George Bush: Losing Core support?

where do you stand with Bush'e recent positions?

  • Concerned, but still loyal...will vote for in 2004

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Angry, might consider opponents, unsure of vote

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Was loyal, definitely NOT loyal now-looking for candidate

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Didn't vote for him in 2000, won't do it in 2004

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • He's impressed me with his decisions...earned my vote in 2004

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Bush has made me apathetic, don't feel like voting for anybody.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Hey Hessian... how high a fence do you want to put across our southern border? 10ft? 20ft? How much does a ladder cost in Mexico? How much does a couple of shovels to dig under your vaunted wall cost? Unless you're willing to set up a Berlin Wall of sorts, heavily built and reinforced with armed guards, mines, and machine gun positions, you aren't going to keep the immigrants out. And what happens when you start blowing up pregnant women with mines, or filling them with 7.62MM NATO rounds? Would you be willing to take the heat when those pictures start flashing around the world's TV screens? I doubt it.

Our parks have always claimed to be undermanned and underfunded... so what? And why pick on Mars? The Department of the Interior blows about $250,000 a piece on hundreds of various economic, ecological, or environmental studies at these parks every year... and end up with information they could have gotten just by asking the staffs at the parks the right questions. Those millions of dollars would buy a lot of rangers and porta-poties. Rather than making consultants rich, the DOI could listen to their own people and help resolve the budget problems at the same time.

I hate to tell you this, but our borders are zero percent more secure than they were before 9/11. Borders can only have two levels of security - zero and a hundred percent. With our open society and mass transportation systems, having even 1% of our borders unprotected means someone can get anywhere in the country in a matter of a few hours, which is to say they can go anywhere, from anywhere; which means there's no such thing as a partially secure border. This is why it's so vital that we kill the bad guys before they get here... which is what Bush is trying to do.

The states get billions of dollars from the feds each year to repair bridges and roads, and what happens to it? Take a look at how long it's taken to get RT 235 done, or worse, I-95 north of Norfolk done, for the answer. Doing away with the inefficiency, corruption, and fraud, waste, and abuse that are such a major factor in highway projects would result in enough money to rebuild anything that needs to be rebuilt. Throwing all that Mars money into highway and bridge projects would just be throwing more good money after bad. At least the Mars probe doesn't spend its days leaning on a shovel. :biggrin:

There are a lot of issues effecting farmers that are causing family farms to close down. One big one is that the kids don't want to keep the farm going, so the farmer sells out when he's ready to retire. Also, if a farmer gets approached my a major company and is offered a fist full of money for his land and says "yes", how is that a problem of the federal government? Besides, we're already subsidizing farmers, so how much subsidizing is ever going to be enough?

When did healthcare become a right in this country? I've found that everytime a politician says "healthcare for everyone" what they're really saying is "heathcare for those who aren't paying for it now", which means not only that I have to keep paying for own healthcare but that I'm also going to have to start paying for people who aren't giving me anything in return. How many of those millions have access to health insurance but decline to purchase it? Speaking for myself, I know I could get a lot more enjoyment out of the $200 that I spend a month on health coverage than watching it go into some insurance company's pockets, but that's the scarifice that I have to make to protect my family. What a deal! I get to lose more of my meager paycheck so that some doof who would rather buy beer and smokes than pay for health insurance can go to the doctor... or maybe so that some welfare mom with five kids and no jobs can get into the hospital to pop out kid #6.

I would much rather see my tax $$$ going to bring back a cup of Mars dirt that going torwards universal healthcare. If the Mars dirt is worthless, we won't waste a lot of money hanging out there. If there's money to be made, we'll make back our investment. Now, take that same $820,000,000 and spend it providing health care to the millions of uninsured. What happens then? What happens when those millions who rarely went to the doctor before due to the cost are suddenly told by Uncle Sam that "it's on me!" That $820,000,000 is going to disappear faster than Speedy Gonzalez! And who's going to determine what can and can't be covered? Once Uncle Sam is paying the bill, the sky's the limit right? I mean... how can you say we're going to provide healthcare and then tell the unwashed masses that you're going to hand it out with a financial eyedropper? Isn't looking out for the health of all Americans worth more than money? The truth is that $820,000,000 would turn into $820 billion in no time and probably wouldn't stop there. I would much rather invest in dirt thank you very much.
 
F

Flo

Guest
I am voting for Bush, though I am a little disappointed over the Mars/Moon excursion. I feel we have more important items to be concerned about here on Earth, with children starving in this and other nations, wars, terrorism, the economy, etc....and at this time, Mars and the Moon should be on the back burner.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
I agree wholeheartedly with you Flo. It would be one thing if Mars was planning to attack planet earth or hit us or something. I say if it ain't broke don't fix it - leave it be. How would we like it if someother country starting digging and tampering with Mars, we just don't know enough about it to waste the money right now. $820,000,000 is alot of money (just the start up) for a possible cup of dirt which in my opinion won't be much different than the dirt here. There are about 100 things more important that we need to be spending money on right now other than dirt.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Hey Dems... suppose you had a spare $820,000,000 sitting in your checking account, and you wanted to do some of those 100 things you mentioned. Where would you spend that money and what would you expect to see happen as a result?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Gotta check those numbers...

...Hesh...

$820,000,000 divided by 2,000 miles is...$410,000 per mile.

Now, if we take that $820 mil and figure a living wage of, say $20,000 per year in wages and benefits, cell phones, weapons etc...we could hire 41,000 illegals to stand on the border and have one person, a human wall if you will, ever 257 feet, keeping watch.

Now, as we have a typical 8 hour work day, we'd need three shifts of 13,666 people, or one guard every 772 feet.

Figure with night vision, binoculars etc. one person can cover more than that on the flat areas to allow greater density on the hilly areas.

Point is, we can stop illegal immigration. Not enough people want to.

For a lot of reasons.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
well Bruz, I kind of fell like your question is the setting up of a strawman. so quite personall if I had 820,000,000. I'd quit work, tith 10% of it to charities and become a volunteer. Then, I'd set up a healthcare fund and office for all children, adults and senior citizens that are low income people. Alot of elderly and disabled people right now are having to make the decision of putting food on the table or getting there medications. I'd hire some people that have experience in the health care industry. Then I'd spend a few million on developing a gun that can shoot all the way to mars so we can blow it out of the universe so we stop bickering about it... and wasting even more tax payer dollars on it - come to think of it -- that might be first on my list! :dance:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
How much money did Bush pledge to African AIDS "victims"? THAT is a waste of money, and our previous efforts to help these people prove it.

The space program creates jobs - good paying ones, too! Socialized health care won't do that. In fact, any government entitlement program only creates dependency, not jobs.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
Vrai - I disagree as usual. How is us pleding money to help african aids victims a bad thing? It's a deadly disease and due to incompetence of their government has spread at alarming rates. We all were concerned about SARS which I think is not nearly as deadly as aids. Aids is something that the entire world can put their minds on to cure. This by the way is one of the few things good that I like about W. I've never seen a republican government give anything to help with the aids victims, research, finding a cure, etc... I thought that when he did this, he does have some compassion.
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Sorry Larry...you are right: My Calculator didn't have enough digits so I forgot to add the extra zero...thanks for checking up on my math.

Bruzilla makes some powerful & detailed arguments to continue on our present track. (Building off of some of Rush's undeniable truths:wink: )

Let me put some thought on these...

Oh, by the way, I am willing to sell soil of Lusby for $1,000,000 per thimble...it is a real steal!!!!(Discounts for a shovel full)
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This is why...

...having discusions with ideologues can be fun.

I've never seen a republican government give anything to help with the aids victims, research, finding a cure, etc... I thought that when he did this, he does have some compassion.

Do yourself a favor. Look around the web and find you some numbers on dollars spent on AIDs under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and now W.

Look for increases in annual spending.

Then come back and apologize for following Howard Dean because of what you THOUGHT you knew.

If that is to much bother in forming opinion, I'll do the work for you.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by dems4me
Vrai - I disagree as usual. How is us pleding money to help african aids victims a bad thing?
Because we've tried to help them before and they weren't willing to quit having unprotected sex. We've had health workers over there for YEARS, handing out condoms and giving preventive information. For all that time and money, we got to see the AIDS rate go even higher.
It's a deadly disease and due to incompetence of their government has spread at alarming rates.
Please explain to me how the government is responsible for Africans having unprotected sex and spreading AIDS all over the place?

We all were concerned about SARS which I think is not nearly as deadly as aids.
SARS is a respiratory infection that is much rarer than AIDS, but you don't really have to work hard to get it. With AIDS, you have to actually have sex with an infected person. I don't feel sorry for AIDS "victims" - it's easier to not get AIDS than it is to get it.
 
F

Flo

Guest
Originally posted by vraiblonde
How much money did Bush pledge to African AIDS "victims"? THAT is a waste of money, and our previous efforts to help these people prove it.

The space program creates jobs - good paying ones, too! Socialized health care won't do that. In fact, any government entitlement program only creates dependency, not jobs.


I don't feel that money is wasted in helping children who are literally starving in the USA, so, no it is not just in third world nations I am concerned about. Children aren't asked to be placed on this planet. I don't ever believe we will stop impoverishment, dependancy, and low-income, so whom do those over-payed, glorified "Space Program" jobs benefit?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Look people...

...it's not 'dirt' it's 'soil'!

The biggest reason to continue to push the envelope on space is national defense.

JFK (Kennedy, not Kerry) didn't just decide we need to go to the moon to make everyone proud.

We NEEDED space technology to keep ahead of everybody else in terms of satellites, weaponry and all around knowing more than enemies and being able to do more.

Same thing now. It is in our interests to advance technology beyond other nations because they are all catching up.

This makes all our communications, command and control, spy and other technology based stuff vulnerable.

Think of the advances in terms of computers, nanotechnology and other areas that a station on the moon or a mission to Mars will push.

It's all about the toys!!!
 
D

dems4me

Guest
Don't get all riled up Larry because someone disagrees with you. I still disagree -- Millions of people died when the republican administration dubbed it the gay plague, etc.... Reagan never even uttered the word AIDS until after about 4 million people had died of this disease and after NUMEROUS CDC warnings to the Regan admin. to do something about this and make people aware of this disease and its not a gay plague and it was a retrovirus that needed to be researched more. (I can give acurate facts later tonight when I can research this if you like).

In the meantime why don't you look up the balance of aid (as in help) given by the democratic administrations to the aids victims verusus the cut backs in spending on this during republican administrations. Maybe W's gesture to african aid victims was to cover for this glaring fact. Again, this is another reason why I'm a democrat. I also know people with aids and they'd more than happy to tell you which party they back as well and I bet you its not republican.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
Vrai - think open minded -- I said "their" governments incompetence not "our" governement's incompetence. They didn't even acknowledge that aids existed a few years ago while people were dying at alarming rates.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
but Larry you make some points but what you are failing to realize is we mentioned the space plan in terms of priorities for spending. Do you really think Sadam or Osama were competing us for knowledge about Mars soil right now and on top of that spending 820,000,000 doing so? I really don't think that is Osama's next move and why we have to keep raising our security levels. We are talking about priorities.
 

T.Rally

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
With AIDS, you have to actually have sex with an infected person. I don't feel sorry for AIDS "victims" - it's easier to not get AIDS than it is to get it.
That is it right there. AIDS is a lifestyle disease. Personnally, I would rather that money go to combatting cancers and heart disease. Diseases that everyone dies of, not just a particular lifestyle.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Flo
I don't feel that money is wasted in helping children who are literally starving in the USA,
There are soup kitchens all over the nation and a zillion organizations that will lend a community hand. There's no reason for a single kid in the US to be starving. You can't do anything for kids whose parents aren't willing to get help.

My idea was to put people to death if they had a kid they couldn't or didn't want to take care of. But nobody else would go for it. :frown:
 

Toxick

Splat
Originally posted by dems4me
Vrai - think open minded --


:killingme




Kettle: Hi!
Pot: You're black!
Kettle: ... uh...



FWIW: I don't want to speak for anyone, but when she said "the government", I don't think she meant "The United States Government". I assumed she meant the governments in charge of the countries currently under scrutiny in this discussion.
 

Toxick

Splat
Originally posted by vraiblonde
My idea was to put people to death if they had a kid they couldn't or didn't want to take care of. But nobody else would go for it. :frown:


Don't say that. I'd go for it.

On that note, I believe that "stoning" should be reinstated as a valid method of execution in these cases :cheers:
 
Top