Oh NOW he threatens to use veto power?

[Nephythys]

Color me unimpressed (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7r.htm)

Um, how about using it on some of the outrageous spending???

NOOOO-now we use it?

grrrrrrr.......

[sleepyjeff]

I doubt if a veto will happen. Rove has spent nearly 6 years using the threat of a veto to get things changed just enough to where the President doesn't have to actually veto....no reason to believe it won't happen again here.


Still; I do wish he would have used it(the veto) a few times to hold down spending. I sometimes feel like a hypocrite supporting this fellow who spends like a drunken democrat;)

Is it just me, or is Vido starting to sound like a great name?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I sometimes feel like a hypocrite supporting this fellow who spends like a drunken democrat;)


Yeah, damn those democrats and their stupid surplus.

[wendybeth]

How much does a drunken Democrat spend? Less than an inebriated Libertarian? More than a shytfaced Republican? Somewhere in the neighborhood of a pasted Green Partier?

What is truly scary is how much a supposedly sober Republican can blow.

[sleepyjeff]

How much does a drunken Democrat spend?


Next time I see Senator Kennedy I'll ask;)

[sleepyjeff]

Yeah, damn those democrats and their stupid surplus.

I still give Gingrich credit for the "Clinton" Surplus.....sans a Republican Congress for most of Clintons Presidency can you honestly say he would have had a surplus?

[Alex]

Mixed power between the executive and the legislature is probably the best recipe for fiscal responsibility. Both parties want to spend all our money, but at least when power is split they can't come to agreement on how to do it.

[Nephythys]

Amen- the spending and growth of gov't alone is enough to drive me crazy watching this admin. *headdesk*

[Motorboat Cruiser]

sans a Republican Congress for most of Clintons Presidency can you honestly say he would have had a surplus?

Nope, but I can say that giving the republicans all the power is about the worst thing that could have happened to this country, for the reasons Alex points out. Like it or not, we went from better to worse and the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves.

[sleepyjeff]

Nope, but I can say that giving the republicans all the power is about the worst thing that could have happened to this country, for the reasons Alex points out. Like it or not, we went from better to worse and the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves.

Someone(I forget who now) did present an argument to me that I should vote for Kerry for this very reason.....like Alex was saying; shared power tends to be more responsible with the purse. Of course I am from a Blue State so I take no blame for the Bush deficit;)

[scaeagles]

First of all, Bush does spend like some sort of drunken something. It's horrible. However, his tax policies have led to massive increases in revenue and economic growth. This does not excuse the spending.

All spending bills originate in the House. For this, I blame Republicans as well right now, but it is somewhat shared. EVERY member of congress has their pork they stick in bills to bring home the bacon to the district. I have no idea what the solution is. The line item veto in such cases could be used as a political weapon, and I don't like that.

And I disagree with the whole "surplus" thing of the Clinton years. Those were projected, and done so on some pretty unsafe assumptions -

Bush has had few opportunities to boast about the deficit over the course of his time in office. He inherited in 2001 a surplus estimated by both White House and congressional forecasters at $5.6 trillion over the subsequent decade, and it quickly dwindled.

Those faulty estimates assumed the late-1990s revenue boom _ fueled by the stock market and dot.com booms _ would continue. But that bubble burst, and a recession and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks started a flow of red ink.


source (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/11/D8IPPIM00.html)

[SacTown Chronic]

Way to flex that veto power, Captain Hero. I'm sure if stem cells could talk, they'd thank you.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Remember ladies, every time you have a period, you're flushing a human life down the toilet. Savages.

[wendybeth]

Does that apply to men &monkey-spanking as well, GD?

[SacTown Chronic]

OMG, I might be the world's most prolific mass murderer! :eek:

[Gn2Dlnd]

I pray to jebus every time I exfoliate.

[BarTopDancer]

Gosh I'm glad that Bush swore on the Constitution to uphold the bible* when he was elected. And can I tell you all how excited I am that decsions are being made based upon one persons view of morality? That's SUPER! You know what's even better? The view of morality is based upon the bible! YIPPIE SKIPPIE! It's so great that there is this book that will tell the entire country how to run their personal lives and also tell science what it can and can not do. Let's not forget how amazing it is that this one book can supersceed and alter the document that founded this country.

I'm so happy I can barely contain myself.

*[“People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible" - Jamie Raskin]


Are sarcasm tags even necessary?

[Ghoulish Delight]

OMG, I might be the world's most prolific mass murderer! :eek:I've killed thousands...nay, millions in my sleep!

[sleepyjeff]

I doubt if a veto will happen. Rove has spent nearly 6 years using the threat of a veto to get things changed just enough to where the President doesn't have to actually veto....no reason to believe it won't happen again here.




:blush: ......I must admit I was wrong here; I didn't think he would really go thru with it.

[wendybeth]

If ignorance is bliss, Bush is one happy boy. It will be very ironic- and life has a tendancy to deal heavily in irony- if George, or someone he dearly loves, becomes ill with a disease or injury that stem-cell research might have helped.

[CoasterMatt]

If ignorance is bliss, Bush is one happy boy. It will be very ironic- and life has a tendancy to deal heavily in irony- if George, or someone he dearly loves, becomes ill with a disease or injury that stem-cell research might have helped.
Himself? :evil:

[Prudence]

Once again, I love our local cartoonist's take on the vote. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1432)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I can't put into words how much this veto upsets me, all because of a short sighted political agenda.

Somebody please stop allowing this guy to think.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm so happy to be a resident of CA right now.

Schwarzenegger: State to lend stem cell effort $150 million (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15084544.htm)

On the heels of a presidential veto of legislation to expand federal funding for stem cell research, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has authorized a loan to accelerate California-based work in the field.

Schwarzenegger announced this morning that he has directed the California Department of Finance to issue a loan of up to $150 million from the state's general fund to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The institute was created by Proposition 71, which voters passed in November 2004.

``California is poised to lead not only this country, but all countries on stem cell research,'' the governor said in a statement.

And you know what? If the stupid religious groups who are trying to block this proposition suceed and the money can't be repaid I don't care. I don't mind my tax dollars going to this. It's not a religious issue, it's a medical issue.

ETA: People who are morally opposed to this because their religion says that stem cell research and medicine is wrong don't have to receive stem cell treatments. But they have no right to stop the rest of us from being able to advance medicine in such a positive way.

[Alex]

Never mind.

[scaeagles]

Bartop, I dont see how this veto is unconstitutional in the least. Disagreeing with the veto is fine, but unconstitutional? I don't see it.

[BarTopDancer]

Bartop, I dont see how this veto is unconstitutional in the least. Disagreeing with the veto is fine, but unconstitutional? I don't see it.

I never said it was unconstitutional. Rediculiously stupid and centered upon his [openly] ultra religious moral decision making. Which could be seen as not seperating church from state (using religious beliefs to make or prevent laws). But I never said it was unconstitutional.

[scaeagles]

I guess we have a serious disconnect when it comes to what the separation of chuch and state is.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The president's veto was a result of his personally held religious beliefs, beliefs that not all americans share. How is this not a separation of church and state issue? Why should I be subject to the consequences of his specific religious values?

[mousepod]

Interesting article in salon.com. about the veto marking "the collapse of the imperial presidency". Worth a read.

[BarTopDancer]

The president's veto was a result of his personally held religious beliefs, beliefs that not all americans share. How is this not a separation of church and state issue? Why should I be subject to the consequences of his specific religious values?

Pretty much the point I am trying to make.

Same thing as abortion. Just because *your* religion says it's wrong doesn't mean that the rest of the country feels that way. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Same thing as gay marriage. If you don't think allowing two men or two women in a monogamous committed relationship to get married is right, then don't marry someone of the same sex. But for the government to prevent others from having an abortion, or marrying someone of the same sex because their religion says it's wrong is allowing religious beliefs to dictate laws. Not OK.

People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible

[scaeagles]

Politicians make decisions based on their own code of morals all the time. To say that because it has religious roots means it is disallowed is bigoted. Every law is based on morality. To veto it on any account is acceptable.

Bush did not attempt to force a bill through Congress saying that private money was not permitted to be used on stem cell research. That would be crossing the line. But a President can veto whatever the hell he wants, and a Congress can override that veto. Period. This is the way the Constitution functions. There is no way any court would or could look at the interpretted motives of a Presidential veto and say it was vetoed for an Uncontitutional reason. It matters not why it was vetoed. It is within Presidential purview. It is Constitutional, whether one likes it or not.

The "separation of church and state", which was never intended to be an antireligious test, as the clause which prevents any religious test from being administered as a condition of holding office would seem to suggest, simply does not apply in this instance. Bush has done nothing to establish a religious preference by vetoing the bill. There is nothing in the Constitution saying a veto must be justifiable by some sort of set of standards.

This being said, I'm not even in favor of the veto. But there are far better grounds for separation crowd than complaining that a veto had a religious motivation.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

You make some good points.

I still think that vetoing something like this based on a specific religion's belief system is wrong, whether or not it is in fact constitutional. And, I should add, I never said it was unconstitutional, I just asked how it wasn't. And saying it should be disallowed is only bigoted if I am specific to one particular religion. I don't think this should be done, regardless of which religion we are talking about, even my own.

I just don't like the mixing of religion and Government, period. And especially when it delays the potential cure of numerous diseases that many suffer from. My feelings aren't necessarily constitutionally sound.

In fact, I'll admit that the reason that ticks me off about this primarily is that there are more than a few diseases that these studies could possibly develop treatments for that I happen to have a family history of. I would really prefer that George Bush not slow that process down, regardless of what his personal beliefs are.

[SacTown Chronic]

Sam Brownback is three kinds of crazy, fer sure.

[scaeagles]

I have no problem with the veto making people mad. I get mad at politicians all the time. I get frustrated when the "unconstitutional" card is played as often as it is. I believe it has as much of an effect of eroding the constitution as unconstitutional actions themselves, because it blurs what is really unconstitutional.

[BarTopDancer]

Leo,

Where was unconstitutional said about the veto. You said I said it, I never said it. You keep bringing it up. Who said it?

[scaeagles]

Gosh I'm glad that Bush swore on the Constitution to uphold the bible* when he was elected. And can I tell you all how excited I am that decsions are being made based upon one persons view of morality? That's SUPER! You know what's even better? The view of morality is based upon the bible! YIPPIE SKIPPIE! It's so great that there is this book that will tell the entire country how to run their personal lives and also tell science what it can and can not do. Let's not forget how amazing it is that this one book can supersceed and alter the document that founded this country

Bold emphasis mine.

True, bartop, you did not say "unconstitutional", but is not what you are describing above the very definition? You are claiming that Bush is using the Bible to supercede the Constitution. That would be unconstitutional. So without the word being written, I interpretted your meaning as that.

And in rereading that, I note you said that Bush is trying to use the Bible to tell science what it can and can not do. Not exactly. The veto means that no federal money will be used on it, not that the research cannot take place.

[BarTopDancer]

I guess my sarcasam tags were necessary.

If there was scientific proof that stem cell research was causing harm or death then maybe I would think different. Until then, moral decisions based upon religious beliefs (and the bible) are mixing religion and government.

[scaeagles]

In that case it is not possible for any person who has any religious faith that may influence their decision making in the least to hold public office. That would be unconstitutional (see my previous reference). Someone may try not to allow a religious influence, but anyone who is religious has that as part of their make up, who they are, and how they think.

I, for one, think that any moral judgement in government is the same whether it has a basis in religion or not. Moral judgements are moral judgements.

[Alex]

If there was scientific proof that stem cell research was causing harm or death then maybe I would think different.

There's no question that the collection of fetal stem cells ends the existence of a form of life. The question is whether that form of life is deserving of legal protection and that is not a scientific question. It is a metaphysical question.

I disagree with the position that life gains a status worthy of protection at conception but it is a defensible position. Certainly more so than one that attempts to create a fuzzy line somewhere between conception and delivery for when legal protections begin to attach.

[scaeagles]

And saying it should be disallowed is only bigoted if I am specific to one particular religion.

Something you said in that post bugged me, but I couldn't put a finger on it until this morning.

You say that no religious influence should be in government. Because it isn't specific to one, it isn't bigoted.

Isn't that kind of like saying someone is only bigoted if they don't want to live next to hispanics, but it's OK to live next to Asians? If someone has a problem with all races, they aren't bigoted because it isn't an issue with only one race? If that's the case, then members of the KKK aren't bigoted because they have a problem with all non-whites, not just one specific skin color.

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. I don't care if someone has Islamic or Mormon or Pagan or whatever influences in their history (or their present). There is no doubt that the religious influence in their lives will affect their decision making. It is part of who they are. The solution is the ballot box, and the courts to rule on the Constitutionality of what is passed based on the (mythical in my mind, but accepted) separation of church and state.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. I don't care if someone has Islamic or Mormon or Pagan or whatever influences in their history (or their present). There is no doubt that the religious influence in their lives will affect their decision making. It is part of who they are. The solution is the ballot box, and the courts to rule on the Constitutionality of what is passed based on the (mythical in my mind, but accepted) separation of church and state.


First, I will admit that that way an awfully poor choice of wording on my part. So, let me see if I can clear things up a bit, since, in my opinion, bigotry is one hell of an accusation and an unfounded one. Let me be perfectly clear here. I harbor no ill will towards any religion, None. but there is one little caveat.

I do have a problem with being told that I must subscribe to the teachings of ANY religion that I do not care to. Every person has a right to believe what they want. They do not have the right to make others follow those same beliefs. Religion should be a personal thing, between you and god. If, for example, you believe that abortion is wrong, you should have every right to never be forced to have one. Don't eat pork? Nobody should ever force you to. Don't believe that gay people should be married? Don't marry a gay person. That doesn't mean that you should be able to dictate what others are allowed to do, based on your religious beliefs.

If I don't eat pork, that should never mean that nobody else can either. This is the major problem I have with religion in general. You can tell me what your religion says and I think that is perfectly acceptable. Better yet, you can show by example and if I feel that your beliefs would make a positive impact on my life, I just might give them a closer look. IMO, that is where the influence should end. If more people kept their religion personal, without trying to convert others or pass legislation that forces others to accept their views, I would have zero problems with religion.

But see, I don't believe that this is "one nation under god". I don't believe that having a relationship with a member of the same sex is sending me to some dark hole filled with demons. I don't believe that cells in a petri dish are a human life. And I don't feel that I should be forced to just accept these imposed beliefs, from a religion that I do not subscribe to.

And I would really rather that politicians, who are probably one of the most corrupt and immoral batch of humans on the planet, not be involved in dictating their own personal moral code, which most are obviously having a hard enough problem following in their own lives. I don't see much of difference between saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry than I do hearing that blacks should sit at the back of the bus. If anything, people use their religious beliefs to justify their own bigotry, their own prejudice. If there is one place that they shouldn't be allowed to do that, it is when they are making laws that affect millions of people who do not subscribe to their own beliefs.

I hear all of the politicians on the religious right tell me that life is sacred, ad nausium. And yet, these same politicians make decisions that kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people in needless wars. They slow the progress of medical research to a crawl that could save millions of lives. Maybe if they practiced what they preached, others like myself would see the good in their belief system, rather than the blatant hypocracy of it.

So again, you will never hear me say that a person doesn't have a right to follow whatever religious beliefs they deem neccessary to lead their own lives. And, I will not look down on them for following those beliefs. But when you go from a set of beliefs that you use to govern your own life to a set of beliefs that everyone should follow, we have a problem, because for me to accept your beliefs, I also have to accept belief in your God. I cannot make myself believe something that I don't.

And when you try to legislate things based on your own belief system, you are in essence saying "My personal take on religion is the right one and everyone elses is wrong". It suggests that nobody should have the right to believe anything other than what you believe and, IMO, that crosses the line.

Bigotry is a hatred or intolerance for those who are different. That doesn't describe me. You can be as different as your heart desires and I will neither hate you, nor refuse to tolerate you. We can all live together happily ever after. Just don't tell me that I have to be different just like you.

[scaeagles]

I will also admit to a poor choice of words. I do not, nor have I ever considered you to be a bigot.

[scaeagles]

I wanted to get that last post out on the boards as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons.

And when you try to legislate things based on your own belief system, you are in essence saying "My personal take on religion is the right one and everyone elses is wrong". It suggests that nobody should have the right to believe anything other than what you believe and, IMO, that crosses the line.


That is the only thing I take exception to you your post above. I make no distinction between what one thinks is right and wrong based on religion vs what someone thinks is right and wrong based on whatever. It matters not.

As an utterly ridiculous example, medicare is a moral choice made for us by government. Who is the government to tell me that my tax dollars should go for giving medical care to the elderly? It is a moral choice, and a good one regardless of what he motivation might be. It is certain biblical to help the elderly. If a politician votes to increase medicare spending because it is biblical to help the elderly does that mean his motivations are wrong because he is being influenced by his religious beliefs? Not in the least. But it won't be criticized because it is popular.

So the motivation shouldn't even come ino the equation. The vote or veto or whatever as an action itself is what matters.

A Flag Burning Amendment has nothing to do with religion. Not one bit. Yet it is a bad idea regardless that the motivation is really one of patriotic fervor (or playing thereto).

So, Eric, again, I do not consider you to be bigoted in the least, and please accept my apology for the obvious implication.

[Alex]

We have a representative democracy. We do not, as a country, make decisions directly but select people to make those decisions as proxy.

Everything our government does has a moral component, and therefore expecting our elected officials to not engage in moral calculus is contradictory to our method of government.

Whether life becomes protected at conception is not fundamentally a religious question (there are many atheist pro-lifers), though it is a question addressed by pretty much every religion. What it is not is a scientific question. There is no absolutely right or wrong answer.

If legislation was passed and signed that made it illegal for any stem cell research to be done then I think there would be a stronger argument for unacceptable moral dictation, but that is not what has been done. There is no right to federal funding. I disagree with his decision to veto the bill but it is neither surprising (it isn't like we didn't know the man elected would take a position against fetal stem cell research) and within how our government is designed to work.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

So, Eric, again, I do not consider you to be bigoted in the least, and please accept my apology for the obvious implication.

I appreciate that, Leo, I really do.

We had a thread recently where we were discussing who, if anyone, did we hate. I had a really hard time answering that one, because truly, I don't hate anyone. There are things in this world that I do hate with a passion however, and one of those is bigotry. Therefore, even when bigotry is merely implied in my direction, it pushes buttons. It also causes me to get a lot of typing practice. :)

I've always felt that you were a great example of how someone can let their beliefs shine through example, rather than through rhetoric. And in fact, I have many Christian friends who do the same thing. They don't tell others what they should do, they simply live a good moral life. I don't think anything could paint religion in a more positive light than choosing to lead by example.

And for the most part, even though I don't subscribe to all Christian beliefs, I still feel that that it has a mostly positive effect in the lives of its practicioners. And anything that can help people lead more positive lives is ok in my book. If it works for you, then by all means, go for it. I'll never suggest that you shouldn't.

But it is undeniable that people have used religion throughout the ages to justify their own prejudices, their own bigotry. I think the biblical justifications for slavery and for limiting women's rights are a good example of that. I also think that many people use their religion to show how much better they are than those who don't believe. They are far more interested in proclaiming "how good a Christian they are" than actually working towards being a good Christian. That nauseates me.

And lastly, sometimes people proclaim they are wonderful Christians simply so that they can gain the votes of other Christians. This is, in my opinion, what Bush does (and I fully understand it is what many other politicians do. He isn't alone.) But, there was nothing very christian about calling people and asking them if they were aware that McCain had a black baby. There is nothing in Christianity that says that it is ok to kill innocent people. In fact, it is strictly forbidden. So, on one hand, we are told that a few cells have the right to life and yet, we can't seem to figure out how to conduct ourselves in a way that doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. I just don't understand the logic.

Anyway, no harm, no foul as far as you and I are concerned. We just have differing opinions on the role of Christianity in our government. You see the separation of church and state to be mostly mythical in nature. I see it as one of the more important concepts of our particular form of government. We can agree to disagree on that.

[JWBear]

Re: Post# 42...

Thank you for saying what many of us feel. Beautiful post.

[Nephythys]

I don't get it-this is the first administration that has spent money- federal money- on this research- they just don't want them creating new embryos in order to continue it (there are existing lines)- and this is some huge Constitutional crisis in people's minds somehow?

I just don't get the rage- which I consider largely misdirected.