Why Hillary?

[papasangel]

1) She'll sign legislation to expand the federal funding of stem-cell research; open up new lines too.

yes she will open up stem cell research but not from the cord blood lines but from babies murdered. I don't want any part of anyone who can condone murdering children for the greater good.

Unless it's babies in countries where we need to take their natural resources or are born to Muslims. Then it's OK.

its never okay to take a life ever. I don't care if your practice mongolian goat worshipping a life is a life.

2) She can complete a sentence without mumbling and fumbling all over the English language.

She is well spoken I will give you that but remember even satan can do that

Satan can get us into a war through deceit too, what's your point?

my point is that politicians will tellyou anything they think you want to hear if it gets them elected. Satan works through those who decieve.

3) She's got policial savvy just like the "guys" and she's very smart.

yep she just as sneaky and underhanded as any male counterpart for sure. She suffers from the human condition just like anyone else.

So she's no better or worse than any of the republican candidates in that area.

It don't matter what party a canidate belongs to if you cannot trust them to do what they say they are going to do then I consider them sneaky and underhanded

4) I thought her Universal Health Care thing was a good idea; don't know if she's planning on trying that again though.

If in the context it is supposed to be in yes. But I don't beleive the time for that is come yet. The insurance companies will send millions to stop that move. A snowball in hades has a better chance of making it. But yes I agree that would be a plus for Hillary

I'm stunned to hear a nonpartisan reply... perhaps that snowball does have a chance.

5) I think she's more moral than most even if she doesn't make her "personal relationship with God" ultra public, dripping with veiled bible verses and references to "God" every time she speaks.

When you say moral are you alluding to no indescretions in her past? The media has reported at least two male indescretions with the men in question dying in mysterious accidents. Also she has mingled with lesbians and condoned their lifestyle. That isn't the type of morality I would want leading my country.

Is your version of morality more like the kind that thinks it's OK to send our children halfway around the world to fight an unjust war? No I do not think its ok to send our children to die for a lost cause. I do not agree with the reasone we went to war.

6) I don't like her husband but he does have charisma so he'd be helpful in mending some fences abroad and improve our Country's image in the world.

He has charisma yes, He even has done some good as president. But morally, he is reprehensible. His whole career has had woman chasing in it. How would that improve America's image? Letting him sleep his way in negotions? I would be worried he would put the moves on some leaders wife or daughters and create an international incident to ever give him a power position again. Remember if Hillarey does become President he will have some powers as first husband.

Funny how that sin seems to be so much more grave that the sins of those in your own party; like Tom Delay going to the Marianas and promoting the child labor, prostitution and forced abortion there in order to make more money. As just one glaring example...

If I was talking about my party as you p ut it I would have brought up their dirty laundry too.

7) She can handle the pressure that goes with the job; after the scandal involving her husband's infidelity she's proven she's got what it takes to take on the job of President.

She did handle the scandal well I admit. But as to the pressures? No she is human and behind the scenes we don't know all that transpired between them. Depending on which media source you get she either handled it with equanimaty or as a screeching banshee.

I think she was referring to the pressures she has and will face being in office. She does seem to handle herself well in debates.

While I'd prefer to see someone who hasn't had a relative already serve as President in recent decades she's probably the best in the field for now. -- Is it just me or is the Presidency starting to look more and more like a "royal succession" or "dictatorship" rather than a "branch" of the govt?

I agree it seems we have our own monarchy here in America. Once it was the Kennedys, now its clintons, and bush. Why not Smith?

Didn't seem to bother republicans when they wanted their guy in there, I seem to remember people saying Jeb would be a good Pres... talk about hypocrisy.

I for one will not be voting for another bush in o ffice. But Hillary will not get my vote either because it all boils down to trust.

I find it interesting that your tone in this threade seems to be one of trying to pick a fight. You don't know me and I don't know you. Please give courtesy to anyone with a differing view from yours not to retaliate with snide comments.

Thanks you.

[papasangel]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

when those cells are the product of conceptiobn between two humans its a baby no matter what stage of development it is in then. Those cells when not interveend with have the capacity to turn out a human child in 9 months. Sorry but thats my stand on it and I don't budge.

[papasangel]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

Thats the problem, people are really poorly informed about this issue. The embryos that would be used for stem cell research are simply fertilized eggs left over from fertility treatments that otherwise would simply be incinerated and rinsed down the sink. The question is whether we want to just rinse them down the sink, or try to advance medicine and save lives?

not all of them are. many of those cells come from aborted babies. Those embryos that are left over are babies too that never got a chance to grow in a womb. To me that too constitutes abortion too.

[Hypathia]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

when those cells are the product of conceptiobn between two humans its a baby no matter what stage of development it is in then. Those cells when not interveend with have the capacity to turn out a human child in 9 months. Sorry but thats my stand on it and I don't budge.

It's not in a stage of development; that requires a womb. Most fertilized eggs don't even make it to a live birth the normal way. You're putting your sympathy and empthy toward a big "what if" that will never become people anyway because it goes in the drain, the incinerator or the garbage. All you're doing is denying a possible cure to those who need one and that's cruel and making up wild possible senarios to justify it isn't going to change a thing. The people who are leading you around by the nose on this never call for a ban on invitro fertilization do they? .....No they don't because if they make the barren people who give them money mad they won't get as many donations.

I don't care if you budge or not; it's coming. When it does produce cures I hope you continue to resist them when YOU or one of your children need them.

[papasangel]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

To get embryonic stem cells you have to destroy a human life. Now, certainly those tiny human life forms that are destroyed won't look like a human for another couple of months, but that is what they are.

The reason the large corporations are so hot on embryonic stem cells is that you cannot patent and control cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have a much higher profit potential, it is Franken science at its worst.

Many hundreds of thousands of people around the globe could be saved if we simply harvested the organs of convicted killers, or severely sick children who are going to die anyway, or simply paid people for their organs. This is the morality of embryonic stem cells and where it leads us. It is the culture of death and the culture of utility.

Besides embryonic stem cell research is TOTALLY legal, companies, research foundations can start ALL of the lines they want; they just can

[papasangel]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

when those cells are the product of conceptiobn between two humans its a baby no matter what stage of development it is in then. Those cells when not interveend with have the capacity to turn out a human child in 9 months. Sorry but thats my stand on it and I don't budge.

It's not in a stage of development; that requires a womb. Most fertilized eggs don't even make it to a live birth the normal way. You're putting your sympathy and empthy toward a big "what if" that will never become people anyway because it goes in the drain, the incinerator or the garbage. All you're doing is denying a possible cure to those who need one and that's cruel and making up wild possible senarios to justify it isn't going to change a thing. The people who are leading you around by the nose on this never call for a ban on invitro fertilization do they? .....No they don't because if they make the barren people who give them money mad they won't get as many donations.

I don't care if you budge or not; it's coming. When it does produce cures I hope you continue to resist them when YOU or one of your children need them.

It has not been proven that those embryonic cells are any superior than cord blood which can be harvested at birth without killing the baby. As to the cure. I have diabetes, heart disease both which could benifit from that research. But I will not be a part of murder for my own benifit. There has been proof that cord blood shows as much promise in that reasearch as embryonic cells do. The diference? Cord blood is not derivived from macerated embryos.

[Hypathia]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

Thats the problem, people are really poorly informed about this issue. The embryos that would be used for stem cell research are simply fertilized eggs left over from fertility treatments that otherwise would simply be incinerated and rinsed down the sink. The question is whether we want to just rinse them down the sink, or try to advance medicine and save lives?

not all of them are. many of those cells come from aborted babies. Those embryos that are left over are babies too that never got a chance to grow in a womb. To me that too constitutes abortion too.

They are not, repeat not, babies and this is not murder. You can say it over and over and that will never make it true. You're just flat out wrong and you're listening to the wrong people. They're specks of human cells and if you consider their disposal abortion then you're opposing the wrong thing; you should be calling for a ban on invitro fertilization. -- What's scary is that it's getting to the point where some people are being deluded into thinking all birth control is a "sin" or destroying "possible" human life.

FTR, even the disposal of these cells is not abortion, not even by a biblical standard. The bible says "life" requires 1) conception 2) a womb 3) blood and 4) breath.

She is well spoken I will give you that but remember even satan can do that

I think of Satan every time I see our President or some other politician coming on "gushing" about their faith; I also think of Satan whenever I hear James Dobson on the radio (he's a silver-tongued devil if there ever was one). Lots of wolves in sheep's clothing.

yep she just as sneaky and underhanded as any male counterpart for sure. She suffers from the human condition just like anyone else.

I never said the woman was perfect.

It don't matter what party a canidate belongs to if you cannot trust them to do what they say they are going to do then I consider them sneaky and underhanded

So do you support Bush and Cheney?

He has charisma yes, He even has done some good as president. But morally, he is reprehensible. His whole career has had woman chasing in it. How would that improve America's image? Letting him sleep his way in negotions? I would be worried he would put the moves on some leaders wife or daughters and create an international incident to ever give him a power position again. Remember if Hillarey does become President he will have some powers as first husband.

He does have a problem with the womanizing; too many of the convervatives seem to have problems with womanizing and closet homosexuality.....while preaching like a bunch of hypocrites about how sexually moral they are, then falling all over themselves begging for forgiveness in the "name of God" when they get caught. Newt Gingrich is a good example and let's not forget Mark Foley who quickly checked himself into rehab. There was also that male prostitute coming into this WH and that was quickly hushed up.

When you say moral are you alluding to no indescretions in her past? The media has reported at least two male indescretions with the men in question dying in mysterious accidents. Also she has mingled with lesbians and condoned their lifestyle. That isn't the type of morality I would want leading my country.

No I wasn't alluding to no indescretions. Everyone has some indescretion in their past. I was talking about her wanting to help people....universal health care, jobs, expanding funding of stem-cell research.

She did handle the scandal well I admit. But as to the pressures? No she is human and behind the scenes we don't know all that transpired between them. Depending on which media source you get she either handled it with equanimaty or as a screeching banshee.

However she handled it.....she handled it. I would have been a screeching banshee myself I had been in her position when all that was going on.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being hard on you papasangel but I've reached my limit on this stem-cell thing and the "moral values" lingo that the far-right indoctrinates people with. People seem to be under the impression that they're saving these microscopic embryos by standing in the way of this research. People need to start realizing that it's all talk.... they haven't saved any of them; they've been thrown away and they'll continue to be thrown away. Even when the stem-cell research bill is passed most will still be thrown away because there's just so many of them, hundreds of thousands of them, and scientists don't need hundreds of thousands. It's a waste and it's just dumb; and oh so wrong when so much good could possibly come from it. There's absolutely no excuse for this; it's just pure evil on the part of those who are behind this opposition.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Hypathia

[Hypathia]

It has not been proven that those embryonic cells are any superior than cord blood which can be harvested at birth without killing the baby. As to the cure. I have diabetes, heart disease both which could benifit from that research. But I will not be a part of murder for my own benifit. There has been proof that cord blood shows as much promise in that reasearch as embryonic cells do. The diference? Cord blood is not derivived from macerated embryos

.

Then get out of the way and let's see if they're superior; stop stymming the opportunity for them to prove it. They seem to think they can if the misguided zealots get out of their way and let them do their job. If you don't want any cures for your diabetes and heart disease then by all means don't get it; that's entirely your choice to make and you have the right to choose your own path. BUT it is not your place to make that decision for other people and other families; that should be their decision not yours. I do think it's scary that you'd let people on the radio or the pulpit convince you not to take advantage of something that could help you; those people sure do have a lot of power and that much power is dangerous imo. I bet you that most of these same people would get a embryonic stem-cell cure down the road if they needed it. They sure don't have a problem with "test-tube" babies these days do they? Yet they were all in a tizzy when Louise Brown was born (the first test-tube baby).

I prophesy that the same leadership that is whipping up the opposition now will "come around" and "get with the program" as soon as the first cure is found because when that happens they'll want to get in on some of the credit, get some of the cures, and not go down in history as opposing it....the same way the southern fundamentalist opposed freeing the slaves during the civil war.

As for Hillary, for now, I think she's the best person for the job.....flaws and all. At this point I will not vote for any candidate that opposes expanded funding of stem-cell research.... period. We pay taxes whether we like it or not so I want some of this tax money to actually go for something to help people in this country for a change.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Hypathia

[papasangel]

Just because my stand and opinion is different than yours does not mean I am wrong. I am not stupid, nor a religious zealot nor any other of the names you call people like me. I just take the stand that all life is precious. Do I think test tube babies are right or in vitro? Wether or not I do I believe God is the ultimate authority and those who have to depend on these procedures have to clear it with God and their own conscious. Adoption is an option yes but the states make it so hard to adopt children I can understand why people would resort to that.

you made a statement that I would choose the research that produced a cure for either myself or my children even if it came from stem cell research. If it involved murdering a potential child no I would not. I do not want the blood of innocents on my hands and that I am at peace with.

Cord blood has the same type of cells they use for embryonic research. Why not use that instead of killing babies? And the choice is mine your right. It is also the choice everyone has to make within themselves and not everyone has researched the topic either.

As to Hillary I gave her some good points but the fact is she is not the woman to be president. She has not shown me through her works or deeds that she will be capable of the job either morally or professionally. That is my opinion and I am entitled to that instead of being bashed about it. Biblically we women have a different calling wether or not you choose to believe that.

So instead of making judgements about people I suggest you think about how different people are. Each has their own opinion and stance on issues. We are not evil but are following what is in our hearts and consciousness. As to supporting Bush and Cheney, I used to. Since the war began I have withdrawn my support for all politicians because I feel they are mostly decietful to the American people. If anything I am apolitical. I vote for whomever I feel may be able to get the job done. Not the party blanket but each office I compare to the person running for it. I might vote for the wrong person in the end but I did so after checking them out and trying to find out about them first. Any politican who "gushes" on about their faith as a party platform is not one whom I "automatically" choose. I watch the walk not just listen to the talk.

If my answers upset you then I am sorry but like you am entitled to an opinion without having someone calling names or assuming. Name calling is always a tool of last resort.

[Hypathia]

papasangel -- you are wrong. Listen to the very words you use; they're not even your own. I can turn on the radio or check my e-mail and hear the exact same phrases on this issue day in and day out. Stop referring to "embryonic stem-cells as babies" because it's not true; that's lying. But it is something to think about too, why do you think James Dobson's misleads people by doing this all the time in his e-mails and on his radio programs? Obviously it's because if he refers to these embryos honestly the listeners won't go along with James in opposing the research. Remember, Dobson isn't a minister, he's a psychologist, he knows how to manipulate people. He is the driving force behind this opposition whether you know it or not.

As for the "judgement thing". Turn about is fair play, "people like you" (as you refer to yourself) are gonna start reaping what you've sown so don't start whining about being judged or called names. "People like you" (as you refer to yourself) eat it up when Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and O'Really get down and dirty, so it's a little late to cry "foul" now when it starts to boomerang back on you. It's time for the verbal double standards to be over.

Start using your brain cells, if microscopic embryos were babies then why aren't you picketing invitro fertilization clinics or calling your representatives demanding that they bann invitro? Why aren't you running to the invitro clinics and offering to incubate 10 or 15 of these microscopic embryos yourself? You know I'll just say it, opposing this research is just dumb, dumb, dumb; it's also cruel and inhumane. There is not one good thing; not one redeeming quality that I can point to, among those who stand in opposition to the research...no not one. There's no nice way of putting it. Your whole viewpoint on this issue is totally turned around backward. You say you'd go so far as to refuse a future cure for your own child??? Refusing one for yourself is one thing but thinking you'd refuse one for your child is another; the only blood you'd have on your hands in a situation like that would be the blood of your child because these microscipic specks don't have any blood. I love my child, I'd never deny my child a treatment; if a parent isn't going to protect their child and look out for their best interest because they've turned their mind and their "free-will" over to some radio pundent then I'd say that's way too much power to give somebody else and it's time to step back away from the "cult" and deprogram yourself.

Now, I'll probably get banned for saying all that but that's okay, it needs to be said. But, I also need to pull myself away from this site again because it becomes very draining when I post here. Talking to mean, misguided, ignorant people who actually think they're kind, smart and "doing the will of God" becomes exhausting quickly.

So take this post anyway you want. If it insults you I don't really care at this point because you're just wrong and being wrong on this issue is dangerous to real people and I don't feel compelled to water that fact down anymore.

Name calling is always a tool of last resort.

LOL, sorry but that's annoying coming from a far-righter; just more "do as I say not as I do"....."only positive strokes for me". Refer to my earlier comments a the paragraph above.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Hypathia