Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

[Bwelch]

I tried listening to him announcing his veto but it didn't last long because I feared my televisions safety. A very potential breakthrough in our history’s medical research of curing diseases such as Parkinson was just vetoed by a complete moron. Hopefully the house and senate will override his veto and we’ll get this bill passed.

What do you guys think?

Bush vetoes stem cell bill as promised

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, rejecting legislation to ease limits on federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from embryos.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos that were not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.

"Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said.

While both the GOP-run House and Senate defied Bush in passing the measure to expand federally funded embryonic stem research, supporters do not appear to have the two-thirds vote margin needed to override such a veto.

Pleadings from celebrities, a former first lady and fellow Republicans did not move Bush from his determination to reject the bill. However, lawmakers planned to try as soon as Bush issues the veto.

Bush's latest statement was following two days of emotional debate in Congress, punctuated by stories of personal and family suffering, that cast lawmakers into the intersection of politics, morality and science.

Strong majorities in the House and Senate joined sentiments with most Americans and passed a bill that lifts restriction currently limiting federally funded research to stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001.

"I expect that the House will sustain the president's veto," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Disappointed lawmakers said they intended to keep pushing to lift the restrictions.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, said in advance of the veto that the move "sets back embryonic stem cell research another year or so."

The Senate voted 63-37 on Tuesday, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194.

Bush has made 141 veto threats during his time in office, and the Republicans controlling Congress typically respond by changing bills to his liking.

Bush's stand against stem cells is popular among conservative Republicans that the party will rely on in the congressional elections this fall. Those opponents are the same voters who have felt alienated by Bush's actions to increase legal immigration, and the veto could bring them back into the fold.

-Yahoo

[Aurin]

lolbush

[Kross]

Eeesh, touchy subject, just like abortions...

"Abortions for all!" Booooo~

"Very wel then, No abortions for anyone!" Booooo~

"Ok, Abortions for some, small miniature flags for all of us!" yay!

simpsons > all

[Kuponut]

Won't be enough votes to override it =/

[Xavier]

Something like 72% of all Americans polled are in favor of stem-cell research based on the incredible advancements in health care it could provide down the road.

Both the House and the Senate, across party lines, united in an effort to pass the bill to lessen the restrictions that Bush placed on stem-cell research. And as the posts show, for the first time in his Presidency, Bush vetoed a bill.

Unfortunately, what I've been reading has suggested that Congress will not have the 2/3rd majority to override a Presidential veto on the issue. They're something like 4 votes short at the moment.

Its really retarded. Wheres the seperation of Church and State? A religious argument is influcing government politics. Thats what you get with a born again in the white house.

[Rafbacca]

Yet the moron has no problem sending Americans to die to protect oil interests in the mid-east.

GG Bush

[Squallblade]

taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others

ok so....how do you think we've gotten as far as we have in the medical field. a majority may not be on innocent humans, but through others losses in the past we've learned and (it may sound mean) benefitted from it.

[Xavier]

Its so retarded.

The choice is to literally discard the stem cells or use them for medical advancement, and somehow its more morally acceptable to throw them away.

I'm sorry, but putting the value of a cell that is going to be thrown away because it has the potential of life over helping someone who is already alive live a better life is retarded. Discovering the cures to some of the worst debilitating conditions should be a big priority. How can someone say they value life when they're throwing away the lives of people who are already walking the earth?

[Mekami]

Haha. Protecting oil interests, sure.
That's original

But there aren't enough democrats in congress to override the veto.

[Xavier]

Haha. Protecting oil interests, sure.
That's original

But there aren't enough democrats in congress to override the veto.

ROFL you're retarded. Republicans have been backing the bill dumbass.

Did you read anything at all about it?

There aren't enough democrats in congress to pass anything w/o multi-party support.

[Not Kuno]

Bush is retarded. Can't wait to see him gtfo.

[Mekami]

Hey, man, I'm all for stem cell research but when someone brings up somethign stupid like protecting oil interests being the reason for war...

Well, I should just ignore them.

And although some republicans may support the bill, the truth is that party-line politics... is gay and this veto will be sustained.

[Mekami]

Bush is retarded. Can't wait to see him gtfo.

Wait until you see how miserable the next president will be, then you'll be eating your words.

IMHO, the next president will be so worried about having popular support, due to the very harsh stare the American people have on the presidency. We're very critical of the president nowadays and Presidents will be indecisive because they have to make people happy rather than get things done.

I think we're moving into an era of bad government... but not because of Bush and his decisive, (although perhaps wrong) decisions, but because if indecisive, pansy politics.

[Tonko]

I'm sorry, but there is nothing memorably "good" about the 2 presidencies that Bush has "reigned" over.

He's implemented tax cuts for the rich.

Padding the pockets of his major campaign contributors.

The "No Child Left Behind," act. Yay for mandatory expensive guidelines without funding!

Beginning, prolonging, and failing to justify Vietnam v2.0.

Failing rudimentary English and Grammar.

His inability to separate God from Government.

And he continues to prove that he is a blundering moron in almost every facet of foreign relations.

[Septimus]

It is a shame. China, Europe, and Canada are going to be years ahead of the US because of this. Our country is falling further and further behind the rest of the world as our jobs are outsourced, our education is slashed, and our research is decimated.

But hey, it's all fine as long as the gays can't get married.

[Mekami]

Tonko, I love how your generalizations are miss-aimed.

Foreign relation issues are the fault of UN Ambassador man whose name I'm drawing a blank ><

And Condoleeza Rice.

Not Bush.

Ability to speak english well is not a necessity for the president. Good thing? Yes. Necesesary, no.

If you think Iraq is unjustified, well, that's what you think, but there are those of us that think that democracy in a place that has never had it before is justification enough.

[Aurin]

Tonko, I love how your generalizations are miss-aimed.

Foreign relation issues are the fault of UN Ambassador man whose name I'm drawing a blank ><

And Condoleeza Rice.

Not Bush.

Ability to speak english well is not a necessity for the president. Good thing? Yes. Necesesary, no.

If you think Iraq is unjustified, well, that's what you think, but there are those of us that think that democracy in a place that has never had it before is justification enough.

Some parts of Africa are 100,000 times worse than Iraq.. but Iraq has a surplus of one thing Africa dosent... Oil!

[Mekami]

Tonko, I love how your generalizations are miss-aimed.

Foreign relation issues are the fault of UN Ambassador man whose name I'm drawing a blank ><

And Condoleeza Rice.

Not Bush.

Ability to speak english well is not a necessity for the president. Good thing? Yes. Necesesary, no.

If you think Iraq is unjustified, well, that's what you think, but there are those of us that think that democracy in a place that has never had it before is justification enough.

Some parts of Africa are 100,000 times worse than Iraq.. but Iraq has a surplus of one thing Africa dosent... Oil!

Yeah. But then what about those people who say we shouldn't be a police nation? It's not our right to go into other countries?

But, if you're smart and believe that those with power have that right and responsibility, then I say; one step at a time. The violence in the middle-east is much more visible and prolonged and therefore that is the first place to go.

Maybe in a few years... maybe decades. Africa will get attention too. Then Perhaps, south asia. Who knows? But one step at a time, but if people have this anti-Iraq anti-bush mentality that they have we won't go anywhere and we'll just sit in our houses and watch our big-screens while the rest of the world suffers.

[Tonko]

Tonko, I love how your generalizations are miss-aimed.

Foreign relation issues are the fault of UN Ambassador man whose name I'm drawing a blank ><

And Condoleeza Rice.

Not Bush.

Ability to speak english well is not a necessity for the president. Good thing? Yes. Necesesary, no.

If you think Iraq is unjustified, well, that's what you think, but there are those of us that think that democracy in a place that has never had it before is justification enough.

And I love how your loyalty is blind, much like most organized religion. The Cult of Bush! All Hail!

US Foreign policy has nothing to do with the UN Ambassador. Bush controls those who make the policy. He appointed them, he can un-appoint them. It's his fault.

His grammatical follies are just an ear mark of his sub level intelligence. He's a glorified frat boy. His little frat buddies get all the breaks, and if you're not part of the frat, you don't matter.

There are literally hundreds of small countries all around the world that don't have democratic governments. If that's all the "justification" that we need to violently invade, and restructure their governments, why haven't we don't it to everyone?

Why pick Iraq first?

Oil.

We don't go after China or North Korea because they'd just nuke us into multiple glass craters.

That, and they don't have Oil. Which also takes care of the hundreds of other piss ant countries that don't do things democratically.

Edit: Mixed my North and South Korea up.

[Xavier]

Tonko, I love how your generalizations are miss-aimed.

Foreign relation issues are the fault of UN Ambassador man whose name I'm drawing a blank ><

And Condoleeza Rice.

Not Bush.

Ability to speak english well is not a necessity for the president. Good thing? Yes. Necesesary, no.

If you think Iraq is unjustified, well, that's what you think, but there are those of us that think that democracy in a place that has never had it before is justification enough.

You'd be naive to think that the final say doesn't fall to the President of the United States.

Those are his advisors, confidants, aides, what have you. They still follow his policy and ideas.

Its the biggest load of bullshit to pretend that imposing a democracy on a people is a great accomplishment. The very idea of it is confusing. How do you give the power to the people if you're forcing them to follow a form of government you say is best? And then you end up with Democracies in the Middle East like Palestine, which has elected a government that the West has called a terrorist organization.

And you mean North Korea Tonko, the South is doing just fine.