Roxxxanne wrote: You are assuming that all the people who voted for Bush back this absurd policy. In fact, generally speaking, only the Christo-fascist Zombie Brigade, nuts like James Dobson and Pat Robertson, support him on this.
The minority who opposes stem cell research is about as small as the minority that supports gay marriage. Does this invalidate your support of gay marriage, or even make you a "gay fascist"? I don't think so.
What has stem cell research have to do with gay marriage? If you're willing to use this kind of comparison which are based solely on religious beliefs, it's never consistent.
cicerone imposter wrote:What has stem cell research have to do with gay marriage?
Only that large majorities of Americans have made up their minds about either.
cicerone imposter wrote:If you're willing to use this kind of comparison which are based solely on religious beliefs, it's never consistent.
I was responding to Roxxanne, who had made a point about the number of people who voted for something. That point, applied to gay marriage, yields conclusions Roxxanne would consider false, as do I. This is a reason to believe the point is fallacious. Majorities can get things wrong, minorities can get things right, so the fact that only a minority supports a cause does not tell us anything about the cause's merits.
It is interesting to note a number of bills that Bush didn't veto.
STEM CELLS -- BUSH VETOES STEM CELL BILL, SKIRTS RESPONSIBILITY ON OTHER BILLS: President Bush vetoed the first bill of his presidency yesterday, ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the public who support embryonic stem cell research and its potential to cure such diseases as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. Apparently, he wasn't too proud of the decision. Bush issued the veto in secret, banning the media from the veto ceremony and not allowing any photographers in the room. Bush is the "longest-sitting president since Thomas Jefferson not to exercise his veto," and it's worth noting some of the bills the president chose to sign into law. Bush chose not to veto a bill that cut funding for student loans. He would not veto a bill that gave oil and gas companies $6 billion and coal companies $9 billion, nor would he do so with the prescription drug bill favorable to drug companies that cost $1.2 trillion. The President chose not to veto tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the rich while helping generate record federal deficits. Bush would not even veto the widely unpopular Terri Schiavo legislation that Congress passed in an attempt to interfere in a personal family matter. Also yesterday, the House voted 235-193 to overturn Bush's veto, 51 votes short of the required two-thirds majority. Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), who is confined to a wheelchair, spoke out about the veto in a emotional speech.
--AmericanProgressAction
If it was supported by a "vast majority of the public who support embryonic stem cell research" you'd think Congress would have just over-ridden his veto.
Oh, well. Guess we'll just have to leave stem-cell research up to private companies.
McGentrix wrote:Oh, well. Guess we'll just have to leave stem-cell research up to private companies.
Or maybe the "vast majority" of Americans could put their money where their mouth is: by donating to some foundation that finances stem cell research. Or maybe some states could get in the business of funding it. There are lots of possibilities for keeping stem cell research alive under current American law. George Bush did
not vote to make stem cell research illegal or anything. He only vetoed a bill to subsidize it. Jefferson knows I'm not a fan of Bush, but this veto is hardly the worst thing he did in his presidency. In fact, I don't think it even makes the top ten.
Naw, it just shows the hypocrisy of Bush and his supporters.
McGentrix wrote:If it was supported by a "vast majority of the public who support embryonic stem cell research" you'd think Congress would have just over-ridden his veto.
Oh, well. Guess we'll just have to leave stem-cell research up to private companies.
at least then a 4.00 test tube won't be billed to the taxpayer at 400.00 ... damn... I agree with McGentrix on something.....let's leave this administration out of it seeing as how they F*CK UP EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH......
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:McGentrix wrote:If it was supported by a "vast majority of the public who support embryonic stem cell research" you'd think Congress would have just over-ridden his veto.
Oh, well. Guess we'll just have to leave stem-cell research up to private companies.
at least then a 4.00 test tube won't be billed to the taxpayer at 400.00 ... damn... I agree with McGentrix on something.....let's leave this administration out of it seeing as how they F*CK UP EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH......
I think that's twice now...
I think BPB is ahead of me to my one.
Thomas wrote:McGentrix wrote:Oh, well. Guess we'll just have to leave stem-cell research up to private companies.
Or maybe the "vast majority" of Americans could put their money where their mouth is: by donating to some foundation that finances stem cell research. Or maybe some states could get in the business of funding it. There are lots of possibilities for keeping stem cell research alive under current American law. George Bush did
not vote to make stem cell research illegal or anything. He only vetoed a bill to subsidize it. Jefferson knows I'm not a fan of Bush, but this veto is hardly the worst thing he did in his presidency. In fact, I don't think it even makes the top ten.
Um, it's his first veto ever since being placed in the White House. Don't expect a ho-hum response to it. Add to that the fact that:
Crooks and Liars wrote:http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/19/bushs-callous-veto/
Bush went five and a half years without vetoing a single piece of legislation, but he broke his
streakblocked media access.
It was an expected, albeit disappointing, outcome. Bush addressed a friendly audience in the East Room this afternoon after vetoing the bill where he rehashed a series of
tired arguments, many of them patently
falseNovember.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a leading sponsor of the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, explained, "
H.R. 810 would have corrected the President's short-sighted policy by allowing this important research to move forward under ethical constraints. This research holds so much promise to solving diseases that affect more than 110 million Americans. Vetoing this bill is one of the greatest mistakes of his Presidency."
A whole bunch of Bush supporter morons don't think so.
That he made so many more promises during his campaign speeches about what he would do for the poor, education, and health care that he pushed legislation to defeat, it makes you wonder how conservatives are able to do their intellectual gymnastics so easily - unless they have no conscience or are brain-dead.
It amazes me that anyone would give priority to a cell or two, too small to see with the human eye, over the survivor or cure of those with MS, Parkinson's, diabetes, etc.
About half the drugs being produced in the USA come as a result of federal research grants to universities. The drug companies then manufacture the drugs, paying the taxpayers nothing, and make billions. Thus, it is wrong to denigrate federal involvement in medical research.
Howard Dean discussion with Pelossi overheard...
"...we could start doing experiments on death-row prisoners to be sure that the stem cell research being done doesn't cause tumors or other side effects. Then, we could just start harvesting their organs while they are being experimented on to save the lives of those more deserving people in America...."
Not really, but not much difference in using Human embryos and harvesting their parts, is there?
McGentrix wrote:Howard Dean discussion with Pelossi overheard...
"...we could start doing experiments on death-row prisoners to be sure that the stem cell research being done doesn't cause tumors or other side effects. Then, we could just start harvesting their organs while they are being experimented on to save the lives of those more deserving people in America...."
Not really, but not much difference in using Human embryos and harvesting their parts, is there?
No, there is no difference from an embryo the size of the period at the end of this sentence that is going to be destroyed anyway from an actual living human being. None at all.
Roxxxanne wrote:McGentrix wrote:Howard Dean discussion with Pelossi overheard...
"...we could start doing experiments on death-row prisoners to be sure that the stem cell research being done doesn't cause tumors or other side effects. Then, we could just start harvesting their organs while they are being experimented on to save the lives of those more deserving people in America...."
Not really, but not much difference in using Human embryos and harvesting their parts, is there?
No, there is no difference from an embryo the size of the period at the end of this sentence that is going to be destroyed anyway from an actual living human being. None at all.
Difference is that one group is innocent and the other is guilty.
Roxxxanne wrote:McGentrix wrote:Howard Dean discussion with Pelossi overheard...
"...we could start doing experiments on death-row prisoners to be sure that the stem cell research being done doesn't cause tumors or other side effects. Then, we could just start harvesting their organs while they are being experimented on to save the lives of those more deserving people in America...."
Not really, but not much difference in using Human embryos and harvesting their parts, is there?
No, there is no difference from an embryo the size of the period at the end of this sentence that is going to be destroyed anyway from an actual living human being. None at all.
That's right. Good to see you get it.
cicerone imposter wrote:A whole bunch of Bush supporter morons don't think so.
Ding, ding, ding. Or at least ding, ding.
Bush hypocrisy is rampant. He said that he had to veto because he believes in life. However, when governor of Texas, he didn't commute a single death sentence.
