J
- Status
J
jman507
Guest
Without his veto, it’d be even more.
J
josephdavid
Guest
I agree with that. I am very proud of his veto of the last two bills. Sadly many members of Congress and American public are grossly uneducated on this matter.
Not to say I am the know all to be guy in this situation but I do know that the science has proven nothing when adult and blood cord has been used to effectively treat many conditions and diseases and more are showing promise.
J
josephdavid
Guest
Oops I hit enter and it posted before I was done.
But with that said… I would say that this sounds some what hypocritical in his part.
But with that said… I would say that this sounds some what hypocritical in his part.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Bush has always allowed ESC research. He just limited it to the line of stem cells that were already in existence when he took office. This isn’t something new.
Peace
Tim
Peace
Tim
M
mlchance
Guest
Quite right. Contrary to the Democratic Party mantra, President Bush has not outlawed ESC research or not allowed federal funding for ESC research. He is, in fact, the first president to allow federal funding for ESC research (a fact which ought to cause him no end of shame).
So, then, there is no hypocrisy on this issue with President Bush. He is merely continuing the wrong policy he instituted shortly after first being elected.
Of course, this isn’t enough for the Democratic Party, which continues to lie about ESC research and President Bush in order to increase federal funding, even going so far as to reject at least one stem cell funding bill simply because that bill didn’t include ESC.
As wrong as President Bush was and is on this issue, the Democratic Party is far worse.
– Mark L. Chance.
J
josephdavid
Guest
Taking a few lives versus many is not a trade off. Each and every individual life is precisious.
Ultimately both political parties have been serverely hypocritical in valuing human life.
M
mlchance
Guest
Killing 3000 a day is certainly worse than killing only 3 a day, even if killing 3 remains a monstrous crime.
Only the Republican Party is being hypocritical (which, as T. H. White noted, all good people must be). The Democratic Party has abandoned any pretense of being concerned with the right to life and slavishly advocates the slaughter of innocents as a cure-all for a variety of societal ills.
Is President Bush hypocritical on life issues? Certainly, and at least that hypocrisy restrains him. Is, for example, Senator Clinton hypocritical on life issues? Not at all. She unabashedly seeks to increase the number of unborn being killed. She did so as First Lady. She continues to do so as a Senator. She will continue to do as long as she remains in office.
– Mark L. Chance.
J
josephdavid
Guest
All Democrats? Are you sure of that?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, he didn’t say all democrats. He said the democratic party. It is part of their official platform, you know.
Peace
Tim
J
josephdavid
Guest
I can agree with that. But I can personally say that is changing. With fierce resistance remind you but it is changing.
When the Democrats put together the 95-10 Initiative they left off the partial birth abortion however Democrats for Life said if they want their votes on this Initiative then they have to keep the ban on partial birth abortion.
Also the last insane waste of time of the vote for embryonic stemcells we can thank 16 Democrats who voted against it pushing it less than 2/3 majority and now they can not override any veto from the President.
Here is a question for you all: How does Congress override a Supreme Court decision?
R
rlg94086
Guest
By amending the Constitution…next question?
BTW…the Executive branch can’t override Supreme Court decisions, but they can choose not to enforce them. I don’t think it applies in this case, but just thought I would add that in.
J
josephdavid
Guest
Why didn’t the Republicans make an amendment to the Constitution when they had the chance? Up until November they had a 2/3’s majority but no meausre was taken. Not even a token proposal.By amending the Constitution…next question?
BTW…the Executive branch can’t override Supreme Court decisions, but they can choose not to enforce them. I don’t think it applies in this case, but just thought I would add that in.
R
rlg94086
Guest
What country were you living in? We didn’t have a 2/3 majority in the Senate. We probably also could not get it passed by the states, yet. Are you familiar with what it takes to get an Amendment passed?
I don’t believe in token proposals - they are as useful as the current non-binding resolution (i.e. a waste of time!)
We still have a lot of work to do to get an Amendment passed. To say “Republicans had a majority, and yet we still have abortion,” is just anti-Republican rhetoric that ignores the reality of our current political capabilities.
J
josephdavid
Guest
Yes I am completely aware.
It is not rhetoric but stating the same as saying to a Democrat who professes he/she wants to make abortion rare or they do not like abortion but do not want to influence their own beliefs on anyone as hypocritical.
As some one who works for Democrats for Life we continously tell other pro-abortion Democrats if they really care about life they will end abortion and work towards effective programs to assist families, single mothers in need. Otherwise how can anyone take the Democrat seriously in its entirty.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I forgot to make the more important point. Republicans had the majority in the House, but pro-lifers (regardless of party) did not have a 2/3 majority in either of the legislative branches.
J
josephdavid
Guest
Yes I stand corrected. I need to go back to using my flashcards to re-learn math. And even if they did many Republicans support abortion.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m not sure of the percentages, so quantifying how “many” may be difficult. For some reason, that is supposed to nullify the Republicans as a real pro-life party, but I’m supposed to consider Democrats as equally pro-life because of the “few” pro-lifers in their party.
Suffice to say, we need a majority of pro-lifers (regardless of party), as I stated in my last post.
J
josephdavid
Guest
I am sorry but I do nullify Republicans as real pro-lifers. Honestly from what I have witnessed over the years they just use that as a way to get votes. Do not get me wrong there are some sincere Republicans who are truly pro-life. Well pro-life in the womb but not consistant beyond that.I’m not sure of the percentages, so quantifying how “many” may be difficult. For some reason, that is supposed to nullify the Republicans as a real pro-life party, but I’m supposed to consider Democrats as equally pro-life because of the “few” pro-lifers in their party.
Suffice to say, we need a majority of pro-lifers (regardless of party), as I stated in my last post.
With Democrats that party which had been anti-abortion prior to the 70’s has been hijacked by extreme liberals.
Fortunately that is being reduced more and more.
But if people like myself can not make headway with Democrats over-all then it will be time for a 3rd party.
- Status