ikol

I'm glad you said that. I was just about to go remove someone's appendix.

Well, you wouldn't be very self-sufficient if you practiced medicine without getting paid. Sure, you could learn that stuff on your own (acquiring cadavers might be another issue), you just wouldn't get any sort of certification to practice medicine. Of course, most doctors I've talked to say that the first 2 years of med school are completely useless and irrelevant to the practice of medicine, but that's another issue.

Agreed. We need a complete restructuring. I thought it was the other way around. Increasing government is at the expense of inalienable rights. That's a great idea. You have to go to school until you're 30, rack up $100,000 in debt, and by the way, you won't get paid. On the upside, you would get rid of malpractice suits!

Wow. M. Ward songs at 1-19, Beulah - Fooled with the Wrong Guy at 20, and M. Ward 21-25. And I've been listening on shuffle!

Yeah, self-sufficiency is such a disaster!

I agree.

Except most "liberals" aren't actually liberal.

Since the Iraq/Vietnam comparison doesn't work, let's reinstate the draft and make it work!

Gingrich/Pelosi

Bush: I may be slow, but at least I don't have crazy eyes. Pelosi:

Either way, it's not covered in the "simplest of biology course," so your comments was wrong. Of course the whole argument is based on potential. The same goes for adult stem cells. It is not known exactly how limited they are. It may be possible to produce any type of cell with them. It's not a simple case of "they are what they are" as you claim. Rush may very well eb an ass-clown. But his adipose tissue is probably full of stem cells.

Just because we had them at conception doesn't mean we want them now. During conception, their growth and differentiation is regulated. If you put them in the wrong environment (such as an adult body), controlling their growth is a real problem. And as the articles you posted pointed out, adult stem cells are not the same thing as embryonic ones, so the ones we have now are not the same ones that cause teratocarcinomas. I am supposedly a med student, not premed, and none of the biology classes I've had from high school through college covered teratocarcinomas or even very much on stem c

Science? I thought stem cells were magic.

Actually, that's not true. Stem cells (adult and embryonic) by definition are undifferentiated. There are different limitations on stem cells. Some are capable of creating an entire organism. Others cannot form a whole organism but can form any tissue or multiple tissues. Adult stem cells cannot create an entire organism, but they do have the potential to differentiate into any tissue if properly stimulated. Besides you don't want embryonic stem cells. If they form in the human body, you have what is called a teratocarcinoma which is a type of malignant tumor.

I disagree.

She claimed to be mobilizing people in the name of peace. On the other hand, she sides with dictators and calls the terrorists in Iraq that are preventing peace (and who also killed her son) freedom fighters. I think these guys came a lot closer than Sheehan. http://reuters.myway.com/article/20061013/...L-PEACE-DC.html It means that someone out there thinks she should win one which is not surprising but is in fact ridiculous and a little scary.

Campaigning for peace and doing something to achieve it are two different things. Protesting the Iraq War does nothing to make the world more peaceful (not like the prewar situation was peaceful anyway). And regardless of whether she is on the side of peace, can you honestly say that any of her actions have had any effect on making the world more peaceful?

That's ridiculous.

I think Clinton's response was perfectly dignified and appropriate (if he were Bill O'Reilly).

I'm more of a libertarian-conservative than a religious rightie, but don't you think you're exaggerating just a bit? I mean Stalinism did kill 100 million people.

Wow, they hyped their interview with Clinton by showing the most interesting parts (where Clinton turns purple and pokes Wallace's crotch). They did eventually show the whole interview, right?

When does Foxnews do that?

Yeah. And the period from the first WTC bomb to January 2001. I was just arguing against the claim that there's a big difference between not catching Bin Laden and manufacturing information (that's begging the question, but I'm not getting into another Bush lied argument) that led to 3000 Americans getting killed. I wasn't trying to lay more blame on Clinton for not catching Bin Laden. I haven't seen either movie and am not claiming that Path to 911 is accurate, but come on! It's considered lying when Bush uses actual intelligence reports to claim that Iraq has WMDs but splicing video cli

Didn't failing to respond properly lead to the deaths of 3000 Americans?