SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Really getting tired of Bush... (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=123890)

DeepIron 10-22-07 03:40 PM

Really getting tired of Bush...
 
I'm really getting sick of his "patriotic rhetoric" and "we need more money" schtick:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...ing/index.html

"Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not -- and that is that America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people," President Bush said in an appearance with members of veterans groups at the White House.

Yes, WAY to complicated for his limited intelligence, and I'm not talking about the CIA... And he ALWAYS makes it a call for "support of the troops". I support the troops, they are doing what they are commanded to do. It makes me puke to think I'm also supporting Bush's War and sacrificing my personal freedoms under the guise of the "war on terrorism" and Homeland Security... :down:

"Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need," he said.

What a crock... He wants more $$$ to fund a failing war but doesn't want to give a single penny for expanded healthcare for children. Sickening. Does this schlep even think about US domestic issues? How deep does he think the public coffers go anyway? :damn:

"It's no wonder the American people are frustrated," Reid said. "We've been fighting for America's priorities, while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy. He wants us to come up with another $200 billion and just sign off on it -- that's what he said today."

Ok, more rhetoric. So let's see if Reid and the rest of Congress can "grow some bolts" and stop this stupidity... :nope:

AVGWarhawk 10-22-07 04:56 PM

Quote:

What a crock... He wants more $$$ to fund a failing war but doesn't want to give a single penny for expanded healthcare for children.
There is more to it than that. If you recall the big stink the Dems made over his possible veto and then he veto'd the bill. Yet, the Dems said they would vote to overthrow the veto. That failed. The Dems saw the light. The Dems were just attempting to make Bush look bad for their own gain in the polls and getting good old Hillary in the white house. Recall Hillary's announcment of healthcare for all if she was elected that came out the same time this was happening? That failed also. If Bush was so bad in his thinking on this then why did congress not get the override on the veto? Because they knew it would create problems far greater than what the plan does now. If this program was expanded like they wanted it would have given the golden key to the crapper for employers not to have to assist in health benefits for their employees. It all would have fallen on the government. It would have opened the door to those that can afford health insurance and they would come into the program thus muddling the program for those that really need it. One needs to look at the total overall picture and not what the news likes to create, such as Bush does not care for kids and smear campaigns during political jockeying for the white house.

SUBMAN1 10-22-07 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
Quote:

What a crock... He wants more $$$ to fund a failing war but doesn't want to give a single penny for expanded healthcare for children.
There is more to it than that. If you recall the big stink the Dems made over his possible veto and then he veto'd the bill. Yet, the Dems said they would vote to overthrow the veto. That failed. The Dems saw the light. The Dems were just attempting to make Bush look bad for their own gain in the polls and getting good old Hillary in the white house. Recall Hillary's announcment of healthcare for all if she was elected that came out the same time this was happening? That failed also. If Bush was so bad in his thinking on this then why did congress not get the override on the veto? Because they knew it would create problems far greater than what the plan does now. If this program was expanded like they wanted it would have given the golden key to the crapper for employers not to have to assist in health benefits for their employees. It all would have fallen on the government. It would have opened the door to those that can afford health insurance and they would come into the program thus muddling the program for those that really need it. One needs to look at the total overall picture and not what the news likes to create, such as Bush does not care for kids and smear campaigns during political jockeying for the white house.

Totally have to concure. I am also against funding health care for illegal aliens. Tell them to go home to Mexico to get their friggen health care.

-S

The WosMan 10-22-07 05:15 PM

Hmm, tell me where in the Constitution it says government shall make laws to guarantee heath care to people. I am pretty sure I can find though where it says things about war though. I don't find it sickening at all, the federal government's role is not to provide for you or anyone else other than roads and infrastructure and protection. The rest is up to you pal, don't like it? Get a job and pay like everyone else.

Let's leave our healthcare in the hands of private organizations and not Hillary Clinton. The last thing I need is an organization that functions as well as the BMV or the post office taking care of my health issues. "Ma'am, I think I am having a heart attack"
"Oh sorry we're busy"
"But there are three of you here"
"Oh those other two are on break, you'll have to take a number"
"This is crazy!"
"Are you getting mouthy with me sir, I will have to ask you to leave"
"AAAAAAACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK" ........ drops dead.

Do you know of any "poor little children" who are suffering right now, because I sure don't. If anything, the little kids have health problems because they need to get off the nintendos and video games and go outside and play like kids are supposed to.

10-22-07 05:18 PM

Many topics here. I will try to address each.

Health care: Vetoed because it allowed people with incomes upto USD$ 80,000/year to have government care for their children which was designed for the poor (SCHIP). Why aren't you upset over the 'rich' getting free healthcare?
If you make that much cash you can afford private health care. Even at $1,000/month.

The Democrat controlled congress has always said it supported the troops so this should be a no brainer for them, regardless of what GW says on the CNN. Unless of course they were not being honest.
What Harry Reid says, by his own admission, is of little value, unless of course if he hits the Moveon/ G. Soros talking points.

SUBMAN1 10-22-07 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The WosMan
...If anything, the little kids have health problems because they need to get off the nintendos and video games and go outside and play like kids are supposed to.

Woo hoo! Way to tell it like it is.

+2 points!

-S

sunvalleyslim 10-22-07 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The WosMan
Hmm, tell me where in the Constitution it says government shall make laws to guarantee heath care to people. I am pretty sure I can find though where it says things about war though. I don't find it sickening at all, the federal government's role is not to provide for you or anyone else other than roads and infrastructure and protection. The rest is up to you pal, don't like it? Get a job and pay like everyone else.

Let's leave our healthcare in the hands of private organizations and not Hillary Clinton. The last thing I need is an organization that functions as well as the BMV or the post office taking care of my health issues. "Ma'am, I think I am having a heart attack"
"Oh sorry we're busy"
"But there are three of you here"
"Oh those other two are on break, you'll have to take a number"
"This is crazy!"
"Are you getting mouthy with me sir, I will have to ask you to leave"
"AAAAAAACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK" ........ drops dead.

Do you know of any "poor little children" who are suffering right now, because I sure don't. If anything, the little kids have health problems because they need to get off the nintendos and video games and go outside and play like kids are supposed to.

Tell it like it is brother..............:up::up::up:

The WosMan 10-22-07 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waste gate
Many topics here. I will try to address each.

Health care: Vetoed because it allowed people with incomes upto USD$ 80,000/year to have government care for their children which was designed for the poor (SCHIP). Why aren't you upset over the 'rich' getting free healthcare?
If you make that much cash you can afford private health care. Even at $1,000/month.

The Democrat controlled congress has always said it supported the troops so this should be a no brainer for them, regardless of what GW says on the CNN. Unless of course they were not being honest.
What Harry Reid says, by his own admission, is of little value, unless of course if he hits the Moveon/ G. Soros talking points.

Well apparently Reid and Limbaugh had a big french kiss and made up and Harry was endorsing Limbaugh's letter as a good cause. I wonder if Harry, with his millions, and his 3 sons with their crooked lobbyist jobs made any contributions to the troops like Limbaugh has? I know not only has Limbaugh been a chairperson for over 10 years on the Marine Corps charity that this EBay auction raised money for but he also matched the bid by giving over 2,000,000 of his own money to its foundation.

Tchocky 10-22-07 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The WosMan
Hmm, tell me where in the Constitution it says government shall make laws to guarantee heath care to people. I am pretty sure I can find though where it says things about war though. I don't find it sickening at all, the federal government's role is not to provide for you or anyone else other than roads and infrastructure and protection. The rest is up to you pal, don't like it? Get a job and pay like everyone else.

Well, there's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution that should be done by a government. Things like environmental protection.
"Hey man, if lead poisoning and nuclear waste are so dangerous, then why aren't they in the constitution?!?"

etc

The WosMan 10-22-07 06:15 PM

I think private companies probably could do a better job of cleaning that up as well. Where I work we have a company that comes out and recycles all of our old computer components and parts. You know those CRT monitors are just filled with lead and mercury. However, nothing wrong with a little nuclear waste though, how else are we going to ween ourselves off those horrible polluting fossil fuels so we can save the planet from the ravaging effects of global warming? Today I can say I have met a Constitutional scholar from Europe!

DeepIron 10-22-07 06:19 PM

Quote:

One needs to look at the total overall picture and not what the news likes to create, such as Bush does not care for kids and smear campaigns during political jockeying for the white house.
I don't formulate my opinions based solely on what a "news" media has to report... really, I'm a bit more informed than that! LOL... ;) The Dems are USELESS and IMPOTENT! They couldn't veto their way out of a wet paper sack. They have no effective leadership and it's doubtful they will in the foreseeable future... IMO.

So how can ANY program that promotes the health of our kids be ANY worse than what is happening now? I would much rather pay my taxes for healthcare for children as flawed a system as it may be, rather than continue to funnel them into the pit we call the Iraqi War... I don't care WHAT kind of political firestorm it may have caused. We have spent more $$$ for stupider and more useless things in this country than this.

Every political scenario lately seems to boil down to a morass of inter-party politicking and self-indugence. The Dems do this, the Republicans do that, and in the meantime, everyone else suffers...

What the hell has gone wrong with this country?? Now, we use our kids as "cannon fodder" for an ongoing political power struggle? I frankly could care less about whether or not any particular political party scores "points" against the other. American politics have degenerated to the point of utter futility...

I don't give a wet slap if the next president is Clinton, Obama or Mickey Mouse. The political system in this country is so far beyond repair it won't matter who wins, the tax-paying American Middeclass loses...

Quote:

Do you know of any "poor little children" who are suffering right now?
Yeah, I do... thx for asking...

Quote:

Why aren't you upset over the 'rich' getting free healthcare?
Simple, it's the rich who run this country. Why get upset over something that has been an ongoing fact of life for decades?

The WosMan 10-22-07 06:26 PM

The children of this country are not suffering by any means. Funny though how the same group of politicians that seem to care so much about children have no problems with allowing people to kill them before they are born. Before that comment sets in, that is just my honest opinion, I am not looking to open another can of worms, I just find it hypocritical....that is all.

AVGWarhawk 10-22-07 06:31 PM

Like Wastegate said...many topics here.

The war. Now, lets looks back at how gunho America was to get the 'party started' in Iraq after 9/11. The Dems backed them all the way. Go get'em Buck-a-roo Bush! Yee-ha! Now that we are losing and look like a bunch of chumps, time to pack up the football and head on home. Sounds fine and dandy but America is part of this mess in Iraq and the whole area right now is very volatile. Turkey is looking over the board to gun down the Kurds. The same thing Sadam was up to but he prefered gas. Putin is hanging in Iran. Yet, another volatile situation. America is setting up missiles in Poland pointed at our cold war buddies. Sooner or later it will come crashing down. The democratic congress is just as befuddled as the rest concerning pulling out or 'stay the course' as Buck-a-roo likes to say. No matter how we look at it, we are going to be there a very long time. Our presence in the region was there with the Clinton years. The torch is just past to the next. Again, see it for face value, election year coming up, dems want control of all. They attempt smear campaign after smear campaign and push Hillary like crack cocaine. The media is in a frenzy and it is very evident that the likes of CBS and CNN (Clinton News Network) constantly push the 'Bush is an idiot button'. Yet, look at Fox News and get a different picture painted. One really needs to look at all the news networks to get a complete picture. It is up to the individual to make the assessment of what is really happening. There is so much political postering one can not keep it straight.

Quote:


"Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need," he said.

Darn straight! They should have their butts in there getting the situation under control but we find the likes of Senator Craig in the mens room looking for some loving. :roll: This stupid story spends more time on the headlines than the war. This is were Americas priorities lay. It is sickening. Oh, and lets talk about Britney Spears some more.

IMHO, we should stay the course. If not, we are only just going to be over there again after some boarding country decides they need more land and resources. After all, this is how wars are started. One country is running out of resources so they look to thy neighbor for them. Like I said, pull out and we will be right back sporting M16 for some other reason. Our presence needs to be there. Our troops do need our support. They need the 200 billion for body armor and such. This is part of 'supporting our troops'.

The terrorist network is very much active. This is evident as seen daily with bombings, etc.

Bush is not my best buddy but under the current circumstances, I believe that anyone in the oval office right now would be seen as a fool and an idiot.

10-22-07 06:34 PM

The muslim terrorists got the party started with 9/11. Thinking that the US was as weak as the Clintonistas.

AVGWarhawk 10-22-07 06:35 PM

Per Deepiron


Quote:

So how can ANY program that promotes the health of our kids be ANY worse than what is happening now?
This new program would hurt the kids more. There would be an influx of people who can afford healthcare without government support. Allowing these people to do this takes away liquid assets that would normally go to those that really need the support. It was a bad deal all around and after the veto, and the house failing to override the veto would state that.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.