Support NeoGAF

[evil solrac v3.0]

so i was watching C-SPAN today (well somebody has to know what's goin on) and they were discussing H.R 810 the stem cell bill.
and almost every republican except one kept using religion and false facts to basically, in my opinion, to halt progress. how can they get up on that podium and argue about the sanctity of life when they so gleefully vote to use nearly 300 billion for some adventure in the middle east that's killed so many?
how can they say to be patient with the results in iraq and not want to hear about the possibilites that embryonic stem cells research can bring to the world of medicine if only they are given a little time and money?
why do they wilfully ignore the fact that these embryos are going to be discarded and can benefit people who are alive right now? if only they are given a little support? hell, were does it say in the bible to be selective with life? discuss among yourselves if you want.

 

[demon]

Because they're amoral fucking pricks, that's why.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

They're against the one thing that could have given Terry Schiavo a normal life again. Ironic isn't it.

We're pro-life! But we're also pro-death penalty! Only God has the right to take someone's life. Apparently it's the Republican's job to tell God when he is wrong. It's all about gaining votes.

 

[android]

Always remember that people don't go into politics (especially federal) to change the world anymore. They all want fame, fortune and power. Some take huge amounts of money and praise from huge corporations and some take it from huge men like Jerry Falwell. Money makes the world go round and it makes them tow the line.

 

[acoustix]

Wont be long now before all the halfway decent American scientists go to Europe.

 

[FortNinety]

How? Because most rarely come face to face with the issue they so strongly feel about, which I really feel is the heart of the matter.

 

[Dan]

I was going to make a thread, but I see there's a related one now.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/stem.cells/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After impassioned debate, the House passed a controversial bill Tuesday that would expand public funding for embryonic stem cell research -- a measure President Bush threatened to veto last week.

The vote was 238-194, short of the two-thirds supermajority necessary to override a veto. The measure now goes to the Senate.

The House then overwhelmingly passed a Republican-backed proposal that would use federal money to study stem cells taken from adults and umbilical cord blood, instead of using human embryos.

The vote was 431-1. One Republican voted against the bill, which was supported by Bush.

The first bill passed would extend funding to research on embryonic stem cell lines that were nonexistent in 2001, when Bush limited funding to lines in existence at the time.

According to scientists, many if not all of the previous lines are now contaminated and unusable.

Stem cell research has been touted by scientists as a possible step toward finding cures for diseases and afflictions including Alzheimer's, cancer and paralysis.

Among its most vocal supporters is former first lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband, former President Ronald Reagan, died of Alzheimer's in June 2004.

But, Bush said Friday, "I made very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that. Therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it."

Bush claims the research destroys life because embryos are destroyed in the process. But supporters point out that there are embryos in fertility clinics that would never be used to create babies, but could be used for research purposes.

Rep. Mike Castle, who introduced the bill, said it "draws a strict ethical line by only allowing federally funded research on stem cell lines that were derived ethically from donated embryos determined to be in excess."

"Under no circumstances," the Delaware Republican said in a written statement last week, "does this legislation allow for the creation of embryos for research, nor does it fund the destruction of embryos."

Under the bill, couples who have undergone fertility treatments and have embryos they won't use can then make the choice of putting them up for adoption, giving them directly to another couple, storing them, discarding them or donating them to science, co-sponsor Rep. Diana DeGette said during debate Tuesday.

"The only federal funds used under the Castle-DeGette bill are federal funds to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines" donated to science, the Colorado Democrat said. "We're allowing more of those lines."

The threatened veto would be the first of Bush's presidency. His stance is supported by Catholic leadership and social conservatives but has been rejected by moderate Republicans.

- more at the link

I particularly like this Bush quote: "I made very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that. Therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it." Replace "science" with "war" and he couldn't be more gung-ho about it. What a hypocritical douchebag, not that it's anything particularly new.

Or this one, from later in the article: "We should not use public money to support the further destruction of human life."

And of course, Tom DeLay gets a word in:

Embryonic stem cell research is "a scientific exploration into the benefits of killing human beings," DeLay said.

 

[xsarien]

so i was watching C-SPAN today (well somebody has to know what's goin on) and they were discussing H.R 810 the stem cell bill.
and almost every republican except one kept using religion and false facts to basically, in my opinion, to halt progress. how can they get up on that podium and argue about the sanctity of life when they so gleefully vote to use nearly 300 billion for some adventure in the middle east that's killed so many?

To quote George Carlin on the issue:
"Republicans want live babies so we can raise them to be dead soldiers."

 

[Fatghost]

They're against the one thing that could have given Terry Schiavo a normal life again. Ironic isn't it.

We're pro-life! But we're also pro-death penalty! Only God has the right to take someone's life. Apparently it's the Republican's job to tell God when he is wrong. It's all about gaining votes.

Stem cells couldn't have done a damn thing for Schiavo.


That said, I'm 100% in favor of stem cells and unfettered research.

 

[ronito]

As a religious person I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Religion shouldn't have anything to do with politics.

I find it disgusting and offensive to see religion used to pander for votes.

 

[Incognito]

Hey, don't forget: We're going to Mars! Clearly, in BushWorld, this element of science is far more important to the vitality of this country than possibly saving lives.

 

[Fragamemnon]

The evangelisitic religious right does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT, share the same reality that the rest of us do. This caller obviously does not.

When you live and function in a reality that is, for all intents and purposes, an artifical construct, this kind of reaction is what you get. Hypocrisy? No, in their reality, it's all coherent, consistent thought. They've built an alternative frame of reference in which they peer out of their bubbles and look down on rest of society, a frame where modernity is rejected, rational thought is subverted, and even many words themselves have had their meanings distorted.

That's what makes political discourse in this coutry, especially when dealing with the far right, so incredibly difficult. The divide between the reality that they have created and the one that actually exists is just too great, and for the person who sees things as they are, reconciliing this alterate, mirror universe is just incomprehensible.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Stem cells couldn't have done a damn thing for Schiavo.

Eh, I worded that really wrong. I meant the possibility was there for people in her situation. Maybe never, most definitely not in her lifetime. But yeah.

 

[tsp_gatmog]

they suck?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

what was that enourmous stem cell breakthrough in reasonable countries that recently got the american scientists all "we are going to fall behind" nervous?

 

[videogamer]

Stem cells couldn't have done a damn thing for Schiavo.

Of course, stem cell research hasn't gotten to the point to being used with confidence. However, I think what he's trying to get at is that the religious right does not want to fund research that may potentially povide solutions for those like Shiavo (or Schiavo herself if the research gets there+she lives long enough).

 

[Fatghost]

Eh, I worded that really wrong. I meant the possibility was there for people in her situation. Maybe never, most definitely not in her lifetime. But yeah.

No, stem cells wouldn't do anything for someone with her condition. There is no hope for someone in her condition.

Stem cells will do wonderful things for Type 1 diabetics (won't do much for type 2s), people with heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, MS and parkinsons, some cancers, burn victims, many types of cancer survivors, and others, but it isn't a panacea for every ailment.

 

[Incognito]

what was that enourmous stem cell breakthrough in reasonable countries that recently got the american scientists all "we are going to fall behind" nervous?

IIRC, cloning stem cells. The more the better...

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

No, stem cells wouldn't do anything for someone with her condition. There is no hope for someone in her condition.

Stem cells will do wonderful things for Type 1 diabetics (won't do much for type 2s), people with heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, MS and parkinsons, some cancers, burn victims, many types of cancer survivors, and others, but it isn't a panacea for every ailment.

I was under the impression that stem cells could lead to curing some forms of brain damage.

 

[jiggle]

what was that enourmous stem cell breakthrough in reasonable countries that recently got the american scientists all "we are going to fall behind" nervous?

this?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/05/19/stem.cells.embryo.ap/

 

[Fatghost]

I was under the impression that stem cells could lead to curing some forms of brain damage.

Some forms, but nothing like Schiavos. Most of her brain was gone. Even if the cells could have been replaced, she likely wouldn't be there.

I'm a type 1 diabetic and I want stem cell research to make faster progress myself but it's not going to cure everything - in many cases, stem cells won't be a cure even when perfected. In my own case, for example, stem cells will likely just become a new therapy - most forms of type 1 diabetes are auto-immune in nature which would result in any new pancreatic islet cells made by stem cells would eventually fail and have to be replaced.

In other words, I would expect stem cell research when perfected to mean I could go from 12 injections per day to an outpatient procedure every 18-24 months or so.

Stem cells will be great but there is a lot of danger is getting too hyped up about them - they won't be a magic bullet for anything and there is a lot of other areas of research just as or more important (such as autoimmune research - ultimate understanding of which WOULD cure cancer, diabetes, AIDS and other serious diseases)

 

[videogamer]

No, stem cells wouldn't do anything for someone with her condition. There is no hope for someone in her condition.

Stem cells will do wonderful things for Type 1 diabetics (won't do much for type 2s), people with heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, MS and parkinsons, some cancers, burn victims, many types of cancer survivors, and others, but it isn't a panacea for every ailment.

Well, it has not been able to solve these problems yet. Hypothetically, the cells would be able to differentiate into brain cells. Then the connections would needed to form. The brain's structure would need to be redeveloped. It's easier to imagine stem cells being able to work with parkinson's and burn victims because these problems tend to focus around a one or two cell types and are localized. With the case of Schiavo, huge swaths of the brain were damaged and a hypothetical treatment would be more involved. Since it seems to be fair game to speculate on possible stem cell treatments, I don't see why the word "no hope" would be applicable to Shiavo.

Even if the cells could have been replaced, she likely wouldn't be there.

If new cells could replace the old ones and connections would reform, she would hypothetically "be there". She might have a different personality, but that's different from having an abnormal life (besides the history).

 

[ToyMachine228]

How do some democrats like with themselves? To paraphrase Revenge of the Sith and Snake Eater...Good and evil are only matters of perspective.

 

[happyfunball]

No, stem cells wouldn't do anything for someone with her condition. There is no hope for someone in her condition.

Stem cells will do wonderful things for Type 1 diabetics (won't do much for type 2s), people with heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, MS and parkinsons, some cancers, burn victims, many types of cancer survivors, and others, but it isn't a panacea for every ailment.

Well, you are partly right on her issue I believe. If they had implanted her brain with stem cells initially after her injury, it may have prevented or greatly reduced the brain damage which was the result of hypoxia. But, after that many years, it may have done nothing.

 

[Boogie]

As a religious person I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Religion shouldn't have anything to do with politics.

I find it disgusting and offensive to see religion used to pander for votes.

Disagree. At a grassroots level, I believe that religion can have an important role to play. It's when one side tries to hijack religion and religious language in order to push through policies, many of which are actually against that religion that things get awful.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The evangelisitic religious right does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT, share the same reality that the rest of us do. This caller obviously does not.

When you live and function in a reality that is, for all intents and purposes, an artifical construct, this kind of reaction is what you get. Hypocrisy? No, in their reality, it's all coherent, consistent thought. They've built an alternative frame of reference in which they peer out of their bubbles and look down on rest of society, a frame where modernity is rejected, rational thought is subverted, and even many words themselves have had their meanings distorted.

That's what makes political discourse in this coutry, especially when dealing with the far right, so incredibly difficult. The divide between the reality that they have created and the one that actually exists is just too great, and for the person who sees things as they are, reconciliing this alterate, mirror universe is just incomprehensible.

Replace evangelicals with the other side in this issue, and it still makes sense.

I'm still coming to grips with the gleeful jeering that one crowd heaps on another about these moral gray issues. Think, everyone; we're talking about harvesting human embryos to help other humans. This isn't some cheeky "Gotcha!" political scandal moment, this is a MAJOR crossroads for morality worldwide here.

Stem cells will be great but there is a lot of danger is getting too hyped up about them - they won't be a magic bullet for anything and there is a lot of other areas of research just as or more important (such as autoimmune research - ultimate understanding of which WOULD cure cancer, diabetes, AIDS and other serious diseases)

Thank you. Excellent, mature post, man. I can't shake the image in my head of some people believing that scientists are at this heart-breaking standstill from this: "The CURE is 6 months of success! But the Big Bad Mans won't let us have the material! Woe is us!" It could be 5 years down the road, 10, 15...maybe never. That's how research goes, (remember the Salk vaccine 50th anniversary a few months back? Yeah, same thing.) Besides, even if it is roadblocked here, European facilities aren't going to like deny Americans the fruits of succesful research because of what some President 3 administrations back did to reign it in.

 

[ToyMachine228]

I hate to break it to you, but despite Terry Shiavo's tragedy, it's not the end of the world. She was one suffering human being. And now she's gone, and her suffering is over. It's just one life. It may sound cold, but it's not even a sliver in the big picture of things. It's one person.

 

[videogamer]

Thank you. Excellent, mature post, man. I can't shake the image in my head of some people believing that scientists are at this heart-breaking standstill from this: "The CURE is 6 months of success! But the Big Bad Mans won't let us have the material! Woe is us!"

Find me that quote. Most scientists I know won't talk to you like that. Especially that 6 months quote. Most scientists are more realistic than that. In fact, I question how much experience you've had with medical research if you're willing to say those things....

It could be 5 years down the road, 10, 15...maybe never. That's how research goes, (remember the Salk vaccine 50th anniversary a few months back? Yeah, same thing.) Besides, even if it is roadblocked here, European facilities aren't going to like deny Americans the fruits of succesful research because of what some President 3 administrations back did to reign it in.

1. Do you know the Salk vaccine was helped out? Short story: Roosevelt helped get the March of Dimes running. There was more than enough money for the initial goal (to send kids with polio to a spa that Roosevelt liked). They decided to help fund polio research. At that time, Salk was literally working in the basement. The money helped Salk get his research going and in a couple of years he was able to start testing his vaccine. From this idea, the NIH's involvement in medical research started.

2. If the Europeans and Koreans are working on stem cells and may find solutions, then excellent. But how about working on them on potential solutions? Considering how much the US funds biomedical research and using your "3 administratiions" timeline, any potential advances could be done years earlier. The fact is, the goal is not simply to find an AIDS vaccine or to Polio vaccine sooner or later, it's to alleviate human suffering.

 

[Lardbutt]

The evangelisitic religious right does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT, share the same reality that the rest of us do. This caller obviously does not.

When you live and function in a reality that is, for all intents and purposes, an artifical construct, this kind of reaction is what you get. Hypocrisy? No, in their reality, it's all coherent, consistent thought. They've built an alternative frame of reference in which they peer out of their bubbles and look down on rest of society, a frame where modernity is rejected, rational thought is subverted, and even many words themselves have had their meanings distorted.

Hate to break it to you guys, but most of the WORLD is that way...the majority of the world's population subscrube to some sort of religion/doctrine, whether they be Muslims, Buddhists, Hindis, Jews, etc...they are all living in a different reality from most of you here...maybe it's time you begin to accept that you are in the minority. Your modernistic/pragmatic view of reality, one that is popular among the younger generation in the western world/Europe, is still a relatively new concept.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Find me that quote. Most scientists I know won't talk to you like that. Especially that 6 months quote. Most scientists are more realistic than that. In fact, I question how much experience you've had with medical research if you're willing to say those things....


1. Do you know the Salk vaccine was helped out? Short story: Roosevelt helped get the March of Dimes running. There was more than enough money for the initial goal (to send kids with polio to a spa that Roosevelt liked). They decided to help fund polio research. At that time, Salk was literally working in the basement. The money helped Salk get his research going and in a couple of years he was able to start testing his vaccine. From this idea, the NIH's involvement in medical research started.

2. If the Europeans and Koreans are working on stem cells and may find solutions, then excellent. But how about working on them on potential solutions? Considering how much the US funds biomedical research and using your "3 administratiions" timeline, any potential advances could be done years earlier. The fact is, the goal is not simply to find an AIDS vaccine or to Polio vaccine sooner or later, it's to alleviate human suffering.

It wasn't the scientists I was referencing there, so there is no quote; besides, you see the next paragraph of mine, right?

Short answer, yes I do know of Salk's backstory, (FDR confined to a wheelchair for long periods of time and the agonizing therapy he went thru in the 20's inspiring her to develop what you went into detail on). Long answer, there's not alot to be describing here, really. I want cures, if it's stem cells, faster/better/more effective, whatever. If it's adult stem cells, again, faster/better/more effective, whatever. I'm just refeshing the picture here for people who need to know it isn't known to be a magic bullet, not yet, anyways.

Interesting point; like I said, the situation I described was a scenario where US government funds for research grinds to a halt on stem cells only. If that did happen, I'd like to think the money'd at least go to other avenues of research.

 

[videogamer]

It wasn't the scientists I was referencing there, so there is no quote; besides, you see the next paragraph of mine, right?

Whoops my bad. Alright then, post quotes of who are reacting like that.

Short answer, yes I do know of Salk's backstory, (FDR confined to a wheelchair for long periods of time and the agonizing therapy he went thru in the 20's inspiring her to develop what you went into detail on). Long answer, there's not alot to be describing here, really. I want cures, if it's stem cells, faster/better/more effective, whatever. If it's adult stem cells, again, faster/better/more effective, whatever. I'm just refeshing the picture here for people who need to know it isn't known to be a magic bullet, not yet, anyways.

You say that you want cures. But in the previous post, you say that should the cures arrive, other nations would provide them for us anyways. This may imply that American contribution to embryonic stem cell research would not be of much use. I'm getting the "eh, what's going to happen will happen... US funding won't be of an impact" vibe. Who knows if the US limit funding?

Interesting point; like I said, the situation I described was a scenario where US government funds for research grinds to a halt on stem cells only. If that did happen, I'd like to think the money'd at least go to other avenues of research.

Sure, there would be funding for other research. But the problem is that even though stem cells have shown potential, funding is denied for religious, not scientific reasons. Embryonic stem cell research is not given the same kind of opportunities that other forms of research have.

Replace evangelicals with the other side in this issue, and it still makes sense.

At least one side tries to use science as a guide. Science can change with times and adapt to realities. The other tends to stick to one religion's text. This text, to them, is not to be modified or interpreted loosely.

I'm still coming to grips with the gleeful jeering that one crowd heaps on another about these moral gray issues. Think, everyone; we're talking about harvesting human embryos to help other humans. This isn't some cheeky "Gotcha!" political scandal moment, this is a MAJOR crossroads for morality worldwide here.

These human embryos may have been discarded already. It's not like harvesting from a field. It's more like picking through the fertility clinic's disposal bin.

 

[border]

Hate to break it to you guys, but most of the WORLD is that way...

Hate to break it to you, but he's talking about the evangelistic religious right. Not all religions.

 

[jiggle]

House votes to lift ban on stem cell funding
Bush promises to veto legislation loosening restrictions on research

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7964239/

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

House votes to lift ban on stem cell funding
Bush promises to veto legislation loosening restrictions on research

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7964239/

he's a fuckin douchebag

 

[Fragamemnon]

Hate to break it to you guys, but most of the WORLD is that way...the majority of the world's population subscrube to some sort of religion/doctrine, whether they be Muslims, Buddhists, Hindis, Jews, etc...they are all living in a different reality from most of you here

Being a person of faith does not mean that you refuse to acknowledge the reality around you, or that you twist and pervert reason and shun modernity. I'm referring to strict fundamentalism-a common trademark of many major relgions. There is a clash of civilisations that wages between those that would turn away from all the lessons of modern society since the Enlightenment, and those that understand that progress is a natural force that marches on. It's the difference between those that see that a secular, modern society opens options to practice your faith and deliever your message in new ways and those that demand totalism and rule through terror or police state, depending on the size of their country's pocketbooks.

...maybe it's time you begin to accept that you are in the minority. Your modernistic/pragmatic view of reality, one that is popular among the younger generation in the western world/Europe, is still a relatively new concept.

Reason and progress are hardly new notions. The pluralistic secular state is somewhat more recent, but not so much that it is unproven, especially in America, which was founded on that notion, despite what the Christian mullahs of this country would tell you.

The real minority are those people that refuse to see an apple for being an apple because it doesn't sync with their faith-governed laws of reality. They live in hermetically sealed bubbles, and when air does escape from their atmospheres, the stench to the regular person seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is overwhelming.

(Pardon the prose here. Taking potshots at fundamentalists is intoxicating)

 

[Iceman]

freaking GAF.

 

[Triumph]

They go to bed on mattresses fashioned out of bibles and money, because that's all that matters! Silly socialists.

 

[xsarien]

freaking GAF.

Quite a well thought out rebuttal of all of the arguments presented. Good show.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I live with myself by rolling in piles of money at night. Money I have stolen from the poor and disenfranchised of our country. Bush's tax cuts have made me rich rich rich!! What a windfall!

 

[demon]

freaking GAF.

Now that's a point to ponder.

 

[SuperPac]

Another "how do some republicans live with themselves" -- gay republicans. Now that's f'd up.

 

[Phoenix]

Stem cell research being a 'cut and dry up or down' decision is a fallacy. You don't even have to take religion into account to see that. If an embryo is a person, then you get into a funky ethical delima. While I do like some of the constraints that people have tried to put in place:

"Under the bill, couples who have undergone fertility treatments and have embryos they won't use can then make the choice of putting them up for adoption, giving them directly to another couple, storing them, discarding them or donating them to science, co-sponsor Rep. Diana DeGette said during debate."

it is still easy to see why there would be plenty of people who would still have problems jumping into this one with both feet. It could very quickly become a slippery slope. Even though I like the idea of stem cell research in a round about way (I do think that there are instances where the cost of 'progress' can be too high), I can still appreciate the concerns and scenarios that people use to be against it.

 

[Phoenix]

Another "how do some republicans live with themselves" -- gay republicans. Now that's f'd up.

A "how do some people live with themselves" -- gay people who actually voted for Bush. Its almost like black people voting for a grand wizard of the KKK to be president.

 

[FoneBone]

Another "how do some republicans live with themselves" -- gay republicans. Now that's f'd up.

What's even more inexplicable is that there are ones out there who aren't even moderate Republicans -- they're hard right-wingers who actually defend Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and their ilk.

And there's this guy...

http://www.gaypatriot.org

 

[Raistlin]

How? Because most rarely come face to face with the issue they so strongly feel about, which I really feel is the heart of the matter.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about Democrats. A bunch of rich, pro-socialist, Hollywood stars don't really feel much of a pinch from high taxes ... etc.

 

[Zaptruder]

Unfortunately, the same can be said about Democrats. A bunch of rich, pro-socialist, Hollywood stars don't really feel much of a pinch from high taxes ... etc.

... if they don't feel the pinch from high taxes... I'd say tax them harder! If you're earning above 1million p.a. you're earning more than enough for any personal level of need and comfort.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

something I always wondered was how anyone can be against the environment. Republicans always talk about the Democrats in a condescending tone when talking about the environment...why is this? Why the constant push to lower environmental rules by the Republicans?

It's not the mose non-biased source, but this is that I'm talking about: http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp

 

[Fragamemnon]

Republicans want to lower environmental standards because they believe that it won't harm anyone (because they engage in scientific cherrypicking) and will result in less regulation, leading to more economic growth which, in their theories, will help the economy as a whole.

As an environmentalist, I have no problems with lowering strict pollution and environmental standards IF the science is proven and confirmed by a consensus of the scientific community, and not just by one or two paid for and cherrypicked papers that do not undergo critical peer review.

 

[videogamer]

Republicans want to lower environmental standards because they believe that it won't harm anyone (because they engage in scientific cherrypicking) and will result in less regulation, leading to more economic growth which, in their theories, will help the economy as a whole.

That may be a reason. But I also know some conservatives who will automatically connect environmentalist with throwing paint on fur. Other conservatives won't do that, but they do express some kind of visceral disgust when talking about environmental issues as though the issue were an on/off switch.

Then there are the people who just don't know the facts. During an interview, there was a professor who actually told me that building dams or diverting water wasn't going to be at all that bad. He claimed that the water would evaporate, so no water would be lost. And I sat there with my mouth open speechless.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

Republicans want to lower environmental standards because they believe that it won't harm anyone (because they engage in scientific cherrypicking) and will result in less regulation, leading to more economic growth which, in their theories, will help the economy as a whole.

As an environmentalist, I have no problems with lowering strict pollution and environmental standards IF the science is proven and confirmed by a consensus of the scientific community, and not just by one or two paid for and cherrypicked papers that do not undergo critical peer review.

sounds like you're talking about trickle-down economics. :lol