Well, Georgie told us he would do it, and now he has. Nearly six years after taking office, Georgie cast his very first veto. We should have known that he would use it to try and force the entire nation to follow his pathetic view of morality. Our Pretender-in-Chief vetoed the stem-cell research bill, saying it had crossed the line morally. What a load of crap!
When did protecting the morals of American citizens become a presidential duty? He took an oath of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution [and has failed in that task]. But, I don't remember any part of the oath pertaining to morality. In fact, I don't believe morality is even mentioned in the Constitution either. If I did want someone overseeing my morals, it would not be Georgie, who has done more illegal and immoral things than any president I can remember.
There are many ill and handicapped people who could possibly be helped by stem-cell research. Georgie told these Americans today that it would be immoral for him to help them. They must suffer because Georgie's religious views are stuck in the first century. Now, I don't really care what weird beliefs Georgie has, but he must stop trying to shove his beliefs down our throats.
There are two things that must be done to rectify this situation - vote Democratic in November, and then demand Georgie's impeachment. Let him go cut brush on his pseudo-ranch.
The president is not against stem cell research, but against destroying embyros for experimentation. He fully supports adult and cord stem cell research. There is promise in that area without killing a human life.
ReplyDeleteYou are concerned with Bush 'shoving his beliefs' down your throat. The street goes both ways. The left needs to stop shoving their immorality down the throats of Americans. Those on the left, obsessed with murdering unborn children since the early 70s, awakened the religious right when the court made law in Roe v. Wade. Those of your persuasion brought it on yourselves so stop whining.
a-1
ReplyDeletea] Adult stem cells do not show the same promise.
b] Would it be more moral to throw them in the trash?
c] The Court did not make law in Roe v. Wade, it interpreted the U.S. Constitution.
d] It's my blog, and I'll "whine" whenever I feel the urge.
Embryonic stem cells have not been proven to show the same promise as adult. If this were so believable, then allow private research to do this, discover cures and make money, not endless government funding through taxpayer money.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of infertile couple who would love to have children. Offer the embryos to them.
The Supreme Court did make law, not interpret it in Roe v. Wade. There is no inherent right to abort a child in the Constitution.
Whining about Bush won't do you any good. He is the president of this great country and will be for the next 2.5 years, like it or not.
Troll 1
ReplyDeleteYou guys amaze me! You want to protect the life of a frozen bit of protoplasm, but you're perfectly willing to accept the killing of thousands of innocent civilians in the mideast, including women, children, and the elderly.
You're perfectly willing to administer capital punishment even though there is a liklihood of killing an innocent person.
You don't believe in the sanctity of life - you just want to force others to have your religious views.
The "infertile couple" argument sounds good until you realize that thousands of children in this country cannot get adopted. Why would it be any different with snowflakes?
Perhaps you ought to read the Constitution again. It clearly gives Congress the power to make law, and the Supreme Court the power to interpret law. That is the way it is, whether you want to admit it or not.
In this country, you do not get to tell women [or anyone else] what to do with their own bodies.
As for Georgie, you're right, he will be an embarrassment to this country for another two and a half years.
You sure make a lot of assumptions from what little I wrote. How did you come to the conclusion on the views I have toward capital punishment, my religious views, and my views concerning the middle east from a discussion on George Bush and stem cell research? Are you a leftist? Leftists make assumptions and change the subject frequently, even name call. I commend you for not stooping to the latter. However, those topics can be left for another day.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know what my relgious views? Tell me, pray tell where I have said anything to that effect and specifically what they are? Do you assume all who believe destroying this fertilized egg are religious? You would be wrong.
Perhaps you need to read Justice Byron dissent in Roe v Wade. They misinterpreted the law. Check it out sometime.
Bush did the correct thing and can be applauded. Complaining about him for all this time is unproductive. You only make yourself miserable. Presidents come and go and surely history will judge him far better than you and those with your view of him.
BTW, just because someone doesn't agree with you and challenges your opinion doesn't make them a troll. Do you just want responses from those who agree with you? What is the point of the blog? If you post something to annoy others and not be challenged, perhaps it's best not to allow comments. It works both ways.
Have a good day.
By saying, "Leftists make assumptions and change the subject frequently," you obviously make the point that you are not a leftist. Unless, of course you make assumptions and change the subject frequently.
ReplyDeleteThis is a left-wing blog for left-wing discussion. Those who are not lefties trying to start a "discussion" on a left blog are trolls.
Oh, and by mentioning the awakening of the religious right on a subject which you obviously agree with them, you give the assumption that you are part of the religious right. jobsanger's assumption that you are part of the religious right was not unwarranted. If he is right, and I believe he is, then this is more proof that you are a troll.
Move along now.
Incorrect. The subject of stem cells was adrressed and the points he later made. Go back and review. Leftists do make assumptions and questioned if he was one. So obviously my question is answered in the affirmative with your reply.
ReplyDeleteSomeone that is or agrees with the 'religious right' is a troll? Is that how you silence those who challenge your beliefs. This isn't a university course where one has to listen to the professor's rantings in silence without challenge is one wants a good grade.
As stated earlier, if you can't handle discourse with those who disagree with you, and many on the left can't, your best bet is to not permit comments to your leftist views. Otherwise, what exactly is the point? Think about it.
Have you looked at this blog? It is very obviously left-wing. Hell, the post is obviously left-wing! Asking if the person who posted it was a leftist was stupid.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, someone who is part of the religious right and commenting on a left-wing blog is indeed trolling.
You go back and read. You came onto an obviously left-wing blog and in your first comment claimed that " The Left needs to stop shoving their immorality down the throats of Americans". Did you really think you were going to start an amicable discussion by attempting to offend the person your talking to right off the bat?
And as I stated earlier, discussions on this blog are for left-wingers. If you want to make right-wing points, visit a right-wing blog.
If you still don't get "the point", I can't help you.
Once again, move along.