posted
*has a headache* I stil haven't a clue or any proof that he really is honest and doing what is right for the country. Give me some examples...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of wasting my time searching for information that you say your looking for, how about you do the research yourself. Read the paper, read the press releases, and then wait to see if what he claims is what he follows through with.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um....Yeah. Actually, it's really hard to look at anything Bush has ever said and NOT realize that he lies with every breath.
The man does not give without taking away; he speaks out of the corner of his mouth on a regular basis, and every program he's ever instituted has dripped with poison.
What has Bush ever done that's been a GOOD thing?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do look at the news papers on yahoo occasionally... It seems that mostly... Perhaps I am reading into it incorrectly, but it seems as if most of his actions are negative. Give me just five examples of a good action of his with good results...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, some of the tax cuts were a decent idea. I quite liked the capital gains cut, for instance. And a lot of the rate restructuring aspects. Lets see, what else . . . Oh yeah, hiring Paul O'Neill. I liked that. Of course, then he fired him. I dislike that quite a bit. O'Neill was a sound believer in actual economics, unlike the gibberish from this administration, even though I occasionally disagreed with him.
Some of the things Bush has said have been quite nice . . . increase the members and funding of AmeriCorps, protecting veteran's rights and benefits, setting a much higher level for Pell grants, adequately funding LIHEAP, providing prescription drug coverage for all Medicare covered seniors . . . among others. Of course, he hasn't done any of these, so I wouldn't really call that a positive record.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I should point out that he actually advocated (and succeeded in some cases) cutting the funding for several of those initiatives I listed that he stated he supported.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes... sadly he let them cut Americorps, which does affect me because I'd like to join again. I'd actually make more money from it then I do the job I am on. And none of these capital gains tax cuts benefit me either... What I care about is- The environment personal responsibility doing what is really best for the country and not just snuggling up with special interest groups on BOTH sides...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the last two presidential elections, the Republicans have been running on character issues. Their message has been, "Can you trust Slick Willie after he lied about sleeping with an intern?" "Wouldn't you rather vote for a straight talking Texan than a inside the beltway robot who claimed to have invented the internet?"
It is absolutely fair to hate Bush because a large part of his appeal was based on his carefully crafted image of a honest, albeit average, leader. He won a lot of the swing votes based on the fact that he just appeared to be a more trustworthy person than Al Gore.
You cannot run on character and then expect people to conveniently ignore it.
[ February 03, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't vote based on the images any of the candidates presented for my enjoyment. I read up on their positions, their voting records, their major contributors, and what they actually did in office.
I don't plan to waste my time worrying about Bush's image or what he (or the other candidates) present themselves as, or what they say in press conferences, or what their ghost-writers present as their opinions. What did they do? And will they do it again.
Anyone who votes for a candidate based on anything else is wasting a vote and possibly negating an informed one. With the Internet it is ridiculously easy to dig this stuff out even if it wasn't thrown at you from any number of political sites from any point of the idelogical spectrum. Voting without knowing what you're voting for is a waste of the whole process and as dangerous as letting someone drive because they can turn the key.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not vote for Bush because of his image. But just because I didn't buy into his "character" platform does not mean I cannot challenge the Republicans to be internally consistent. Republicans wanted us to vote on him based on his character, and now we shall.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush is a nice enough guy, I don't hate him. I will not vote for him however. The two largest political parties are trash.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish there was a third party who would REALLy do what is best for the country instead of say, the religious right or corporations. Who will do things that are reasonable like limit guns, look out for the environment and find the middle ground in major issues.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But even the Democrats aren't much different. Sure they attackt the Republicans on their policies, but what difference does that make? It's just foolish arguing. Plus sometimes the Republicans do make some good points... But that sort of middle ground is impossible, getting them to listen instead of attack... Somehow having one big party would be less democratic... like having purple instead of red and blue.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Somehow having one big party would be less democratic...
We have one big party now. Just two wings of it. They both spend in reflex to any problem, and neither recognizes the problem of having a 7 trillion dollar debt.
Also, what do you mean by middle ground? It seems like you let the two parties decide your stance on the issues.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. Both parties make interesting points... Which I will elborate on later because soon I must go to work. but Paul, that article on Bush is interesting so far. I'm reminded of the Frat boys I went to school with, their drunkness and the fear that guys like that would one day run the world... Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I have no idea what to think of Bush. He really jumps around. More concerning to me than his policies and image is the fact that I honestly have no idea what his response will be to anything, nor what he will do next. I don't like that level of unpredictability.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately I'm not fond of Democrats (as a class) either. I tend to like a few positions from all the parties, and a few of my opinions are ones I haven't seen from anybody.
Using the party line to assess your problems is like going to a dermatologist no matter what your sickness is. Sometimes, you might just have to look somewhere else for a solution.
If a problem arises, look at the problem and figure out the best way to handle it. Don't apply the liberal solution because it's popular right now, or the conservative way because you like it better. Use the method that works. If it doesn't, acknowledge it and use another method.
posted
Okay, I usually don't get involved in this sort of thing, since these types of threads are the ones that seriously drain my time. Nonetheless, here goes:
quote:I dislike nearly all of his policies, and I definitely disagree with his "end justifies the means" style of governing.
Okay, that's pretty general. I'm not a big fan of "the ends justifies the means" concept, although I would be very careful in characterizing Bush's administration as using this notion as doctrine. I think it's more accurate to say that Bush has very absolutist notions of right and wrong, and can be very single-minded in the pursuit of what he thinks to be right.
quote:I think that the war with Iraq was justifiable but avoidable, and that there was no good reason to have done it when we did and squander the international good will we had right after 9-11.
The war on Iraq was a tough call. To be honest, I'm not sure that we'll ever know for certain if it was the right decision. Chris, you're right that it was justifiable but avoidable, but so is chemotherapy. Both are terrible to endure and potentially unnecessary, but the longer you wait the more you run the risk of allowing a greater problem to develop. Sure, we could have allowed the inspectors more time. But remember, they had already been given the runaround for 10 years. How much more time do you need?
quote:I think his insistence on massive tax cuts contributed greatly to the current deficit.
I agree on this somewhat, but I tend to suspect that the tax cuts may have helped the sagging economy. This is another "what if" scenario--if the tax cuts had not been implemented, where would the economy be today? Despite all the massive brainpower that has been applied to this topic, no one can know for sure. In any case, the cuts ransom tomorrow for today, which I'm not very comfortable with.
quote:I think that if he wants Medicare and welfare fixed he should work to fix them, not purposely starve them in the budget so that people suffer while the programs strangle. I think he needs to accept that the No Child Left Behind law needs work and to stop pinning his entire education program on it, letting the others lapse or fade.
I haven't looked at either of these two programs in much depth, so I can't really comment on them much. I think Bush's heart is in the right place with regard to education--I think he understands that the bottom line is to have educated children, and he's genuinely trying to find the best means, be they public or private, to reach that goal. Does that mean that his methods are the best? Again, I'm not an expert in that area, so I can't say.
quote:I think that too many of his social policies are based on religious beliefs and not on scientific evidence.
I concede that his religious beliefs to have a massive impact on his behavior. Since I share those religious beliefs, I don't mind it at all. I don't think that having a moral worldview based on religion causes you to reject logic, and I feel that Bush's decisions on matters where religion comes into play also have a logical background as well.
quote:I think that the practice of removing regulations and adding barriers to the individual's legal options against a corporation is opening the door wide to corruption and malfeasance.
I don't know much about this at all.
quote:I think that cutting taxes for the rich is fine within reason, but that allowing massive tax evasion and even rewarding companies with offshore tax havens by granting them major government contracts is foolhardy.
I don't follow what you mean by the latter part of this statement. Offshore tax havens? Anyway, I support the Adam Smith free-enterprise model, where government involvment keeps things fair and honest but otherwise does not interfere.
quote:I think that the practice of disarming regulatory boards and action committees by appointing only poeple who have spent their career fighting against the regulations and practices their job now requires them to enact is not only useless, it's insulting.
Don't know about this one either. I'm not much of a finance geek. Could you be a bit more specific?
quote:I think his administration strong-arms those who disagree with it, hides anything that makes it look suspect, and ignores anything it doesn't like.
Yes, somewhat, no. The first is part of the reality of political hardball, and there is an implicit assumption that the other parties get to fight back with their own means. If we're talking about the Bush Administration forcing the Defenseless Little Old Ladies' Association to discontinue their controversial Knitting for Nannies program, then yeah I would have a problem with Bush Administration strongarming people. But the reality is that in most cases we're talking about the Democratic Party or well-funded special interest groups, groups that are not pushovers. This leads into a detailed political science discussion about what tactics are okay. If you haven't read him already, I would suggest Graham Allison's Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then we can debate realpolitik and structural realism vs. liberalism etc.
Does the Bush Administration hide stuff? Probably. I'm uncomfortable with what I suspect is happening, although I don't think that they're doing anything that is outright criminal. Rather, I suspect it's the more usual sort of spin-doctoring mind games popular with any politician.
I don't think that Bush ignores stuff that it doesn't like. Care to provide any examples?
quote:I think that he and his administration are incapable of admitting to a mistake, no matter how small.
Well, Bush did just recently order the probe into the intelligence gathered as a justification for the war. More importantly, I think that Bush has publically accepted responsibility for not preventing 11 September. He has acknowledged that many government agencies needed to be improved in the wake of the attack, and I think he has genuinely attempted to improve them so that something similar can never happen again.
quote:I think that all of the things I dislike about his presidency will become much worse if he has a term when re-election is no longer a factor.
Unlike Clinton, Bush really isn't the sort to base his actions on what the latest poll indicates. He's a politician, there's no doubt about that, but the aforementioned moral absolutism keeps him fairly consistent. Thus, I don't think that there will be much of a difference between how he makes decisions now and how he might make decisions in a second term.
There are things that I like and dislike about Bush, to be sure. But the likes outweigh the dislikes, so I'll be voting for him.
posted
"Unlike Clinton, Bush really isn't the sort to base his actions on what the latest poll indicates."
So, um, let me ask this again: why do you think he did the steel tariffs and that huge Medicare bill? Those weren't poll-driven at all?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think he understands that the bottom line is to have educated children, and he's genuinely trying to find the best means, be they pubic or private
You may want to fix that. Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew, thanks Bob. Freudian slip, I suppose.
Tom--If we conducted a poll about steel tariffs, do you think that the masses would have much passion about it? You're not reading your lines right. You're supposed to harp on the fact that Bush is a lackey of corporations and special interest groups. I just don't think that the average joe cares about steel tariffs all that much. Do you really think that Bush's approval rating would have gone down had he not implemented the tariffs? As for medicare, I think it's arguable that Bush is legitimately trying to meet people's needs, albeit in a way that has the additional benefit of garnering him public support.
I think of a poll responsive president as one who never wants to offend anyone, and rejects principles for popularity. Considering Bush's willingness to offend people with his policies, I really don't think this can be said of him.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but certain unions and corporations, who have a decent electoral power, do care about steel tariffs, muchly. Even though he mentioned in his campaign for president that he didn't like the idea of tariffs, since he felt US business could compete with anyone, he did exactly opposite when it came to a sizeable group of voters who generally agree with many of Bush's policies, but for whom a steel tariff would be a make it or break issue.
posted
"Tom--If we conducted a poll about steel tariffs, do you think that the masses would have much passion about it?"
I think a statistically significant percentage of steelworkers in Pennsylvania cared about it. And no one has ever accused Bush of caring about the whole country when he could just care about individually important voting blocs. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steel tariffs were clearly a special interest thing -- and also show Bush is clearly not acting on what he knows to be best for the economy, since he has an economics background.
Also, you completely mischaracterize the tax cuts. The ones that have already happened are the popular parts of the tax cuts, the ones most people agreed upon, even those against the overall package. Everyone was saying that some tax cuts were warranted. The problem is that the tax cut package is hideously back loaded, and more and more provisions are coming into effect each year. Most of the Bush tax cut hasn't even happened yet, but he's pushing for a big extension of its effects. And I might point out that the economic "gain" of the tax cuts (almost entirely due to the capital gains cut) is largely a temporary boost that allows the fed to catch an upswing -- its still the rates changes that do the work, the tax cuts mean almost zilch except an increased deficit.
Also, you seem willing to put off many of his initiatives due to not being an expert, despite numerous experts in the fields speaking out against them -- notice the condemnation of no child left behind educators, for instance.
And I think Bush has numerous times based his publicly stated opinion on what the polls say -- lied about what he was going to do and done the anti poll thing anyways. Did you read my list earlier? Those are all initiatives Bush said he would support, then did not, and often opposed. To quote myself:
quote:increase the members and funding of AmeriCorps, protecting veteran's rights and benefits, setting a much higher level for Pell grants, adequately funding LIHEAP, providing prescription drug coverage for all Medicare covered seniors
. In fact, despite promising to do all of those, the only one he hasn't explicitly tried to cut is the prescription drug coverage, and his plan only covers a small percentage of seniors on medicare. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with some sort of defense for these behaviors in an ethical politician! In what way is it defensible to publicly voice support for programs, pledge additional funding in such speeches as the state of the union, and then actively work to undercut those programs?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sure, we could have allowed the inspectors more time. But remember, they had already been given the runaround for 10 years. How much more time do you need?
They were also making progress, and had more access than ever before just before Bush and friends imposed a deadline. But without actual WMDs, it simply was not more important at the time than hunting down terrorists.
I agree on this somewhat, but I tend to suspect that the tax cuts may have helped the sagging economy. This is another "what if" scenario--if the tax cuts had not been implemented, where would the economy be today?
I think the tax cuts helped a lot of people. I think the extension of those cuts, and the larger ones coming up, will hurt the economy far more than the initial ones helped.
I concede that his religious beliefs to have a massive impact on his behavior. Since I share those religious beliefs, I don't mind it at all. I don't think that having a moral worldview based on religion causes you to reject logic, and I feel that Bush's decisions on matters where religion comes into play also have a logical background as well.
Religious and idelogical beliefs, I should have said (and did, just not together). The White House has reportedly pressured several agencies to alter wording in reports to better fit their worldview. Here's a column that lists the most obvious ones, I can provide news links for each if needed.
"I think that the practice of removing regulations and adding barriers to the individual's legal options against a corporation is opening the door wide to corruption and malfeasance."
I don't know much about this at all.
This might take a while. The short version is that while Bush's was in Texas he presided over the dismantling of the anti-pollution regulations that were cramping the oil companies' styles. Regulations were made voluntary, and to date (as far as I know) have not been adhered to at all, by any of the companies. This same method has been applied to several industries since he has been in the White House.
"I think that cutting taxes for the rich is fine within reason, but that allowing massive tax evasion and even rewarding companies with offshore tax havens by granting them major government contracts is foolhardy."
I don't follow what you mean by the latter part of this statement. Offshore tax havens? Anyway, I support the Adam Smith free-enterprise model, where government involvment keeps things fair and honest but otherwise does not interfere.
More and more businesses (including Halliburton, Cheney's old company) are establishing corporate headquarters in countries with laxer tax laws, thus keeping huge amounts of taxable income out of the United States entirely.
"I think that the practice of disarming regulatory boards and action committees by appointing only poeple who have spent their career fighting against the regulations and practices their job now requires them to enact is not only useless, it's insulting."
Don't know about this one either. I'm not much of a finance geek. Could you be a bit more specific?"
Probably more than anyone wants to read.
Harvey Pitt was placed in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Before his nomination, Pitt, an attorney with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, represented the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen, which served as Enron's independent auditors and allegedly facilitated Enron's issuance of misleading financial statements that hid the company's true financial condition. He has also represented clients accused of accounting irregularities before the SEC, most notably Canadian entertainment executive Garth Drabinsky.
Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, was most recently a leading lobbyist for the auto industry's American Automobile Manufacturers Association. He opposed rules requiring cleaner-running cars, fought EPA smog and soot rules, and helped lobby against the Kyoto treaty. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, is a former lobbyist for "property rights" groups in the West seeking to undo environmental rules. She is a disciple of James Watt, the notorious Reagan administration Secretary of the Interior who said that trees cause pollution and tried to undo ten years of environmental rules. J. Steven Griles, Norton's deputy at Interior, is a former lobbyist for mining and chemical interests. (One candidate passed over for the job: Bush Sr.'s secretary of Fish & Wildlife.) Camden Toohey, Norton's official in charge of aAlaska, is a former lobbyist for Arctic oil drilling. Kit Himball, Norton's official in charge of the West, was a lobbyist for Western business issues. The new head of the Consumer Products Safety Commission has a decade-long track record of voting against proposed safety rules. She has criticized the commission for creating a "federal nanny state." The new head of the Federal Trade Commission has said that the Clinton administration restricted too many big corporate mergers. Dr. W. David hager was appointed to the FDA Federal Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The same Dr. Hager has written a book with his wife entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body" where he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.
John D. Graham, the new head of Bush's budget review process, is a Harvard professor whose studies on risk said that many environmental regulations (including limits on dioxin) have costs that outweigh the benefits. The "costs," of course, are borne almost entirely by industry; the "benefits" by people who don't get cancer. Michael Powell, the new chair of the FCC, has opposed every action to limit the size and scope of cable and phone companies.
Of the top 100 Bush appointees in the present administration, 50 came from for-profit businesses or lobbying firms and law firms with significant lobbying operations. 20 of the top 100 officials in the Bush administration work in departments, agencies or offices that their former, private sector employers lobbied or from which they sought federal contracts in 2001.
It's also worthwhile to note the officials who quit in protest over Bush's agendas. Christine Whitman, head of the EPA, left office to spend more time with her family. I'm sure it's coincidental that she was often at odds with the White House's environmental policies. Mike Dombeck, the chief of the US Forest Service, quit in March, 2001, after senior people said they wanted to "move in a different direction" from the Clinton administration. Eric Schaeffer, for five years the director of regulatory enforcement at EPA, quit in February, 2002, saying the White House "seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce."
This is a small listing, I can add more if you like. I agree that appointees to regulatory boards need to have experience with the industry or service they are regulating. I do not think that experience should be from working to weaken the very regulations that they are now supposed to enforce, yet an amazing number of Mr. Bush's appointees are in just that position.
"I think his administration strong-arms those who disagree with it, hides anything that makes it look suspect, and ignores anything it doesn't like."
Yes, somewhat, no. The first is part of the reality of political hardball, and there is an implicit assumption that the other parties get to fight back with their own means. If we're talking about the Bush Administration forcing the Defenseless Little Old Ladies' Association to discontinue their controversial Knitting for Nannies program, then yeah I would have a problem with Bush Administration strongarming people. But the reality is that in most cases we're talking about the Democratic Party or well-funded special interest groups, groups that are not pushovers.
See the column link above for examples of altered reports. Also see the report on sex education filed by Surgeon General David Satcher, which was downplayed and nearly buried by the White House because of its findings on abstinence-only sex education, the only type the Bush administration will support.
Unlike Clinton, Bush really isn't the sort to base his actions on what the latest poll indicates.
Granted. But he also seems immune to any sort of outside opinion unless it fits his already-agreed-upon plans. I don't think the president should bend to public opinion, but I also don't think he can act as if he has the backing of the whole country when fully half of them voted for someone else.
There's more points, but that's enough to have to scroll past for now.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was crime at the time but the laws, we changed 'em, though the hero for hire's forever the same one. Introducing for the first time, Pharaoh on the microphone. Sing all hail, what'll be revealed today when we peer into the great unknown, from the line to the throne? Awakened to cheers after years on the faultline, we are shocked to be here in the face of the meantime. Pharaoh, all your methods have taught me is to separate my blood from bone. It will all fail, feeling what I feel today, when we peer into the great unknown, from the line to the throne. Form a line through here, form a line to the throne. Alone in the chain, it remains to be seen how, how well you can play when the pawn takes a queen now. Introducing for the first time, Pharaoh on the microphone. Sing all hail, what'll be revealed today when we peer into the great unknown, from the line to the throne? Form a line through here, form a line to the throne. It was crime at the time but the laws have changed, yeah.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are a politician you should NOT be allowed to let your religious veiws affect your policies. A politician should instead do what is right for the country. However, they should be governed by the principals involved in their beliefs. They should be governed by them whole heartedly and be honest, honourable and they should not be hypocritical. So far, I have not seen this of Bush. Perhaps it's because I've only heard the negative things about Bush and his policies even from people who like him.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, despite promising to do all of those, the only one he hasn't explicitly tried to cut is the prescription drug coverage, and his plan only covers a small percentage of seniors on medicare.
Strange. Every single thing I read, by people on both sides of the Medicare issue, agree that it covers all seniors.
quote:Well, Pickering says he agrees with that. However, in the mid 90s he pressed to get a person sentenced for arson's sentence reduced to far below that allowed by federal guidelines -- so low that it likely would have violated federal law to do so. He had done this in no other cases, always sentencing well within federal guidelines. Part of the crime in question? Burning a cross on an African American family's lawn.
He followed the Justice department's recommendation on that issue. And the only reason he wanted the sentence reduced was because the man in question was not a racist, he was just drunk and going along with some of his friends. He had seven character witnesses on his side and no criminal record. Pickering actually wanted a much stiffer penalty for the ring leader of the group. He had plea bargained (with the justice department) for a misdemeanor and no jail time, because he was 17 at the time.
In short, I see no evidence of wrongdoing on Pickerings part in this case. Furthermore, I am a skeptical of the other cases you mention, because they show the same bias. I frankly regard this case as more evidence of the Bush-haters' unreliability.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been seeing a lot of people claim that Bush is a puppet. I haven't seen anyone saying who his puppetmaster is, or what makes them think it.
Could someone explain this point of view to my literate but not very informed self?
Also, its worth noting that the Justice Department repeatedly tried to deal with Swan, yet he continuously refused to admit wrongdoing in exchange for a lesser sentence.
And yes, the 17 yr old was the ringleader. It was also known and on the plea agreement documentation that he had fired a rifle into the couple's house, yet Pickering still signed that documentation, knowing this.
I can provide quotes from Pickering for the rest of what I've said, such as him denying any relation to the Sovereignty Commission, and quotes from the commission memo that show he did, in fact have a relationship with them. If you'd like to dispute the facts, could you at least do so with evidence?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
