Hollywood Donahoe Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Which is fine and technically accurate, but his reasons weren't economic. After 5.5 years, you can't tell me that this bill finally crosses Bush's line w/regards to spending. 725543[/snapback] I edited it and added a bit addressing just that. This is a good veto for anti-statists like myself, but the goodness is lost in the realization that this is Bush's first veto, and that it was done for reasons not related to curbing statism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Given that this was a bill regarding whether or not the federal government should spend money on stem cell research, and not a bill regarding the restriction of stem cell research within the private sector, I'd consider it more a spending bill and less a stem cell research bill. If one wishes that federal spending be curbed, one must support this veto. Bush, though, has shown no willingness to curb spending in other areas, so this is almost surely an example of him doing the right thing for the wrong reason. 725540[/snapback] Yeah...as though Bush never signed a spending bill that crossed his desk. If it were about spending, I'd have more respect for the veto. It's not. It's about preserving the "human" dignity of a 200-cell in-vitro blastosphere that's now going to be incinerated instead. That makes it stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Yeah...as though Bush never signed a spending bill that crossed his desk. If it were about spending, I'd have more respect for the veto. It's not. It's about preserving the "human" dignity of a 200-cell in-vitro blastosphere that's now going to be incinerated instead. That makes it stupid. 725547[/snapback] And this is what I heard how tony snow explained the presidents view on stem cell research. Tony Snow, who speaks for the president believes the stem cell research is murder and that is why he vetoed the bill. Yet Tony Snow said that it is not illegal and that if the states want to fund it they can do it, or use private corporations to do it and if people want to invest in it, thats ok to Maybe he worded that way due to Roe vs Wade. I'm not sure how accurate that statement is. If it is,that's fugged up. I will see if theres a transcript link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Given that this was a bill regarding whether or not the federal government should spend money on stem cell research, and not a bill regarding the restriction of stem cell research within the private sector, I'd consider it more a spending bill and less a stem cell research bill. If one wishes that federal spending be curbed, one must support this veto. Bush, though, has shown no willingness to curb spending in other areas, so this is almost surely an example of him doing the right thing for the wrong reason. 725540[/snapback] I view this as sore acedemia and private interests as being thwarted from the usual drink at the public trough. How dare tenured/union/state-guaranteed salaries not be paid and papers published, I tell ya! Merck, Bristol-Myers, et al are more than capable of over a few decades, of pulling benefits from the research. It's a long haul. Universities and coporations can purchase all the abortion embryos they care to. In the U.S., Europe, Asia. Do all the research they like. They merely want you and me to subsidize their operating cost and future profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 And this is what I heard how tony snow explained the presidents view on stem cell research. Tony Snow, who speaks for the president believes the stem cell research is murder and that is why he vetoed the bill. Yet Tony Snow said that it is not illegal and that if the states want to fund it they can do it, or use private corporations to do it and if people want to invest in it, thats ok to Maybe he worded that way due to Roe vs Wade. I'm not sure how accurate that statement is. If it is,that's fugged up. I will see if theres a transcript link. 725583[/snapback] I can actually understand that...the president was elected by a majority, giving him a "mandate" to do as he thinks is proper. He may very well honestly believe that he was elected because of his stance on this topic, and is therefore only executing the will of the majority. I disagree with it. Strongly. But I can understand it. It's not "I'm doing what I believe is right", but "I'm doing what I believe and 50 million voters told me is right." Well...okay. I think you're full of sh-- George, I don't think it's nearly that black and white (many people - like myself, for instance - voted for you because we thought your opponent was somehow, amazingly, more of a pinhead than you are). But I understand the logic. And I'll give you a golf clap for being honest and up-front about it (oh, yeah, that's how you were less of a pinhead...) And to reprise my global warming bitching again: THIS is why I hate it when politics and science get intermingled. You get bad policy and bad science. Hey, guess what...it's starting to look like stem cells can be implicated in a good number of cancers (this month's Scientific American has an article on it, I believe). Too bad NCA can't study that...but hey, no problem, at least we're saving the lives of blastospheres... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Merck, Bristol-Myers, et al are more than capable of over a few decades, of pulling benefits from the research. It's a long haul. 725594[/snapback] At which point people will B word about the greedy drug companies holding all the patents to the therapeutic results of the research, and how the government should take them over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 And this is what I heard how tony snow explained the presidents view on stem cell research. Tony Snow, who speaks for the president believes the stem cell research is murder and that is why he vetoed the bill. Yet Tony Snow said that it is not illegal and that if the states want to fund it they can do it, or use private corporations to do it and if people want to invest in it, thats ok to Maybe he worded that way due to Roe vs Wade. I'm not sure how accurate that statement is. If it is,that's fugged up. I will see if theres a transcript link. 725583[/snapback] Did you hear Tony Snows response to Helen Thomas today. Too funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Did you hear Tony Snows response to Helen Thomas today. Too funny. 725605[/snapback] I seen a video link yesterday that was hilarious ,I'll find it and post it in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Too bad NCA can't study that...but hey, no problem, at least we're saving the lives of blastospheres... 725599[/snapback] but thats just it...we're not saving the life of a blastopshere at all, we're just saying you arent allowed to isolate stem cells before we destroy the blastosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Did you hear Tony Snows response to Helen Thomas today. Too funny. 725605[/snapback] I saw yesterday's press conference. Thomas and Snow must be friends, for the set-ups she feeds him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 but thats just it...we're not saving the life of a blastopshere at all, we're just saying you arent allowed to isolate stem cells before we destroy the blastosphere. 725616[/snapback] Exactly...just think of all those additional blastospheres that would die if we were allowed to isolate their stem cells! You know that's the logic, too: that allowing new federally-funded stem cell lines would lead to an increase in abortion as stem cells were harvested to create the new lines. No Blastosphere Left Behind, dammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Exactly...just think of all those additional blastospheres that would die if we were allowed to isolate their stem cells! You know that's the logic, too: that allowing new federally-funded stem cell lines would lead to an increase in abortion as stem cells were harvested to create the new lines. No Blastosphere Left Behind, dammit! 725623[/snapback] New slogan. He was for the blastosphere before the blastosphere was incinerated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I saw yesterday's press conference. Thomas and Snow must be friends, for the set-ups she feeds him. 725622[/snapback] My fault, I only saw it this morning. But your're right, she sets the table so nice. An annoyance at the White House for many years. The patronizing will end soon, what is she 90? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 My fault, I only saw it this morning. But your're right, she sets the table so nice. An annoyance at the White House for many years. The patronizing will end soon, what is she 90? 725642[/snapback] I wouldn't call her an annoyance. Helen Thomas is just Old School. She's one of the few on the press corps I respect, actually...she comes from the generation of journalists that grew up in the shadow of Edward R. Murrow; she already had a successful, mature career when the "Deans" of modern newscasting were discovering in Vietnam and Watergate that they could make news instead of just reporting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I wouldn't call her an annoyance. Helen Thomas is just Old School. She's one of the few on the press corps I respect, actually...she comes from the generation of journalists that grew up in the shadow of Edward R. Murrow; she already had a successful, mature career when the "Deans" of modern newscasting were discovering in Vietnam and Watergate that they could make news instead of just reporting it. 725660[/snapback] Helen Thomas rawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 I view this as sore acedemia and private interests as being thwarted from the usual drink at the public trough. How dare tenured/union/state-guaranteed salaries not be paid and papers published, I tell ya! Merck, Bristol-Myers, et al are more than capable of over a few decades, of pulling benefits from the research. It's a long haul. Universities and coporations can purchase all the abortion embryos they care to. In the U.S., Europe, Asia. Do all the research they like. They merely want you and me to subsidize their operating cost and future profit. 725594[/snapback] I understand it as, bush believes abortion is murder, but there are no laws yet to prevent it. So he allows the states and private enterprise to research stemcells without access to Uncle Sams money to advance the research with this goverments help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I wouldn't call her an annoyance. Helen Thomas is just Old School. She's one of the few on the press corps I respect, actually...she comes from the generation of journalists that grew up in the shadow of Edward R. Murrow; she already had a successful, mature career when the "Deans" of modern newscasting were discovering in Vietnam and Watergate that they could make news instead of just reporting it. 725660[/snapback] You respect? Why? Please. Because of the past I need to respect her ignorance now? Your key words are "she already had a successful, mature career." When does it end? I think she's made an ass out of herself over the last few years. How may analogies do you need, of when people need to step aside? I believe she's the joke of the press corp.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Yeah...as though Bush never signed a spending bill that crossed his desk. If it were about spending, I'd have more respect for the veto. It's not. It's about preserving the "human" dignity of a 200-cell in-vitro blastosphere that's now going to be incinerated instead. That makes it stupid. That's my point. The result (lowering federal spending and curbing statism, if only by a bit) is positive, even if the intentions are crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 that's the logic, too: that allowing new federally-funded stem cell lines would lead to an increase in abortion as stem cells were harvested to create the new lines. 725623[/snapback] won't it? didn't Roe vs. Wade lead to an increase in abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 That's my point. The result (lowering federal spending and curbing statism, if only by a bit) is positive, even if the intentions are crap. 725684[/snapback] Actually, I'd even dispute the result being positive fiscally. It's a short-term budgetary gain...but the trade-off is a long-term loss of medical research skills and technology, and the benefits thereof. See my NCA reference above... Very similar to AIDS research. That early-on (and even currently) was considered a "waste", because the "cure" for AIDS was "Stop having sex, dumbasses!" But the knowledge that developed from AIDS research is already worth many times more than the federal money that was put into it. That doesn't hold for all science, of course...but in this case, it's a reasonable expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts