Reactions to Bush's third-ever veto: Stem Cell Research...

I didn't expect this but I liked Clinton's response. She seems eager to turn this into an elections issue.

One of the big things that bothers me about Bush's constant fight against stem-cell research is his reliance on the "sanctity of life" talking point. I guess sickies who would benefit from the research aren't sacred enough to save? It's pretty cool that a blob of cells that can't sustain life on its own is more important than a walking, talking, breathing person.

I see where she's coming from since the juxtaposition of "progressive" and "conservative" is quite common in our local politics.

It also helps her avoid the "L" word. Eight years of brainwashing has tainted the word liberal to the average, apolitical Joe. Clinton's statement is confrontational without appearing controversial.

And she's savvy enough to take on the whole Republican party. She understands she won't be running against Dubya in '08 and wants to make sure people perceive the Republican candidate in '08 as Bush's successor.

Most importantly, she's not commenting on the veto, like Edwards and Obama. She's proposing an alternative.

Very, very angry about this. The religious right is supposed to be tolerated, not accomodated.

I agree. I'm tired of backward ass religious fucks getting their narrow-minded way.

If nothing else, this sets our country back economically: imagine all the bio-patents and treatments other countries are going to get whilst we whittle away in the dark ages, thanks to these neo-puritanical assholes.

Clinton's answer is notable for her veiled attack of the Republican brand.

On the other hand, I fervently hope that this third (or is it fourth?) Great Awakening has made folks aware of the real threat religion poses to a modern society. Other generations may turn away from the ass-backwards philosophioes espoused by the current crop of religious zealots.

Bush's profound ignorance on this matter aside, I'd like all you war apologists who try to pretend Bush's guff about freedom being on the march is an excuse worth listening to to burn the above quote from your president into a baseball bat. Then I'd like you to take that bat out into the street and pay a homeless man a dollar to beat you to death with it.

Never thought I would agree with clinton on a issue like this, but then again Bush is being way to backwards when it comes to this subject matter. It's always a shock to me when someone as powerful as him can stand in the way of progress.

Babies are cuter, stupid.

And tiny wads of cells are absolutely adorable!

I'll believe that Clinton is a progressive when she takes a clear stand against the war in Iraq, owns up to the mistake she made in voting for it, supports gay marriage, and reiterates the fact that she is pro-choice.

eta - Seabass, I don't think that there are too many Americans (esp. on this board), who are apologizing for Bush. Not quite sure who you're railing at.

I'm sure they know who they are.

I remember this one time, one guy died to save us all, I think he was Mexican and his name was Jesus... ....hmm that sounded better out loud.

Seriously same philosophy stands. I'm pro-life, but not at the embryo stage. If it can feel pain, or has a beating heart, then its bad. This was the same answer I gave during a med school interview.

Why do I feel I'm being lead by a slightly retarded Ned Flanders?

I love the image of SAIRUS reading all his posts out loud before submitting them.

I like it!


I remember this one time . . .

One guy died to save us . . .

I think he was Mexican . . .

And his name was Jesus.

Burma Shave.

Disconnects between abstract principles and real world specifics are what politics is made of.

Well the "..." can add only so much dramatic effect.

FreeRobotSex, I'll proudly admit that sometimes I actually quickly speak a post in my head to make sure it makes sense and what not. I'M GOING TO KILL A BUNCH OF NUNS, would sound weird said outloud and ... ...oh shit.

These fights concern themselves more with the not very well though out social politics of "religious" groups than the actual religions. Let's take Christianity for example. Most of the members of the Christian Right will tell you that they believe that the Bible is the inerrant record of God's communications with the human race. That is, until they find something they disagree with. Then they start borrowing the methods of the impious Biblical scholars they seem to detest.

Take, for instance, the episode where Jesus is defending the adulteress. This episode is completely in line with the teachings of Christ that are presented in the rest of the New Testament. It also pretty clearly denounces both judging others and capital punishment. The Christian Right, however, likes to believe that the Bible endorses capital punishment without any ambiguity whatsoever. How do they deal with these tensions in the canon? They bring up that that the passage in question is generally believed to have been added at a later date! What happened to the inerrant nature of the text? It's just another case of intellectual dishonesty on their part.

While many of the followers of Christianity are intellectually dishonest and "ass-backward" the teachings themselves are still radically progressive by today's standards. The Sermon on the Mount alone endorses absolute pacifism, unconditional love for one's neighbors whether they are friends or foes, prioritizing the needs of others above the needs of one's self, and holds serving all others with unconditional regard as the end of both the Judeo-Christian ethical system and the good in life. I don't see how that is "ass-backward."