tongue-tied lightning Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 dickhead does it again http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/?GT1=8307 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Seems like an odd choice to be his very first veto. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 why does Bush hate people? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied lightning Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 only black peeps, member Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 is this one of the human beings the Constitution had in mind? What the fuck ... they didn't evenprovide that rights were applicable to anyone but white men! There's a couple other versionsof embryonic stem cell legislation that are apparently 'less objectionable' and likely to get pastthe # of votes required to override that brainless twit's veto. and his table manners are deplorable. Talk about respect and dignity. Ha! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied lightning Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 it will take another 10 years for this stem cell stuff to actually work, the rate we're going we'll never see this cure anyone Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 why does Bush hate people?I was hoping you knew....maybe it's because of his political affiliation Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a.miller Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Why wouldn't we want to make advances in science and technology that could possibly provide enormous benefits to the human race? Oh, the moral right thinks it is wrong...really smart. What a moron. Way to legislate morality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 We all just need to move to Asia. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pocahontas Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 He has it all figured out the frozen embryos can be adopted and this children can be plagued with the name of being snowflake kids, whoopee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Why wouldn't we want to make advances in science and technology that could possibly provide enormous benefits to the human race? Oh, the moral right thinks it is wrong...really smart. What a moron. Way to legislate morality. Not forcing taxpayers to pay for embryonic stem cell research is legislating morality? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 He has it all figured out the frozen embryos can be adopted and this children can be plagued with the name of being snowflake kids, whoopee what does that even mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 and his table manners are deplorable. Talk about respect and dignity. Ha!My nephew insists that he could, as an egg, hear me and his mom fighting when we were kids. And Bush is a tool. Hopefully the ghost of Christopher Reeve will torment him for eternity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Phillips Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Not forcing taxpayers to pay for embryonic stem cell research is legislating morality? You can't force the willing. This research has wide support across the country. This is acting against the will of the people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Not forcing taxpayers to pay for embryonic stem cell research is legislating morality? I have a moral objection to the government using most of my tax dollars to kill people whohave actually been born, while failing to provide for citizens who lack the most basic survivalneeds. The only thing that gives me any satisfaction in relation to this moron sitting at the helm is thatkarma's got him in its sights. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 what does that even mean? It means Bush is bad and you should get with the program. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 It means Bush is bad and you should get with the program. Well, that's a given...but, really, i'm interested to hear what that post was all about. Snowflake children? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Phillips Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 It means Bush is bad and you should get with the program. Unless of course you have an argument against that position. We're all ears (or eyes, I should say). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BolivarBaLues Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Only four votes shy of overturning the veto. Let's here: the majority of the house, the majority of the senate and 60% of Americans (according to a poll on the news last night) in favor of passing this bill, yet it's rejected because King George says so? His whole presidency has been one big power grab in terms of executive powers. I just hope that someone with a little sense will step in next time and try to reel in some of these changes, but I fear that we'll be still smarting from the Bush adminstration's doings several terms down the road. What these neo-cons are calling "democracy" looks more like a theocratic dictatorship, or an oligarchy at the least, from where I stand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Dubbed "Snowflake Kids," the children were all conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and frozen as embryos. They were adopted by new parents and implanted in the uterus of their adoptive mom, who gave birth to them. Like snowflakes, each is unique. Ahh, got it. Never heard of that. Well, as a person that currently has a frozen embryo and going through the oft emotionally draining process of trying to find a way to conceive a child...I don't see the bad in preferring that said embryo be 'adopted' should we decide not to have another child and someone have the opportunity to give birth as well. I see the benefit of stem cell research and i'm actually for it (thusly, not a huge fan of this veto)...however, some of you guys seem to be speaking in absolutes again w/out really knowing how hard it is to make that decision. You can say they become a 'real' person at X days/months/weeks, but still...we made that embryo, it comes from the both of us...it's not the 'oh yeah, we don't want it, just donate it to science' thing you think it is. Much like viatroy's moral stance against the war, this isn't just another clear cut political or scientific debate. and back to the snowflake comment earlier, what is the matter w/ any of those kids being 'snowflake' kids? I think that's wonderful that two people who desperately wanted to be parents and share their love w/ someone get the opportunity to do so...and the child receiving the opportunity to be loved is pretty cool too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 also, i'm sure nobody will actually ever tell them they were a 'snowflake child' and that they'll be 'plagued' w/ that title any more than my kids will be called 'test tube babies' by anybody. they're children. period. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Phillips Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Ahh, got it. Never heard of that. Well, as a person that currently has a frozen embryo and going through the oft emotionally draining process of trying to find a way to conceive a child...I don't see the bad in preferring that said embryo be 'adopted' should we decide not to have another child and someone have the opportunity to give birth as well. I see the benefit of stem cell research and i'm actually for it (thusly, not a huge fan of this veto)...however, some of you guys seem to be speaking in absolutes again w/out really knowing how hard it is to make that decision. You can say they become a 'real' person at X days/months/weeks, but still...we made that embryo, it comes from the both of us...it's not the 'oh yeah, we don't want it, just donate it to science' thing you think it is. Much like viatroy's moral stance against the war, this isn't just another clear cut political or scientific debate. and back to the snowflake comment earlier, what is the matter w/ any of those kids being 'snowflake' kids? I think that's wonderful that two people who desperately wanted to be parents and share their love w/ someone get the opportunity to do so...and the child receiving the opportunity to be loved is pretty cool too. Ah, but let's be clear. These are not even embryos, but cell clusters that may or may not one day become embryos that may or may not become fetus that may or may not become born human beings. This is the problem with Bush's rhetoric. Besides, the cells pertaining to this legislation are left over and slated for destruction as medical waste. These are cells that are not being adopted and the parents do not want them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 As he vetoed the bill, he signed another that was passed unanimously in both chambers that would ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research.Is this even a real thing? Has anyone ever actually proposed doing this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Unless of course you have an argument against that position. We're all ears (or eyes, I should say). Nope, pretty much just trying to help El Kevbo make some sense of the comment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Bush probably saw it in a movie once. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.