Cskin Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Most of you guys have touched on my problems with Bush. **Illegal immigration - Shut the damn borders already and begin identifying the illegals in this country so as to start building a foundation for a guest worker program **Domestic spending - He's had the means to veto many of these bills bloated with pork... yet he hasn't. A conservative he is not... based on his allowing of drunken sailor spending by Congress **That damn smirk and cartoon like laugh. How about being a bit more presidential why don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Kilmer, where did I say I hated the whole right wing because of the patriot act. I dislike that the administration put its mussle behind it. Where did I say that I liked that the left bowed to political preassure? Where did you read any of that in what I wrote? Please don't pigeon hole me. I do intensly dislike the say the religous right (and that is different from the right wing in that it is only a portion of the right wing) exerts on our current policy. Saying that is far different from the sentiments you are attributing to me, though it may be just that I express them poorly. And being unelectable in todays society...vs. when they were elected. I think Ashcroft would have a hard time getting elected today. DO you think he could win back a Senate seat? where? I say this after he was roundly bashed at the libertarian convention (a large group of swing voters). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 gbear, my apologies. I read this the wrong way- "I disliked the righting, and subsequent enforcement of the Patriot Act " My apologies. I thought you meant rightwing, not writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 wow, I was careless. I'll fix that now. Ooops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 call it a Freudian Slip??? Seriously, sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Won't vote for Bush because he's too gung ho for war, too gung ho to push his religious and moral standards on others and too liberal a spender. I also dislike the taxbreaks for the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama Won't vote for Bush because he's too gung ho for war, too gung ho to push his religious and moral standards on others and too liberal a spender. I also dislike the taxbreaks for the rich. Do you dislike it because you are not rich?? The taxbreak was what 2%, who cares!! If I was that rich I wouldn't want to pay your salary in tax as well. We all get the same treatment from government why does a certain group have to pay more?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1966 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 At least he's not Kerry LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Can I ask a question? What is so bad about the Patriot act? I know some of it allows the FBI and CIA and other agencies to talk with each other. But what is getting out of hand? Not being smart a$$, just want to know what is getting out of hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by Brown 43 Can I ask a question? What is so bad about the Patriot act? I know some of it allows the FBI and CIA and other agencies to talk with each other. But what is getting out of hand? Not being smart a$$, just want to know what is getting out of hand? Everyone thinks the worse of a bill. The patriot act is a great tool with law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 That's what I thought, but don't know much about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 The main problem I have with the President is his refusal to ever admit a mistake. To me if you can't ever realize a mistake is made, it it will be extremely hard to correct it the next time. I save many many many other problems I have with him for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Brown43, my problem is the lack of judicial oversight allowed. The case teh ACLU filed is one of the biggest problems. An ISP was asked to turn over records of everywhere a person on the internet. The reasoning seemed duboius to the ISP, and they wanted to challenge the governments right to ask for information they had promised not to provide without good legal reason. THat's where the problem starts. THe fact that the ISP was requested to give the information is something it is illegal for them to discuss with anyone (including a lawyer or judge). Just the act of fighting the request is illegal. I have a serious problem with anything that gives our government power with no judicial oversight. THe fact that number for how often the patriot act is used are unavailable... Sure, they bring out where it was sucessful and did good as examples of why it is needed, but those numbers should be public, and there should be a way to contest individual cases because everything done many times is liekly to have mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 I have many problems with Bush starting with the people he placed to run our government. Not so much the high cabinet positions more the middle managers, they have no experience and just flat out suck at thier jobs. My wife works for the DOJ and of course they got thier budget trimmed, while at the same time have to deal with the expense of putting away the bad guys. The Lind case cost a small fortune and that's just the tip of the iceburg. The DOJ also got a approved raise but it has to come from within thier budget. What sense does that make? It's the day to day operation of the government that really has me down on Bush. I don't think the full budget has been approved yet either. It also seems that Bush and his advisors tend to say. "This is what we are going to do, make it happen this way" Instead of saying "This is what we are going to do, Whats the best way to do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 ONe more thing against Bush administration is that they seem to only have people who agree. I'm not just talking about the higher ups who have to have a united front, but everyone who disagrees leaves (and goes and writes a book. :shutup: ). This actually seems to be a problem that is on the whole Republican party. I just wish more of an open mind was the norm. Check this link out. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/09/bush_backers_only_policy_riles_voters_at_rnc_rallies/ Bush-backers-only policy riles voters at RNC rallies By Steve Larese, Globe Correspondent | August 9, 2004 RIO RANCHO, N.M. -- A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters. ADVERTISEMENT When Vice President Dick Cheney spoke July 31 to a crowd of 2,000 in Rio Rancho, a city of 45,000 near Albuquerque, several people who showed up at the event complained about being asked to sign endorsement forms in order to receive a ticket to hear Cheney. ''Whose vice president is he?" said 72-year-old retiree John Wade of Albuquerque, who was asked to sign the form when he picked up his tickets. ''I just wanted to hear what my vice president had to say, and they make me sign a loyalty oath." Nick Lucy, a 64-year-old veteran and Democrat, said he was turned away from a May 7 rally in Dubuque, Iowa, at which President Bush spoke even though he had a ticket given to him by a local Republican leader. Lucy, who was not asked to sign a form, said he has seen every president since Ronald Reagan, but he was denied access because he is not a registered Republican. He is a Democrat and a past commander of the American Legion in Dubuque who plays taps at veterans' funerals. ''They asked the police to escort me out of there," Lucy said. ''I wasn't going to disrupt anything, but I probably wasn't going to clap a lot, either. Every rally the president goes to everyone is cheering for him because they're handpicked." Republicans contend they foiled a plot by America Coming Together, a 527 organization that supports the Democratic Party, to disrupt the New Mexico rally. The 527 groups are so named for the provision in the tax code that applies to tax-exempt political organizations that operate outside party and candidate organizations. RNC spokesman Yier Shi said RNC campaign rallies are not official visits, but party events designed to energize the Republican base . He said everyone is welcome at the rallies as long as they support President Bush. Shi said similar forms are used at other reelection and fund-raising rallies sponsored by the RNC. He added that the decision was made to use the forms at the New Mexico rally after the local RNC office received ''suspicious calls" about the event before it was advertised. He said the caller identification indicated some numbers were from cellphones of members of America Coming Together. ''I think the Democrats are just disappointed we thwarted their plans to disrupt our event," he said. Geri Prado, New Mexico coordinator for America Coming Together, denies her group planned to disrupt Cheney's speech. The form Wade was asked to sign had a disclaimer saying no public funds were used to produce it. Wade said he filled out the form, was given two tickets, but had second thoughts about signing an endorsement he didn't believe in. Wade said he explained his misgivings to a supervisor, and the form was quickly located. The supervisor wrote ''Do Not Use" on the form, but Wade insisted it be given to him. In the end, Wade said, he offered to give back his tickets in exchange for the endorsement, which he did. ''Sure I'm a Democrat and I'll go head to head with you one on one, but I would never disrupt a speech by the vice president," Wade says. Bush-Cheney spokesman Danny Diaz said that RNC rallies are separate from Bush-Cheney events and that he does not know of any endorsement forms being requested of people attending Bush-Cheney-sponsored events. But he says said he understands why the RNC would require such forms at the campaign events. ''They want to make sure people can hear the president and vice president's vision for the next four years," he said. ''There are thousands of volunteers who sacrifice and work hard on the campaign and who deserve to see and hear their president without being disrupted and disrespected." The campaign of John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, has had to deal with Republican hecklers at events. The Kerry-Edwards communications director for New Mexico, Ruben Pulido, said that when Kerry visited New Mexico on July 10, several Bush supporters shouted ''Viva Bush" and waved flip-flops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 As I have made blatantly clear I have numerous problems with the president. But for me it boils down to a question of who is the United States government suppose to serve? I think that our government exists to serve the middle and lower classes--not the wealthy. That's not to condemn the wealthy in any way--capitalism breads classes and wealth and I hope that I am wealthy some day. But the government is suppose to give each American a chance to become wealthy--once you get there, we are going to do less for you and more to make sure that others can reap the same benefits that you have. Our government can accomplish this by investing in public education, protecting well paying middle class jobs through trade policy, and providing good health care to American families (to name a few). These types of programs cost money. When we start cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and for American corporations and thus cutting government sponsored programs (like after-school programs) we are turning our back on the very people that the US government is suppose to serve. So my problem with the current administration is that it seems to run its economic policy with an emphasis on rewarding those who have benefitted from the opportunities that this great country provides so many. Instead, the administration -- and I would argue the wealthiest Americans as well -- should keep implementing policies that strive to assure that the AVERAGE American has the greatest quality of life of any nation in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Wow, there are so many I have with him, so I'll try to narrow it down. 1) Foreign Policy: This refers to many things. First of all, like many others said, his immigration policy (or lack thereof) is crap. He may as well move the White House to Mexico City at this point. Something needs to be done, because he's being criticized for unemployment rates too, and the influx of cheap immigrant labor is doing nothing to help the situation. The practically open border is destroying job markets, school systems, and American culture. Now, I'm not racist, hell, I'm a quarter Cuban, but we speak English, not Spanish. Although America is a melting pot, Mexican immigrants are turning us into melting pot that's wearing a sombrero. And don't even get me started with how Cuban culture has affected where I live. There are some parts of Dade County where people have been living their whole lives without having to learn a word of English. Then there is the foreign relations side of it. Iraq, well, don't get me started. Call me when you find WMDs, because what I'm seeing right now is Iran and North Korea not trying to hide their nukes/nuke programs, but actually rubbing them in our faces while we search for Iraqi bio/chem weapons in futility. We could have sent those troops over to Afghanistan to cover more ground in the search for the man who we KNOW did harm to us. Now more than ever, WE look like the Evil Empire. Bush has sent our world standing to the sh*tter with his unilateral, cowboy, if-you-don't-like-it-shove-it attitude. Straight from the horse's mouth, "Bring it on." Like that's not going to infuriate those who already dislike us. That attitude along with the fact that he's one of the worst public speakers (especially at that level) I've ever seen, is why people moreso than ever are lining up to take shots at us and our allies. 2) Domestic Policy/Agenda/Beliefs: Yeah, I'm covering all bases here. He's incredibly right wing as far as his social policy/beliefs go. Gay marriage, abortion, taxes, I disagree with him on all of the above. It's a matter of personal opinion, really. My values are different than his. I feel mine are correct and his are incorrect, and I'm sure he feels the same way towards people like me. The difference is that I think people should be able to do and believe what they want (to a certain, reasonable extent), whether or not I agree with them. I personally don't believe that life starts at conception, but even if I did, who am I to judge her? I may not agree with what she's doing, I may think she's going to hell for it, but it's her choice. My main problem with Bush in this respect is that he's FORCING his ideals on people. He can preach them, he can let us know what he stands for, but he's trying to make it illegal for people to have different values than him. And although I think it's farfetched and don't agree with them myself, this is exactly where the "Bush=Hitler" parallels are drawn from. Seriously, if you look at the steps he's taken to push his agenda, bringing back the Sedition Act seems like the next logical step. Also, the fact that he rarely if ever admits he's wrong seems to me to be extremely childish on his part. I can respect a man if he makes mistakes as long as he owns up to them. I cannot think of one instance where Bush has taken blame for anything, save maybe his alcoholism. The other main thing is with the economy, which, I'll admit, I don't know a ton about. I do know a little bit though, and I do know that unemployment is high, our currency isn't as strong as it was under Clinton, our stock market isn't soaring like it was before, and nothing has been done to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. That may or may not be Bush's fault, but it was better under Clinton, so logic would be that Bush has had something to do with it. There's more, but I'm too tired to think right now. That's what working till Midnight and going out afterwards will do to you. All in all, I don't really find much about the guy to like, as a person or a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 "I think that our government exists to serve the middle and lower classes--not the wealthy. " too bad the Founding Fathers decided that our Govt existed to serve everyone EQUALLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 How is Bush forcing his opinions about abortion on anyone? And how is every other politician not doing the same? I havent heard Bush call for a Federal Law making abortion illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Bush has done many good things including sparking the economic recovery that we are now in. I totaly agree with the way he handled our foreign relations and I dont know if I would change much there. I agree with the war and I am all for his image of a peacful democracy in Iraq. I think that will change the course of history helping that part of the world join the global community. My main disagrements go something like this... SECURE OUR BORDERS!!! He is not as fiscaly conservative as I would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 How is Bush forcing his opinions about abortion on anyone? And how is every other politician not doing the same? I havent heard Bush call for a Federal Law making abortion illegal. He hasn't tried to push a law to overturn Roe v. Wade because he knows with the current Supreme Court it would be shot down. If ONE liberal Justice retires, you can bet the ranch that Roe v. Wade would be gone before you can say "stripping away the right of women to have control of their own bodies." And it's not just his views on abortion. How dare he have the arrogance to try to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. He doesn't like it, fine, speak out against it. Who is he to make it illegal? Before you say "The President," let me tell you that I don't care if he's the love child of George Washington and God, no one has the right to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married. You can hate the fact that they're doing it, you can disapprove, but making something illegal just because it goes against your Christian morals is illegal in-and-of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "I think that our government exists to serve the middle and lower classes--not the wealthy. " too bad the Founding Fathers decided that our Govt existed to serve everyone EQUALLY. Unless you weren't a white, landowning male. While I won't criticize the brillance of our founding fathers, our government has progressed since 1789. So I think that today, in the nation that we live in now, our government is there to serve the middle and lower classes--not the wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 "no one has the right to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married. " Gay marrige is not about two people who love each other. I know it is confusing. Marrige was created for one purpose and the two people that love each other have little to do with it. It is for creating a stable environment for children. Marrige is not a toy for people to want and get. It isnt even a collection of rights. It is the one thing that stands between a strong moral society that knows right from wrong and an anarchy where everyone just does what they want because they have never been taught to respect others or themselves. Gay Marrige is fine, and why stop there. What if a guy wants to marry his roomates, and then a father want to marry his daughter. A woman marries her dog. It pulls on the string of the fabric that holds this country together. Make a joke of marrige in this country and there wont be a safety net to stop us from where that fall would take us. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by ross3909 "no one has the right to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married. " Gay marrige is not about two people who love each other. I know it is confusing. Marrige was created for one purpose and the two people that love each other have little to do with it. It is for creating a stable environment for children. Marrige is not a toy for people to want and get. It isnt even a collection of rights. It is the one thing that stands between a strong moral society that knows right from wrong and an anarchy where everyone just does what they want because they have never been taught to respect others or themselves. Gay Marrige is fine, and why stop there. What if a guy wants to marry his roomates, and then a father want to marry his daughter. A woman marries her dog. It pulls on the string of the fabric that holds this country together. Make a joke of marrige in this country and there wont be a safety net to stop us from where that fall would take us. Just a thought. People always bring up the "what if someone wants to marry a dog" theory... Seriously, how does Bubba out in the country being married to a dog or goat effect you? Marrying a minor is a little different, isn't that obvious? You really can't compare the two. If a man marries a plant, who cares, if he marries his daughter or a minor, the law should care because these "minors" can't give legal consent. IMO, the government's only place regarding marriage should be to determine when a human being is able to legally consent to be married, ie: when are they old enough or sane enough to legally marry. If seven women want to marry the same man, more power to them, it doesn't effect me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by ross3909 "no one has the right to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married. " Gay marrige is not about two people who love each other. I know it is confusing. Marrige was created for one purpose and the two people that love each other have little to do with it. It is for creating a stable environment for children. Marrige is not a toy for people to want and get. It isnt even a collection of rights. It is the one thing that stands between a strong moral society that knows right from wrong and an anarchy where everyone just does what they want because they have never been taught to respect others or themselves. Gay Marrige is fine, and why stop there. What if a guy wants to marry his roomates, and then a father want to marry his daughter. A woman marries her dog. It pulls on the string of the fabric that holds this country together. Make a joke of marrige in this country and there wont be a safety net to stop us from where that fall would take us. Just a thought. Are you out of your mind? Your reasoning is EXACTLY why the divorce rate in this country is so high, and it's EXACTLY why we hear so many cases of "staying together for the children." If two people don't love each other, the household often becomes an unsuitable environment for children. Furthermore, I'm offended as a human being that you compare gay marriage to incest or beastiality. Didn't some assh*le get into a world of trouble awhile back for making those comparisons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.