Fri, 20 May 2005 22:56:18
Bush vows to piss me off until my head explodes and I start voting for Nader for every election
Sometimes he really pisses me off.
“I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but I’ve made very clear to Congress that the use of federal taxpayer money to promote science that destroys life in order to save life, I am against this,” said Mr. Bush, speaking in the Oval Office during a brief joint appearance with the Danish prime minister, Anders Rasmussen. “Therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it.”
Hey fuckass, what the hell do you think war is?
Posted by JimK at 10:56 PM on May 20, 2005
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics, The Federal Government, The Stupidity Of Man
Tags:
Comments:
#2 Posted by JimK 
on 05/21 at 12:27 PM -
Thatls not a difference, that’s a rationalization. We use federal taxpayer money and science to destroy life in order to save other life. It doesn’t matter who is losing the life. The logic of his statement is in direct opposition to his actions.
Bush simply doesn’t give a fuck about logic...he only wants to pander to his base. He’s not pro-life, he’s pro-religious doctrine.
#3 Posted by Joe R. 
on 05/21 at 01:11 PM -
Yeah, his actions are both libertarian and federalist, which should make me happy. He gets there via the wrong reasons.
#4 Posted by padders on 05/21 at 04:00 PM -
murcheeba,
It dosen’t appear Bush is worried here about American life, by any life. Living by your morals is great but its a shame the American president has such contradictory ones. His stances on the death penalty and war are completly at odds with those on abortion, stem cell research and euthenasia.
#5 Posted by murcheeba on 05/21 at 05:47 PM -
I’ll admit that his statement in the quote does go against his other policies but I basically think that he was just speaking badly again. I’m probably not paying attention and that’s why I’m not following what you guys are saying, but from what I’ve seen he’s had a pretty solid and consistent stance on the difference between killing and murder. I really would like someone to point out actual instances of his policy being inconsistent rather than just a quote which looks to be just a really big mistake.
This is what Bush’s lists look like to me from his actions
Killing: Legal executions, acts of war.
Murder: Abortion
#6 Posted by paul86 
on 05/22 at 07:13 AM -
Killing terrorists is different from killing unborn babies. When national security is’nt at risk why should people pay money for causes that they do not believe to be right?
#7 Posted by Paul on 05/26 at 10:44 PM -
Paul86, that’s the nature of tax. People pay for transport that they might never use, for wars that the don’t support. In Britain, I pay for the Tory party to go about its business and there’s no way I’d choose to spend money on that given the choice. But you pay tax for the good of the country and if stem-cell research is for the good of the country then go for it - it is by the way.
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
#1 Posted by murcheeba
on 05/21 at 08:05 AM -
The difference is that in war we are killing our enemies. If in war we had to purposefully kill Americans to achieve the same purpose then we wouldn’t do it and I wouldn’t support it. The only reason we put our own men out there is because they always have a chance of coming back and everything we plan to do is with the aim of keeping all of ours alive even if there’s a risk.