The Good in President Bush, I would like to know... Options

[sikdragon]

it isnt doing more harm than good, i mean not that i have seen, can you cite a certain time it hurt somebody more than helped the multitudes? or are u just saying that because you dont like bush?

[Alpha240]

I remember specifically saying that it would be stupid for the President to do so without the consent of Congress, sorry to burst YOUR bubble.

Yea you said it was stupid, but you also made it seem like a president couldn't do that with this quote:

hmm, I don't know if you know how this works, but the President doesn't just declare war and BAM, America goes to war.

What you are saying the President doesnt do, IS possible.

This, once again, has been answered. Because Kerry said that he would have gone to war, what makes you think that Kerry would be any better than Bush?

I already answered this saying that since Kerry wasn't our president at the time he did not have all the facts availbale and could only go by what was released to the public, which was a bunch of crap anyways. I don't know what he would of done, but if he knew what Bush knew I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq. He might of invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama, but no one has a problem with that. Kerry does not have any personal motives to invade Iraq, unlike Bush. What motives does Bush have?
1. Revenge. He even said so himself that he wanted to get Saddam because he threatened Bush Sr. The elder Bush's high point of presidency was also tainted by his unability to despose of Saddam.
2. Oil. One of the Bush regimine's main goal was to secure compnay oil-profits. Since Iraq has more oil than the U.S., Canada, and Mexico combined, invading Iraq seemed like a good business move, huh?
3. Bush's domestic agenda. As long as we are at war, if anyone questions anything-- such as his tax cut for the rich, environmental despoilation, or restrictions of civil liberties via the Patriot Act-- these opposers are accused of "supporting terrorism."
4. To enforce the fact that America is a great Imperial power and we can do whatever we want regardless of what anyone says, including an international policing group (the UN).

If you disagree, then please tell me something good about Kerry.

I can't say what Kerry has done because he did not have 4 years to prove himself, like Bush. Both Kerry and Bush can promise what they want, but like I said actions speak louder than words. Knowing that Bush did not fulfill most of his promises, atleast I can see that he is not a man to trust. One thing I do like about Kerry is his promise to lower educational fees, such as college tuition. Also, he is one to further the advancement of science and technology, unlike Bush who is hindering stem cell research which is imperative to many medical advances. ( this hits me close to home, being a biology major and knowing the importance of stem cell research and science and technology as a whole).

Bush has done an awesome job has president, everything he has promised has been brought before congress. foreign policy was humble he asked for humble support, he humbly flipped off the UN, he humbly asked Hussein for his weapons, hussein spit in his face so he humbly bombed the hell outta his country.

The economy is doing well considering we are at war. He created more jobs by giving the rich more money so they can afford to have more employees. He is working to get our guns back and raise the ages to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldnt have them. He is showing he has moral back bone by trying to get the amendmant passed redefining marraige. with the patriot act he gave law enforcement more right so they can protect us better. Bush doesnt flip-flop he supports everything he says and doesnt change his stance just to make the crowd love him. He is against abortion, he signed the partial-birth abortion act and believes tax-payers should not pay for abortions, or the advocation of such events. he is against affirmative action. President Bush's Jobs and Growth act sped up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of economic recovery and job creation. he signed a law that increased prescriptions covered by medicare. He opposes a highway bill that increases the gas tax. Bush signed a proclamation in december 2003 ending temporary steel tariffs.

those are just some of the great things he has done.

ok I'm going to assume that you weren't joking with most of the stuff you said. so if you were trying to be sarcastic, I'm sorry but I couldn't tell. Well let me start from the beginning...
1. Bush has not done everything he promised, even if he brought it in front of congress it is not fully completed. And if he really wanted it done then would have put forth more effort than that.

But Bush has broken all of his major 2000 promises, except for cutting taxes (and even then, his cuts won't last). I think that's a bit worse.

(from comradRed) and those tax cuts were for rich people, who were mostly republican and supporters of Bush.
2. "Flipping off the UN" shows that Bush could not justify his reasons for war. The UN is an international policing group, in order to keep things right. But isnce we are america we can cause all the chaos and terrotr we want. I mean, if Germany decided to invade a country against everyone's wishes, do you think people would stand for that? i highly doubt it.
3. What could have Hussin done when Bush asked for WMD, since apparnetly Iraq didn't have any? I would have been pissed if i was Saddam. I mean, the US was asking him for something he apparantly doesn't have, yet we own the most WMD in the world. just a lil hypocritical.
4. The economy is not doing well at all. Our unemployment rate is at an all time high, and our national debt is at an all time high.
5. The patriot act is a violation of our constitutional rights and privacy. Let me quote Mini...

Bush is also supporting the Patriot's Act. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is rewritting the Constitution because it is allowing agencies to look everything on you and what you are doing if someone anonymously accuse you of being a terrorist. It is like back in the days when the Red Scare was around, people were EXILED because they were accused of being a Commie even though they weren't. I don't want McCarthyism to come back.

6. Bush does change his ideals....let me quote comradred again

Bush is a major flip-flopper.

In 2000:
- Supported a "more restrained and humble foreign policy" (his own words)
- Promised to cut spending
- Strongly opposed to affirmative action

In 2004:
- Supports invading small countries
- Raised government spending more than any other president in history
- Supports affirmative action

He is trying to move to the left while still appeasing his MIC sponsors ... leading to major neo-conservative bullsh*t.

7. Bush's tax cuts were for the rich, making the rich richer and poor poorer. i don't see any good in that. Bush is making his supporters happy and that's it.
8. i personally have not seen any decrease in gas prices. Maybe the tax is decreased, but perhaps the prices stay the same? I dont know.

Thanks for your input sikdragon. Atleast you attempted to answer the topic question. However, I disagree with you on many of your comments, but that's just how politics is. I'm not sure about the other statements you made about Bush, but if it's true about redifining marriage (whatever that means), increasing medicare, and reducing steel tax... well then... um, good for him.

[sikdragon]

ok I'm going to assume that you weren't joking with most of the stuff you said. so if you were trying to be sarcastic, I'm sorry but I couldn't tell. Well let me start from the beginning...
1. Bush has not done everything he promised, even if he brought it in front of congress it is not fully completed. And if he really wanted it done then would have put forth more effort than that.

no i wasnt being funny or sarcastic. and there is only so many times you can bring things out to the floor of the congress. and you have no idea what kind of effort he has put forth.

[Spirited Away]

Yea you said it was stupid, but you also made it seem like a president couldn't do that with this quote: What you are saying the President doesnt do, IS possible.

That's why you should read the WHOLE paragraph instead of focusing on one sentence when the next sentence obviously has to do with the first. I put the sentences in one paragraph for the reason that they support each each other...

I already answered this saying that since Kerry wasn't our president at the time he did not have all the facts availbale and could only go by what was released to the public, which was a bunch of crap anyways.  I don't know what he would of done, but if he knew what Bush knew I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq.  He might of invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama, but no one has a problem with that.  Kerry does not have any personal motives to invade Iraq, unlike Bush.  What motives does Bush have?
1. Revenge.  He even said so himself that he wanted to get Saddam because he threatened Bush Sr.  The elder Bush's high point of presidency was also tainted by his unability to despose of Saddam. 
2. Oil.  One of the Bush regimine's main goal was to secure compnay oil-profits.  Since Iraq has more oil than the U.S., Canada, and Mexico combined, invading Iraq seemed like a good business move, huh?
3. Bush's domestic agenda.  As long as we are at war, if anyone questions anything-- such as his tax cut for the rich, environmental despoilation, or restrictions of civil liberties via the Patriot Act-- these opposers are accused of "supporting terrorism." 
4.  To enforce the fact that America is a great Imperial power and we can do whatever we want regardless of what anyone says, including an international policing group (the UN).

That is all in your opinion about what Kerry would've done, but we have something more solid because the words came from HIS own mouth that he would've gone to war anyways. Therefore, we can stop assume what he would've done because he already stated as much.

As for the rest, they have no significance to me. Why? Name one president that didn't have a personal agenda for Presidency.

I can't say what Kerry has done because he did not have 4 years to prove himself, like Bush.  Both Kerry and Bush can promise what they want, but like I said actions speak louder than words.  Knowing that Bush did not fulfill most of his promises, atleast I can see that he is not a man to trust.  One thing I do like about Kerry is his promise to lower educational fees, such as college tuition.  Also, he is one to further the advancement of science and technology, unlike Bush who is hindering stem cell research which is imperative to many medical advances. ( this hits me close to home, being a biology major and knowing the importance of stem cell research and science and technology as a whole).

How many of our Presidents fulfilled their promises? What makes you think Kerry will be any different from his predecessors?

Seeing how I don't know much about science and politics, hopefully you'll explain to me why Bush is an obstacle to the stem cell research.

[sikdragon]

dont i get a quote? :'(

[*Kathleen*]

4. The economy is not doing well at all. Our unemployment rate is at an all time high, and our national debt is at an all time high.

Okay, I pretty much read most of this thread, and you cannot say that our unemployment rate is at its highest, because i have a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

...which shows that in fact, unemployment is going down.

Productivity is going up.

And total average hourly earnings are going up. Isn't this a good thing?

3. What could have Hussin done when Bush asked for WMD, since apparnetly Iraq didn't have any? I would have been pissed if i was Saddam. I mean, the US was asking him for something he apparantly doesn't have, yet we own the most WMD in the world. just a lil hypocritical.

But you must keep in mind that unlike Saddam, we're not power-hungry people who murder anyone at the drop of a hat to get something we want. I mean, look at who controls these weapons. You never know what happened to those weapons of mass destruction.

2. Oil. One of the Bush regimine's main goal was to secure compnay oil-profits. Since Iraq has more oil than the U.S., Canada, and Mexico combined, invading Iraq seemed like a good business move, huh?

This is just some excuse to go against Bush. Can you say coincidence?

7. Bush's tax cuts were for the rich, making the rich richer and poor poorer. i don't see any good in that. Bush is making his supporters happy and that's it.

As someone mentioned before, this in fact boosts the economy some what because the rich now have a chance to hire more people. Futhermore, giving money back to people to contribute into the ecnomy will help it, and cannot harm it. Another thing, if it only helps the rich, why are all the celebrities Kerry supporters? Besides, Kerry promised tax increases. Why would I want a president that's promising tax increases?

But anywho, I'm not completely for Bush, just like Fae. I didn't quote the rest of your post there. I'm just defending what I believe in. Bah. Too bad I can't vote yet, huh?

[sugarcultluver]

Heres why my family supports Bush:
- hes going after terrorists
- hes cut the tax rate for all tax payers
- strong supporter of education
thats just some of the reasons

[ComradeRed]

Is there a large political constituency that is agaianst education?

[Devastation]

the good in bush is basically many reasons, he plays the role of the underdog.
Many people and alot of the democratic party dislike bush because of his actions and his thoughts towards many topics. Everyone has their own opinions Bush is thinking about the nation not about the whole world.. Yes he did negotiate with i believe Asia, or somewhat part in the middleeast. But take in consideration what bush has done for thisnation. Yes he has sent millions of troops over there in iraq, but someone had to do something over there and between all the commotion he had was somewhat in his part. As far as the taxes and the wage and such. he isnt bad at that at all. comradered prolly has something to say about my reply.

[Knight]

I think Bush isn't exactly the best president. And it's not 9/11, since Kerry voted with it too. It's just other stuff, like health and jobs. He doesn't seem to be helping out with those.

[Devastation]

basically dude above me. but, in his strong debates he has war all over it. Ha, michael moore dare to challenge the bush adminstration.

[ryfitaDF]

- hes going after terrorists

which is only inspiring more people to become terrorists and, therefore, isn't helping.

- hes cut the tax rate for all tax payers

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what's making the poor more poor and the rich richer?

- strong supporter of education

what comradered said

[Devastation]

not really going after terreriosts basically just trying to go after the groups and the informities. as well as the tax its the same way, just alittle more effective. education could be improved.

[*Kathleen*]

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what's making the poor more poor and the rich richer?

How is that making us poorer, exactly?

[highly_evolved]

BY GIVING US NO JOBS!!! NO JOBS = NO MONEY!!!!! jsut have to say i love urr sig and avatar kathleen

[ryfitaDF]

concidering when clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the corperations he got us a surpluss of $236 billion. bush's tax cuts have made the bigest deficit (-400 billion) in history, leaving generation after generation needing to pay for it. if the rich and the poor have to pay the same taxes, the rich will have an abundance of money afterward and us poor people are left with little to none, therefor making us more poor. hopefully whoever the next term's president is will do the same as clinton did and regain us a surplus.

[ComradeRed]

BY GIVING US NO JOBS!!! NO JOBS = NO MONEY!!!!! jsut have to say i love urr sig and avatar kathleen

The government's role isn't to give jobs, that's the job of the companies.

As for surpluses and deficits, the reason we have a deficit now is because of SPENDING HIKES, not tax cuts. Bush has raised spending more than any other President since FDR. The tax cuts alone would've been fine (After all, the extra $236 billion is OUR money, isn't it?)

After Bush gets out of the White House, we should pass a Balanced Budget Amendment requiring the budget be balanced by cutting spending and not raising taxes. Now, for once, liberals are right: We should learn from Third World Countries. Whenever a third world country changes its government, what's the first thing it does (after executing the leaders of the previous government)? That's right, it defaults on its national debt! We ought to do that too. After all, most government expenditures are lost due to corruption, waste, or on just plain unnecessary programs. Why should we be left to foot the bill? Do YOU ever remember voting for a government program? Or giving your approval to be taxed?

Of course, 60% of our deficit is held by Americans, so the government would still have to pay them -- which it could easily do by selling all those abandoned military bases in Utah, or those unconstitutional prisons that house drug offenders (after we decriminalize drugs, that is), and after we abolish the Secret Police, we could give all their weapons to the Arabs as a peace offering. The Federal Government also owns a lot of land out West that the States they should belong to would be glad to pay for. And finally, we'd sell the IRS building for scrap metal. All that should be enough to pay for the domestic debt (60% of the total debt), as well as buying annuities for all the seniors who put their money into the social security system (which would be destroyed promptly thereafter). We'd also end the War on Poverty. Instead of $400 billion we spend each year, we'll just give every poor adult $20,000, enough to make them not poor any more (it's really amazing ... we spend more money on welfare than it would mathematically take to get every poor person out of poverty). And last but certainly not least, we could sell the government's $20 Million Helium Fund http://www.nm.blm.gov/amfo/documents/96artc.pdf. I have a new idea for a tagline: THE US HELIUM FUND: You'd think it was a joke, but it isn't.

Sure, the one downside is we'd never be able to conduct foreign policy ever again, but foreigners are overrated. In fact, preventing the government from doing foreign policy is acutally a good thing -- we'd piss off less people and make them so desperate they are willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center.

[ryfitaDF]

After all, the extra $236 billion is OUR money, isn't it?

bush used all our exrea 236 billion. he even used the money he promised he'd save for socail security. now we're in the hole about 400 billion. yes, alone the tax cut would be fine but not when you're wadging a war against supposed terror.

[ComradeRed]

The War on Terror is very cheap. The most expensive part of the War on Terror was the Invasion of Iraq, and even then that only cost $100 billion. Compare that to the $400-$450 billion we are spending on welfare, or the $500 billion on social security each year, or the $200 billion on totally unworkable weapons systems.

[ryfitaDF]

$200 billion on totally unworkable weapons systems.

but what do we need weapons for? looking cool? or overthrowing saddam? we'll probably be spending a few more billions on the war on terror, aswell, what with osama and al-quida still on the loose.

[Alpha240]

there's a lot of comments I want to reply to... or put my 2 cents in but i'm not trying to write anymore 5 paragraph essays so i'm just gonna reply to this one:

Seeing how I don't know much about science and politics, hopefully you'll explain to me why Bush is an obstacle to the stem cell research.

The reason Bush is hindering stem cell research is due to the fact he is against abortion. Although Stem cells can be taken from different parts of the body, such as your bone marrow, these cells are not as effective as the cells taken from a zygote, or embryo (fertilized egg). When a sperm fertilizes an egg and the cells start to divide, there are certain phases that the zygote goes through. When the cell gets to a cell count of 32, then the individual cells can be taken for research. These cells are special because they are undifferentiated, meaning that they can become ANY cell in the body. So you can manipulate each single cell to become whatever you want, a blood cell, liver cell, brain cell, etc etc. The stem cells taken from the bone marrow can only be used as bone marrow cells.... get what I'm saying? So since Bush is against abortion, he thinks that using these stems cells from the zygote is killing a life. However, most of these embryos are taken from fertilization centers, where people fertilize their eggs and freeze it until they decide they want it. When people don't want it, they usually send it for research. So i don't see what else they could do with the egg that would not be considered "killing" it. It all boils down to when you consider taking a life would be-- If you think it's once the sperm fertilizes an egg and is just a couple cells, or if you think it's when the egg becomes developed enough to form a shape of a human, with a heart and such. All I know is that the reason our life expectancy is so high and our quality of life is much improved since the past is mostly due to the advances of science and technology. If we ever want a cure for cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, or other diseases stem cell research is our best bet.

Bush has allowed research for only 60 existing stem cell lines. He disregarded about 100,000 embryos available for research in fertility labs across the country.

[Spirited Away]

So does harvesting stem cells destroy the embryo they are taken from? If most of the embryos are taken from fertilization centers, then where do the rest come from?

Don't get me wrong, even though I'm moderate on most topics, I'm quite pro-choice about abortion, but I want to understand from the perspective of a science major of why Bush is in the wrong.

How about people who are pro-life, do they object to Bush's decision to stop funding stem cell research?

Well, I guess being pro-choice, I would have to say that Bush is in the wrong for slowing down science research... but if I look at it from a pro-choice perspective, I would think he is doing something right.

What about stem cell research for the purpose of cloning? And have you heard of something called therapeutic cloning instead of reproductive cloning? Both have to do with stem cell research, but reproductive cloning is the one that is getting banned. I'm not sure how it works, but supposedly with therapeutic cloning, embryos can still be supplied for research...

Please let me know if that's all myth... science is forever confusing to me.

[ComradeRed]

but what do we need weapons for? looking cool? or overthrowing saddam? we'll probably be spending a few more billions on the war on terror, aswell, what with osama and al-quida still on the loose.

Weapons are good for defending yourself ... but $500 billion worth is going a little overboard.

[Alpha240]

Harvesting stem cells DO destroy the embryo, and the ones that come from fertility labs supply most of the cells. Believe it or not, A LOT of people freeze their embryos for whatever reason, such as their husbands going to war, or them wanting to wait on having a baby... These cells are more than enough to research on right now. Other cells are taken from the body, like I said the bone marrow has stem cells but these cells will only produce blood cells and more bone marrow cells.

Basically, people who are pro-life generally want to stop stem cell research since it destroys an embryo. Therefore, they support Bush's decision.

Pro-choice people tend to advocate stem cell research, and are against what Bush is doing. I guess they don't seem to think it's taking away a life since the embryo is just a few cells.

Bush is in the "wrong" because he is only allowing research on 60 stem cell lines, and THAT'S IT. Once those are used up, there would be no more research on embryonic stem cells. He also cut funding for embryonic stem cell research, but increased funding for research of stem cells taken from an adult, umbilical cords, placenta, and animals. Atleast he increased funding for that, but it's the embryonic stem cells that are most promising to finding breakthrough therapies and cures to many disease.

Reproductive cloning is basically removing the genetic information from an embryo, and inserting new DNA from another individual into that embryo. Therefore, making a new being that is genetically identical to the DNA donor. I am against this because it seems to be playing God.

Therapeutic cloning is basically doing the same thing with the embryo, however you don't let it grow into a human being. Instead, you will use the stem cells that develop from the embryo to make tissues, organs, or other parts that will be identical to the DNA donor. So let's say someone needs a heart transplant. We all know that organs are always in short supply, so if the person gets therapeutic cloning done, they will not only get their heart but it will be a genetic match and therefore their body will be much less likely to reject the new heart.


hmmm, so we got way off topic.. o well

[Spirited Away]

Therapeutic cloning is basically doing the same thing with the embryo, however you don't let it grow into a human being.  Instead, you will use the stem cells that develop from the embryo to make tissues, organs, or other parts that will be identical to the DNA donor.  So let's say someone needs a heart transplant.  We all know that organs are always in short supply, so if the person gets therapeutic cloning done, they will not only get their heart but it will be a genetic match and therefore their body will be much less likely to reject the new heart.

Therapeutic cloning isn't illegal, is it? If not, then can't we use that to replicate embryonic cells?

Bush is in the "wrong" because he is only allowing research on 60 stem cell lines, and THAT'S IT.

In my point of view, it's rather surprising for someone as pro-life as Bush to even allow some continuance on stem cell research. I've just learned that there are pro-life advocates who wants Bush to just end it, period... So even though he is in the wrong for hindering scientific research, he's still considering the other side's (pro-choice) perspective.

hmmm, so we got way off topic.. o well

No, no, we're not off topic, we're still discussing Bush.