Oh NOW he threatens to use veto power? - Page 3

BarTopDancer · 07-19-2006, 05:58 PM

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?

scaeagles · 07-20-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Prudence · 07-19-2006, 11:07 PM

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

Motorboat Cruiser · 07-20-2006, 12:46 AM

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 · 07-20-2006, 02:48 PM

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.

Alex · 07-20-2006, 02:51 PM

Never mind.

scaeagles · 07-20-2006, 02:53 PM

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 · 07-20-2006, 02:59 PM

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.

scaeagles · 07-20-2006, 03:12 PM

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

Motorboat Cruiser · 07-20-2006, 03:25 PM

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?

07-19-2006, 05:58 PM	#1
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	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? __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver* Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

07-19-2006, 11:07 PM	#3
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	Once again, I love our local cartoonist's take on the vote. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 12:46 AM	#4
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 02:51 PM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Never mind.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 02:53 PM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 03:12 PM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I guess we have a serious disconnect when it comes to what the separation of chuch and state is.
	Submit to Quotes

07-20-2006, 03:25 PM	#10
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	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?
	Submit to Quotes