Christine O'Donnell criticized by former aides

[Dick Tuck]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nECxQUi_pr0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Christine O'Donnell: "I Dabbled Into Witchcraft"[/ame]

 

[Liability]

If she went on a date with a Satanist and he had her up on some stupid satanic alter, and if that's what she meant by "dabbling" in witchcraft, then all she's guilty of is: (a) being young, (b) dating stupidly and (c) being stupid for having anything to do with a pissant piece of shit like that sanctimonious asshat Bill Maher.

 

[del]

I realize logic isn't your bag, but I never said they were the same, dopey. I merely noted (correctly) that what she said was not as bat-shit crazy as certain liberals here pretended it was.

I also haven't suggested that she's a scientist or that her somewhat informal expressions amount to evidence that she even understands what she's said.

But she clearly can't be accused of being bat shit crazy (at least not if an honest basis for such an accusation is the measure of such things) .

You don't have to be a scientist to know that mice and humans can't interbreed.

You basically have to make it past 7th grade science.

They sure can not breed. But is it completely impossible to think that science could find some way to give mice Human traits?

 

[del]

If she went on a date with a Satanist and he had her up on some stupid satanic alter, and if that's what she meant by "dabbling" in witchcraft, then all she's guilty of is: (a) being young, (b) dating stupidly and (c) being stupid for having anything to do with a pissant piece of shit like that sanctimonious asshat Bill Maher.

the woman's a fucking moron. she makes palin look like a fullbright scholar.

 

[rightwinger]

If she went on a date with a Satanist and he had her up on some stupid satanic alter, and if that's what she meant by "dabbling" in witchcraft, then all she's guilty of is: (a) being young, (b) dating stupidly and (c) being stupid for having anything to do with a pissant piece of shit like that sanctimonious asshat Bill Maher.

I say she is a WITCH

And needs to face the consequences

 

[Zander]

Yeah, she's stupid. So stupid that she sent a long time RINO packing. Stupid is as "stupid" does.


Here are the most common "plays" in the lefty handbook.....use them often.

1) the opponent is "stupid"
2) the opponent is "dumb"
3) the opponent is "moronic"
4) the opponent is a "puppy killer"
5) the opponent is a "racist"
6) the opponent is a "homophobe"
7) the opponent is a "right wing reactionary"
9) the opponent is "stupid" (they REALLY like this one!)
10) the opponent is "corrupt".

and of course

11) the opponent "doesn't care about the little people"

Pick two or more and flail away.......

 

[geauxtohell]

I realize logic isn't your bag, but I never said they were the same, dopey. I merely noted (correctly) that what she said was not as bat-shit crazy as certain liberals here pretended it was.

I also haven't suggested that she's a scientist or that her somewhat informal expressions amount to evidence that she even understands what she's said.

But she clearly can't be accused of being bat shit crazy (at least not if an honest basis for such an accusation is the measure of such things) .

You don't have to be a scientist to know that mice and humans can't interbreed.

You basically have to make it past 7th grade science.

They sure can not breed. But is it completely impossible to think that science could find some way to give mice Human traits?

No of course not. Science is doing that. O'Donnell thinks they are accomplishing it through interbreeding.

Idiotic.

 

[geauxtohell]

And it could be that she against Humans playing God...and tinkering where they don't belong because it could very well be perverted into something sinister...

Just a thought. I see nothing wrong in her objections at all.

Really?

What was your opinion of the whole Schiavo thing?

Virtually every medical advancement known to man can be called "humans playing God". If we let nature run its course, the average life expectancy would still be around 40 years of age.

 

[geauxtohell]

If she went on a date with a Satanist and he had her up on some stupid satanic alter, and if that's what she meant by "dabbling" in witchcraft, then all she's guilty of is: (a) being young, (b) dating stupidly and (c) being stupid for having anything to do with a pissant piece of shit like that sanctimonious asshat Bill Maher.

I say she is a WITCH

And needs to face the consequences

I realize someone probably already beat me to this, but...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g]YouTube - She's a witch![/ame]

 

[geauxtohell]

Yeah, she's stupid. So stupid that she sent a long time RINO packing. Stupid is as "stupid" does.


Here are the most common "plays" in the lefty handbook.....use them often.

1) the opponent is "stupid"
2) the opponent is "dumb"
3) the opponent is "moronic"
4) the opponent is a "puppy killer"
5) the opponent is a "racist"
6) the opponent is a "homophobe"
7) the opponent is a "right wing reactionary"
9) the opponent is "stupid" (they REALLY like this one!)
10) the opponent is "corrupt".

and of course

11) the opponent "doesn't care about the little people"

Pick two or more and flail away.......

Yeah, only liberals do that.*

*Were you asleep from 2001 to 2008?

 

[Charles_Main]

You don't have to be a scientist to know that mice and humans can't interbreed.

You basically have to make it past 7th grade science.

They sure can not breed. But is it completely impossible to think that science could find some way to give mice Human traits?

See I knew it

 

[rightwinger]

If she went on a date with a Satanist and he had her up on some stupid satanic alter, and if that's what she meant by "dabbling" in witchcraft, then all she's guilty of is: (a) being young, (b) dating stupidly and (c) being stupid for having anything to do with a pissant piece of shit like that sanctimonious asshat Bill Maher.

I say she is a WITCH

And needs to face the consequences

I realize someone probably already beat me to this, but...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g]YouTube - She's a witch![/ame]

I still say O'Donnell is a WITCH

She turned me into a Newt!

 

[geauxtohell]

So, your ruminations notwithstanding, what she said was not idiotic.

No. It was completely idiotic. O'Donnell doesn't know the difference between a chimera and a conjugal visit.

She thought that the way scientists were creating human tissue in mouse was through interbreeding. That's just fucking comical. A fifth grader knows better.

There is a difference between an incomplete understanding of science and idiocy. But she's very close to the mark on being concerned with the issues in a more general fashion.

And just to be blunt: There is a world of difference between growing a human ear on the back of a mouse (which has already happened and which does not involve helping the mouse to "hear" diddly dog) and engineering the genes of mice so that their very brains start acquiring functioning HUMAN neurons and USING them.

Oh for fuck's sake. You are getting your perspective of Dr. Wiessman's work through some crank blogger's site. No wonder you are confused.

In fact, it is exactly analogous to the ear on the mouse. Do you think Dr. Wiessman was conducting his work to make mice smarter? What good does that do for medical science (Wiessman is an M.D.)? Wiessman is putting neurons into mice to see if they can, at some point, be transplanted to humans (like an ear) and to further study neuropathology in an attempt to better understand and fight diseases of the brain. It is considered slightly unethical to deliberately infect humans to study disease.

Weissman is at the forefront of stem cell research, which is probably why O'Donnell choose to attack him (hilariously displaying her lack of scientific knowledge and thus demonstrating that perhaps she should educate herself before running her mouth off).

Irving Weissman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, for you people who have real problems with scientific research, I have no problem with you opting out of any potential future treatments and cures.

Of course, we all know that is unrealistic. So, instead, you will do your best to hinder research so that the entire nation will potentially suffer because you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.

 

[geauxtohell]

I say she is a WITCH

And needs to face the consequences

I realize someone probably already beat me to this, but...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g]YouTube - She's a witch![/ame]

I still say O'Donnell is a WITCH

She turned me into a Newt!

She turned YOU into a newt?

 

[rightwinger]

I realize someone probably already beat me to this, but...

YouTube - She's a witch!

I still say O'Donnell is a WITCH

She turned me into a Newt!

She turned YOU into a newt?

I got better

 

[The T]

Yeah, she's stupid. So stupid that she sent a long time RINO packing. Stupid is as "stupid" does.


Here are the most common "plays" in the lefty handbook.....use them often.

1) the opponent is "stupid"
2) the opponent is "dumb"
3) the opponent is "moronic"
4) the opponent is a "puppy killer"
5) the opponent is a "racist"
6) the opponent is a "homophobe"
7) the opponent is a "right wing reactionary"
9) the opponent is "stupid" (they REALLY like this one!)
10) the opponent is "corrupt".

and of course

11) the opponent "doesn't care about the little people"

Pick two or more and flail away.......

Yeah, only liberals do that.*

*Were you asleep from 2001 to 2008?

Nope we weren't. And that rhetoric was coming from the left. It always does. Revisionist history angle here? Sure why not? It's the only way you shitheads try to win...with emphasis on try.

Honesty and honor don't suit you...and never have.

 

[hortysir]

She doesn't believe in masturbation
She doesn't believe in pre-marital sex



How did she get aids?

 

[geauxtohell]

Nope we weren't. And that rhetoric was coming from the left. It always does. Revisionist history angle here? Sure why not? It's the only way you shitheads try to win...with emphasis on try.

Honesty and honor don't suit you...and never have.

Oh bullshit.

You guys were all to quick to toss out the label "coward" and "un-American" to anyone that didn't agree with your fucked up little corporate wars.

You don't remember the Dixie Chicks? Let me guess, that was different somehow, huh?

As for "shit-head", honesty, and your perspective of "honor", needless to say; after watching you fly off the handle and threaten people via the internet, I put no stock in your opinion whatsoever.

 

[Dick Tuck]

No, 8537 (or whatever number you're using this week), NOT really.

What Christine said is, of course, technically inaccurate. Naturally, we aren't really talking about "cross-breeding." But at least there is some actual scientific research taking place that makes her incomplete and erroneous understanding of the scientific topic close enough to the mark to make her statement understandable.

Notice, too, that because of such "research" even a scientist expressed some concern about the prospect of mice eventually gaining some sort of higher intelligence because of the genetic engineering.

Or did you -- in your arrogance -- gloss over that part?

It's not understandable. It's completely idiotic.

We have been growing human ears on mice via genomics for over a decade now.

If this woman doesn't understand that human's and mice can't interbreed, she's a moron.

Although that's less disturbing than if she thinks the above scientific experiment to use mice to generate human tissue is in any way "unethical".

Actually, your view was contradicted in the article.

While -- again -- her understanding of the science is clearly misguided, there is still a basis for her expressions of concern.

Adult stem cell researcher Irving Weissman, M.D. of the Stanford School of Medicine wants to develop mice that have a lot of human neurons in their brains.

So Stanford asked where it should draw the line. It is the first university in the nation to tackle the philosophical question: When does a chimera stop being an animal and start becoming a person, suggesting that research should end? The report foreshadows the release of guidelines on stem-cell research, including chimeras, by the National Academy of Sciences this spring.

``We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop,'' said law and genetics Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee.

``We think if he takes appropriate caution -- including stopping at each step along the way, to see what's happening -- the research is ethical,'' he said.

What I find especially interesting about this report is the reticence to see animals made smarter. What is their motivation for this restriction? Is it that they do not want lab animals made intelligent because then experimentation on them would become too much like experimentation on sentient humans?

Or do they object more generally to modification of other species to make them become as smart as humans? If the latter, what are their reasons for opposing this move? Certainly one can think of reasons to oppose such a development. The human race could find its existence threatened if we genetically engineered some predator species to be as smart as we are. Imagine smart lions and tigers with no empathy for the human species hunting us down to eat. For that matter, imagine genetically engineered human psychopaths with no empathy for the human species. They already occur naturally in smaller numbers. Will some people ever choose to use biotechnology to produce offspring with little or no empathy?

Or is the objection to making smart mice with human neurons just the creepiness factor? Are the committee members either creeped out by that notion or afraid the public will be? In the longer run discoveries of which genetic variations raise intelligence will point to ways to increase the intelligence of mice without the need to use human neurons. Higher intelligence will be achievable in mice by use of genetic engineering to change the sequences of existing mouse genes.

So, your ruminations notwithstanding, what she said was not idiotic. There is a difference between an incomplete understanding of science and idiocy. But she's very close to the mark on being concerned with the issues in a more general fashion.

And just to be blunt: There is a world of difference between growing a human ear on the back of a mouse (which has already happened and which does not involve helping the mouse to "hear" diddly dog) and engineering the genes of mice so that their very brains start acquiring functioning HUMAN neurons and USING them.

So you're afraid of mice taking over. I'm not. You've got a pretty wimpy position to defend.

 

[geauxtohell]

So you're afraid of mice taking over. I'm not. You've got a pretty wimpy position to defend.

And he will defend it to the death.

"Of Mice and Men"