Keep on debating, Bush won't care.

Post Reply New Topic

Some people like to ramble on about how they hate George W. Bush. I hate him myself. The problem is that he won't listen. He's ignorant. All presidents are, and were back then. Just get on with life, since at least he doesn't "rule" this country like the old monarchs did with theirs.

On a side note I do think he's gone too far with the Iraq war. If I were him I'd withdraw the soldiers from there. They got Saddam, now what? There's nothing left.

Not only does Bush not care what we think, he has surrounded himself with people that he knows will not disagree with him. He becomes rather rude with anyone who disagress with him (I remember reading something about it, can't find it though ;_; ).

Our continued presence in Iraq is necessary because of the "if you break it you bought it" rule. We simply must remain there to try to fix it. There are other issues when it comes to whether we should have been there or not. My only issue with Iraq is that it costs us money and we already have a deficit. We cannot leave but we also need to leave.

The Bush administration is a monarchy almost. That akin to some of the less popular British or French monarchs in past.

"And then I said, 'Well then let them eat cake!'"

Well, I can't say I love Bush, but I don't really him, either. I do dislike his "government is the panacea of civilization" attitude, but that is the same attitude ANY person in politics is going to have. The only difference is one side tries to control morality while the other tries to control the economy. It used to be that way, leastways. Now, though, everyone wants a moderate. A moderate combines the worst of both sides in an attempt to please everyone, the end result being that everyone is worse off than they were before.

So, what to do about it? I could whine and complain and call him all sorts of names and debate his intelligence. Or I could figure out exactly what it is that I dislike, and work to change it. And the hardest part of doing that is asking the right questions. I don't think Bush is the problem; I think the whole mess of government is the problem, and it can hardly be blamed on one man, since there are how many people trying to run our lives? (Not just the executive branch, but the legislative and judicial branches, both national and state. Plus the seemingly endless list of beaurocracies and cabinets and task forces...none of whom are voted in, but appointed.)

I think there is a litmus test that ought to be run on ANY sort of policy before being put into law. I call it the Proper Role of Government Test.

Does it establish justice?
Does it ensure domestic tranquility?
Does it provide for common defense?
Does it promote--not provide--general welfare?
Does it secure the blessing of liberty?

For instance, locally, there is a certain coalitition of concerned parents and educators who are upset at the increase in skin cancers among children due to exposure to UVB rays found in tanning beds. They are actually thinking of making a law that says no one under 18 can use tanning beds for their own safety.

Now, is this the proper role of government?

And the same principle applies nationally as well.

I really disliked the State of the Union Address, I really dislike the Patriot Act. I really dislike Social Security and the fact that my current state of residence has over a billion dollar tax SURPLUS, and is debating over whether or not we can afford to cut taxes. I also dislike that every political science class I've taken focuses in on ONE MAN rather than at the whole of the problem, which is caused by a huge shift in American ideology over the past century.

But the only logical thing I can do is educate myself on what I think the proper role of government is, and, in turn, teach it to other people. Simply saying I someone is not going to change anything.

I would not call the Bush administration similar to a monarchy. It is true that Bush tends to very out of touch with the news due to his self-imposed isolation and dislike of bad news, however, he lacks a lot of control and the executive branch is more of a figure head than the role of king. Bush has a lot less power than presidents like Andrew Jackson and possibly others who willingly violated the constitution multiple times in order to impose their will. If Bush is a king then he is one lacking in a kingdom.

All of you have very interesting points. The Bush administration is more or less powerful due to the screwiness of the entire government. Living in Upstate NY, I'd say Governor Pataki is worse than Bush. He may not be externally linked to outside affairs, but he's been on vacation to Vermont, raised the state budget and lowered it and then raised it again several times ad nauseum, promoted casinos against many Native Americans who still live here (again, wasting the budget), and no matter what idea possible left lots of state citizens unemployed.

Bush on the other hand isn't entirely blamed for the country's overall deficit. Clinton wasted lots of government money apparently on his own life, leaving his term without consideration and putting Bush in responsibility. Yet Bush isn't doing a respectable job lowering the budget either. Instead he wastes it on weapons to counteract some conspiracy that doesn't exist, at least in my opinion.

Overall it's not the presidency to blame though. America no matter how free is still a ruthless society bent on favoring the rich and dissing the poor, even as a majority.