Lounge of Tomorrow - Oh NOW he threatens to use veto power?

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - Oh NOW he threatens to use veto power? (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=3904)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Himself? :evil:

Once again, I love our local cartoonist's take on the vote.

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.

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

Schwarzenegger: State to lend stem cell effort $150 million

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

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?

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