so as NOT to disenfranchise voters, I'm a bit concerned it's not working.

Where as those of us youngins who deal with electronics and computers on a regular basis zipped right through it, the poor older people seemed to be too frightened of making a wrong move to even make any move! (Although I commend the many in my polling station that did not let it deter them from trying it out!)

Yes, they had the paper ballot choice, but right off the bat in some of our areas the “scanners” weren’t working. Also people where literally sent into the fire hall kitchen to fill out their ballots because the paper ballot line was the choice du jur for above mentioned reasons!

Yeesh.

If my 89 yr old Grams would choose to vote (she doesn't because she's a concientious objecter to ALL things government!) She would have been scared out of her mind.

"Unfortunately, PAD, I believe most of the gay marriage bans passed, including the one here in Colorado."

And here in Virginia. And the thing as they had it written up might screw up other things down the road as well.

This just makes it easier to start bio-research firms and other such entities because they don't have fear that someone will smack them in the head with a Bible and whatnot. Missouri and other states can't let California keep all the bio firms in South San Francisco or else we suffer another concentration of tech like we did with Silly Valley for so long.

Please get over it. This Amendment wasn't about cloning Frankenstein monsters or whatever scary images were put into your head by your pastor. It's about trying to cure people.

My point exactly. The research is already being conducted, even at the embryonic level. Did we really need to change the Constitution to make it easier to give people tumors (the only thing that embryonic stem cell research has thus produced, as the cells are too immature to have proven any more viable?) No. It was done, as you say, to make it easier for companies. We changed the state Constitution for businesses.

The future generations of Danforth's are safe. And maybe the biotech portion of my own portfolio will show a growth spurt.

Of course, with such a narrow margin of victory, it's probably a sure bet that the repeal of the amendment will be on the ballot in 2008. But the venture capitalists will have already made their money by now, so it won't be any big loss to them.

Another election come and gone.

Like Peter, I am wary of which direction the uniter not divider will go in. There is an obvious mandate which has been given - only a fool would choose to ignore it. Then again, after watching so much squandered over the last six years (surpluses and good will), it will hardly surprise me if we are treated to two years of deadlock.

Did we really need to change the Constitution to make it easier to give people tumors (the only thing that embryonic stem cell research has thus produced, as the cells are too immature to have proven any more viable?

Would people get off this line of argument? It's REALLY stupid, as embryonic stem cell research is both a) brand spanking new (1998) and b) under restriction (Federal government funding ban, forcing a duplication of infrastructure). Bringing up an argument that embryonic stem cell research hasn't produced anything is purely moronic given these two facts.

I am a young 30-something, IT background, very skilled with computers, but still took the paper "optical scan" ballot because I wanted a paper trail. I know enough about computers to want a paper trail.

I even prefer filling in ovals with a pen to punching a computer card, because I can see what I am doing. I know when I fill in the oval next to Joe Schmoe, I am voting for Joe Schmoe, and not Pat Buchanan.

We changed the state Constitution for businesses.

Yes, and the Bush Administration handed billions of no-bid contracts in Iraq to businesses they were friends with as well.

I don't see you bitching too much about that.

But then, the Bush Administration has done far more to hurt stem cell reesarch than help.

But the venture capitalists will have already made their money by now, so it won't be any big loss to them.

See above.

You know, I don't care much for the pharmacutical companies, but they dump A LOT of money into research.

Just remember that, should you end up with a currently-incurable disease, and how one of these companies you rail against with apparently little knowledge of how things really work has the chance to save your life. Maybe you'll actually thank them for it.

As a side note, and since this brings up some tangents to recent discussions, yesterday was the 15 year anniversary of Magic Johnson announcing that he had HIV.

Johnson may have single-handedly removed the stigma that HIV/AIDS had until that point, and also has done so much for advancing HIV/AIDS research in the last 15 years that anybody who complains about outspoken or cause-supporting celebrities or atheletes should probably have their head examined.

So if people aren't trusting the electronic voting machines, then why have them?

But then, the Bush Administration has done far more to hurt stem cell reesarch than help.

You mean other than, you know, be the first President to actually, oh, fund it.

You mean other than, you know, be the first President to actually, oh, fund it.

Yes, and how conveniently you forget that Bush also slapped researches in the face by limiting it to existing lines which will, I'd have to think, one day 'run dry'.

"We'll give you a dollar, but you can only spend it on a steak dinner."

Personally, I find the entire embryonic stem cell debate laughable.

I don't see Republicans in a mad fury to ban in vitro fertilization, which is what's creating the embryos that are being used in stem cell research to begin with!

The embryonic stem cells being used in research were going to be thrown away! Discarded or destroyed! Yet, conservatives have the nerve to complain about their use in research that would save lives.

Contrary to the right-wing horror stories, women are not lining up to have abortions so doctors can get stem cells, etc etc.

And, of course, there's Bush's one and only veto: against expanding federal funding for stem cell research, funding which should have been there to begin with.

Wiki figures:
"Currently, the National Institutes of Health has 399 funding opportunities for researchers interested in hESC [6].

In 2005 the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research, of which $39 million was specifically used for hESC (human embryonic stem cells) [7].

Of the 514 currently recruiting clinical trials that are using stem cells as treatment, the federal government is supporting 206 of them; however, none of these trials are using hESC [8]."

Yeah, lots of funding for embryonic stem cell research. We were spending a billion a day in Iraq, and all we could spare for ALL stem cell research was $600 million.

A complete slap in the face.

You mean other than, you know, be the first President to actually, oh, fund it.

Given that he was the first President with the OPPORTUNITY to fund it, I don't think this is a very good argument (given budget and grant cycles, FY 2001 or 2002 was the earliest possible time to give funding to it).

Also, he cited extremely arguments to limit funding to the lines that he did, ignoring science to reach the decision he did.

Possibly because in vitro fertilization is done with at least the hope of seeing the embryo carry on for a full nine months, rather than reaching a state where it can then be used for parts. Creating life to destroy life is the polar opposite of creating life to create life.

So research went from having zero federal dollars to only $600 million? And because something else is having more spent on it, that's a slap in the face? If getting $600 million is a slap, the prior administration must have been kidney-punching it, since they were funding it with nothing.

And as far as declaring that embryonic stem cell research would save lives... there's a bit of a bold statement. And you laugh at conservatives for being "faith based"?

Creating life to destroy life is the polar opposite of creating life to create life.

Well, you're not reading what I wrote.

With embryonic stem cell research, NOBODY is intentionally creating life to destroy it.

They are using 'life' (the loosest definition of it I've ever heard) that was ALREADY GOING TO BE DESTROYED.

So, you tell me, in your hypocritical view, whether it matters if the embryos are thrown in the trash, or used for medical research?

Apparently the trash is better, because nobody benefits. That makes absolutely no sense, but that's what you're proposing.

So research went from having zero federal dollars to only $600 million?

You're deliberately misreading my statement.

That $600 million is for ALL stem cell research, not just embryonic.

All of THIRTY NINE MILLION was for embryonic stem cell research.

A bit over one half of one percent.

In some states, that would be close enough to demand a recount.

there's a bit of a bold statement.

As is your comment that embryonic stem cell research is destroying lives.

Some how, some way, the definition of 'life' keeps getting pushed further and further back.

It really is getting to the point where the religious should be singing "Every Sperm is Sacred".

And you laugh at conservatives for being "faith based"?

Well, it beats waiting for miracles from God.

What I laugh at is your, and Bush's, obvious distain for science.

Oops, I let my rhetoric get in the way of my math skills.

$39 million of $600 million is 6.5%. Still not a lot, but a lot more than .5% :)

And as far as declaring that embryonic stem cell research would save lives... there's a bit of a bold statement.

At the beginning of research? Not really.

You're going back to that meme about embryonic cell research not producing anything. Really, really stupid if you think about it.

*****News Flash*****

The A.P. just sent out a report that said that, per a SR. member of the Bush admin., Rummy is stepping down TODAY.

:)
:)
:)
:)
:)

Now there's a reason to cheer.

Maybe Bush will actually replace him with somebody who knows how to do the job.

*****News Flash*****

The A.P. just sent out a report that said that, per a SR. member of the Bush admin., Rummy is stepping down TODAY.

:)
:)
:)
:)
:)

What are the odds that Lieberman will be offered his job?

Ah, yes, thos eelectronic, paper-less voting machines.

By all accounts, not a complete disaster, but definitely a problem in many areas. In fact, in one constituency one voter took out his frustrations with the things by putting a paperweight through the screen of one of them, then calmly sat down and waited for the cops to take him away.

Bush has picked Rumsfeld's replacement, former
CIA Director Robert Gates:

"Gates is the president of Texas A&M University and a close friend of the Bush family. He served as CIA director for Bush's father from 1991 until 1993.

Gates first joined the CIA in 1966 and served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents."

So are we allowed to sing 'Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead' yet?

Rummy Gone huh. Guess someone had to fall on the sword- in more ways then one.

Wuss.

"And because something else is having more spent on it, that's a slap in the face?"

No, the slap in the face was the word games Bush played with it and the lies he has told.

Bush limited research to what he kept saying was 60 or so existing cell lines. The two catches were that there were only 22 lines that he authorized and there were even less viable lines then that. Researchers kept pointing out, quite publicly, that, due to degradation and contamination, there were about 11 usable lines. And only just over half of those were really good.

Bush's response? He kept bleating on about the 60 plus lines out there being more then enough the parrot population of his supporters just kept repeating his nonsense.

Did Bush make things easier for researchers? No. Human embryonic stem cells are not themselves embryos. They did not fall under the laws that pertained to research on actual embryos or the federal ban on some research and on federal funding of research. In 2001, Bush extended the ban to cover all human embryonic stem cells (exempting the estimated 22 stem cell lines that had already been created by the time of his announcement). A "line," for anyone who isn't clear on just what that means, is any group of cells that all come from the same original embryo.

Oh, was Bush really, as he keeps claiming, the first President to authorize this research? Not Quite. A history lesson for you.

Bush's stem cell decision is just the most recent bit in a long history and not all of his claims are really accurate. Truth is, Bill Clinton was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

Go back to 1993 and the National Institutes of Health (NIH from here on out) Revitalization Act. A Democrat Congress and President Clinton gave the NIH direct authority to fund human embryo research for the first time. The NIH then established a group to consider the moral and ethical issues involved and to determine which types of experiments should be eligible for federal funding.

This group made its recommendations by late 1994. One that rubbed some the wrong way was that the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics, in order to obtain stem cells, should receive federal funding. Clinton rejected part of these recommendations and told them not to allocate funds to experiments that set out to actually create new embryos specifically for destruction or research. He felt that there were other and better ways to get them (like, fertility clinics).

Then the Gingrich-era Congress came in and declared that funding any work with human embryos was going too far (all that crimes against morality and God crap they sputtered on about). Within a year, the now Republican Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (named after its authors, Rep. Jay Dickey, R of Arkansas, and Rep. Roger Wicker, R of Mississippi) that banned the use of federal funds for any experiment in which a human embryo is either created or destroyed anywhere in the overall process. The Republican Congress has renewed the ban each year since then. Including when Clinton unsuccessfully tried to work with them on getting it lifted or changed.

In 1998, with private funding, James Thomson of the U. of Wisconsin created the first embryonic stem cell lines. The NIH and Clinton again pushed the R Congress to get them to lift or amend the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. They wouldn't budge.

Then, in 1999, Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services, released a legal opinion that said that federal funds obviously could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because that would involve embryos' destruction). However, she concluded that because human embryonic stem cells "are not a human embryo within the statutory definition," the Dickey-Wicker Amendment did not apply here. The NIH would now be free to give federal funding to experiments involving the cells themselves. Republicans called this a bit of "legal sophistry" and set out to fight against it.

You see a pattern on which side was constantly fighting against this yet? Anyhow.....

The NIH, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and others, then developed guidelines for what types of human embryonic stem cell research would be eligible for federal funding. These became the Clinton Administration's guidelines that were published in August of 2000 that forbid the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos to derive stem cells (see the Dickey-Wicker Amendment), but permitted research with stem cells that other, privately funded scientists had already created from , for example, spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

Clinton strongly and publicly endorsed these guidelines (this has apparently gone down the memory hole of many people). With the guidelines now in place, the NIH began accepting grant proposals from scientists and researchers. Therefore, R.J., it was the Clinton Administration, by late 2000, that first started the federal funding process that Bush and his parrots claim that HE did first and that Clinton did nothing about/for before Bush.
When President Bush took office in 2001, he began to shut that down. First, he had Secretary Tommy Thompson order a review of Rabb's legal decision and then he told the NIH to cancel all plans to accept and review grant applications. If Bush had done nothing to stop what was already put in motion by Clinton, the NIH would have proceeded to review the applications AND to finance research. Instead, that process was stopped and supporters of human embryonic stem cell research were flipped the middle finger by Bush.

Bush took it a step further on August 9, 2001. He announced that federal funding would now be restricted (the 22 lines thing I mentioned above). Three months after that, Bush ordered an official withdrawal of the funding guidelines that Clinton had authorized and put in place. And with that withdrawal, R.J., Bush became the first president to REDUCE the amount of human embryonic stem cell research eligible for federal funding. Reports issued by Bush's own President's Council on Bioethics confirm these events in detail.

Clinton started the funding process, fighting Republican road bumps and brick walls, before Bush ever set one foot into the White House (not counting his drunken staggering around it when his daddy was in office.) Clinton was the first U.S. President to officially authorize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush came in, screwed it up, shut it down, limited its scope, barely got it going again and then proclaimed himself the "first" to do it and the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. And his parrots just keep repeating his lie.

Any doubts? Go look it up.

"So research went from having zero federal dollars to only $600 million?"

As pointed out above...

100 and 10 % wrong.

Hmmm. Robert Gates is getting the nod for Rummy's job.

This could be fun. Gates has been vocal about not liking Rummy's plans for Iraq from day one and ain't a real fave of V.P. Dicky-boy.

:)

What a dif a day makes.

:o

Oops...

"Oh, was Bush really, as he keeps claiming, the first President to authorize this research? Not Quite. A history lesson for you."

Should have been...

"Oh, was Bush really, as he keeps claiming, the first President to authorize ***funding for*** this research? Not Quite. A history lesson for you."

Sorry about that.

All together now!

DING DONG, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WICKED WITCH, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG, THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD.....

Peter, you know Bush is not just The Decider, but he's also The Uniter. Pelosi asked for Rumsfeld to be bumped off as a sign of conciliation.

Boom. Bush gave it.

Now no more infighting in DC. Everything will now be all peace and harmony and kumbayah.

-- Ken from Chicago

"Sure enough Dems win, the people have spoken, GOP wins they stole it, typical."

You are entitled to your opinion, but IMHO, this statement is not an accuracte reflection of democratic sentiment. I think most democrats are not "sore losers," e.g., Kerry readily conceded an election that could have been contested by others. Instead, what most democrats object to is the perception that the 2000 election was not fair. For example, I am a lawyer, and having studied the constitution and the supreme court decision deciding the 2000 election, IMHO the supreme court's rationale for deciding the 2000 election is not well supported in law. Since the conservative judges all voted in a block, it is perceived by some, perhaps not you, that the 2000 election was not fairly decided because political persuation, not the rule of law, was perhaps the sole criteria in deciding the election.

The Repubs could have saved some of their jobs if Bush had fired Rummy a couple weeks ago.

And fired is the right word. Bush had to fire him because anybody working in the White House serves at the pleasure of the President. If Bush really wanted him to stay, he could have told Rummy to stay.

"Sure enough Dems win, the people have spoken, GOP wins they stole it, typical."

You are entitled to your opinion, but IMHO, this statement is not an accuracte reflection of democratic sentiment.

It's not entirely made up of whole cloth though.

Nancy Pelosi said that the number of Democratic House victories could be higher or lower and said her greatest concern is over the integrity of the count -- from the reliability of electronic voting machines to her worries that Republicans will try to manipulate the outcome.

"That is the only variable in this," Pelosi said. "Will we have an honest count?''

Even more apocalyptically, columnist Robert Kuttner said "unless there are levels of theft and fraud that would truly mean the end of American democracy, a Democratic House seems as close to a sure thing as we ever get in American politics three days before an election." he repeated the assertion later-- "November 2006 will be remembered either as the time American democracy was stolen again, maybe forever, or began a brighter day."

Typical? Not really. But I didn't hear too many protests of these statements from the left.

Well, with both the Senate and the House Democrats will ahve a great opportunity to put into place policie sthat will ensure that everyoen who is legally able to vote has the right to do so and that the simple steps it would take to minimize voter fraud will be implemented. If they truly believe that they have been robbed in the past they will make this a priority. If not--we can assume they never really belived all teh disenfranchisment talk and it was just red meat for the rubes.

Sure enough Dems win, the people have spoken, GOP wins they stole it, typical.

Katherine Harris was the Florida sectretary of state and the 2000 Bush/Cheney campaign chair. She took the opportunity to systematically flush the votes from entire black counties, and all of Florida came down to a ~600 vote lead for Bush.

In 2002, 100,000 lost votes from Broward County were found after Jeb was declared the winner.

Republicans shelter their conflicts of interest and abuse of power to a severe degree. So, yes, when the GOP wins, it is suspicious.

But I didn't hear too many protests of these statements from the left.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

When you have a travesty like Florida in 2000, and then you have the Republican-supporting CEO of Diebold saying that he will "deliver Ohio to the Republicans" in mid-'04, and then Ohio turns out to be the key state, any reasonable person should be able to see why the results may be questioned when they are in favor of one side, and not the other.

"Typical? Not really. But I didn't hear too many protests of these statements from the left."

Please do not take offense, but I am not sure if this line of thinking is helpful. Specifically, to argue against a position you disagree with, you find one isolated instance where you can make a point, and then attribute characteristics of the isolated instance to the whole group. This is the bread of butter of Bill O'Reilly.

I think we can both agree that it is in the best interest of everybody to have elections decided fairly. If we believe in what America stands for, we should rather want a candidate voted fairly into office that we disagree with rather than a candidate we agree with voted into office via dishonest means. I think there are some legitimate concerns over the accuracy and accountability of the voting machines, and I think your quote from Nancy Pelosi is evidence of nothing more than her trying to voice that concern.

Nevertheless, I could be wrong, and you could be right, and I respect your opinion and your right to disagree with me. Have you heard that from any Republican in office lately? It is too bad that, in modern day America, one cannot make a point without demonizing any opposing view.

Did it ever bother anyone else that Bush had someone working in so important a job for him that had the word "Rum" in his name?

I would say there needs to be something done about all the voting irregularities, but I don't know what, so I'm just going to leave it alone.

Craig J. Ries said"
"You know, I don't care much for the pharmacutical companies, but they dump A LOT of money into research."

Sir, have you ever actually DONE research for pharmacutical companies? I have. The type of studies they do serve only their further financial gain: they basically look for new uses for their drugs. We don't need anti-anxiety medication: scientific studies have shown that therapy is just as effective (more effective, considering that some anxiety-based disorders can actually be cured with therapy). Yet, we have many drugs for handling anxiety.

Of course, things may be different when speaking about non-psychotropic medication: I can only speak about what I know.

"Sure enough Dems win, the people have spoken, GOP wins they stole it, typical." (originally posted by Eric at the start of this entry, and commented on by several people since)

When the ACLU defends anti-war protesters or others on the left, it gets labelled as a left-wing organization. Conveniently forgotten or overlooked is that the ACLU defends anyone -- on the left or on the right -- whose rights they feel are being violated. The ACLU may be supported more by people on the left than by people on the right, but it is not a group which is only concerned with attacks on the left.

A similar misperception seems to exist about those who are concerned that electronic voting has too great a potential for fraud. The concern is not that elections could be stolen from Democrats; the concern is that elections could be stolen, period.

Here is some of the text from an e-message sent out yesterday by Common Cause:

"Last night, my family, colleagues, and I gathered to watch the results of the midterm election.

"But it was difficult to keep our attention on the returns, with calls about polling place disasters pouring into our hotline and reports of voting machine problems hitting the airwaves.

"2006 is the third election in a row shadowed by questions about the integrity of voting machines. WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN.

"The nation's attention is focused on this issue, and now is the time to restore credibility to our broken election system. The Senate needs to "Get It Straight by 2008" and make sure all voting machines have a paper trail that voters can trust."

Note that Common Cause is not saying anything remotely like what Eric claimed. That's why it's good to base one's judgment of people on what they actually say, not what they are caricatured as saying.

Please do not take offense, but I am not sure if this line of thinking is helpful. Specifically, to argue against a position you disagree with, you find one isolated instance where you can make a point, and then attribute characteristics of the isolated instance to the whole group. This is the bread of butter of Bill O'Reilly.

How does saying "Typical? Not really." jibe with "attribute characteristics of the isolated instance to the whole group." Am I being too subtle?

I share your hope that genuine election fraud controls will be implemented. The Democrats have at least 2 years to make it happen. If they do it will be a considerable feather in their caps. If not...we will have this conversation again.

they basically look for new uses for their drugs

Well, this shouldn't surprise anyone.

However, I don't see how you can take my comment and assume it only applies to one area of drug research.

Yet, we have many drugs for handling anxiety.

And we also have many drugs to help treat cancer and a variety of other diseases, with new ones being added every year.

So, please don't dismiss the work of all these companies. It's a double-edged sword with them, but I'd like to think the long-term benefits outweigh our opinions of them. :)

Bush took it a step further on August 9, 2001. He announced that federal funding would now be restricted (the 22 lines thing I mentioned above).
And this is the problem, in addition to the fact that there are approximately six still useful/viable lines from the supposed 60 that Bush authorized. And although the hESC's are immortalized, after 8 years, problems are cropping up - problems that mean effective research can't be done. So the number of viable lines, only a fraction of what Bush said to begin with, is dwidling daily.

But yeah, the problem? That no one has touched on? Is the ban on research with federally funded money on lines created after Aug 09, 2001. This does not merely mean that researches can't receive a grant from NIH to to hESC research, it means that if researchers at a research university, like say, Stanford, want to research hESC, they have to do the research in a building that was not built with federal money. Using supplies not purchased with federal money. Or staff who're not paid with federal money. Even if the building/buying/hiring happened years before ever considering hESC.

What it means to have federal funding is so exceedingly broad, many universities build completely new, detached research centers from private funds, restocking them with duplicates of all the technology they already own, just to not run afoul the law. Which is great for a place like Stanford, which is given huge grants to do this, and funded by CIRM. It's not so great for a lot of other places, and beyond putting our knowledge of the potentialities of hESC behind, it creates the infamous brain drain, as researchers either move to research-friendly states like California (and now Missouri), or research-friendly countries, like England.

"another attempt at banning gay marriage was voted down"

Yes David of the 29 states that have had a vote to ban gay marriage, 28 have passed.

Nice spin.

Posted by Alex A Sanchez

We don't need anti-anxiety medication: scientific studies have shown that therapy is just as effective (more effective, considering that some anxiety-based disorders can actually be cured with therapy). Yet, we have many drugs for handling anxiety.

I've never seen a "scientific study" that said that therapy alone was even as effective as anti-depressant treatment alone that wasn't funded or conducted by someone who had already basically announced that that was true before they did began stuidies...

Uh huh. And studies have shown that we don't really need glasses - wee just need to do eye exercises to cure myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism tha we suffer from because we're lazy people.

And we don't really need arthroscopic surgery or artificial hip or knee joints, we just need therapy to help us master the imaginary pain.

Sir, if someday you are diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder, i hope you will demonstrate exactly how therapy can ovrcome a chemical imbalance in the brain.

(Aside from teaching you how to fake normality well enough to fool everyone aroud you, no matter how much you are actually suffering, as i did for too many years...)

"To honor the will of the people and do everything he can over the next two years to work with the new political landscape and try to give the people what they want and need."

Why make assume that the will of the people is Leftist simply because Congress was given to Democrats, the Part of the Left? One healthy assumption is an angry banishment of the Lefty hypocrite Republicans who claim to be Conservatives but didn't act enough like them.

Four out of five right-wing proposals won in my state, and the Republicans pretending to be Conservative... but showed their cowardly Commie colors when they condemned a ban on racial preference... lost to people who don't hide their promises to raise minimum wage and other left-wing oaths.

Of course I'm the guy who never gave up the belief that Bush's approval rating would have been higher if he wasn't so left-wing in his actions.

Mike Weber:
With all due respect, you misunderstood my argument. I am NOT arguing against the use of psychotropic medication (or any type of medication), nor am I denying its need in many cases. What I am against is the championing of companies that make such huge profits off of other's needs. Much of what they do is unethical.

I like Craig J. Ries's optimistic thinking about the double-edged sword: hopefully they will do more good than bad, in the end.