Bush!!!!

[tyedyed1]

BUSH SUCKS, the only good thing that will come from this is the fact that in four year his lying ass will be gone. dont get me wrong i dont like politicians in general, but he has been caught lying and people died for it, with NO need for it. whoopy doo we caught an old ass dictator in a spider hole, i bet that was hard . where is the reason that all this "home land security" and "fighting terrorist" at. let me tell you o blinded one. he hidin in a cave in afganistan dill hole, and his name is bin laden. id put odds on the fact that in four years BABY BUSH will still be lookin for him. the way i see it BUSH had four year to do it, he didnt get it done so get the next guy in there and lets get it done. if he dosnt do it get the next guy in and so on and so forth..... if you owned a business and you hired someone to do a job and gave him or her four years to do it and it didnt get done your saying that you would just keep on paying him right.....please send me the application to your job cuz im a lazy dude and id love to get paid for sitting at my house. Bush spent more time at his "ranch" in texas than he did anything else, i say send him right too texas since he likes it so much. i could go on for hours with this subject but ive got other things to do. i bet you cant tell who i voted for? oh one more thought for you...isnt BUSH an oil well man? to drill oil wells you need to disrupt the ecosystem which in turn will disrupt the wildlife, and what is included in wildlife? thats right people FISH. and if your on this site im assuming that you must care about your FISH. thank you...elvis has left the building.
i just noticed something... i find it pretty ironic that this "BUSH" thread was started by someone named Kerry:hilarious

 

[tru conch]

reefraff-
i dont always agree with the deomcrats or the republicians on the way they handle politics (hence im an idependant "swing voter"). what the dems have done as far as filibusting judges maybe wrong, i wont agrue there. my point is i just feel better knowing that the system of checks is being utilized, even if its not always ethical (which is still wrong so i can see your point)
tyedyed1
i pointed out early the lack of environmental concern with the current president. all of us on this board should have some concern/interest in it because without a healthy ocean/world, we would have very limited aquariums due to the lack of wild caught organisms.

 

[tyedyed1]

Originally posted by tru conch
reefraff-
i dont always agree with the deomcrats or the republicians on the way they handle politics (hence im an idependant "swing voter"). what the dems have done as far as filibusting judges maybe wrong, i wont agrue there. my point is i just feel better knowing that the system of checks is being utilized, even if its not always ethical (which is still wrong so i can see your point)
tyedyed1
i pointed out early the lack of environmental concern with the current president. all of us on this board should have some concern/interest in it because without a healthy ocean/world, we would have very limited aquariums due to the lack of wild caught organisms.

Hey conch, sorry i didnt read the entire thread. this one has gotten too long for me to read it in its full glory, plus id just get "bent" over this subject and i dont need that right before the weekend.

 

[mukiwa]

Originally posted by JBONE
More iraqi children are going to school now than ever, with new books, desks and supplies. Everyday more and more Iraqis are earning a living and, everyday their basic services are being improved. However, you do not hear about these things on the front page or in the headlines because they just don't make for very exciting news. Car bombs and dead soldiers sell news papers. Try reading page 12 instead of just page 1. If you look hard enough you can find a couple paragraghs on the progress we are making there.
And what about the poor kids deing in Africa becuase of starvation?? Why not help the kids a families there?
:thinking:

 

[smickied]

It goes beyond the poor kids dying in Africa....What about the genocide!? Villages are being wiped out, but since they have no economic value they are pushed to the side to "liberate Iraq."
Who controls the oil controls the world.

 

[pontius]

Tru Conch, Dems blocking Bush's judges is not a case of checks and balances, it's a case of holding out til another president gets in office so they can make the Supreme Court more liberal to the Dems way of thinking. Let's take the issue of gay marriage. At this point, many are for it, most are against it. The Dems blocked Bush's nominees last year. If Kerry had won and some of the elder, more conservative judges on the SC had retired (as they are due to do soon), Kerry (the most liberal senator of all) could have appointed and probably got any judge he wanted in the SC. Then, the judges could've judged gay marriage to be legal in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans are against it. Explain how that is a good thing about checks and balances?
The biggest reason they held out on Bush's judges is most likely due to the abortion issue. Many are also against abortion, but let's be realistic.....abortion is not going to be overturned no matter who the president happens to be. this is 30+ years removed from Roe v Wade, and it's just not going to happen. And if Bush doesn't know that, he's kidding himself. But to block over qualified judges just because of what they 'might' want to do is wrong.
I also agree with reefraf that education is funded MUCH more by local govt than federal govt.
And, someone somewhere that it's good to have people like Michael Moore. Well, it WOULD be nice if they could present things truthfully. the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11 are too many to count, right from the very beginning. I found it very interesting, but Michael Moore is 95% full of crap. If you all want me to point out some lies in that "documentary", I can, but it'll be a long post.

 

[neoreef]

I asked my dad who he was voting for, and he said he is for motherhood and against sin. ..
OK, my son has trouble with bullies at school, so I have given this topic a lot of thought. A bully is someone who picks on someone smaller, shyer or less able to defend himself. Why? Because he can, and he can get away with it.
I am against bullies. Especially those who use the name of God to justify attacking another country , because they can get away with it. Bush thought he could take over Iraq quickly and win. Bin Laden attacked us effectively without setting foot on our soil. Both are bullies who claim to be sent by God to do this. Both made martyrs of other people to accomplish it. Both got away with it.
I am against sending our children to war to kill someone else's child. That this war is fought on someone else's soil does not lessen the impact on the dead and their families. How can a president who claims to value the sanctity of life when it comes to stem cell research, not value the sanctity of our young soldiers' lives, "collateral" Iraqi lives, of any human life. Isn't all human life sacred?
I am for motherhood and against sin and against bullies.

 

[dskidmore]

I can't stand reading this whole thread, but on the side of backing up the truth, I did also hear on the radio news about the poll that said Iraqis prefered Bush over Kerry. Most other forein nations voted for Kerry, but the people most affected by his actions voted for Bush. My personal opinion is that the president is supposed to fight for Americans, not the French. We only do what the French tell us to if we think it's in our own best interests.
I also in my seaching for concrete evidence for you came accross another poll of Iraqis, that said 60% didn't care who won, and the remaining 40% were split evenly within the margin of error for the poll.

 

[pontius]

neoreef, if you could point me to the quote where Bush said he was sent by God to do anything, I'd love to see it. War is a necessary evil sometimes. It would be nice if, by your kind of theory, we could sit around picnicking, quoting poems, and singing Woody Guthrie songs, but that's not the way the world works. I respect your right to your opinions, but trying to draw a comparison between Bush and Bin Laden shows the irrelevance of your opinion.

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by Pontius
Tru Conch, Dems blocking Bush's judges is not a case of checks and balances, it's a case of holding out til another president gets in office so they can make the Supreme Court more liberal to the Dems way of thinking. Let's take the issue of gay marriage. At this point, many are for it, most are against it. The Dems blocked Bush's nominees last year. If Kerry had won and some of the elder, more conservative judges on the SC had retired (as they are due to do soon), Kerry (the most liberal senator of all) could have appointed and probably got any judge he wanted in the SC.

2 points
1. Yes the dems blocking ultra right wing ultra conservative judges is a check and balance - pure and simple. One man who is ultra conservative and put forth a plan to basically become dictator of the US (thank GOD the SC voted the plan down 8-1) not getting to appoint whomever he wants because of the fillibuster is a check and a balance.
2. Kerry would not get whomever he wanted because the Senate is Republican controlled. Therefore he would have to get at least 5 Republicans to swing his way - meaning more bi-partisan work.
Now you have a republican in the white house and a majority of republicans in the house and senate ..... the only check and balance left is the fillibuster to stop the appointee.
Realistically Kerry would've had to work very closely with the Senate to work out balanced solutions .... now you have the will of W and not much to stop it ....

 

[pontius]

What ultra conservative judges did Bush appoint during his first term? That's right, none. The Dems did what they did only to vote against Bush, no other reason. Now they're going to pay for it.

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by Pontius
What ultra conservative judges did Bush appoint during his first term? That's right, none. The Dems did what they did only to vote against Bush, no other reason. Now they're going to pay for it.
Uhm the reason why he got none passed for the SC is because no one retired. - State and Federal level the Dems and 2 independents blocked the appointments of the most conservative judges. C'mon even a republican told W to not waste time with unappointable nominees (A Specter (R) from Penn.).
that is why it is a check and balance system .... to make sure the appointee is checked out by the congress and an appropriate balance of beliefs is held ....

 

[pontius]

I'm referring to Federal judges, not the SC, though I did get the two mixed up in an earlier post. Bush could, in theory, appoint a new SC justice any time he wanted without anybody retiring...there is no law that limits the number of SC justices.
Whatever, it's mostly opinion. But IMO Bush is not the bumbling idiot or the crook that so many people make him out to be. And he was treated unfairly by the left in his first term.
It's also funny how that now that he's won, so many liberals are saying things like "I can't believe so many ignorant people voted for Bush". not very endearing to the majority who DID vote for Bush. If they wanted to gain power, they'd be working toward the middle of the road, not trying to alienate people.

 

[overanalyzer]

Today, there are estimated to be approximately 15,200 local school districts. (in 1996)
President Bush Requests $57.3 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education for FY 2005.
With 95% going to local school districts .... or $54.4 Billion
That is $3.6 Million (not including special ed, racial desegregation or magnet school charter money) per school district.
For Iowa that allows for $123 million to implement no child left behind.
IN real Dollars Bill Clinton had $83 Billion slated for education with 94% going to the schools. That is $78 Billion ..... or $5.1 Million per district ....
Using the numbers in this way is far to generic as several other programs like free or reduced lunch program is subsidized and so are a lot of transportation costs .... but in dollar per district you have seen a drop of $2.5 Million .... an average teach makes just over $36K ..... that's 70 teacher salaries ....
http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml
Check it out folks .... the edumacation president has impossed harsh standards and under funded his programs.
Also note that the department of education website is run by his administration so it takes a lot of digging to get historicals and beyond the "greatness" of no child left behind .....
Education reform is needed but it needs to be sensible. I think high quality standards should be in place - but so should the programs to get stuednts to achieve those standards .....

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by Pontius
Bush could, in theory, appoint a new SC justice any time he wanted...there is no law that limits SC justices.

A supreme court justice is appointed for life or until s/he decides to step down .... so no he can't just appoint judges willy-nilly.
:notsure: :nope: :nope:

 

[darthmatt]

to radioactive and hattrick,
Even if Kerry had been elected, we wouldn't be leaving Iraq any sooner.
It would still take just as much time to finish the job. I think the U.N. should have done more in the beginning, but they wouldn't, so when your the biggest and baddest sometimes you need to step in and help the little guy.
I have been there and it is working.
Bush's critics say why didn't you do something before 9-11 bfore it happened? Then the very next breathe they say why pick on Saddam, he didn't do anything?
Make up your minds, did you want him to strike first or wait for something to happen?
Bush is a great leader and will finish the job.

 

[pontius]

I didn't say they aren't appointed for life....I said there is no law limiting the number of SC justices, and there is not. 9 (I believe is the number) has just been the number that has stuck. But he could appoint 2 more without anyone retiring if he wanted, probably wouldn't be a popular idea, but he could.

 

[zepplin48138]

I hate Micheal Moore than anybody alive. I think he should be tried for treason. The man is a slopy mess.

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by Pontius
I didn't say they aren't appointed for life....I said there is no law limiting the number of SC justices, and there is not. 9 (I believe is the number) has just been the number that has stuck. But he could appoint 2 more without anyone retiring if he wanted, probably wouldn't be a popular idea, but he could.
Actually it is based on the number of circuit courts there are or some such nonsense - so while there is no constitional law there is a precedent and for him to push something like that through it would take both sides (house and senate) to ratify first the need for a change, the change itself and then approve the justices .... don't see that happening anytime soon ...good point though

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by DarthMatt
I think the U.N. should have done more in the beginning, but they wouldn't,
yeah Bush gave them all of one week to get it together and one vote .... when being diplomatic it usually takes longer. Think of it like turn a large boat (ship) - takes a lot of different folks working together. Bush just didn't wait. :notsure: instead we are going it alone with some British troops who stay out of the fighting (or more correctly patrol and maintain the southern sector), Iraqi trained ground forces who turn tail and hide or get involved in friendly fire incidents.
Solid coalition there ....

Thanks for your contributions to the armed services! :cheer: