Bush: Good or Bad

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Plus, the two major parties ignored him, thiking he was a joke, while they could have been ripping his "policies" to shreads.

Other than the 'cuba issue' could you give me a run-down on his various policies? I can't imagine that he is pro-gun legislation, I mean anti- 'every-body should own an assult riffle'. Is he a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer? The death-penalty? taxes?

 

[The Troquelet]

Who are you trying to kid? Redblooded American, no. Bush is not good for the vast majority of the population of this country: possibly because he was not put in power by the majority.

I'm seeing a lot of jingoistic arguments in this debate. Cutting civil rights is not Bush's plan, it's Ashcroft, who rode in with his administration. Let's make a couple things clear here, even though my post is going to be edited for excessive liberal - oops, I mean trolling - content.

The only excuse we have for taking away civil liberties is to protect our country - that is, our reigning government. That would make sense in any other country, but in this one the sole purpose of the government is to SAFEGUARD our liberties. See the circular argument? And spying on the American people with TIPS and such organizations is not going to stop terrorism.

As for Bush himself, it was recently reported that the risk of an Al Quaeda attack is as high as it was on Sept 11. Bush's action in Afghanistan, as we all know, only scattered Al Quaeda. The country is a hotbed of fighting warlords - calling the country liberated is a joke [and PLEASE don't tell me "it's better than it was under the Taliban", if your only argument is that things have improved from the Taliban era you are REALLY grasping at straws.]

The recession is not Bush's fault but he's done nothing to help it. His plans on corporate responsibility change VIRTUALLY NOTHING and the stock market knows this - that's why it dropped for a week after he made his infamous speech. Understandable since most of Bush's sponsors ARE corporate types...

Finally, personally I find the laws he's been pushing through Congress too conservative: they don't suit my interests. So all in all, no.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor


Other than the 'cuba issue' could you give me a run-down on his various policies? I can't imagine that he is pro-gun legislation, I mean anti- 'every-body should own an assult riffle'. Is he a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer? The death-penalty? taxes?

Doesn't support abortion, but would keep it legal.

His tax policy is cut taxes, then raise them when he realizes he had to cut spending to balance it out.

He also wants our immigration policy to be loosened!

To be quite honest, we have now had four years of not having an active governor. Everything he's done is go on David Letterman and make the Irish mad at him.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Let me make this clear, since some of you aern't getting it, the NEXT person that accuses me of unfairness, and that means Cornmaster, Troquelet, ect, WILL get a week off, for disrepect.

I don't give a rat's ass what your views are, your point is you come across with a troll or an insult, and THAT is the problem.

You don't like the way things are done here, feel free to vote with your cyber feet and leave, HOWEVER, I will NOT be treated like I'm hitler's grandson.

Test me at your peril, I'm in no mood for backtalk.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

This is the first time I have seen this topic and I am on a telephony modem, so forgive me if you have all been thru some of this.

The question "has Bush been good for America"... the Clintonesque answer: it depends what you mean by America.

If you mean, the America that the founding fathers risked their necks to create a system of civil liberties, enshrining their ideals in the constitution, then I would have to say no.

If you mean, the America that is lived in by today's Americans, those who are scared of terrorism, those who were tired of Clinton's antics, those who believe we are the best in the world, then the answer is yes.

If you mean, America the republic where Senators are free to challenge the President and those with any measure of wealth contribute taxes to support the structures that improve the common wealth, the answer is no.

If you mean, America the burgeoning Empire where a simple "Yes sir" will do from Senate and what tax is collected has been redirected into greater support of military incursions and the creation of department to monitor everything every citizen does, the answer is yes.

Those are my beliefs, and as a fan of America the republic and a staunch defender of our Constitution (who admittedly cares nothing for the color or design of our flag - but loves the men and women who risk their lives to defend us), I have to vote no, meaning no offense or insult to those who would say yes.

At September 11 2001 America faced a crossroads moment. We had the sympathy of much of the world. We had unity of our people against a heinous action. I don't have to raise the Democrat party's valid accusation of bad economic moves to criticize this president: he has squandered the good will of the world and used the idea of American unity to create a situation where the long priveleged right of dissent is tantamount to treason in the eyes of a terrified public. He has waged war on Afghanistan but not brought us the closure of a captured foe or the satisfaction of a just public trial for those who supported the grievous harm inflicted in the attacks against America. He has done a wonderful job of talking tough while missing tremendous opportunities to forge peace.

Call me a paranoid alarmist, I know you will, but I am a patriot who loves the values that America was founded on. America was not created to give kings the free reign to line their pockets with the wealth of peasants, or to silence ANY person regardless of their viewpoints. Bush is a failure as an "American President", but an unprecedented triumph as a demagogue and potentially, as our first Emporer.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I have yet to see ANYBODY arrested for not agreeing with Bush, only not voted for, which lends credence to the "crybaby" theme we see democrats accused of.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

I voted bad for America. He has amazingly managed to turn our budget suplus into a deficit via his tax-cut for the wealthy. I don't think thats good for the other 90% of Americans, nor for their children as WE will be paying off the national debt for years and years to come now.

He has continuously nominated conservative judges with views that are way out of the mainstream of America, and now that the senate is Republican controlled he will have absolutely NO trouble getting them confirmed. I don't think he has nominated one judge who is not anti-abortion. Most American don't know a dam about judges and their ideologies and rulings, but in a couple years when the courts become stacked with conservatives and we see our civil liberties erode, the line between church and state increasingly blurred, and we see more censorship of things such as sex and violence on television and movies, the public will start to speak out.

He has also done absolutely nothing to battle global warming and other threats to the environment. Instead he has catered to the auto industry and corporate America over the American public.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I have yet to see ANYBODY arrested for not agreeing with Bush, only not voted for, which lends credence to the "crybaby" theme we see democrats accused of.

True, as far as I know no one has been ARRESTED for speaking ut against the President. But conservative talk radio hosts and Republican congressman have played a theme to the public that equates those who disagree with President Bush with traitors to America. Obviously this theme has worked quite well with the American voting public. Is this LEGAL? Yes. Is this DIRTY? Yes. And I know what you will say: "all politics are dirty; this is nothing new." But I think equating a dissenting opinion with a betrayer to America is a new low; the most important thing in our democracy is the ability to dissent, or not agree with the majority and be allowed to do so without fear of repercussions. These outspoken people are now being unfairly branded with a vicious black mark.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

For years, Liberal TV and radio has droned on about how the rich exploit minorities, fatcats get all the tax breaks,the republicans are controlled by big buisness, and if they ever get in charge, liberty and freedom will be memories, is that fair?

It's the other side of the coin AK, a sort of "reaping what you sow", for YEARS Democrats used scare tactics, now it's blown up in their faces, simply because the Republicans now do it better.

Daschle just proclaimed that an idiot like Rush Limbaugh makes him more vulnerbale to death threats!

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
...budget suplus...

Surplus? It's overcharging, not a surplus.

You go to Target and buy a lawn chair. The chair costs 17 dollars. You pay him twenty, and get no change back. Target overcharged you. The government did the same thing, just 2 trillion dollars more of it.

 

[ozscott75]

I am a non-American, I think that ultimately Bush is good for the US and the rest of the World.

But probably for far different reasons to the rest of the Yes's.

 

[NY Hoya]

American leaning toward good for America. I agree that we need to wait until '04 or '08 to make an honest assessment. Certainly better than Gore or Nader.

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I have yet to see ANYBODY arrested for not agreeing with Bush

Not that you necessarily would given some of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. Not that you have a problem with those provisions now. But in the hands of the next Clinton or Reno . . .

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

We can't live our lives based on "what ifs", or we become entropic.

Any law can be misused by the unscrupulous, be it a Richard Nixon, a Bill Clinton, a Spiro Agnew or a Janet Reno.

All we can do is make laws to be fair, and to protect ourselves, and if those laws are no good, we can always repeal them.

 

[JollyRoger]

Legislation should be passed with the "what ifs" in mind. The only "what if" that seems to matter (on both sides of the aisle) is "what if my opponent in the next election is able to twist my vote on an issue into something that will make me unelectable."

If the laws we pass are no good, it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. It should be simple to repeal a bad law, but it often is not because that same wrong "what if" question is the main one politicians ask themselves.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Well, you have the law training, not I.

But I do know that so far, the "patriot" act has been upheld over ACLU objection, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

The Patriot act which was enacted by Clinton. One of many horrible things he did: it is funny but Republicans so repulsed by his weenie antics have lost sight of how much of Bush's act was set up by Clinton.

AoA and others- you live in the still valid notion that this is still the America we always knew and loved, an America where "laws could be repealed", where "candidates that don't do their job get voted out" etc. etc. I hope that is true but it is legitimate in my mind at least to fear that it is not.

And AoA- every accusation you listed that the liberals "droned on about" does seem fair to me - the rich do exploit minorities - if not in white and black terms anymore (still questionable?) then certainly in the sense of newer immigrant populations hired for less money than groups who have been in America long enough to know what's fair - construction jobs to Mexicans now, computer jobs to Russians. Fatcats do get more substantial tax breaks than any other groups. No question. Yes they pay more than other groups, but again it is a relative thing. The republicans are controlled by big business - so are the democrats, and I will admit that the republicans by being less apologetic are slightly more "truthful" about it... as for freedom and liberty, it remains to be seen what extent it will be compromised but if we start at the single issue of the freedom of women to have abortions, then we can admit that that particular freedom is always in more danger from conservative republicans than from democrats. Likewise when the Republicans accuse democrats of wanting to "tax" everyone and "spend" it on programs, that is correct however misleading the sentiment...

Yes the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security bill has gone through and we can only wait to see "whether that's good or bad". If the Bushies know what they are doing, they will use their powers with some restraint and, as we all hope, weed out terror without unduly traumatizing law abiding Americans. The danger that alot of people bring up (including ex-KKK senator Byrd in a statement out of Roman history that I hope you caught the other day... truly memorable) is that we are ceding more and more power to fewer and fewer bodies in the government... something which may warm your heart while those bodies are Bush and the Republican congress, but you may feel different if a less palatable persona comes in and is given the same unprecedented free reign.

In short, the deal most democrats, including super liberals like myself have made, is that we are willing to suspend our disbelief in Bush in order to retain the right to comment on how effective, and how healthy for America, what he is doing is.

If we are all wrong about this, the options for changing it may be very unpleasant, which means in "this effeminate age" as Byrd so un-PCly called it, it may never meet the challenge that would ensure the continuation of the real America.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Sultan Bhargash:

...(including ex-KKK senator Byrd in a statement out of Roman history that I hope you caught the other day... truly memorable)...

You have got to be kidding me. When did he stop. Well, he is an elderly man so maybe it was way back when it was normal.

BTW I've heard that a judge in New York (of all places) has allowed the Klan to march with their hoods covering their faces. That's funny, over here we enacted a law to prevent anarchists from covering their faces. Things are moving in the wrong direction over there.

Where should I look for Byrds speech?

 

[The Troquelet]

Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. That's been overquoted around here, but it's still true.

Where has our surplus gone? What spending programs have the Republicans enacted? Are they for the good of society? Can you name some instead of being ambiguous?

By the way, overall Bush has CUT education funding, not increased it. So there goes THAT "achievement"...

 

[Silverflame]

American: No. But I agree with Sultans statement that it depends on how you define "america"

The only reason why he became president in the first place is because his brother and the senate cheated using the butterfly ballots. Now the only reason why he has support is because of war. He sucks on the economy which he said he was going to improve in the 2000 election.