OK, seriously, I don't really care. Bush has a valid reason for voting the way he did, others think that it will be beneficial, but it's not my battle. There is no right and wrong in this issue because it's based on personal opinion. The Pres represents the will of more of the electorate, so his opinion wins in this case.
As others have said, it's not going to stop any research anywhere else, just US funding of it. There are other valid reasons as well - what if the Pres thinks that the free market should handle this issue? Maybe he doesn't want to divert funds from the war on terror. There might be 100s of reasons tha he didn't sign the bill. - Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "G Money" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Welp, it's official > Actually, my reasoned opinion was encapsulated in my snide comment. I > guess > I could have, and maybe should have, stated my opinion like Robert did > (well > done, by the way). > > And you are right, my nerves are frayed....by people who hold the > alternate > opinion that you brought up. > > So now that we've cleared that up, you ready to tell us what YOUR opinion > really is? > > On 7/20/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Whether I do or I don't is irrelevant. I brought up an alternative >> point >> of view and you made a snide comment rather than a reasoned opinion. My >> nerves are fine, it's yours that are in question. >> >> - Matt >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "G Money" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:02 AM >> Subject: Re: Welp, it's official >> >> >> >I strike a nerve? Are you one of the 20% who support Bush's veto? >> > >> > On 7/20/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Or not kill the baby to begin with. If you prevent people from >> >> benefitting >> >> from an evil act, they probably won't do it. >> >> >> >> No need for the snide remarks. >> >> >> >> - Matt >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "G Money" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:15 AM >> >> Subject: Re: Welp, it's official >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes, yer right. To them, it is morally wrong to try to use a dead >> baby >> >> to >> >> > help save the lives of other people. To them, the only morally right >> >> thing >> >> > to do...is just wrap it up and throw it away. >> >> > >> >> > Some people do believe that alright. >> >> > >> >> > On 7/20/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On the other hand, there are many who believe that using cells from >> >> dead >> >> >> babies is morally wrong, no matter what the use. To them, it's >> >> basically >> >> >> the same ethical dilemma that faces scientists wanting use Nazi >> >> research. >> >> >> >> >> >> - Matt >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211511 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
