Deaniac

G.W. Bush is going to lose...

▼

G.W. Bush is going to lose...

from PolMach Forums
note- This is a strict reply to the 'John Kerry is going to lose' forum. It seems that forum has gone out of hand, and shocked me.

George W. Bush is going to lose. He doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage sensing our president is racist. He has tormented the American people by doing virtually nothing to restore the economy, and produce more jobs. Instead he signed an overtime program preventing more pay for overtime. That sucks for the American people. He has sended many soldiers to Iraq where they didn't need to be. Neither Iraq or Sadaam Hussein proved an imminent threat to the United States. There was no reason to attack them. Yes, Hussein was a bad man, but we could've solved this by working with our allies, and working with the U.N. and NATO to solve this problem.

Anyone who votes for G.W. Bush in 2004 will regret it!
politics
15,346 views 32 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
It is really ridiculous.

1) George W. Bush has left children behind! His 'No Child Left Behind' program has been giving kids more tests..and has done virtually nothing.
2) G.W. Bush has done nothing for the American people...the 45 million American people who don't have health insurance.
3) The economy has been falling and falling ever since G.W. took office. He has done practically nothing to help the American people (the unemployed American people) to find jobs. He still has tons of people to help, and he hasn't done that.
4) All he cares about is the War on Iraq and the War on Terror. He is putting more funds into Mars rather than putting funds into the economy and jobs.

z0belisk...or whatever your name is:

That is no reason to attack a guy who proves no imminent threat to the U.S. You need to listen to me before you start blabbing. Did Saddam kill an American? Did he step foot on America? Did he bomb the U.S.? Did he obtain uranium from Africa? Did he do all those miserable things? Was he connected with Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Ladin? No. No. No. No. No. He was even willing to negotiate. Germany, France, and Russia actually had reason to believe there was no reason to attack. And it was ridiculous. We were about to ban everything French..come on...why did we change French Fries to Freedom Fries???

Now, we are stuck in Iraq because if we leave, all the Iraqis will continue to attack each other...and Iraq could be the next Yugoslavia or Macedonia! We needed to leave Iraq alone...even better then bringing NATO or the UN in. We needed to just worry about ourselves and the War on Terror. We needed to worry about the Economy, the War on Terror, who caused 9/11 (in which i know was G.W. Bush and his faulty administration), Jobs, Health Care, No Child Left Behind.

All these things were the most important...and we went to Iraq as a cover-up of the fact that we didn't find Osama Bin Laden???
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the problems with the polls is they fail to factor in third party candidates. When they add third party candidates, they add Nader, which is a weighted poll because:

1. Nader is not on the ballot in all 50 states.
2. Nader is an independent, not a representative of a third party.

This election will be interesting, to say the least.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
1) The No Child Left Behind program is good. First of all, giving test is not the only thing. Giving tests to make school accountable is not a bad thing. There is grade inflation in America -- everyone gets A's. Other countries which have states exams are doing well.
2) The health insurance problem is not created by Bush. It was there before he arrive the office. Can you ONLY make him responsible.
3) The economy is falling before Bush is in office and actually the economy has been recovering for over a year. There is a difference between economic growth and umemployment. Have you seriously look at the recent economy? The GDP growth is huge in America. Even the unemployment is not as good as people like to, the number has been dropping. It was about 6% and now it is down to 5.6%. I am an economist, and unless you have some figures and proofs. I don't like to be lied to.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/?cnn=yes

4) He put more fund into Mars than into job growth? Like how much? To stimulate an economy, he used a tax cut. This can be considered as "funding".

So the only reason to attack a country is after getting an attack? If that is what you really believe, then you must hate Clinton very much. We have Somolia, Bonsian, Yugosolvia and more wars under Clinton adminstration. Are you seriously telling me that these three countries are bigger threat to USA than Saddam. The War on Terror is an offensive doctrine. It is not the Cold War strategy which doesn't apply to terriosts. The War on Terror is never simply just about Osma bin Laden. It is about elimate any terriost threat before it begins. It is ridiculous to paint Saddam as a person willing to negotiate. He doesn't. He didn't do it for 12 years and he violated 14 UN resolutions. Does that sound like someone with good faith. That is why the War is not called War on Bin Laden. It is the same idea that the Cold War was not simply about Russia, it is about Communist. Maybe German, France, and Russia don't like America to attack Iraq because they have the largest oil contract with Saddam and that Saddam owe them alot of money. France for example is the largest oil buyer to Saddam. Have you heard about the misuse of "Oil for Food" program? Haven't you noticed that France and German didn't want UN get involve in the recent Sudan genocide. Oh, somehow maybe they have the largest oil contract there too. I wonder why.

http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2004/07/why_france_and_.html

Why would you think bringing in UN and NATO help? Name one nation rebuilding done succesfully by UN or NATO without haevy US involvement. I can name two nation rebuilding done by US: Japan and West Germany.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
1) The No Child Left Behind program is good. First of all, giving test is not the only thing. Giving tests to make school accountable is not a bad thing. There is grade inflation in America -- everyone gets A's. Other countries which have states exams are doing well.


NCLB is not a good thing, actually. The program was written using an initiative known as "Goals 2000" as its foundation. Among the agendas pressed by Goals 2000 was the proposal to replace high school diplomas with "master certificates" in a specific field chosen for the individual through aptitude testing in the middle school years. Basically, it's a rewrite of the socialist practice of choosing your profession for you and limiting your career options. Goals 2000, incidentally, was authored by Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas.

Among the other problems with NCLB is it makes education a federal issue, rather than a state issue, as it should be. I don't see NCLB as being a horrendous evil, as I do belive it was well intentioned, but highly flawed. I believe that creating bigger government increases bureaucracy and actually limits local and state educational systems from performing most efficiently by draining much needed funds to support yet another level of bureaucracy. Further, it has led to some rather backhanded attempts of local school districts to lure homeschoolers onto their rolls, as homeschoolers tend to have higher test scores than their peers, and this helps the districts skew their averages in their faovr.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
Very educated person Gideon. Yes, I have major problem with No Child Left Behind because it is effectly turning a state policy to federal right. I believe in small governement or local control. Through there is major grade inflation and the public school is certainly failing our children. We are producing high school graduates who cannot read and write. How should I put this.... Well, if the states start to fail our children and our soceity, I see no option by to let the federal come in get take some control. For example, if the local police is corrupted and ineffective, then we have no choice but to let others come in.

As far as the NCLB wanting master certificates.... I don't think that is true. I didn't hear anything about it, if that is true, I highly oppose to that.

Republican party is changing. The 50's - 80's republicans are into small government, but that may not be long. There is a recent strong movement to go to way back to the founding Republican Agenda -- to Whig Party, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevlt. In fact, George W. Bush is known as the major force for this. That is strong government. Don't foget. Republican used to stand for federal and the old Democrat was for state right (recell the civil war). There is a difference between strong government from the orignal Republican Part yand the big government from the Democrat Party.

The idea of strong government is to let government play a big role in the law, but not necessary in people's life and choice. For example, the recent proposed school voucher and prescription drug. Either of which make government smaller, espeically the prescription drug will make government spend more. Yet, we are trying something different than the simply big government approach as European and Canadian. The prescription drug for seniors in theory do allow senior to choose. So is the newly proposal health care plan. School Voucher idea actually let government stay just as large as before. The tax is the same, the only difference is that the parents can choose which school to send their children to. These are so called strong government policy.

Personally, I am still in the small government philosphy but I am starting to incline to switch to strong government policy.
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
I found a short piece from George Will on Strong Government, but I read a better one elsewhere. I will see if I can find that one

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040201.shtml
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
As far as the NCLB wanting master certificates.... I don't think that is true. I didn't hear anything about it, if that is true, I highly oppose to that


That hasn't been approved as a part of NCLB's agenda -- yet. But Clinton, in working on the Goals 2000 agenda, saw it as a viable solution to ensure that everyone graduated.