A Democrat to Be Proud of!

[exnodak]

Originally Posted by Mikeru

I support gay marriage, I am pro-choice, I support use of embryonic stem-cell cells, etc.

However, I am anti-single payer healthcare system, I am against all the entitlement programs, for low taxes, against all the social welfare programs, against cap and trade, and in general economically an old school small federal government conservative.

I have no home in any party. The bible thumpers hijacked the Republican party, and the socialists hijacked the Democratic party. Thus I am a registered independent.

I'd be a little careful about using the term "registered Independent" until you go read the literature they publish. They aren't what I thought the Independent Party was.

That's why I'm a "Decline".

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Mikeru

I support use of embryonic stem-cell cells, etc.

As was noted elsewhere on this board, since the ban was lifted, the sky has not parted and cures have not been pouring forth as manna from heaven. Embryonic stem cells were not and still are not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There's been barely a ripple of movement on this.

The entire issue - lock, stock and barrel - was a political club to beat on the Republicans who were against their use. And that's it.We were all led to believe that because of their religious underpinnings, they were thwarting life-saving technology from reaching those who needed it.

Pious fiction. I'm not sure which side was more sanctimonious.

Like "balloon boy", it should never have been news, much less a national issue.

[puggymom]

Lieberman has always been a favorite of mine since we lived in CT.

[Mikeru]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

As was noted elsewhere on this board, since the ban was lifted, the sky has not parted and cures have not been pouring forth as manna from heaven. Embryonic stem cells were not and still are not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There's been barely a ripple of movement on this.

The entire issue - lock, stock and barrel - was a political club to beat on the Republicans who were against their use. And that's it.We were all led to believe that because of their religious underpinnings, they were thwarting life-saving technology from reaching those who needed it.

Pious fiction. I'm not sure which side was more sanctimonious.

Like "balloon boy", it should never have been news, much less a national issue.

I will agree that both the religious and atheists make a big deal out of issues that are far less important to the average American to demonize each other. So what you say about the use of stem-cell research could very well be politicized to do just that.

However, the use of adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells will be both important, as each have their own advantages and disadvantages. There still is a lot more research that needs to be done with both. It's still a relatively new technology. R&D of any technology, medical and non-medical, take years to decades. Not months.

And I'm not up to date, but I would assume that there's less money being thrown at stem cell research with this economy and the focus on spending our tax payer's dollars in the name of social solidarity. Those who think lifting the ban was pointless, should give it at least 4 or more years before they can start complaining that there's no progress being made. Why? Since the ban forced researchers receiving federal grants to seek alternative methods of harvesting and using adult stem cells... thus stalling progress. It was just an unnecessary roadblock that scientists had to overcome.

For me, I will look to science first before I look to God or a higher power for answers.

There were times when I wasn't a fan of Bush and there were times that I defended him. By far, I don't think he was as bad a president as many demonized him for being. And I hope that history shines better light on him. On a lot of issues like stem cell research, I may be perceived as siding with the liberals on, but in reality I'm doing it because the federal government has no business sticking their nose in it or it's impeding science.

[ImnoMensa]

I am waiting to see the Republican's actions should Hoffman win in New York's 23rd. district.

If Hoffman wins it should serve as a wake up call that Republicans want Conservative politics, not the middle of the roader RINO's we now have leading the party.

It's time to take back the party from the Graham's and McCains and go back to it's Conservative roots.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Mikeru

On a lot of issues like stem cell research, I may be perceived as siding with the liberals on, but in reality I'm doing it because the federal government has no business sticking their nose in it or it's impeding science.

I wasn't sure which side to go with, but I leaned more against its use, but because while the federal government doesn't have any business in impeding science, it certainly needs to rule where science has gotten barbaric or threatens to encourage such behavior.

See, I'm familiar with the idea of using embryonic stem cells from embryos destined for waste - we had looked to fertility clinics in the past. It seemed a shame that such material had to be destroyed, but that's the way it is - it can't be preserved indefinitely. No matter how one feels about "life", it's normal even in nature for some embryos to just not make it. So in that respect, I could support it.

On the other hand, I also know there would never be an overseeing entity to ensure that embryos weren't specificaly *created* so they could be harvested and if there were, they couldn't do their job. I guess at some level, the idea of creating an embryo JUST SO IT COULD BE DISSECTED strikes me as barbaric. You know, in college and high schools, students dissect fetal pigs. They would never in a million years dissect a human fetus no matter what the political climate is. At some visceral level - we all are repulsed by such a thing. It would be every bit as horrendous to know that such a fetus was conceived JUST SO it could appear on a student's lab bench.

That's at least one of the scenarios, among many, I could see happening and was worth preventing.

[Mikeru]

Originally Posted by exnodak

I'd be a little careful about using the term "registered Independent" until you go read the literature they publish. They aren't what I thought the Independent Party was.

That's why I'm a "Decline".

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I am not from Maryland, and reading up, it looks like I made a big mistake assuming that registering independent in Maryland (notice how I didn't capitalize the i in independent in my original post) meant the same thing.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Alexa

If he only were a Democrat......You'll just have to make do with being proud of your Independent. That is until he has to change to another party to keep his senate seat....

I wonder how Specter's seat if going to look in the near future?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I wonder how Specter's seat if going to look in the near future?

What I hear is, the Democrats are set to dump him, as I thought they would. Why keep an old recently converted former Republican, when you can have a younger die-hard Democrat? Joe Sestak is far and away the party favorite.

I thought his party shift was utterly stupid. He could stay as a RINO for as long as he wanted - the GOP wanted that seat, and were willing to support him as long as they thought he could continue to win, no matter how he voted. Once he became a Democrat, his career was over, as the Democrats would never hand the perks of seniority over to him, and they'd never back him up in a new election.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

What I hear is, the Democrats are set to dump him, as I thought they would. Why keep an old recently converted former Republican, when you can have a younger die-hard Democrat? Joe Sestak is far and away the party favorite.

It's my suspicion that once he detects this he will either switch back to the GOP or go independent. In any case, he’s done.

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I thought his party shift was utterly stupid. He could stay as a RINO for as long as he wanted - the GOP wanted that seat, and were willing to support him as long as they thought he could continue to win, no matter how he voted. Once he became a Democrat, his career was over, as the Democrats would never hand the perks of seniority over to him, and they'd never back him up in a new election.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. He was voting against the GOP almost across the board. It was a wasted seat for the GOP either way. I'm not sure how a party supports someone that is voting against them. He learned that lesson from Lieberman and jumped ship before the GOP could throw him under the bus.