Does Anyone Really Think We Can Get Bush Out?

jackie wrote:

Brandon9000,

I do not think BillW meant just hearing Bush's voice reading a statistic, but making a PERSONAL COMMENT,
one that requires knowing

...and being willing to do what about it??....

BillW wrote:

I defy anyone to find one thing in which Bush told the truth

And black is white and white is black. He issued a simple and clear, but foolish, challenge, and lacks the good grace to admit the obvious truth that someone called him on it successfully.

0 Replies

tsk tsk girls let's not fight.....

0 Replies

Bush has three agendas he can use in his bid for re-election 1. the economy 2. the war on terrorism 3. Kerry's record
he can't really impact any of the above without opening himself to turnabout being fair play. Circumstances/events of the coming months will determine the outcome of the election regardless of the "qualities" of either candidate. In the meantime, we the people will be bombarded by political fluff from both sides. "Did so" "did not" "so's your mamma" "eat my shorts" and the band plays on.

0 Replies

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

this link is great, thanks.

0 Replies

Keep the faith, people Exclamation

He's a goner! Very Happy

Tell EVERYONE you know!
Today I got an e-mail telling me that congress was meeting today to ask for congratulations for Bush!!! For his handling of terrorism! Evil or Very Mad

I fired off an e-mail to my new congressman (I just moved) asking him to show some sense and censure the bastid instead. I like to make a good first impression! I would rather have called him, but he's in DC and I was at work.

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Carry this to it's fulliest extent - this is a know fact not what he personally said -

he personally said the USA would give x amount of $'s - he has given nothing. A typical Bush con job

thats nonsense. bush proposed an extremely ambitious program on fighting aids in africa. part of it is misguided, but part of it makes sense. he didnt spend as much money on it as he promised to, but still spent more than any previous us president did. credit where credit is due.

0 Replies

Credit? How about crediting the democrats for having the grace and class to pass it for him! And by the way, not many presidents have had to deal with the AIDS crisis. The legislation, which passed 375 to 41 despite the misgivings of some influential conservatives, broke new ground for a Republican-led Congress often skeptical of foreign aid. In the vote, 183 Republicans joined 191 Democrats and the House's one independent member to pass the bill. FORTY Republicans and one Democratic opposed the measure.
He was nice to those Africans, not so nice to Americans: Bush cuts AIDS spending for SF poor
BAY AREA / Federal AIDS funding cuts 'devastating' / S.F. hit hardest at 12%, Oakland 5.9%, San Jose cut 5.1%
And it's easy to SAY you're gonna do something good! in bush's case, it's the actual doing that bogs him down!

0 Replies

Are you guys aware that the AIDS funding is on hold because of Bush's family planning ideals for Africa.
He doesn't want them to get abortions so not $$$$$$$

0 Replies

that fringe thing again!

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Credit? How about crediting the democrats for having the grace and class to pass it for him! And by the way, not many presidents have had to deal with the AIDS crisis. The legislation, which passed 375 to 41 despite the misgivings of some influential conservatives, broke new ground for a Republican-led Congress often skeptical of foreign aid. In the vote, 183 Republicans joined 191 Democrats and the House's one independent member to pass the bill. FORTY Republicans and one Democratic opposed the measure.

Well, if he defied considerable opposition within his own party to pass this legislation, he deserves all the more credit for it, doesnt he?

Fact remains - and this is a devoted leftist speaking here - that Clinton never paid anything like comparable attention to the issue, so I'd say kudos to Bush for it. AIDS in Africa is, however little media attention it gets (and however little electoral advantage the issue will get Bush!), one of the greatest raging disasters in the world today.

0 Replies

solar wrote:

Are you guys aware that the AIDS funding is on hold because of Bush's family planning ideals for Africa.
He doesn't want them to get abortions so not $$$$$$$

Here's the numbers as I can find them right now, just googling for a sec:

Bush promised to spend 15 billion $ in five years on fighting AIDS abroad - that would be 3 billion/year.

Instead, Congress moved to spend just over $2 billion to fight AIDS abroad in the first year. Much less than promised, true.

On the other hand, compare it with Clinton: in 1999, he increased international AIDS funds from $125 million to just $225 million.

So we'd still be looking at a tenfold increase. Even if half of it would be misspent because of conservative theories on how to fight AIDS, it would still be a multiple-fold increase.

But thats just on a Google. If anyone's got an actual citation on how things have gone differently, I'm interested.

Here's an interesting thread here about the topic, btw: Bush praise for Uganda AIDS policy raises interesting Qs

0 Replies

No abortions?
The money is on hold until all of Africa bans abortions?
Shrub puts conditions of his Politics on our tax money for help to Africans?

That is Bushit!!!

Until that time that the Africans bow to his crap, shrub is withholding any money then isn't he?

When I read that the money has reached it's real destination I will wthhold my kudos.

0 Replies

Re: No abortions?

pistoff wrote:

The money is on hold until all of Africa bans abortions?

I do believe thats just nonsense. But if you can find me one source that substantiates it, please.

0 Replies

OK, I found a stat.

First, remember:

international AIDS funds under Clinton:
1998 - $125 million
1999 - $225 million.

Now, according to this report, which by the way is very critical of Bush's AIDS policy, this is how it developed:

spending on global HIV/AIDS under Bush (excl. research)
2001 - $565 million
2002 - $826 million
2003 - $1182 - 1282 million

Bush budget request to Congress (incl research):
2004 - $2010 million (excl research: $1634 million?)
2005 - $2510 million (excl research: $2134 million?)
2006 - $3060 million (excl research: $2684 million?)
2007 - $3660 million (excl research: $3284 million?)

Now of course this is still way too little. According to the report, the WHO and UNAIDS estimated for 2003 that $10.5 billion per year was needed to fund a minimum package of prevention, treatment and care for AIDS-orphans. The US would have had to pay $3,5 billion if this money was to be raised, so Bush's budget was still only one-third of what is needed. But it was also more than was spent ever before by the US on global AIDS - and that goes for every subsequent year, too.

0 Replies

good work nimh, now I suppose you can find what the Bush Admin as actually spent/released.

0 Replies

Here you go
No abortions.
Church groups and agencies that share like Christian values.

http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/bw20030225aids.asp

0 Replies

solar wrote:

Here you go
No abortions.
Church groups and agencies that share like Christian values.

http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/bw20030225aids.asp

Thanks for the link.

It doesn't say what you say it says, though.

I searched for "abortion". Here's what I found (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Bush's plan marks a dramatic break with the policies of former President Clinton, and even of Bush a year ago. In 1999, Clinton had overseen an increase from $125 million to just $225 million in international AIDS funds. And when Bush took office he confirmed the fears of many by recommending abstinence-only programs and cutting off aid to international health agencies that provided information about abortion. In June 2002, he allocated $500 million to a program to prevent mother-to-child AIDS transmission, a package that did not mention the disease's sexual transmission. Yet the current package earmarks money for both abstinence education and condom distribution. What changed?

You'll note: when Bush took office, back in 2000, he cut off aid to health organisations that provided info about abortion, but this current plan is described as "a dramatic break" with those policies.

Also note that Pistoff wrote: "The money is on hold until all of Africa bans abortions". Your link doesnt affirm that, and it wouldn't be able to, because it is plain nonsense. Millions of dollars have been spent last year, and billions are planned to be spent next year. Again, if you can find me a link that says the money'd been "put on hold" over abortion, I'd be glad to see it (who knows, Congress might have passed some law on it), but I'd be highly surprised.

I don't know what you mean by your sentence, "Church groups and agencies that share like Christian values." It is Bush, after all, so I'm sure those groups have been granted an important role in the plan. But if you're trying to suggest the aid only goes to these groups, you're wrong. It is not for no reason that the report you link to notes that:

Quote:

Defenders point out that the program is hardly a sop to the Christian Right, who will most probably be incensed by the plan's provision for condom distribution, and its endorsement of education campaigns that mention both gay sex and multiple partners.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

good work nimh, now I suppose you can find what the Bush Admin as actually spent/released.

Numbers up until 2003 are right up there, Dys.

0 Replies

I don't feel like websearching for articles that appeared many months ago.
There is enough out there on this if you care to look for yourself.
I've already read them so i'm not too interested in revisiting it all.

0 Replies

solar wrote:

I don't feel like websearching for articles that appeared many months ago.
There is enough out there on this if you care to look for yourself.

I did, I started a whole bloody thread about it. Perhaps thats why I get annoyed when I see people claiming blatant nonsense about it.

I dont think Bush is running a very good global AIDS policy either - I dont like the extent of emphasis he does put on a christian flavour, abstinence as a solution, etc, and I think he should be spending a lot more still.

But he is spending a whole amount more than Clinton ever did, and he is spending on a mixed program that supports both abstinence-driven and condom-driven drives and I do think its pretty brave of him to do that when theres not a whole lot of electoral gain to be gotten from it, at all.

And then, of course, there's the annoyance at posters here posting random oneliners that are demonstrably untrue, kinda like hit & run ... I mean, come on.

0 Replies

Does Anyone Really Think We Can Get Bush Out?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know