COL Gene

Bush is a Sorry Excuse For a President

▼

Bush is a Sorry Excuse For a President

from JoeUser Forums



In an attempt to justify his first veto, Bush surrounded himself with a few children that were born from left-over in-vitro frozen stem-cells to show what he did by his veto was proper. Bush claims if we allowed federally funded research on excess Stem-Cells these children would never have been born. That is another lie that his spin doctors cooked up.

The truth is that donors that have excess stem-cells that remain after they have completed their in-vitro procedures have two options- Allow some one else to use the embryos like the few people Bush used in his photo op or have them destroyed as medical waste. Of the estimated 400,000 embryos that remain after in-vitro procedures in this country, the vast majority will DESTROYED. Passage of the law would have allowed donors to give their embryos to another couple or to allow their use to help find CURES for HUMAN SUFFERING. In no event would the passage of this law have "taken human Life"as Bush suggested since the vast majority of the excess stem-cells will be destroyed now that this bill has been vetoed and they will be destroyed without helping anyone! Thus what Bush said is another LIE. What will happen is that all the excess embryos that are not given to other couples will be destroyed while millions of people that could have been helped by this bill continue to suffer. For those that claim this will not impact life-saving research please look at what Senator Bill Frist, majority Leader of the Senate and Doctor said, "given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing embryonic stem cell research, I think additional lines should be made available". Every major research facility has said the restrictions imposed by Bush will significantly hamper the search for cures that cover a large number of horrible diseases that cause great suffering!

Bush says this is the right moral compass for our country. No, that is HIS MORAL COMPESS that he is forcing on our country despite the fact that the MAJORITY of both the Congress and the people do not agree with Bush. Every day the WILL of the American people is being ignored and we are moving close and closer to a Dictatorship under Bush.

It is time to identify ALL the members of Congress that failed to vote to override the Bush Veto (the vote in the house was 235 to override and 193 to sustain the Bush Veto) and make sure they are NOT REELECTED in November 2006. I bet the Senate will not vote so the Conservative Senators that support Bush and his indefensible position will not be identified as refusing to stand up for what the majority of our people want on this issue.
politics
26,607 views 115 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
The term King George correctly described the attitude of GWB. He is the decided. It does not matter what the majority of Congress or the American People want it is what George wants. This from a man that has accomplished NOTHING on his own. Everything George has gotten was via the contacts mostly that lead back to his father. His military commission, school, business and political office. He was not a real success at ANYTHING including being an effective President!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not a Democrat as I have said many times. I am a Moderate Republican. Today the Democrats are far more moderate then the GOP leadership!
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not a Democrat as I have said many times. I am a Moderate Republican.


When did "tax and spend" become part of the Republican platform?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not a Democrat as I have said many times. I am a Moderate Republican. Today the Democrats are far more moderate then the GOP leadership!


Democrats are not moderate. This statement shows you are the only one that is "out of touch". Democrats can't even beat Bush on the issues that you claim are so wrong. What does that tell you about the democratic party. For you to keep telling us that you are a republican is the biggest joke. Every one of your talking points is straight from the far left, not republicans.

His military commission, school, business and political office. He was not a real success at ANYTHING including being an effective President!


He is far more successful than you will ever be. I bet there is a hint of jealously from you. You, a pathetic self-publshed author who can't sell books, can't win local election, and does nothing but obsess over a man who hasn't done anything to him.


It does not matter what the majority of Congress or the American People want it is what George wants


You don't speak for the majority of America. Your arrogance makes you think you do. Bush doesn't control your life, he has very limited power, but yet you continually act like Bush controls everything.

How sad is your life that you know nothing but hating a man that is better than you?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
As usual democrats try to win an election on a platform nobody cares about.

However, all of this does not necessarily mean there will be a strong public backlash against Bush over his veto. Because the issue is not highly important to most Americans – only 12% were following it very closely in May 2005


As I said before, America will forget about this veto by the weekend.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is not Bush it is the GOP that allowed him to override the will of the majority of Congress and the people. What we have in too many areas is the minority overruling what the majority wants. That is true on Stem Cells, the economy, Border security, Iraq, etc. The Conservatives whose views are NOT what the majority want are running the country because they have captured control of the GOP and the GOP holds a slight edge in Congress. That does not alter the fact that policies that are being followed DO NOT represent what the majority want for our country!

If we had a Parliamentary form of government Bush and the GOP would be out of power!
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, you don't speak or represent the majority of people in this country. You have no idea what people want or need.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The majority of the Congress we elected said this is what the law should be. Bush has subverted the will of the Congress and the American People. The Editorial today from the Philadelphia Inquirer says it all about Bush:

Posted on Fri, Jul. 21, 2006

Editorial | Bush's Stem-Cell Veto
Thwarting the public will
When President Bush vetoed the DeGette-Castle bill on embryonic stem-cell research Wednesday, he surrounded himself with children. The real point was who wasn't there.
There was no one suffering from Alzheimer's. Parkinson's sufferers? Nowhere. Also absent was anyone with myasthenia gravis, leukemia, liver disease, or dozens of ailments that someday may be treatable thanks to research employing human embryonic stem cells.
The veto leaves in place the silly 2001 Bush restrictions on federal funds for research using embryonic stem cells. So ESC-derived treatments may be hamstrung further. The people they could help? Tough.
The beautiful children surrounding Bush were "snowflake" children, born from frozen embryos and adopted. The purported point: Don't waste embryos in scientific research - use them to produce unique human lives (thus the term "snowflake").
But the veto won't lead to fewer embryos being destroyed.
The bill would have extended funding to research using discarded embryos from fertility clinics. Thousands of embryos that could have been used in research will now simply be thrown away, thanks to the president's principled pen.
Bush correctly identified the question: Is it right to balance the (supposed) rights of human embryos against the possible (and not yet known) benefits of embryonic stem-cell research? A wrenching dilemma: human embryos vs. human suffering. Despite Bush's characteristic sureness, the answer isn't clear.
His portrayal sure was frightening and inaccurate: "the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others." Along with the conservatives he is courting for the November elections, Bush seeks to depict the use of embryonic stem cells as murder.
Alas for him and his party, most Americans, while they rightly grieve over the moral ambiguities, seem willing to trade some embryonic stem-cell research for medical benefit. Polls show wide support, including up to 70 percent of Republicans in some polls. That reflects a GOP hurt by calculated grandstanding on medicine and science. (Remember the Terri Schiavo fracas?)
Both the House and Senate passed the bill by wide but not veto-proof margins. A House override failed shortly after the veto; now it doesn't matter what the Senate does.
And it doesn't matter (to Bush, at least) that, as much as he may believe in the principles he champions with such aggression, such principles are far from settled. A true debate awaits, and a small, extreme coterie is trying to short-circuit it - because it may lead to tradeoffs that coterie dislikes.
Embryonic stem-cell research will continue. The Bush policy pretends to take a stand but lets private businesses do what they please with embryonic stem cells. (If academic researchers want to do it, they can, just not with federal funds.) There are now about a dozen private stem-cell research centers in the United States, the largest at Harvard.
The main point, however, is not research but democracy. Bush showed the world Wednesday that, under the guise of "leadership," he will ignore a growing social consensus in favor of the politics of the moment and his favored coterie.
Snowflakes? Snow job.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sore loser anyone?
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
CharlesC

The losers are all the people that have serious diseases that could be helped by this funding. What a shorted sighted and narrow minded religious zealot we have as President and in some members of Congress!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
The RESEARCH IS NOT BEING STOPPED. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU CANNOT GRASP THAT SIMPLE FACT?

This "research" has not proven to help anyone. Understand these basic facts.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Science’s Stem Cell Scam By Michael Fumento Thursday, July 20, 2006 Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) receive tremendous media attention, with oft-repeated claims that they have the potential to cure virtually every disease known. Yet there are spoilsports, self included, who point out that they have yet to even make it into a human clinical trial. This is even as alternatives – adult stem cells (ASCs) from numerous places in the body as well as umbilical cord blood and placenta – are curing diseases here and now and have been doing so for decades. And that makes ESC advocates very, very angry. How many diseases ASCs can treat or cure is debatable, with one website claiming almost 80 for umbilical cord blood alone. Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council, using stricter standards of evidence, has constituted a list of 72 for all types of ASCs. But now three ESC advocates have directly challenged Prentice’s list. They’ve published a letter in Science magazine, released ahead of publication obviously to influence Pres. Bush’s promise to veto legislation that would open wide the federal funding spigot for ESC research. The letter claims ASC “treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions” on his list.

Well! One answer to that is that it’s nine more than can be claimed for ESCs. Further, there are 1175 clinical trials for ASCs, including those no longer recruiting patients, with zero for ESCs. But a better response is that the letter authors come from the Kenneth Lay School for honesty, as do the editors at Science.

In the detailed attachment to their letter, the Science magazine writers aren’t just at odds with Prentice but the medical community as a whole. For example, regarding sickle cell anemia, they claim “adult stem cell transplants from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood can provide some benefit to sickle cell patients” and “hold the potential to treat sickle cell anemia.” “Some benefit” and “potential?”

An article from the May 2006 issue of Current Opinion in Hematology notes that “there is presently no curative therapy” for sickle cell anemia other than allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. “Hematopoietic” means from marrow or blood; “allogeneic” means the cells are from another person. Seminars in Hematology (2004) states, “. . . curative allogeneic stem cell transplantation therapy” has “been developed for sickle cell anemia.” Meanwhile, “. . . curative allogeneic stem cell transplantation therapy [has] been developed for” sickle cell anemia according to Current Opinions in Molecular Therapy (2003), while “hematopoietic stem cells for allogeneic transplantation” are “currently the only curative approach for sickle cell anemia” observes the journal Blood (2002). (All emphasis mine.)

What does everybody seem to know that the Science writers and Science editors don’t?

Words like “could” and “potential” are trick phraseology used throughout the letter attachment for ASC curative therapies that have been used routinely for years. This appears to give them no advantage over ESC therapy, all of which boasts nothing but potential.

The writers are correct about FDA approval; but that’s a trick. Some ASC therapies are approved in other countries but not yet here. More importantly, stem cell therapy is not a drug and therefore the FDA doesn’t regulate it the same way. Some have been used successfully for decades with no one seeking or receiving federal approval.

For that matter, aspirin is a drug but by their standards it only has potential use for aches and pains since it never went through the clinical trial process and the FDA has never given it formal approval.

How can Science not know all this? Simple; it does. I’ve written repeatedly of how Science has made itself a propaganda sheet for ESC research, as well as other political causes. At the least, it should change its name to Pseudoscience. Sometimes it prints easily falsifiable studies, such as this, attacking the usefulness of ASCs. Other times it falsely promotes ESCs. That culminated in January when the journal was forced to retract two groundbreaking ESC studies that proved frauds.

The journal wants to flood unpromising ESC research with taxpayer dollars because private investors know just how very unpromising it is. Now yet again Science has showcased the scientific and moral bankruptcy of the entire ESC advocacy movement.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only Gene would be upset that our government works the way it is designed to work.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
But Daiwa, a media poll which 1000 American say should always overrule the goverrnment.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
The losers are all the people that have serious diseases that could be helped by this funding. What a shorted sighted and narrow minded religious zealot we have as President and in some members of Congress!


Let's see if you are smart enough to understand this. Stem cell research is not illegal, adult stem cell research can be federally funded and can yield just as many results as embryo stem cells. Scientest can not say with certainty which one is better. They just believe one is better than the other but that does not mean adult stem cell is not worth it. Wake up, there are alternatives to save all these people, embryo stem cell is not the only way. Can you stop being stupid for once in your life. There is still hope for those who are sick. Man are you think headed or what. Dam fool.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Congress, our elected government that makes the laws, APPROVED this BILL. IT IS Bush that is the problem!
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess Senator Bill Frisk is also a dam Fool. I guess most of the countries leading researchers that say to move forward we need this change are also dam fools.

There are some dam fools but they are people like you and the failure we have as president.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Congress, our elected government that makes the laws, APPROVED this BILL. IT IS Bush that is the problem!


I bet if Congress approved a bill that you didn't like and Bush vetoed it you would blame Congress then. I seem to remember some posts from you that complained Bush didn't veto things. Now he uses a veto on a bill that will cost the taxpayers million and with no proven results.

I guess most of the countries leading researchers that say to move forward we need this change are also dam fools.


Nobody is stopping anything from being moved forward. Here is an idea for you col. Why don't you take your resources and convince somebody like Soros to use his billions to fund this research instead of using it to hate Bush?
I guess Senator Bill Frisk is also a dam Fool.


This is absolutely hillarious. Any other time you would be complaining about Frist because he's the majority leader of the republicans. Now you act like you and him are friends. This just shows what a democratic hack you really are.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the framers of the Constitution had wanted every bill passed by Congress to become law, the Executive veto would not exist, nor would the Supreme Court, Gene. You are breathtaking in your idiocy at times.

Anything in the service of your hatred for Bush. Did you know that he received an honorable discharge from the National Guard? Were you aware of that?
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

You are such a PTUZ. Bush allows all the Pork to be approved with NO veto. For example, if he wanted to make a difference in unnecessary spending he would have vetoed the bill that would have built a bridge in Alaska to an island were 50 people lived at a cost of $230 Million dollars. He would have vetoed the $12 Billion tax cuts to oil companies. Do not give us he is trying to restrain spending. This is Bush FORCING his religious beliefs on everyone WHICH IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

Yes, I am aware Bush received an Honorable Discharge. I am also aware that ANY other member that failed to obey regulations and attend requited drills would have been punished and not have received an Honorable Discharge. Bush got that Honorable discharge with the help of some very powerful person that did Bush 41 a BIG Favor. Without that DD 214 showing Honorable Discharge, Bush would not have been elected Governor or President. GWB DID NOT earn an Honorable Discharge pure and simple. If any other member of the Guard did JUST WHAT Bush DID, they would have been punished! I know that for a fact since I was a Commander of a Reserve Unit at the time Bush was in the Guard. If any of my troops had failed to take their REQUIRED physical or FAILED to attend Drills, they would not have received an Honorable Discharge!
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

WHY would Lt Bush have risked serious discipline and grounding by not taking his required physical? The only explication that makes ANY sense was that Bush was taking Drugs that would have shown up when he took his physical.

When Bush ran for President, he signed a pledge that he did not use drugs back to 1975. WHY 1975? He was in the guard from 1968-73.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
For example, if he wanted to make a difference in unnecessary spending he would have vetoed the bill that would have built a bridge in Alaska to an island were 50 people lived at a cost of $230 Million dollars


If I remember right (and it's been a little so I could be off a little) that bridge was added, as an amendment, to another appropriation bill that was in MUST PASS situation. So, which should Bush have done - vetoed a bill for one item he didn't like and risk shutting the government down or let it ride and get to keep the government open?

The only way that Bush could've vetoed that ONE ITEM, was if he had (dare I mention it?) the Line Item Veto power. Which, again if I remember correctly, you've been screaming that Bush is unworthy of on the occassions it's come up. So which should it be? Let all the pork through as amendments to other bills, or provide the president with the Line Item Veto power so that he can do some trimming once bills reach him?

Personally, I'd rather have responsible Congresscritters, but that's not likely to happen in my lifetime, so I'd go with the line item veto. Even if I might not agree with future presidents' use of the power.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're such a big fat Blue Marlin waiting to get hooked, Gene. To paraphrase Tony Montana.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just like to get you Bushies going about your lame Commander-in-Chief’s military disservice.

I used the bridge as one example. Bush has done NOTHING to control spending and has created the worst financial morass this country has had in its 230 year history. The only president that comes close to GWB for disastrous financial management was Reagan. Between the two of them that have given the taxpayers 90% of the National Debt and 90% of the annual interest we must pay because they did not know what they were doing. To think that Bush has an MBA from Harvard must make the officials at Harvard cringe. His MBA like his Honorable Discharge should be REVOKED!