Lounge of Tomorrow - Bush Says Rumsfeld Resigning, Gates to Replace Him

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

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

- - Bush Says Rumsfeld Resigning, Gates to Replace Him (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=4686)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

link

An article about who else may be stepping down.

That is an interesting link. Thanks.

Can you say stubborn?

If you expect him to roll over and simply give up doing anything- you are SO wrong.

LOL- it's laughable to think he is simply going to simper to the Dems and only do what they prefer.

Is it laughable to hope that he just does what is best for the country?

Which is NOT having 1,000s of our troops being killed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

If you expect him to roll over and simply give up doing anything- you are SO wrong.

LOL- it's laughable to think he is simply going to simper to the Dems and only do what they prefer.

Three for three...... I agree with Nephythys.

What I expect (as opposed to what I would like to see) is that Mr. Bush will play the game. For example, Bush has long been in favor of immigration reforms that his own party blocked. If the democrats want to send up that issue then I expect it will be all smiles and nonpartisanship but the tune will change when a stem cell issue hits his desk.... and that's all just politics. It's what any lame duck would do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

*growl* don't get me started there. I am SO not on board his plan for illegals.

Stem cells-interesting topic. As loathe as I am to dredge him up- Clinton refused to give federal funds to stem cell research. Bush does- but only on existing lines- and people scream and freak out.

It's hysterical. Sometimes people just want something to complain about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

OK, just for the record, Much of what Clinton did was crap and I'm talking policy here not Monica's. He was not a good president. He sold nuclear technology to North Korea, he did not deal with Bin Laden, etc. etc......

However using Clinton's failings to excuse the actions of George Bush is just juvenile. It's like a school bully saying, yeah I kicked bobby in the head, but Billy put his mouth on the water fountain. It's just lame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

That is not what I did.

I am not saying "but Clinton did this...."

So stop twisting it and listen again-

Why is Bush bashed for stem cell research when he is the only POTUS to give federal funds to it? There is nothing to excuse- he GAVE fed funding to the research- Clinton did not. WHY are people angry when he did what Clinton would not? That is the curiousity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Why is Bush bashed for stem cell research when he is the only POTUS to give federal funds to it? There is nothing to excuse- he GAVE fed funding to the research- Clinton did not. WHY are people angry when he did what Clinton would not? That is the curiousity.

First, let's start with the full story.

Quote:

In response to the panel's recommendations, the Clinton administration, citing moral and ethical concerns, declined to fund research on embryos created solely for research purposes,[28] but did agree to fund research on left-over embryos created by in vitro fertility treatments. At this point, the Congress intervened and passed the Dickey Amendment in 1995 (the final bill, which included the Dickey Amendment, was signed into law by Clinton) which prohibited all federal funding for research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo. The Dickey Amendment remains the law to this day.

source

So his initial act was to allow certain stem cell research. The Dickey Amendment was (and continues to be) attached to a larger appropriations bill, passed by congress, whose main focus was dealing with balancing the budget. The bill did too much good to veto over one tacked-on ammendment.

And on top of all that, tell me this. In 1995, if someone had asked you what you thought of stem cell research, would you have been able to give an answer. I certainly wouldn't have known wtf it was. So no, there was no public outrage because it wasn't in the public eye yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

First, let's start with the full story.

source

So his initial act was to allow certain stem cell research. The Dickey Amendment was (and continues to be) attached to a larger appropriations bill, passed by congress, whose main focus was dealing with balancing the budget. The bill did too much good to veto over one tacked-on ammendment.

And on top of all that, tell me this. In 1995, if someone had asked you what you thought of stem cell research, would you have been able to give an answer. I certainly wouldn't have known wtf it was. So no, there was no public outrage because it wasn't in the public eye yet.

Far better answer than others I have seen. Thank you.