Features

Mockery · #1

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/?GT1=8307

I hear he also took a piss on Christopher Reeve's grave afterward to celebrate his first veto.

mburbank · #2

He had to veto it, since it had nothing to do with him. If the bill had been about what he was allowed to do, he could have signed it and then issued a signing statement saying he wasn't going to abide by it.

JMHX · #3

What I find so disturbing about this veto is that in six years of acting as a rubber-stamp for legislation, having not vetoed a single bill that has come across his desk, the one bill President Bush has stood up to reject is one in which Democrats and Republicans have come together in support of in both houses of Congress, and the American people support across all political, religious and ideological boundaries, nearing 75%.

If Democrats were looking for a strong issue to run on that will reflect the out-of-touch state of the Washington Republicans, they've just been given mana from heaven similar to the Clinton sex scandals that brought Gingrich's Revolution to fruition in 1994.

KevinTheOmnivore · #4

Where does the issue register though with the "average voter"???

Sure, it may be something a majority of people can agree with, but where is it on the priority scale? I doubt it ranks higher than the war, security, economy, or even the borders issue.

JMHX · #5

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Where does the issue register though with the "average voter"???

Sure, it may be something a majority of people can agree with, but where is it on the priority scale? I doubt it ranks higher than the war, security, economy, or even the borders issue.

I only have comprehensive poll data from a few months ago, so I don't know the complete answer to your question. However, it's the kind of issue that can easily be made to fit on the front pages. It's the kind of vote that works itself perfectly into 30-second negative ad spots, the equivalent of voting against something catchy like the PATRIOT act, especially when it's against the clear will of a majority of both parties.

CaptainBubba · #6

I need to start looking for places to invest in Chinese Bio-Technology now. Anyone know how I would go about that?

JMHX · #7

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

I need to start looking for places to invest in Chinese Bio-Technology now. Anyone know how I would go about that?

You might be joking, but I've been looking into it seriously. Check out Google Finance (finance.google.com) and their list of companies in the biotechnology industry.

fuck.I'm_Sean · #8

I like this JMHX guy.

But yeah I find it sad that the bill was vetoed. Good things could come of the research.

ziggytrix · #9

While we're on the subject of capitalist ventures of dubious morality, I'd sure have liked to get in on that Rosneft IPO.

Preechr · #10

I've got customers that are going or have gone to Portugal to get experimental treatments. I don't think China is the best place to be investing into Bio-tech. Brasil might be good.

While I agree this is an utterly retarded place for Bush to finally draw a line, his veto does nothing to restrict private research funding or research conducted by other countries. I see nothing wrong with somebody else in the world being better or quicker than us at something... like soccer. GO OTHER PEOPLE!!

As much as I love and support what the research will undoubtedly do, I suppose I also understand just how sordid the situation will quickly become once major gains start to be made. I don't like the idea of cargo containers full of Chinese and African embryos being unloaded at American ports very much.

Mockery · #11

Quote:

Scott Rosenberg (49) notes, thousands of embryos will be destroyed though IVF procedures. Rosenberg then argues that if destroying embryos is destroying human life, then Bush should be against IVF (a position, as noted above, that Leon Kass takes). If President Bush is against the destruction of embryos, he should have called for the closing of fertility clinics. For Rosenberg, the "courageous" stance would be to distinguish "between embryos created with intent to produce life, and those created solely to be destroyed for their stem cells."