Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 124

Thread: S.362 Stem Cell Research Expansion Act

  1. #101
    Faye,
    the people here on carecure are not your enemy. As you probably can tell there are not large battalions of cure advocates that are physically or mentally willing and ready to take on the system. Most of us just try to get through the days as I'm sure that you do in your own way --

    you're entitled to your opinion, but I do not think that Christopher Reeve would have felt guilty of advocating for a bill of paralysis research in his name. you should also know by now that using his name in any way is directly related to embryonic stem cell research. He was known for it, and if you mention the CRPA to anyone who is a layperson they automatically think of embryonic stem cell research......even most legislators still equate the two and that is probably why the CRPA has not come out of committee.

    I do find many articles you find and post here to be both helpful and educational. They speak on their own -- and most the time do not need any commentary.

    I and many others I am sure would appreciate it if you stuck to just educating verse continuing attacking members and other pieces of policy.it distracts from your true reason which appears to be advocating for embryonic stem cell research. By continually swaying back and forth between attacking members and then posting articles -- becomes very confusing where your intentions lie.

    I think you would garner more respect and support -- if you followed the lead of Don Reed. I read his weblog every day and find his writings to be both positive,insightful, educational and non-divisive.

    I'm sure my opinion means little to you but I know I would read more of your posts if I knew that they were factual oriented versus emotional outbursts.

    Please be help to this community

  2. #102
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    Chaz, you do well to follow Christopher Reeve's lead. He would not have shut up about ESCR.

    And in EVERY column Don Reed writes, Don tells people to SPEAK UP for ESCR EVERY OPPORTUNITY you get.

    "There’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority,” Molly Ivins explained; “What you need is sustained outrage.”
    Kerr, Keirstead, McDonald, Stice and Jun Yan courageously work on ESCR to Cure SCI.

    Divisiveness comes from not following Christopher Reeve's ESCR lead.
    Young does ASCR.
    [I]I do not tear down CRPA, I ONLY make peopl

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Chaz, you do well to follow Christopher Reeve's lead. He would not have shut up about ESCR.

    And in EVERY column Don Reed writes, Don tells people to SPEAK UP for ESCR EVERY OPPORTUNITY you get.
    However, Don Reed also supports the CRPA and the W2W rallies, has never attacked Dr Young, or other SCI advocates or advocacy groups like you do daily. Unfortunately, you are no Don Reed.

    Christopher Reeve would never try to sabotage others efforts towards a cure for SCI.

    CR would not support your constant attacks on the CRPA Bill and those who are working to get it passed.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaz19
    Faye,
    the people here on carecure are not your enemy. As you probably can tell there are not large battalions of cure advocates that are physically or mentally willing and ready to take on the system. Most of us just try to get through the days as I'm sure that you do in your own way --

    you're entitled to your opinion, but I do not think that Christopher Reeve would have felt guilty of advocating for a bill of paralysis research in his name. you should also know by now that using his name in any way is directly related to embryonic stem cell research. He was known for it, and if you mention the CRPA to anyone who is a layperson they automatically think of embryonic stem cell research......even most legislators still equate the two and that is probably why the CRPA has not come out of committee.

    I do find many articles you find and post here to be both helpful and educational. They speak on their own -- and most the time do not need any commentary.

    I and many others I am sure would appreciate it if you stuck to just educating verse continuing attacking members and other pieces of policy.it distracts from your true reason which appears to be advocating for embryonic stem cell research. By continually swaying back and forth between attacking members and then posting articles -- becomes very confusing where your intentions lie.

    I think you would garner more respect and support -- if you followed the lead of Don Reed. I read his weblog every day and find his writings to be both positive,insightful, educational and non-divisive.


    I'm sure my opinion means little to you but I know I would read more of your posts if I knew that they were factual oriented versus emotional outbursts.

    Please be help to this community
    I agree chaz but you do know your message of cooperation will fall on deaf ears.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    The reason the ESCR community is quiet about S 362 is because it's OK, but not as good as HR 3.

    Please ask an ESCR researcher instead if they would prefer a few hundred ESC lines NOW, rather than a few thousand in 2009, which they most likely will be getting anyway.
    Considering the political climate? Recognizing the art of the possible? But when practiced by others they are called whimpy, liars, their integrity and beliefs challenged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Seems quite two-faced to me.
    Fini.
    Embrace uncertainty. Hard problems rarely have easy solutions. Jonah Lehrer

  6. #106
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Too many people here on CareCure actually sound like they work for the Anti-ESCR crowd, while they profess being Pro-ESCR.

    Seems quite two-faced to me.
    So rather than bickering back and forth,......the rally ought to do like PAN did.

    BOTH:
    1. CRPA
    2. ESCR

    A rally should be actively advocating both in face to face legislator meetings. And all this "people should do as they see fit" is all BS.

    You all think people who are part of the religious right are showing up at such a rally?

    PAN and other orgs encourage both messages to be presented in face to face meetings, as 70% ofamericans would have us do.

    You don't have to tip toe around the 30% of the religious right on this one anymore.......Remember the Nov elections?

    People are tired of the Religious Right.

    "There’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority,” Molly Ivins explained; “What you need is sustained outrage.”
    Kerr, Keirstead, McDonald, Stice and Jun Yan courageously work on ESCR to Cure SCI.

    Divisiveness comes from not following Christopher Reeve's ESCR lead.
    Young does ASCR.
    [I]I do not tear down CRPA, I ONLY make peopl

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    A rally should be actively advocating both in face to face legislator meetings. And all this "people should do as they see fit" is all BS.
    Will you be attending the rally?

    People will probably be encouraged to speak about the CRPA and stem cells, if they so desire, just like last year.

    Senators Graham and DeMint are definite no-votes, so I don't mention the SCREA to them. When asked if the CRPA deals with embryonic stem cells, I answer "only those currently eligible for federal funding."
    ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by cubsfandc
    The key question with S 362 in my mind is what the phrase "that does not result in the use of Federal funding to destroy an embryo or embryos" will mean for the research that can be conducted. If, as Wise suggests, that phrase will effectively prevent researchers from improving the ability to derive embryonic stem cells, I would have serious concerns about the bill. In part because that language would limit the effectiveness of the new lines that would be available for research. But more importantly because once we set the precedent that limitations on what researchers can do with stem cells we undercut our ability to argue for giving researchers the flexibility they need.
    Ed, the precedent has already been set by the Dickey Amendment. Coleman's bill simply restates it.
    ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    You all think people who are part of the religious right are showing up at such a rally?

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Edwards
    People will probably be encouraged to speak about the CRPA and stem cells, if they so desire, just like last year.

    Senators Graham and DeMint are definite no-votes, so I don't mention the SCREA to them. When asked if the CRPA deals with embryonic stem cells, I answer "only those currently eligible for federal funding."
    I'm new to all this politicking, so please forgive me for asking clueless questions. Especially this year, why are we pushing for CRPA/CaDRQoLfPwPA (which has yet to make it out of committee) and not SCREA (which has passed the House and will likely pass the Senate)? Are legislators inclined to vote against the CaDRQoLfPwPA if it is somehow linked with the SCREA?
    Daniel

Similar Threads

  1. A rebuttal to a stem cell research opponent in New Jersey
    By Wise Young in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-26-2006, 04:22 PM
  2. Replies: 80
    Last Post: 03-22-2006, 05:25 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-20-2004, 03:30 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-09-2002, 04:47 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2002, 11:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •