George W. Bush Does Not Walk On Water

[Lemonite]

I just wanted to post this up because many people post in streams of boot up on this forum of how 'W' walks on water, how he can do no wrong, and how Everything he says/does is absolutely godly. It's not, And I want to list a few things where disagreements with W occur, For one aspect, to give the 'right' credibility in the eyes of you Liberals who spit and spin over quotes such as 'Oh Everyone bows down to that Asshole'.. 'Dickhead' as I once read an Aussie write.

1. Campaign Finance Reform- I don't even think that it is needed, however, With the current bill, and Bush's stated intent to sign it if it reaches his desk, A Bad and constitutionally slashing decision.

2. The Education bill with Ted Kennedy- It is an enormous amount of money dropped into this vague plan, Vouchers may reach the top, but again, that's a flimsy guarantee for such an expensive program.

3. $100,000,000 dollars for a Just Say No program?... Parents can do it for free.. Enough said.

4. The Tax Cut was too small, and too slowly implemented, With that surplus that shouldn't have even been there in the first place.

5. The steel tariff.. It seems the only reason it was implemented was that he made a promise back in the campaign, and it could possibly negate the newly passed additional tax cut, Which has helped to spike this economy back to quick recovery...

I think this is plenty of evidence to give us Republicans credence as not Partisan Assholes.. But openminded and independent thinkers who have their own opinions and ideas about issues at hand...

L.Unplugged



[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 03-08-2002).]

[TylerDurden]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
'Dickhead' as I once read an Aussie write.

*ahem* I think that was me. No, I don't like him (politicaly, seems ok as a person) but I didn't mean to be that blunt or whatever, sorry, I usually 'try' not to post like that.

But having said that, no, he can't walk on water. I think he'd have trouble finding the lake, then when he does he'd get pissed off that he can't walk on it, then entirely blame the lake, apparently without even realising that half of the reason why he can't walk on it is his problem, not the lakes.


[This message has been edited by TylerDurden (edited 03-08-2002).]

[camiloj]

its funny Lemonite, it seems like the things you disagree with are his few drifts to the political center. You're definitely not partisan in terms of Republican supporting whatever a Republican does, but youre definitely commited to the extreme side of things and resent the President's moments of moderate like behavior. For some reason, that to me is scarier! I guess I prefer my politicians to bend to the right and bend to the left, as both sides make up America and God forbid we have a President that is far right or far left. A good President can meet isues in the middle, not stay stubbornly to the right or to the left.

Oh my, did I imply I think Bush is a good President??? Well I dont think he's a bad President(I excuse his Enron dealings like I excused Bill's Monica dealings). I'd rather not have Bush as President, but as an objective adult male in my 30s, he's not as bad and extreme as I thought he'd be. Yet...

P.S. Are you the Interferencer formerly known as Lemon?

[Anthony]

Originally posted by TylerDurden:
But having said that, no, he can't walk on water. I think he'd have trouble finding the lake, then when he does he'd get pissed off that he can't walk on it, then entirely blame the lake, apparently without even realising that half of the reason why he can't walk on it is his problem, not the lakes.

And after bombing one side of the lake, he'd raise the tariffs on the other.

Ant.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by U2LA:
its funny Lemonite, it seems like the things you disagree with are his few drifts to the political center.


P.S. Are you the Interferencer formerly known as Lemon?

Regardless of what I disagree with him on, The whole point is that I'm not here just with my head up his ass as many Liberals here on this board continue to write and slap down about us republicans. You are apparently missing the entire point..

However, I do applaud his movement into the center, It truly shows that Bush is a Bipartisan man, That he has depoliticized the presidency, making decisions and actions based on what he feels is right, not just what the party says.. Which is what the LIberals tend to do.. I think that is why he is such a good president, And so I applaud this by him.

No, I am not Lemon.. I don't have second Handles.

L.Unplugged

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

yeah, BUT-
He's still a cool cat.
And be beat Al "Iam SO BORING"-Gore in the debates on style points ALONE.
Plus-
He's 50 yrs old and runs 7min miles
and
his wife is better looking than "Mr Iam So Boring"- Al Gore's.

Good Day
Diamond.

[This message has been edited by Diamond The U2 Patriot (edited 03-08-2002).]

[erper]

"A good President can meet isues in the middle, not stay stubbornly to the right or to the left."


what the hell?! god, to me that saying a good politican is one who takes a "reasonable" amount of my money, not all of it, and gives it to someone else...

im Libertarian, i dont see things in a bipolar fashion like the media brainwashes us to believe in only a 2 party system...

to hell with that... both republicans and democrats, that are in power, are part of the same country club who look after their own even if they are in another party.

for example here's a more accurate political spectrum even tho i know its basically black and white but thats how it is when it comes to politics, to me.


[---------------------DR--------------------------------------------------------L-----------]

Totalitarianism --------------------------------------------------------------------------Pure Anarchy


DR stands for Democrats and Republicans and L stands for Libertarian


On the left you have Total Government in the form of totalitarianistic states that are run by dictators... and of course then left of center you have the Dems and Reps that are moving our government more toward socialistic ideals that totalitarian/dictatorships started with but in the end became totalitarian states run by dictators.

on the right u have pure anarchy. Libertarians are not for anarchy. they believed in a limited form of government in which it purely protects the freedoms of its citizens, and does not try to regulate our behavior. such as our government loves to do, or any government tries to do.





[This message has been edited by erper (edited 03-08-2002).]

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by erper:
"A good President can meet isues in the middle, not stay stubbornly to the right or to the left."


what the hell?! to me that saying a good politican is one who takes a "reasonable" amount of my money, not all of it, and gives it to someone else...
[

I totally agree! I think a good politician is one who stands by his beliefs and the beliefs of his constituents.

[camiloj]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

I totally agree! I think a good politician is one who stands by his beliefs and the beliefs of his constituents.

The thing that sucks about that is if what if that politician represents an entire diverse country of millions and was narrowly elected, and half of the Country he leads does not stand by his beliefs but disagree with his beliefs. Should that President or politician ignore half of the people he leads?

It's my opinion that a good President will try to please as many as the people who elected him as possible while reaching out to those who don't agree with all his views by making minor compromises. That's how one gets the support of the majority of the people instead of keeping half angry and only the original half of the country happy.
I guess normally I wouldnt say such a thing as "A good President can meet isues in the middle, not stay stubbornly to the right or to the left" but when you have a President who was as narrowly elected as this one and that says he is a President for ALL the people, it's important that he prove that claim by his actions.

Compromise is not failing to stand by your beliefs, it is the realization that you are not the only one who's beliefs count.

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by U2LA:
Compromise is not failing to stand by your beliefs, it is the realization that you are not the only one who's beliefs count.

That is a wise statement. I am going to add it to my little list of thought-provoking quotes.

[camiloj]

just curious but are you serious when you say things like:

Originally posted by Lemonite:

ya'll liberals

[erper]

*imagines going to a country club and seeing both Dick's Gephart and Cheney sitting at the same table throwing back a few while Colin Powell and Senator Daschle play pool as President Bush dances with Hillary Clinton and Monica Lewinsky tabledances for Ted Kennedy, Don Rumsfeld, and his "boys"*

lol

"If pro is the opposite of con, then is congress the opposite of progress?" (c) Will Rogers

[joyfulgirl]

No, he doesn't walk on water...but at least evolution finally has him on two legs now. (Sorry...I couldn't resist).

[zonelistener]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
No, he doesn't walk on water...but at least evolution finally has him on two legs now. (Sorry...I couldn't resist).

[z edge]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
No, he doesn't walk on water...but at least evolution finally has him on two legs now. (Sorry...I couldn't resist).

as opposed to Bill Clinton who was always between two legs

HOO HAH!




[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 03-08-2002).]

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by z edge:
as opposed to Bill Clinton who was always between two legs

HOO HAH!

good one!

[z edge]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:

good one!

tank u

[Lilly]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
The whole point is that I'm not here just with my head up his ass as many Liberals here on this board continue to write and slap down about us republicans.
L.Unplugged

So, you're saying not only are you Captain Conservative, you are also a liberal hater? Congrats! You're just like the conservatives in here that think liberals up their asses. With attitudes like this we aren't EVER going to make progress (the anti of congress). Biases are one thing but grouping people together and assuming they all have the same belief then hating them all because they don't agree with you is quite another.

z edge: oh my, I agree with you. I'm an Independent, and yes I think that more Americans should realize that America is a multi-party system. It's really quite difficult to get one going that's not extreme and really liberal or really conservative though. And once a good one does get going, it doesn't really get government funding to run in campaigns (reforms, we need them, we need them NOW), so they never really make it to power...unless they are ex pro-wrestlers who wear pink feather boas....ug.

------------------
Proud owner, maker and baker of THE U2 cookies.

[melon]

Tax cuts, to the degree that most of the extreme right wants, are unrealistic. We have a government to run, we have an expensive war to run, 13% of our budget goes to paying off Reagan's uber-debt each year, and, as shown with Sept 11th, we have unexpected and expensive twists and turns.

You can live in a fantasy world without "welfare," but, statistically, you will be a "welfare recipient" yourself if you get unemployed and claim unemployment benefits, or if you get old enough to claim Social Security and Medicare. You'll continually whine about your taxes, but I'm sure you'll milk these programs when you need them. Or, if a natural disaster comes, you'll want federal disaster aid. Or if the federal highways have big potholes...you'll whine why they aren't fixed.

We have crumbling cities, crumbling roads, crumbling schools, the need for security, the need for a military, the need for a bureaucracy to enforce laws, etc. Yet, despite the fact that you use or depend on the existence of these services, you still whine that your taxes are too high. That's certainly true, but that is the fault of the Republican Party. When they eliminated the tax burden from businesses, they had to shift the burden back to individuals. While businesses paid 90% of the taxes in the 1950s, they only pay 10% now. That means that individuals paid 10% of the taxes in the 1950s and pay 90% of them now.

And the near-anarchy of libertarianism is just as much theoretical hogwash as communism. It may look good on paper, but it won't work. The economic anarchy of the 19th century led to uncompetitive monopolies, abused/overworked/underpaid labor, and utility instability.

Regulations were put into place to make this government operate for the people, and now you want to repeal them? You'll see more "Enrons." Next, business will stop giving benefits, while not raising your pay. Executives will run off with your retirement funds, because the regulations won't be there.

Deregulation doesn't work and tax cuts, while nice in a fantasy world, are irresponsible at this point. What we need to do is reshift part of the individual tax burden back to businesses. But you'll never see that with a Republican, and, as such, as individuals, you'll never see a substantial, yet responsible tax cut from one either.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by Lilly:
You're just like the conservatives in here that think liberals up their asses.

Captain Conservative Eh?.. Unoriginal.. Childish, but Unoriginal.

If you read my post you would have seen that is not what I am saying, No where have I ever said 'I Hate' Liberals.. It's telling on you that you would be the one to jump to that conclusion.

And also.. Explain your Quote at the top???? It makes no sense.

My political affiliation has no bearing on anything whatsoever in this thread.. All that matters is that there are issues I disagree with George W. on, to refute the claims and statements by many liberals in this forum that I and other republicans follow W with a blind eye in a Pied Piper fashion.
You are completely missing the entire theme of the post.

See the big picture... wait.. See the Picture.

Oh the days of High School..

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 03-08-2002).]