What DON'T you Like About Bush?

[ethics]

It's that time of the year where we list our grievences with Bush and/or his administration.

Here's mine:

1.<b> Illegal Immigration amnesty</b>: Is just so wrong on many fronts. As someone went through LEGAL aspect of immigration for myself and then my wife, I have to say that this is a slap in the face to all legal immigrants. I won't even mention what signals this sends to potential illegals, ok maybe I will.

2.<b> Not enough Iraq dialogue</b>. By this I mean talking about the specifics of the plan and not just some PR sound bites. What's the goal, where are we heading, when will the troops be out, how about talking TO the Iraqis in a televised speech?

3. <b>Stem cell research</b>. I am a big advocate of this research and Bush is just a bit STOP sign. Set strict rules, sure, but don't give us the crap about giving us unworkable gene lines and telling us, 'work with that.' Europe and other countries will be on the lead soon and we, the Americans, will have to pay all sorts of patent, research, import fees for using any technology that stems from this.

Those are my big three, what's yours?

[Copzilla]

Spending entirely out of control. Republicans are supposed to be about reduced government, reduced entitlements, but Bush has been spending like a madman and there is no end in sight. It's time for him to do on a national scale what he did in Texas, and streamline entitlements.

[Piobaireachd]

He's not conservative enough for me. I especially would like him to be more fiscally conservative.

I'm also not happy about the illegals and amnesty.

I'd like to see him go after domestic terrorism a little harder (ELF, ALF, PETA, White Supremists, ACLU (:)))

[Fiona]

I don't like his particular version of "spinning the truth"

During the debates Kerry and Bush both ticked me off, but Bush's attempts were wholly insulting.

Policy? Domestic Budget, Immigration, Does Domestic Budget include SS? I think that needs its own mention.

[tke711]

I agree with all three of yours and Copz spending comment. I'll also add is lack of "veto" use as well. Has he even vetoed one thing since he came to office 4+ years ago?

[SixofNine]

Piggybacking on some of your comments above, he's much more of a social conservative rather than a small-government, fiscally restrained, libertarian conservative. I much prefer the latter, and we have a big case of the former. Thus there's lots of excitement about passing a law that will let the FCC fine individual performers up to $500,000 for indecency - a lot easier to parade that in front of voters than it is to talk about difficult fiscal decisions.

Also, and this pathology seems to get worse and worse with each successive presidential administration, but a dissenting opinion in the inner circle appears to be a career-limiting move.

Brian

[warlock56]

Proud libertarian voter here...at least I saw through these two ass-clowns during their debates.

But as to answer the question...

1. Bush's spending is out of control.
2. The "itch" to invade any nation that looks at us wrong.
3. Wanting to grant illegal aliens amnesty; turns a big blind eye to the numbers streaming in.
4. Eroding people's rights by the institution of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security
5. He is a liberal, plain and simple.

[Stiofán]

My biggest gripe with him can be boiled down to one thing, but it's the cause of all the things you guys have mentioned.

Bush thinks he is always right, and won't listen to anyone who disagrees with him.

When I heard him in the O'Reilly interview when he was asked about immigration and that his base was upset at him and the nation is being overrun by illegals, and why was he still pushing his liberal open border policy, he said "because it's the right thing to do. I'm not going to change it because it's the right thing to do." Period. That was his answer. His mind is made up and he won't listen.

[ethics]

When I heard him in the O'Reilly interview when he was asked about immigration and that his base was upset at him and the nation is being overrun by illegals, and why was he still pushing his liberal open border policy, he said "because it's the right thing to do. I'm not going to change it because it's the right thing to do." Period. That was his answer. His mind it made up and he won't listen.


This is a good one.

[Piobaireachd]

My biggest gripe with him can be boiled down to one thing, but it's the cause of all the things you guys have mentioned.

Bush thinks he is always right, and won't listen to anyone who disagrees with him.

When I heard him in the O'Reilly interview when he was asked about immigration and that his base was upset at him and the nation is being overrun by illegals, and why was he still pushing his liberal open border policy, he said "because it's the right thing to do. I'm not going to change it because it's the right thing to do." Period. That was his answer. His mind is made up and he won't listen.

His decisivness is one of the things I DO like about him. He doesn't wait to see what the polls say or is wishy-washy (Clinton and Carter are two that did).

I respect that.

[ethics]

His decisivness is one of the things I DO like about him. He doesn't wait to see what the polls say or is wishy-washy (Clinton and Carter are two that did).

I respect that.


As do I but it's clear that he is wrong on the illegal immigration (at the least). I don't want a hardheaded, stubborn, unyielding President.

[cdw]

I'm not happy with the illegals situation. Other than that, I ain't got a problem. :)

[Piobaireachd]

As do I but it's clear that he is wrong on the illegal immigration (at the least). I don't want a hardheaded, stubborn, unyielding President.

And I agree with that, but it's a refreshing change to have a leader with balls.

[cdw]

As do I but it's clear that he is wrong on the illegal immigration (at the least). I don't want a hardheaded, stubborn, unyielding President.

I don't either, but can you tell me, what has Bush been unyielding about?

[ethics]

Illegal Immigration for one, admission about WMD's would have been nice and would have earned a lot more respect from me. Stem cell research and his pig headed stance is another good one.

[cdw]

You and he and I have a differnce stance about stem cell research. That doesn't make anyone of us unyeilding. We just see things differently. Research is ongoing. You would like it government sponsored, I see no reason for that. So?
As for the immigration issue, yes, I disagree with his stance. Then again, I also know he's privy to information and resources I'm not, so, who knows.
The WMD, well, I have said recently that I have to say something wasn't right there, but again, I still in the back of my mind think of Syria and the train, and the trucks and wonder.... again, while there may not be PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt, I still again think, hey, he's got a lot better resources than I do.
Then again, you and I may just be having a difference of opinion. :)

[Techie2000]

1. The way he says "nuclear" ;)

2. Not enough encouragement of alternative fuel resources. They need to jumpstart to movement away from oil.

3. I concur with Illegal Immigration and Stem Cell Research.

4. The gay marriage amendment. He seems hell-bent on getting it passed. Even after it died down he brought it up in SoTU. Many here dismissed it as some sort of election time political manuevering, but since he continues to pursue it, it's obvious it's more than that.

4. His anti-abortion stance.

5. Education. I honestly have not seen him do anything good for education. NCLB actually made it worse in the idea that they need to institute more testing. Last year around March/April I barely went to class because of NCLB mandated testing on the Sophmores (although it did let me have a chance to watch Condi testify to the 9-11 commission). Anyways that whole testing thing basically trashed about 3 weeks of time that could have been used for learning.

Those are the main ones that come to mind.

[ShinyTop]

He spins truth and attempts to get his agenda passed by scaring the populace. He did that for Iraq, for the Patriot Act, and now is doing it for Social Security. Even when I think I want to agree with him I have to check twenty sources when he starts his scare tactics.

[Stiofán]

He is unyielding and he's in office to represent us all. Which means at least listening to the other side. He won't do that. Yes, it's nice that he means what he says, but he can do that after hearing all viewpoints. You see the difference Pio and Cyd?

Here's another one I heard about today which really burns me up. Remember his dad and "no new taxes"? Well GW has said much the same thing especially about his social security plan. Tax hikes are off the table.

Now we hear he's agreed to consider raising the limit on taxable income for social security above the current $90,000. Hello.................that's a tax increase Mr. President.

The income cap was originally set at just $3,000 ($38,000 in 2001 dollars) and now it's been ramped up to $90,000.

Now maybe you like tax increases. Maybe you think his SS plan sucks or maybe you think it's terrific. But damnit, don't lie to us. If there are no new taxes, there should be no new taxes!

[Piobaireachd]

He is unyielding and he's in office to represent us all. Which means at least listening to the other side. He won't do that. Yes, it's nice that he means what he says, but he can do that after hearing all viewpoints. You see the difference Pio and Cyd?

Here's another one I heard about today which really burns me up. Remember his dad and "no new taxes"? Well GW has said much the same thing especially about his social security plan. Tax hikes are off the table.

Now we hear he's agreed to consider raising the limit on taxable income for social security above the current $90,000. Hello.................that's a tax increase Mr. President.

The income cap was originally set at just $3,000 ($38,000 in 2001 dollars) and now it's been ramped up to $90,000.

Now maybe you like tax increases. Maybe you think his SS plan sucks or maybe you think it's terrific. But damnit, don't lie to us. If there are no new taxes, there should be no new taxes!

This is way off topic, but what do you want? People are screaming to save SS, yet they don't want a tax increase. You can't have it both ways. The current system can't support the number of people who are collecting SS benefits.

I personally would like to see SS go away completely. It has always been a scam in my opinion.

What makes you think that he doesn't listen to other viewpoints? I've never sat in on a cabinet meeting and I'm pretty sure you haven't either. Either way, he's the one who has to make the decision and he's the one who will take the blame if things don't work out as planned.

[ShinyTop]

From what I have read he pretty much wants yes men close to him. When the reports about his prayer breakfasts came out the people said you did not have to attend but you did not stay around long. I think his certainty regarding WMD's, if not a lie, could only stem by ignoring all other sources, a very bad way to do business. I also think his recent cabinet losses and replacements also demonstrate his desire to have only those who agree with him advise him. Very scary.

[Stiofán]

This is way off topic, but what do you want? People are screaming to save SS, yet they don't want a tax increase. You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can, but I'm not going into it here (it's called cutting spending...).


What makes you think that he doesn't listen to other viewpoints? I've never sat in on a cabinet meeting and I'm pretty sure you haven't either. Either way, he's the one who has to make the decision and he's the one who will take the blame if things don't work out as planned.

I posted above an example of why I think he doesn't listen.

[Coot]

Lots of good points in this thread, and I think you all know me well enough to know which ones I'm strong on. ;) However, there's one underlying theme that I find a little more disturbing in terms of his agenda and it spills into a lot of the points that have been brought up...the attempts at cozying the Constitution up with the bible. The gay marriage ban fits right in there, along with funding churches for charity work. It's a slippery slope and I don't like it.

[Arc]

It's that time of the year where we list our grievences with Bush and/or his administration.

Here's mine:

1.<b> Illegal Immigration amnesty</b>: Is just so wrong on many fronts. As someone went through LEGAL aspect of immigration for myself and then my wife, I have to say that this is a slap in the face to all legal immigrants. I won't even mention what signals this sends to potential illegals, ok maybe I will.

2.<b> Not enough Iraq dialogue</b>. By this I mean talking about the specifics of the plan and not just some PR sound bites. What's the goal, where are we heading, when will the troops be out, how about talking TO the Iraqis in a televised speech?

3. <b>Stem cell research</b>. I am a big advocate of this research and Bush is just a bit STOP sign. Set strict rules, sure, but don't give us the crap about giving us unworkable gene lines and telling us, 'work with that.' Europe and other countries will be on the lead soon and we, the Americans, will have to pay all sorts of patent, research, import fees for using any technology that stems from this.

Those are my big three, what's yours?

I am going to play off ethics.

1. Bush's basic concept for immigration specifically is more on the right track than the wrong track as I interpret it. But Bush like many other politicians doesn't want to tell us the truth of why and what they are doing regarding their immigration policy for both illegal and legal. No one in power wants to tell the truth.

The movie line, "You want the truth? You can't handle the the truth" however does however seem true to me for many who hold strong views on any immigration issue but especially concerning illegal immigrants or aliens. For the most part IMO they don't want to face the big and realistic picture.

2. I agree about Bush's lack of dialog or information on Iraq. Part of that it is his not in his natural nature to explain himself but I don't think there is a plan to talk about--at least there hasn't been until recently if at all. You can't talk about what you don't have. I don't think we have in the past ever had a plan.

3. He needs to be more liberal on stem cell research but the funding should shifted away for now from public to more private. In this case the money for private stem cell research is everywhere. We shouldn't fiscally be sold down the tubes like Arnold did to us in CA in allocating all those public monies to stem cell research when the private money was available.

4. Bush and the Republicans are spending just to damn much money. That's for sure. We can argue how it should be sent but I don't see how one can argue against we are spending too much.

[Kangaroo]

I can agree with his guest worker visa plan, we sucker all the illegals already here into signing up, then we know where they are and we tax the shit out of them. But it doesn't jibe with the short leash he keeps on the BP and ICE right now. Without draconian steps to shut down the borders, the illegals won't see a need to sign up for the visas. Turn the BP and ICE loose, remove the stupid deportation hearing requirement, get local PDs on board with responsive INS agents and make it legal for police to arrest people who have broken the f*'ing law.

Make coming into and staying in this country so difficult that the aliens HAVE to get visas. Then tax their income at 50-75% to pay for the decades of services they and their ilk have stolen.

[Tytoba]

Hi. First off, let me introduce myself. I was invited over here from the Trillian forums and have been lurking for a few weeks now. I'm currently a freshman at Iowa State University studying Computer Engineering. I'm an agnostic, I'd say my political views are best classified as Libertarian, and I have a purple betta fish named Snapjaw. With that said, I'll get back to the topic...

I have a hard time defining my stance on Bush. For the most part, I don't care for him. I like how he's not wishy-washy on issues, but since I don't like his stances on a lot of things, it's also frustrating.

I think one of the main things I don't really like about him is his anti-gay marriage push. While it's fine that the guy doesn't think it's proper, I think the push for a Constitutional amendment regarding it is absolutely ridiculous. Compared to the other issues at hand, whether gays should be allowed to marry is extremely trivial.

Bush is a good reason why I don't regularly follow political news. Something always gets me irritated.

[ethics]

Hi. First off, let me introduce myself. I was invited over here from the Trillian forums and have been lurking for a few weeks now. I'm currently a freshman at Iowa State University studying Computer Engineering. I'm an agnostic, I'd say my political views are best classified as Libertarian, and I have a purple betta fish named Snapjaw. With that said, I'll get back to the topic...

Wow, great intro!!! A hearty welcome. :)

I think one of the main things I don't really like about him is his anti-gay marriage push. While it's fine that the guy doesn't think it's proper, I think the push for a Constitutional amendment regarding it is absolutely ridiculous. Compared to the other issues at hand, whether gays should be allowed to marry is extremely trivial.

Very good point.

I was actually discussing this with a liberal friend (yes, I have those! ;)) this morning. We both agreed on this but here's the scenario that came to my mind during this discussion.

Say you and me are great friends, we are roommates and due to lack of luck at love or unfortunate circumstances in life, we are both single (but heterosexual). We end up living like this for 15-20 years, working through life and trying to make the best of it. We become like brothers.

You suffer a stroke, I come to the hospital to visit. "Sorry, only family members are allowed" is what I would hear.

Why is this a Federal issue whether I want to see my friend of 15 years or not?

[warlock56]

Here's another one I heard about today which really burns me up. Remember his dad and "no new taxes"? Well GW has said much the same thing especially about his social security plan. Tax hikes are off the table.

Now we hear he's agreed to consider raising the limit on taxable income for social security above the current $90,000. Hello.................that's a tax increase Mr. President.

The income cap was originally set at just $3,000 ($38,000 in 2001 dollars) and now it's been ramped up to $90,000.

Now maybe you like tax increases. Maybe you think his SS plan sucks or maybe you think it's terrific. But damnit, don't lie to us. If there are no new taxes, there should be no new taxes!

I don't consider that a tax increase. I consider that making more people subject to the tax for a longer period. Yeah I can see why you call it a tax increase, but I guess I just view it differently. And besides, Bush is certainly not the first president to raise this limit. It's happened slowly over time.

I could consider a tax increase an actual increase from the 6.2% it is now.

[Stiofán]

I look at it this way. You live in a state which does not tax food for home consumption. You go to the store and buy your milk and some paper towels. The paper towels are taxed, the milk is not. Then your governor says he will entertain the idea of taxing food for home consumption because they want to build more state highways but don't want to raise the state gax tax to do it. Would you call that a tax increase? They are not raising the sales tax rate, only extending it. It's still a tax increase for the state.

You know, sometimes we get caught up in semantics, and Washington politicians are some of the worse offenders. Increasing the tax burden is increasing the tax burden and no twisting of what he calls it is going to change that. We're both entitled to our opinions and I'm not changing my mind on this one I'm afraid.

[warlock56]

I look at it this way. You live in a state which does not tax food for home consumption. You go to the store and buy your milk and some paper towels. The paper towels are taxed, the milk is not. Then your governor says he will entertain the idea of taxing food for home consumption because they want to build more state highways but don't want to raise the state gax tax to do it. Would you call that a tax increase? They are not raising the sales tax rate, only extending it. It's still a tax increase for the state.

You know, sometimes we get caught up in semantics, and Washington politicians are some of the worse offenders. Increasing the tax burden is increasing the tax burden and no twisting of what he calls it is going to change that. We're both entitled to our opinions and I'm not changing my mind on this one I'm afraid.

I understand what you're getting at. Social Security tax is enough as it is. I suppose I always viewed one way of making it more fair was to do away with the $90,000 limit or however much it is every year and make all gross income taxable under SS, the same way Medicare is. But of course, that means the government must also be able to repay something to that person making lots of $$$ down the road, and the higher the tax, the higher the dollar figure the government must repay to that person.

I view taxes on food to be one of the lowest forms of taxation period. It ranks right up there with property taxes, IMO. Taxing people on something they need in order to survive is pathetic.

[jfcjrus]

I look at it this way. You live in a state which does not tax food for home consumption. You go to the store and buy your milk and some paper towels. The paper towels are taxed, the milk is not. Then your governor says he will entertain the idea of taxing food for home consumption because they want to build more state highways but don't want to raise the state gax tax to do it. Would you call that a tax increase? They are not raising the sales tax rate, only extending it. It's still a tax increase for the state.

You know, sometimes we get caught up in semantics, and Washington politicians are some of the worse offenders. Increasing the tax burden is increasing the tax burden and no twisting of what he calls it is going to change that. We're both entitled to our opinions and I'm not changing my mind on this one I'm afraid.
Well said. :)
Not to mention that they've used the tax on gasoline (origionally slated for highway construction/maintainence) for other <i>general fund</i> uses.
As well as many states using the Hunting/Fishing license fees (origionally slated toward wildlife stuff) for other <i>general fund</i> uses.
As well as the government using the Social Security funds (origionally slated for <i>you all know what</i>) for 'other' uses.

No one mentions (or seems to remember) how SO MANY of these taxes, for supposed specific uses, have been used for purposes 'other' than what we citizens were led to believe they were for, when we agreeded to them.

It's about time we citizens demand a stop to that type of nonsense.
Have gasoline taxes been spent on programs other than transportation?
Have Fish&Wildlife taxes been spent on programs other than what relates to wildlife?
Have Social Security taxes been spent on programs other than payouts to Social Security?

If so, then I say please stop with all the baloney reasons why we need to increase taxes for these programs.
I say someone's simply been poorly administrating the taxes we're already paying!!

So, before more changes/higher taxes, I'd personally like to see an 'Excel Spreadsheet' ;) accounting of EXACTLY how the current tax dollars, for whatever program, are being spent.
Only THEN should they have the guts to ask us citizens to contribute even more.

Just my thoughts.
Regards,

[Biker]

Hi. First off, let me introduce myself. I was invited over here from the Trillian forums and have been lurking for a few weeks now.

It's about bloody time Tytoba! Glad to see ya finally jumped in.

I would have to say the primary focus of my ire right now is the illegal immigrant issue. It's getting quite frustrating dealing with individuals who you KNOW aren't supposed to be here and speak absolutely no English at all.

[Stiofán]

And right on cue, the Conservative Political Action Conference (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBPE9QZC5E.html) chimes in to voice their displeasure with a tax increase.