COL Gene

The Irony of Bush attending the pope's funeral

▼

The Irony of Bush attending the pope's funeral

from JoeUser Forums




President Bush will be the first president to attend the funeral of a pope. How ironic that our president should choose to honor Pope John Paul II since the pope so fundamentally disagreed with the Bush policies.

With the exceptions of gay marriage and abortion, President Bush and the pope had very little in common. They disagreed on the death the death penalty, the Iraq war and the social programs embraced by Bush and his conservative supporters. Politics does in fact make strange bed fellows.
politics
27,126 views 81 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top



I never said Americans wnat a socialist health care system. They do want health care coverage which 46 Million do not have. it is also true that a liberal will support policies that are more extreem then a moderate, however the conservatives want none of the social issues even those that are more moderate. That is why we need a split in the control. That will produce policies that are more moderate because both sides must give a bit to get anything done. At the present time it is all one way and that is not good for this country!


I guess you *still* don't understand. You are NOT going to get you "split" in power until at least 2006. And even that is not a sure thing! It will be ALL up to the American voter, won't it? So what/who are you going to blame then COL if the split does not occur? Because that will mean all your mouthing will be shown to be incorrect. If it does occur, then that will prove you right, won't it?
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

They do want health care coverage which 46 Million do not have.

No, Col Gene, Americans do NOT want universal health care.  And have you ever looked at the "uninsured"? Have you ever looked at how that 46 million number is arrived at?  Dig deeper and you'll find that the number of chronically uninsured (i.e. people who went over a year without insurance) is about half that number. 

Out of that smaller number, a significant chunk could afford health care but choose not to because they're young and don't want to spend the money.  Another chunk of that qualify for medicaid but choose not to fill out the paperwork.  The number of uninsured Americans who can't qualify for Medicaid but can't really reasonably afford health insurance is pretty small.

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

I never said the majority wanted universal health care. That may be what the far left would like. I do not know where you get your breakdown of the 46 Million but a great deal of the problen stems from fewer employers providing health care as part of their compensation package. It also stems from the relatively high insuranse premiums for health care, even for younger families with children. $400-600 per month for family coverage is low today. That is a large part of the average workers after tax income!

drmiler

If members of Congress listen to those the represent, they should not approve most of the Bush policies since the majority do not support them. If they do not listen, then they should be removed from office ASAP (2006 for ther House and 1/3 of the Senate).
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never said Americans wnat a socialist health care system. They do want health care coverage which 46 Million do not have. it is also true that a liberal will support policies that are more extreem then a moderate, however the conservatives want none of the social issues even those that are more moderate. That is why we need a split in the control. That will produce policies that are more moderate because both sides must give a bit to get anything done. At the present time it is all one way and that is not good for this country!


Agreeing once again with drmiller. You guys just don't get it. The reason democrats are not in power and keep losing is because of the policies they support.


When Bush was in Wisconsin, a woman told him she has 3 jobs. Bush said, "That's fantastic." He's such an out-of-touch idiot he didn't even understand that she wasn't bragging. She was complaining that she has to have 3 jobs to make ends meet.


What should he have said? Quit your job and go on welfare. It takes someone 3 jobs, good for them. At least they aren't taking advantage of the system. She should be applauded.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
If members of Congress listen to those the represent, they should not approve most of the Bush policies since the majority do not support them. If they do not listen, then they should be removed from office ASAP (2006 for ther House and 1/3 of the Senate).


You yourself have said Americans don't make good choices, so if they don't make good choices in life why should we follow policies from the same people. You don't base policies on what a poll of 2000 people want.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, the women should be applauded. The issue is that she should NOT be required to work three jobs just to live!

Bush was not elected for what he wants to do. In fact if he had said what he was up to, he would NOT have been re-elected!

Why adopt policies that the majority want? Because that is what our system stands for.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still think he represents the majority of this nation far better than any other candidate did. I voted against him, but recognize that I'm in the minority.

You make claim after claim of what the majority wants when it has clearly been shown in the past set of elections that the majority (the ones that vote at least, and to be honest they're the only ones who really matter) supports Bush and his right-of-center policies. He's doing exactly what he said he was going to do. I don't think he's pulled any policy out of nowhere on us since he got reelected. If nothing else, Bush is incredibly consistent.

Your "majority" exists largely in your mind.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still think he represents the majority of this nation far better than any other candidate did. I voted against him, but recognize that I'm in the minority.

You make claim after claim of what the majority wants when it has clearly been shown in the past set of elections that the majority (the ones that vote at least, and to be honest they're the only ones who really matter) supports Bush and his right-of-center policies. He's doing exactly what he said he was going to do. I don't think he's pulled any policy out of nowhere on us since he got reelected. If nothing else, Bush is incredibly consistent.

Your "majority" exists largely in your mind.


You might as well give it up zoomba. It doesn't matter how many times/ways that you show him to be wrong. He'll never admit to it. And FYI we're in the majority not the minority. If we were the minority Kerry would be in office.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poll after Poll shows that the majority do not support the Bush position on the major issues facing this country! Bush is consistant and the results he is producing show he is consistantly wrong- Fiscal policy (deficit) , trade, Iraq, energy, border protection, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade etc.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poll after Poll shows that the majority do not support the Bush position on the major issues facing this country! Bush is consistant and the results he is producing show he is consistantly wrong- Fiscal policy (deficit) , trade, Iraq, energy, border protection, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade etc.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is that she should NOT be required to work three jobs just to live!


Correct.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why adopt policies that the majority want? Because that is what our system stands for.




unless, of course, those same policies that the majority wants are contrary to the liberal agenda, right? Afterall...the majority proved that they did not want same-sex marraige....but....well, we all know where that "want" is going, right?

And what is interesting to me...the majority voted Bush back in....so, shouldn't we support that? Oh wait....he doesn't saddle up next to the liberal agenda....
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
You've also made claim that the people aren't smart enough to know what they want.

Which is it? Too stupid to make a choice, or the voice that must be heeded?

And polls are highly inaccurate as they tend to get skewed, or they don't sample voting persons exclusively. The only true indicator of agreement or disagreement is an election.. Guess who won?
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
My comments about people making bad choices related to investment decissions. That has been shown to be the case in the past. We are not talking about this. Supporting border protection, balanced Budgets, not changing the structure of Social Security and many of his spending cuts are just a few examples where the Bush policies do not fit what the vast majority want. All of these require Congressional action. This is where the will of the majority should be enacted even if it does not agree with Bush!
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
My comments about people making bad choices related to investment decissions. That has been shown to be the case in the past. We are not talking about this. Supporting border protection, balanced Budgets, not changing the structure of Social Security and many of his spending cuts are just a few examples where the Bush policies do not fit what the vast majority want. All of these require Congressional action. This is where the will of the majority should be enacted even if it does not agree with Bush!


So then by your OWN words! If they DO go through it MUST be the will of the people. Right?
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Right. About 70 % do not want the Social Security system changed the way Bush is suggesting. Thus, you deal with the funding issue, which the individual accounts do not fix and move on. In that way the issue of millions of people making investment choices that may not prove to be good for them is a non-issue! If you want to stress investments in the equity markets, over and above Social Sceurity, that is fine.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, the women should be applauded. The issue is that she should NOT be required to work three jobs just to live!

Bush was not elected for what he wants to do. In fact if he had said what he was up to, he would NOT have been re-elected!

Why adopt policies that the majority want? Because that is what our system stands for.


First of all, you don't know the womans lifestyle is to say that. There is nothing in the Constitution that says every American is required to work one job. If someone needs to work three jobs because they made wrong choices in their life, then there is no reason for complaint.

You keep making your comments about what people want and what the "polls" show. Polls of 2000 people mean absolutely nothing. We had a major poll in which over 60 million people chose the policies of Bush instead of Kerry. Just get over it. A politician cannot please every single person in America. You say people in America aren't smart enough to make their own financial decisions, but somehow they are experts in foreign and domestic policy and should be listened to without question.

Until you understand why people like you are in the minority and keep losing elections, you will continue to be wrong on just about everything.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
It wouldn't be so bad if Bush took a few liberal ideas for once, like importing drugs from Canada so that they don't cost as much. The fact is you complain that some people are too far to the left. What about the fact that even old school republicans say that George W. is too far to the right. I think a good choice for GWB would be to adopt a policy that works, now that he does not have a vote to worry about securing he could stop being so stubborn and try and fix some of the problems we have here at home with solutions that are right in front of his face. (let the uneducated flaming begin.)
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
It would be good if Bush just took a look at his policies that are not working and be willing to try something different. For example, Trade, the deficit, Social Security, Energy and border security!
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
Right. About 70 % do not want the Social Security system changed the way Bush is suggesting


All of this is rhetorical. We'll see when/if it goes through congress.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
I suppose its always possible that Bush and the Pope have much more in common than you think.

Consider, for example, Winston Churchill's devastating idictment of Neville Chamberlain's policies regarding National Socialist Germany, prior to Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. Consider also Chamberlain's utter disregard for Churchill's well-researched and clearly argued dire warnings on the subject.

Then consider how, after the fall of Poland, Chamberlain and Churchill joined forces, with mutual respect, total cooperation, and complete agreement, to the profound benefit of the entire world.

I don't doubt that Bush's PR people told him the visit would be a good thing--it obviously is. But I wouldn't be surprised if the relationship between the ideas of the Pope and the ideas of the President is more complex and complementary than you might think at first glance.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
also funny is that the founding fathers would not have attended, or that Bush Brought Ms. Rice with him,
I know my Wife would not let me bring some woman i had kissed on the lips on public television with me to rome.......
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush continues to betray the American founding principles. would any of the founding Fathers have done this,
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
true but a great man respects his country and his father but does not use them, and you agree that BUsh would be nothing if he had grown up like most americans?