A moral too far ?

[Rat Faced]

Ah but vdcc, even if they actually manage to get through Congress..something i doubt at the moment...

In the USA, the president can disregard 'the people' via his veto... wait a minute, he'd pass this one..



That veto, especially when its admitted to be his personal moral position that makes use of the veto, is wrong.

Thats not Democracy, its akin to totalitarian...

Perhaps, if some politicians stopped acting like infidells, we might listen to their claimed Christianity.




Is this the shortest post covering the largest number of subjects i've tried?

If this dont confuse Magic, i dunno what will

[vidcc]

Rat
They are getting through.....



I think we agree that all governments could do with a good cleaning.

It's a whole different subject but the "veto" is supposed to serve a purpose. Clinton used it to kill a late term abortion ban, not because he is pro abortion...he isn't despite what J2 will say...but because the bill didn't allow for the procedure because of the woman's health... as far as I understand. ( be prepared for many spinned arguments on the reason)
Bush should be using his veto on some of these outrageous budget "pork" but he doesn't. He has threatened to veto stem cell funding. Personally I feel especially in light of what was said about fairness in a "fair" up or down vote for judges I feel he should stick with those principles and follow the up or down vote on funding...that is if the threat to tie up the bill and prevent a vote made by some republicans is overcome.

The veto is open to abuse, but I don't think I would like to be rid of it. In the right hands it is a vital safety net to protect the people. In the wrong hands it is as you say anti-democratic.

[JPaul]

So you object to any form of political lobbying, because if you object to any you must object to all.

Otherwise someone has to decide which is allowed and which is not. Who makes that decision.

[vidcc]

Jpaul

You are either not getting this at all or are being deliberately argumentative.

I will stand next to you and fight for your right to speak your mind even if I disagree with you, I will stand in your way if you try to force others to comply with your personal moral values. Do you see the difference?

By what you are saying I must not object to anything but instead allow it to pass without resistance because it's "free speech"

I am not objecting to them having this opinion. What I am saying is that I will try to stop their attempts to make others comply by law. (although I am not trying here...I am just stating my opinion)

It is anti free speech to try to stop people saying what they believe.

It is not anti free speech to disagree with them

It is not anti free speech to object to someone's attempts to impose their views

It is not anti free speech to try to stop them imposing their views

[JPaul]

No, I really amn't understanding you.

You object to this group using the political lobby, you see that as them trying to impose their views on others. Which is exactly what the lobby is for, to influence politics in the direction you want it to go.

Does that mean you object to the political lobby per se, as it's use is a form of imposing one's views on others.

[Busyman]

vid how exactly does one impose their view anyway?

Views can't really be changed by another but rather influenced to change.

[Rat Faced]

The answer of course is simple.

These vaccinations are probably the product of a major Laboratory/Company.

If the USA will not sanction their testing or people are causing problems then go somewhere else that will allow this research/testing, such as the UK.

I'm sure that we can handle the extra Jobs and, when the vaccination is proven and on the market over here i'm sure that the public demand in the USA will force them to allow it over there.

Contrary wise, if it is unworkable then the lobbyists will have won.

A win/win situation for everyone except the American workforce; but sinse when have Bush Inc. worried about them?

[vidcc]

vid how exactly does one impose their view anyway?

Views can't really be changed by another but rather influenced to change.

By getting it put into legislation. As an example let's say your religion prohibits eating pork. You have the right to tell people that eating pork is wrong that's free speech... getting or trying to get the law to prohibit eating pork even for people that don't share your religion is trying to impose. It doesn't mean you change their views on eating pork, it means you prevent them from eating pork.

[vidcc]

No, I really amn't understanding you.

then you shall have to stay in the dark because i am not going over it again

[vidcc]

Rat

These people don't want the vaccinations done on "moral" grounds. It has nothing to do with medical reasons.

But even if the testing scenario where to happen it still wouldn't be accepted here as our law requires we do our own tests.