 |
More Than a Little bit out of Touch |
 |
President Bush has now vetoed four bills. Each of these has been in direct defiance of the will of the American people.
According to the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling organization that tracks the issue, roughly two-thirds of all Democrats and independents favor embryonic stem cell research, while nearly half of all Republicans do.
2. Partial Withdrawal from Iraq:
Most Americans disagree with President Bush's decision last week to veto the war funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
3. Stem Cell Research, again: Poll
Americans by a 2-1 margin support stem cell research and say it should be funded by the federal government, despite controversy over its use of human embryos.
And the latest, coming just hours ago.
4. Children's Health Insurance:
The veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.
Bush has vetoed four bills and has been out of touch with the American people all four times.
Bush is completely out of touch, and beyond that, he's decided to destroy his party in the process. If Republicans fail to override his veto in a few weeks, their popularity sinks to new lows. How many popular bills will Republicans sink before the country takes it out on them in a serious way?
George W. Bush does not care about the American people, because he is lucky enough to be in the upper income class. Even his own father doesn't speak to him much anymore. He is doing the exact same thing with this country that he has done with every business endeavor he has laid hands on…running it into the ground without concern for the other people involved.
If he doesn't end up on trial in front of the U.N. for the horrific mess he's made of this country and Iraq, then America has become the country its founders left behind in the 1600s, hoping for greater freedom. Maybe we just need to throw them all out and start over.
I don't like Bush, but one of the president's jobs is to veto bills he thinks are not good for the country. There's a reason this country isn't a direct democracy.
He has done many unconstitutional things, but you're going a little overboard here saying he's in direct defiance of the will of the American people when he properly exercises his executive powers. If the American people want it so bad, Congress will override the vetoes.
oh oh.. I know… he does this because… even when he gives us the finger, the voters keep voting in Republicans!
Hmmm..
Maybe… I know, I know!!! lets not vote for for Republicans anymore!
Golly I are smart.
I found this ironic in context of items 1, 3, and 4 in the post. Freedom is not letting the government silently remove a portion of your paycheck to cover another man's medical expenses. Freedom is receiving your entire paycheck and passing out funds as you see fit. If some people are greedy and refuse to share, freedom means living with it, trying to persuade those people to your point of view, or increasing your own donations to make up the difference. It doesn't mean taking that money forcibly via the government.
"I don’t like Bush, but one of the president’s jobs is to veto bills he thinks are not good for the country. There’s a reason this country isn’t a direct democracy."
Wrong. The ability to veto is something that is given to the president as a form of checks and balances. The ability to veto was -never- intended to be used in the way that it is currently being used.
You see, the intention of the system is to represent the public. The public, feeling little civic obligation to vote in anything other than presidential elections, then flock to a candidate that holds similar values - that way, the candidate can be trusted to veto objects that they feel their constituents support. This effectively eliminates the veto as a proper check and balance.
Due to the American publics' total apathy and laziness, we are subverting the entire system - hoping that throwing a vote in for a candidate that (example) supports GLBT issues will look after this cause. That. Is. Not. How. The. System. Works. If doing it the "proper" way entails (again, keeping with the example) having the term "civil union" redefined every 2 years, grandfathering those who had a chance to marry in that period: then so be it. It's a hot topic, that's how things go.
Do -not- give up your civic duty just because you are lazy, and do -not- misunderstand what a presiding power "can" do with what a presiding power "should" do.
Maybe most of you are living in a different country! I'm not a supporter of Bush, However we do not live in a socialist society. This definition is from Wikipedia:
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is the GIGANTIC government that covers all the needs of it's people. Our founding fathers concieved a SMALL government without broad reaching power.
Wake UP and start thinking on your own. This issue is about the government controlling everything. Vote for Ron Paul and let's get rid of GIGANTIC government!
I love how the far right cries bloody murder over stem-cell research and protecting the "unborn", yet they do nothing to protect those that are already alive and living.
Can't wait til this coWard is gone from office.
I pray the Republicans aren't aren't to steal this election, either, and the American people have the balls to elect someone worthwhile.
I'm tired of being ashamed of being an American.
More like "I love how the far left cries about civil liberties, yet in the next breath asks for a larger portion of the public to get its daily bread/health care/education/etc from the Federal government.
No where in the Constitution does the Fed have the rights to take my money and give it to someone else's kids. High deductible health care is NOT EXPENSIVE. I know I just purchased some. Such a *wild idea* that people pay for their own checkups huh?
Maybe You should crawl out of that baby crib you live in and pay for *your own stuff*.
Some Facts for the wild emotions in here:
One third of the '47 million without insurance' are already eligible for Medicare/Medicaid and aren't taking advantage. Another third of the 47 million are illegal or non-citizens(Visa).
Vote buying, nothing more.
I'm in complete agreement with DavidM.
I do not agree with much of what Bush has done, but striking down this health initiative is one thing he got right. Too much of our paychecks are already being robbed by big government.
Democrats are always giving my hard earned paychecks to everyone else. Socialism is a society created for the lazy people always wanting someone else to do the work and hand over a paycheck. This is one of the reasons social security is going bankrupt. I know numerous people 40 and younger claiming they have "mental illnesses" and collecting a social security check when they never paid in. Those same people are then turning around and blowing that money on dope, cigarettes, and booze. There isn't anything wrong with them that a swift kick in the ass wouldn't fix.
Quit your whining and quit trying to steal my money. At least a mugger doesn't try to hide that they are a thief.
If the lefties/socialists take too much those of us that actually work for a living will eventually just stop.
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
I'm happy to debate conservatives, but these are just thinly veiled talking points. Let me paraphrase the two posts above:
"I oppose health care for children because I want more money in my pocket."
If you want to get into SCHIP, then lets talk about SCHIP. But it's hard to find this line of reasoning credible when the SCHIP program is a) so popular and b) not socialized medicine at all. I actually wish it was socialized medicine…that would be nice.
Instead of complaining about the current administration, maybe you hippies will go out and vote next time.
Cry me a river….you don't like it?….too bad.
That is the reason the veto was created in the first place…. to give the executive branch a say in legislation. If all if his vetos were "against the will of the people" then why did the "people" elect him for a second term?
We ask for "Leaders who Lead" and then complain when they don't sway in the wind?
Love him or Hate him…. one thing is indisputable– Bush is not a reed in the wind. I agree with on some and disagree on others but he stands his ground against all.
So does that mean the bills he didn't veto were the will of the American people?
On education:
So you're saying that all education should be privatized or home-schooled? That sure is great news for all the low income families who would be trapped in poverty, simply because they can't afford to give their kids a decent education.
(But I'm guessing that you don't come from a poor family and that you got your education—you surely don't sound stupid.)
On health care:
I'll need to quote Hippocrates on this one:
"To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art."
Do you see the part about sharing (and there's a second translation with better wording on this part too on wikipedia)?
Well I'll be darned, good ol' Hippocrates, "the father of medicine", was a far left liberal! He wanted to share! What audacity! Oh, and that means that the hundreds of thousands of doctors since him who have followed in his footsteps (by repeating the very same oath) don't know a thing about basic human rights.
You're so self-absorbed that you can't realize that other people need help too. Capitalism (and the view you're espousing) doesn't give a shit about anything other than money. You'd know this if you've taken econ 101.
If we took capitalism and applied it to health care, we would have all doctors checking for payment before they checked your pulse. I mean, why try to save a person if you're not guaranteed payment? Surely the hospital wouldn't want to incur extra costs by saving the life of a homeless man (or a vagrant or an immigrant, etc.), because wouldn't those costs be passed onto you later in your next hospital bill!?
If you think the hospital should save the vagrant, then you are in essence agreeing with me.
If you think the hospital shouldn't save the vagrant, you need to go back to 1941.