The case against Bush

[thomas144]

The current issue of the New Yorker has an interesting comment in the "Talk of the Town" section which I think sums up the case against Bush rather nicely:


COMMENT
CONVENTIONAL WARFARE

Issue of 2004-08-09 and 16
Posted 2004-08-02

There’s a case to be made that it hardly matters how eloquent or effective John Kerry was at the Democratic National Convention last week. What matters infinitely more is that George W. Bush is the worst President the country has endured since Richard Nixon, and even mediocrity would be an improvement. Indeed, if one regards the Bush Administration’s sins of governance—its distortion of intelligence in a time of crisis, its grotesque indulgence of the rich at the expense of the rest, its arrogant dissolution of American prestige and influence abroad, its heedless squandering of the world’s resources—as worse than the third-rate burglary and second-rate coverup of thirty years ago, then President Bush is in a league only with the likes of Harding, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan.


Here is a link to the full text:


New Yorker Talk of the Town (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040809ta_talk_remnick)

[jeepndd]

Weak and unsubstantiated, next...

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by thomas144
What matters infinitely more is that George W. Bush is the worst President the country has endured since Richard Nixon, and even mediocrity would be an improvement.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Psycology teaches us that what we blame others for is usually what we are giltiy of ourselves.

That being said, The Democratic endorsed media is flooding the market with retoric such as this in hopes that We, like so many commoners will accept what they say as Truth simply becouse they say it is. The real question comes when YOU question the motives of organizations Like the New Yorker or the NYTimes. after all, they will only print what will bring them a profit as opposed to what the Truth is. Isn't that reason enough to NOT trust what they say?

[sir_drinkalot]

.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by thomas144
The current issue of the New Yorker has an interesting comment in the "Talk of the Town" section which I think sums up the case against Bush rather nicely:


COMMENT
CONVENTIONAL WARFARE

Issue of 2004-08-09 and 16
Posted 2004-08-02

There’s a case to be made that it hardly matters how eloquent or effective John Kerry was at the Democratic National Convention last week. What matters infinitely more is that George W. Bush is the worst President the country has endured since Richard Nixon, and even mediocrity would be an improvement. Indeed, if one regards the Bush Administration’s sins of governance—its distortion of intelligence in a time of crisis, its grotesque indulgence of the rich at the expense of the rest, its arrogant dissolution of American prestige and influence abroad, its heedless squandering of the world’s resources—as worse than the third-rate burglary and second-rate coverup of thirty years ago, then President Bush is in a league only with the likes of Harding, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan.


Here is a link to the full text:


New Yorker Talk of the Town (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040809ta_talk_remnick)

Sounds like some a-hole's opinion to me. I have not been effected by Bush's "indulgence of the rich", and I'm not rich!

[Ballbustah]

A couple of things I find unacceptable about Bush.
And I voted for him last time.

He is so religiously opposed to furthering scientific research in the area of stem cells.
Fanatics either way are not healthy for this country.

His advisors threw him under the bus with the WMD.
Even though there may be some hidden somewhere.

I really think George W. Bush is a dumb dumb.
I can see it in his face every time he speaks.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
A couple of things I find unacceptable about Bush.
And I voted for him last time.
I'm in an identical situation.

He is so religiously opposed to furthering scientific research in the area of stem cells.
Fanatics either way are not healthy for this country.
While I don't disagree with the latter sentiment, the former is not all that accurate. His decision, while painted in the press as extremist, was actually a helluva compromise position for him to take, and, IMO, pretty well thought through:

The executive action allowed for continued federal funding of the use of existing embryonic stem cell lines (which at the time numbered 72 lines) in experimentation, and totally unrestricted federal funding of unfettered use of umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells.

It did not, contrary to popular belief, ban or restrict use of embryonic stem cells in experimentation. It only restricted *federal funding* of such experimentation to existing lines. So a privately funded firm or organization can continue to use other lines of embryonic stem cells in its work - but the government will not pay for it to do so.

To me, this makes sense - the most common source of embryonic stem cells are elective abortions. Bush didn't want to use tax dollars to provide an enormous secondary source of revenue to abortion facilities, which is in line with his well-known opinions on that issue.

Now, as it turns out, many of the original 72 lines usable for federally funded research have since been rendered unusable for one reason or another. It's possible that the EA will have to be reconsidered in order for it to remain viable. I strongly suspect that, if re-elected, Bush may re-compromise on this issue. For instance, he may elect to allow funding to research using embryonic stem cells from leftovers from fertility treatment centers that do NOT perform abortions. But I don't know.

On the other hand, look at it this way: How many times do you hear people complain that our political leaders do what they feel is politically expedient rather than what they feel is right?

I really think George W. Bush is a dumb dumb.
I can see it in his face every time he speaks.
That may be true, too. But while not ideal, as long as a President is a good leader and is smart enough to surround himself with competent people AND LISTEN TO THEM, I'll take that over your basic card-carrying Mensa Member with too much of an ego to let his advisors do their thing.

I don't know. I think both of them are monkeys. By voting for Bush, I figure that we'll have a fresh slate of candidates in 4 years rather than 8.

[Ballbustah]

I would preferre that our president be intelligent enough to follow his own train of thought instead of relying on advisors to tell him what to do.
It just seems that Bush might not have the capacity to reason out a problem.
Either that or he is a dumb dumb.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
He is so religiously opposed to furthering scientific research in the area of stem cells.
Fanatics either way are not healthy for this country. I've heard this from many people, but I'm not sure if it is true. I thought that Bush approved some government funding for research in this field. If I'm wrong, so be it, but I just think that because he didn't fund everything that some people wanted, his position got distorted to try to get additional funding.
________
volcano vaporizer review (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/volcano)

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by dchester
I've heard this from many people, but I'm not sure if it is true. I thought that Bush approved some government funding for research in this field. If I'm wrong, so be it, but I just think that because he didn't fund everything that some people wanted, his position got distorted to try to get additional funding.
See my (fairly detailed) post above.

As to whether he's stupid...I think he has a learning disability.

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
A couple of things I find unacceptable about Bush.
And I voted for him last time.

He is so religiously opposed to furthering scientific research in the area of stem cells.
Fanatics either way are not healthy for this country.

His advisors threw him under the bus with the WMD.
Even though there may be some hidden somewhere.

I really think George W. Bush is a dumb dumb.
I can see it in his face every time he speaks.

As I understand his position on stem cell research, he is opposed to developing any new fetal stem cell lines..

At present there is a small number of cell lines extracted from fetuses. These are grown in a lab and so you essentially have an umlimited supply of these particular lines.

There is a desire among some researchers to aquire additional cell lines from fetuses.

From a purely scientific standpoint, I can understand the desire of the scientists to advance this work and acquire the cells from the only place they can get them.

The primary source for new cell lines would be aborted fetuses. This is the basis for GWB's oppositon.

Now I understand that there are different opinions regarding abortion in this country and I accept that Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land.

GWB has made a decision that he will not support activities that involve what he views as a morally unacceptable act.

Now you can call that a decision based on religion if you wish, but I understand how he reached his decision and respect his willingness to take a stand based on his principles.

I will agree that GWB is a very poor public speaker, but that does not mean that he is a dumb dumb.

The UPI (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r) has a story esitmating his IQ.

[jeepndd]

What medical breakthroughs has stem cell research brought us? The answer is NONE! The scientists keep saying that it shows promise and they have been saying that for decades now but, nothing has come of it yet...Bush didn't ban stem cell research, despite it's lack of delivering results, he just limited some funding paid for with tax dollars. I fail to see any reasonable argument against Bush in this regard. In fact, I fail to see any reasonable argument from the left against Bush. There are plenty of valid and quantifiable reasons to criticize the man and the best the left has is that he lies and that he is dumb both of which seem to be easily proven to be untrue. And given thier supposed angst toward liars it just boggles the mind that they aren't up in arms trying to crucify John Kerry. After all, Kerry lied about his position on the war in Iraq and his position on foriegn policy until after he won the nomination. Despite all his faults at least I know where President Bush stands on the issues...