Is Bush helping or ruining this country?

[Orginalcliche]

I truely can't stand Bush, maybe beacause of the No Child Left Behind Act. This has caused my school a heck of a lot of trouble, and in the end they had to lay off a whole bunch of teachers beacause of it.
Maybe it's beacause of the fact that he seems to favor insurance companies, and won't allow seniors to get drugs in Canada. Or the fact that he wants an ammendment to ban gay marriage. I may not approve about Gay Marriage myself, I may understand why others can find fault on it, but it is never right to take away the right for someone to marry if there state allows it. Personally on issues like that I feel uncomfertable with something as permenate as and ammendment. I am most certainly biased as my best friend is Lesbian, and truthfully I would never want her to deny a basic right. For me that issue isn't just something I can philosophically discuss. I can't imagine knowing that I can get married to the person that I love, but my friend can't.
Then there ir the Quagmire of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the sad truth is that many people do not know that. I will admit that the myth about going in there for oil isn't true. Truth is I don't have any idea why we are at war. If we are at war because Saddam was a bad person and was being inhumanitarian just take a look at Abou Grabe. We are what we were trying to get rid of. Also there are many other countries with inhumantarian practices which we will never invade. The part about him being a threat was a lie as well. He had no nuculear weapons. If he had them we wouldn't have invaded, that would be to dangerous.
To sum it up, I'm not a big fan of Kerry, if I could vote I would have voted for Clark. General Clark.

[Shadyy]

Seduphe:Fear said:

Let me just say this, I'd rather fight for freedom, than die a coward crushed by terrorists.

black and white world, people. I'm sorry, but it's phrases like that that tend to really tick me off. I'm going to shut up now

[Bacon]

Fae said:

black and white world, people. I'm sorry, but it's phrases like that that tend to really tick me off. I'm going to shut up now

Okay, what do you have against liberty, justice and patriotism?Personally I find the term "black and white world" rather racist. Now, I know that's not what you meant, but it's just the way I feel, okay?

[Deleted]

Seduphe:Fear said:

Okay, what do you have against liberty, justice and patriotism?Personally I find the term "black and white world" rather racist. Now, I know that's not what you meant, but it's just the way I feel, okay?

I totally don't understand what you guys are talking about.

The only thing I ever said was "Bush didn't fight in the war, Kerry did." Sorry if anyone like misunderstood or anything.

[leXa]

Seduphe/Bacon: said:

Okay, what do you have against liberty, justice and patriotism?Personally I find the term "black and white world" rather racist. Now, I know that's not what you meant, but it's just the way I feel, okay?

I think what she means is there's two sides to everything..I suppose I see what you all mean about fighting for our independence & liberty, but doesn't our country already possess these things? I'm not quite sure what the disagreement is on, but I tried to draw a conclusion.

[Bacon]

lexa said:

I think what she means is there's two sides to everything..I suppose I see what you all mean about fighting for our independence & liberty, but doesn't our country already possess these things? I'm not quite sure what the disagreement is on, but I tried to draw a conclusion.

Yes, I know what she meant! Didn't I make it clear I knew what she meant? I even said "Now, I know that's not what you meant, but it's just the way I feel, okay?" Didn't you notice that?

[Bacon]

Guy said:

I totally don't understand what you guys are talking about.

The only thing I ever said was "Bush didn't fight in the war, Kerry did." Sorry if anyone like misunderstood or anything.

I know, I'm sorry, I was just pointing out to you that Vietnam is one word. At least everywhere I've seen it spelled. That's the only reason I quoted you.

[leXa]

Seduphe/Bacon: said:

Yes, I know what she meant! Didn't I make it clear I knew what she meant? I even said "Now, I know that's not what you meant, but it's just the way I feel, okay?" Didn't you notice that?

No, sorry, I didn't. I tend to skin the posts. I may have been more talking to myself, trying to clear things up for me..Sorry again..

[Shadyy]

Okay, I'm confused now.
Let me in stead of black and white, use good and evil then. I have nothing against liberty on the contrary. And who are you to decide what justice is? Millions of innocent people died in these past few years (on ALL sides) and why...you poke me, I poke you; sure that's justice

Many people seem to believe there's just good an evil; we're good and we fight the bad guys, we crush the terrorists and the whole of Irak who cares if innocent people die because we're fighting for our country and that's what we believe in, and I'm saying this for ALL sides in this war, so don't take this as a US-attack.

I may sound mean, but your reactions seem overly defensive to me and I guess I tend to react in the same way then!

Pattriotism frightens me, this huge mass of people who posess weapons that can wipe my entire country of the map in a few seconds, that actually frightens me. It's not irak or russia that have mass destruction weapons, think about that.

[Buddy]

Seduphe/Bacon: said:

Yes, I know what she meant! Didn't I make it clear I knew what she meant? I even said "Now, I know that's not what you meant, but it's just the way I feel, okay?" Didn't you notice that?

You obviously didn't understand, or else you wouldn't have bothered to have been "offended" by her "rather racist" comment.

For the record, what she meant was this...

That, when you say you'd "rather fight for freedom," I assume you're talking about Iraq and how you - you personally - would rather go and die fighting over there than, say, die by being in a building some terrorists flew a plane into.

The problem with that ideal is this: some people don't see what we're doing over there as "fighting for freedom". They see it as another example of America sticking its nose in business where it doesn't belong, or - if you're an extremem Muslim - an example of more America opression of Arabs.

I can assure you, those insurgents in Iraq sure as hell don't see our presence there as "fighting for freedom" (on an ironic note, however, that IS what they see themselves as doing). They see it as opression.

So, you see, your assumption that you're right because you're fighting for freedom is an narrow-minded and misconstrued one, as not all people see it as such. Different people see the same action in different ways.

Fae said:

It's not irak or russia that have mass destruction weapons, think about that.

Actually, Russia does have weapons of mass destruction - although, in the past few years, I believe they've downsized their stockpile.

As well, they're not the only ones - last I heard, about 30 countries have some sort of nuclear weapons.

[Komori]

Snorkles said:

I truely can't stand Bush, maybe beacause of the No Child Left Behind Act. This has caused my school a heck of a lot of trouble, and in the end they had to lay off a whole bunch of teachers beacause of it.
Maybe it's beacause of the fact that he seems to favor insurance companies, and won't allow seniors to get drugs in Canada. Or the fact that he wants an ammendment to ban gay marriage. I may not approve about Gay Marriage myself, I may understand why others can find fault on it, but it is never right to take away the right for someone to marry if there state allows it. Personally on issues like that I feel uncomfertable with something as permenate as and ammendment. I am most certainly biased as my best friend is Lesbian, and truthfully I would never want her to deny a basic right. For me that issue isn't just something I can philosophically discuss. I can't imagine knowing that I can get married to the person that I love, but my friend can't.

First off, it's spelled "because," not "beacause." Sorry, little things like that just kinda' prick me.

Anyway, technically, he is trying to get an amendment that states that marriage is the union between a male and a female. Not an amendment that says "Gay marriage is illegal." And even with that amendment, that would not ban civil unions between homosexuals. Perhaps I don't understand what the big deal is. Other than the fact that marriage is often considered relligious, isn't a civil union and a marriage essentially the same thing? But this digresses from Bush.

Bush has no power of creating an amendment. He just says he wants one. Just because he's the president doesn't mean he's not entitled to his own opinion. He can push for the amendment all he wants, but that won't do a mite of good if Congress doesn't want it.

Similarly, Bush may have approved the No Child Left Behind Act, but he certainly didn't create it by himself. No, it had to go through both houses of Congress first. So it's not all like, "OMG, where did he come up with this idea, it's so awful!" Apparently, a majority of Congress also thought it was a good idea.

And Bush can't stop seniors from going to get drugs in Canada. He can approve a Bill, but he doesn't create the bill. Congress does.

So those reasons aren't really very good reasons to hate him (I won't touch the Iraq issue with a ten-foot pole, so that may be your only valid reason.).

[Buddy]

Ghost said:

Similarly, Bush may have approved the No Child Left Behind Act, but he certainly didn't create it by himself. No, it had to go through both houses of Congress first. So it's not all like, "OMG, where did he come up with this idea, it's so awful!" Apparently, a majority of Congress also thought it was a good idea.

Well, while I agree with the general idea of your statement (that Bush isn't singularly to blame for anything), I don't agree with your idea that he shouldn't bare much of the blame for the No Child Left Behind Act.

Bush wrote, proposed, pushed for, and signed the bill into law - this is Bush's baby, so to speak. Not to mention how much he hyped up the act. So, to imply that he was only a player in a much larger game is really just wrong. He created, supported, and signed the bill - this was his.

I don't think its unfair at all for Bush to carry most of the credit (both, for Act's success or failure). This was all his. Yes, it had to go through Congress - but still, this one was all his.

And, of course, don't forget the fact that, at any time, he could've vetoed it. That, alone, means he should bare much of the brunt of the responsibility for its success or failure (that in addition to the fact that, again, he wrote and supported it).

And Bush can't stop seniors from going to get drugs in Canada. He can approve a Bill, but he doesn't create the bill. Congress does.

First, he can create a bill - as I just said in the last paragraph, he did create a bill. And he also has to approve it after Congress does.

Bush also has indirect control over the organization that does decide who can get their drugs from where - the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So, don't gimmie that - if Bush really wanted people to be able to buy drugs from Canada, it would be so.

As a sidenote, I can't help but note the hypocracy... While old people buying drugs from Canada ccould be dangerous, importing flu vaccines from Germany (something Bush was considering doing during the "flu shortage") is perfectly fine. So, apparently, while importing drugs from our closest neighbors could be horrible for our health, getting drugs shipped in from across the ocean? No problem there! Perfectly fine!

To continue with this (See? Now you've got me on a tangent!), do you know why drugs are so expensive for those on Medicare and Medicad? Well, without going into the whole eco-sociological reasons behind huge drug and medical prices, I'll simply say this - a few years ago, the government reworked the Medicare/Medicade system. And in the new law Congress created, it stated specifically that the government could not negotiate drug prices with drug companies.

Now, the government negotiates prices on everything else - construction, military equipment, etc. But for some reason, they believe it is in the best national interest that they make themselves unable to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices...

Of course, Bush signed this into law, no problem.

[The Angry Artist]

Ghost said:

Anyway, technically, he is trying to get an amendment that states that marriage is the union between a male and a female. Not an amendment that says "Gay marriage is illegal." And even with that amendment, that would not ban civil unions between homosexuals. Perhaps I don't understand what the big deal is. Other than the fact that marriage is often considered relligious, isn't a civil union and a marriage essentially the same thing?

Defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman essentially outlaws gay marriage, because only a man and a woman could get married -- not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

And don't give me any of that 'civil unions are the same thing' dung. If they were the same then you'd give everyone the same thing. You wouldn't need civil unions. History has shown us that 'separate but equal' simply does not work. Decades ago the U.S. said 'yes' to it, and then colored people were discriminated against in the South.

If civil unions ans marriages were equal, then why would we need both? U.S. citizens are all citizens -- there are no 'inhabitants' or 'residents' or any different forms of citizenship. All citizens are equal. We don't have different forms of citizenship because they are 'essentially the same thing'.

[Deleted]

Seduphe/Bacon: said:

Vietnam is one word.

It is spelled either way, actually.

Look, people, stop criticisizing peeple becuz off there spelin.

Yes, I did that on purpose. You all have to understand that mistakes happen, and I don't think that typos really have an impact on the debate (unless they make the point unclear).

As for this debate itself, I don't like Bush. Fahrenheit 9/11 sums up my beliefs, so if you want to know my beliefs, watch that movie. I don't feel like listing them here because people get offended.

[Bacon]

Buddy said:

You obviously didn't understand, or else you wouldn't have bothered to have been "offended" by her "rather racist" comment.

For the record, what she meant was this...

That, when you say you'd "rather fight for freedom," I assume you're talking about Iraq and how you - you personally - would rather go and die fighting over there than, say, die by being in a building some terrorists flew a plane into.

The problem with that ideal is this: some people don't see what we're doing over there as "fighting for freedom". They see it as another example of America sticking its nose in business where it doesn't belong, or - if you're an extremem Muslim - an example of more America opression of Arabs.

I can assure you, those insurgents in Iraq sure as hell don't see our presence there as "fighting for freedom" (on an ironic note, however, that IS what they see themselves as doing). They see it as opression.

So, you see, your assumption that you're right because you're fighting for freedom is an narrow-minded and misconstrued one, as not all people see it as such. Different people see the same action in different ways.

Yes, I KNEW what she meant Buddy, how many times do I have to clarify that I knew what she meant? Although I admit it is harder for some people to grasps concepts than others, I would have thought that TWO POSTS would be more than enough clarification for such a simple fact. I KNEW WHAT SHE MEANT, BUT MY BRAIN AUTOMATTICALLY WORKS THAT WAY, OKAY?!?!