People of Compassion

What exactly is meant by that term, "promote general welfare?" Does it mean providing assistance to those that need it to get people on their feet?

Besides we were once a people of compassion that just simply did not like to see starving hungry homeless children on the streets.

I just don't get why helping people is so burdensome and considered as some kind of interference in our private lives. I don't understand it.

I bet that if the republicans started saying exatly what we should do without in all this "free from the big bad wolf government" movement, people would say, "whoa, wait a minute." So they just leave it vague and say, "fewer taxes" and "fewer government regulations" If you asked a community if they wanted the plant in their community to abide by common sense enviromental laws, chances are a majority of them would say, "yes, of course." Who wants to live in a smog congested enviroment that creates hovac on your health and allergies? I bet if you asked a community if they wanted to pay extra taxes in order to be keep funding the local school or fire department they would say, "yes, of course." Social security? The list goes on and on.

Thanks, Larry.

L:arry
Bush divided this nation as it has not been divided since the civil war. In addition he did not receive a mandate from the American people. In fact if you care to remember he lost the popular vote by 500,000.
Regarding the prescription drug law that was foisted upon the Medicare recipients and lied about by the Bush administration as to cost. That legislation was a boon to the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries and will add cost to the average Medicare recipient. It was typical of the garbage legislation fostered by this administration.
As for Authority to Invade and Occupy Iraq If He Deemed It Necessary. Was it necessary? And if it was look at the mess this administration has made of it with their lack of planning. Now the excuse is, it was to quick a victory, or some nonsense to that effect. But as you say Bush stays the course. To what disaster?

And, therefore, what?

Your response is what I call a "yes but" one, au. Doesn't change any of the facts I cited.

And what does the popular vote have to do with who the states select as their national President?

In 2000, when the debate over the vote was at its height and had not yet been resolved, I remember hearing that in a few states, the counting stopped, as soon as it was known for sure that one candidate or the other had a majority and that further counting would not change the outcome. If this is so, then conclusions about the popular vote, which are irrelevant to the outcome anyway, are unwarranted.

au1929 wrote:…

brandon wrote.


Since he did not receive a mandate and in fact lost the popular vote it was obvious that at least 50% of the American people did not support him. Any logical and right thinking individual would not have ignored half the electorate as he has done and said it's my way or the highway. He did and that is why the country is as divided as it is. And that is why half the population of the US literally hates Bush. Again never in my memory have I ever seen the hatred of a sitting president as I have this one. A president if he is worth anything once elected must be president to all the people not just his constituents.

It is a very standard idea that a presidential candidate clearly states his political orientation, and then, as president, implements those policies he believes are right and necessary, regardless of whether he won by a significant majority or not. It is no vice for a president to use his own judgement and ethics, and no virtue to rule by polls.

Bush's goal in getting reselected as President of the U.S. is behind everything he has done and will do, au.

The result is that, at the moment anyway, he is ahead in the public opinion polls tabulating the electoral votes state by state.

We shall see if he can add yet another line item to his list of political achievments on Nov 2.

Larry
< Tax cuts primarily for the poor and needy wealthy>
< Education, no child left behind or underfunded mandates.

Is that the other two you were looking for.

New York, NY, Sep. 1 (UPI) -- Illinois Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Alan Keyes reportedly had tough words for vice presidential daughter Mary Cheney because she is a lesbian.
Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."
Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is."
Keyes took to the airwaves again Wednesday to try and put the remark in context. WBBM-AM, Chicago, reported he denied the comment was meant to slam Mary Cheney and blamed the media for taking a generalization and making it personal. Keyes said if he had a lesbian daughter he would love her but tell her she was sinning.

au:

< Tax cuts primarily for the poor and needy wealthy>

Yep, that is what your elected representatives voted for. Most of the dollar value of the tax cuts went to those who pay the most taxes. But on a percentage of taxes paid basis, it was less for the wealthy.

< Education, no child left behind or underfunded mandates.

Funding education is the responsibility of each state. Assusring the states are held accountable for the quality of education provided is mandated by the equal protection provisions of our federal Constitution as stated in the 5th and 14 amendments thereto.

Larry wrote

You are correct it certainly is not for good government and more than 50% of the American public or for that matter the world at large. I am king of the hill so screw you. I would call that a failed presidency.

The Shrub, lying through his teeth as usual, promised to fund "No Child Left Behind," and, as usual, reneged. It is ironic in that most conservatives are ususally the first to howl about unfunded mandates.

However, of course, the "No Millionaires Left Behind" program was funded just as soon as the grossly irresponsible tax cut could be rammed through the Congress.

Larry434 wrote:

And what does the popular vote have to do with who the states select as their national President?

Perhaps you weren't paying attention, Larry 434. The issue was mandates, as in, having the mandate of the people to instigate your policies. But what we DO know about Bush these last four years is that everything he campaigned on was a lie, as his actions while in office were polar opposite what he stated in his 2000 campaign:

I will restore honor and integrity to the White House

No decision on Yucca Mountain until research results are available

Free trade

I'm a compassionate conservative

Leave no child behind

I'm a uniter, not a divider

President of all the people, not just those who voted for me

A reformer with results

It's the people's money, not the government's

Election reform

Reforming the military


And that's just naming a few.

I will not argue that Bush had a mandate, dookei, in that he did not get more than 50% of the popular vote. Of course he did get over 50% of the electoral votes, which is the only one that matters in a Presidential election.

And, can you name a politician who gets re-elected without catering to his constituency that brought him to the dance the first time?

Dookiestix

Welcome to a2k. Like your avatar

Larry434 opines:



But of course. Bill Clinton. Rather than catering solely to his consituency, he adopted many of the Republican's policies as his own, and defined the New Democrat to the American people. Republicans ended up voting for him both in 1992 and 1996.

And, of course, Reagan captured MANY Democrats in his re-election in 1984 in a landslide victory.

Bush has been unabashadly neoconservative and has done the EXACT opposite of everything he promised in his 2000 campaign, catering soley to his social conservatives on practically everything that they've wanted. Only NOW does he trot out those GOP moderates whom they've shut out of the conservative process these last four years. But it may be too little too late. MANY moderate Republicans are swallowing their pride, McCain included, in backing Bush. It is most pathetic and VERY disengenuous, to be sure. And McCain opines about Michael Moore as a disengenuous filmmaker, without EVER HAVING SEEN THE MOVIE. Boy, talk about disengenuous...

When Bush posed the question of whether the Democratic party was taking the African American voters for granted, he should have instead asked the question as to WHY African Americans vote predominantly Democratic. Only THEN can Bush, and the G.O.Pers., truly understand why they are STILL having a difficult time attracting minorities to the party. But I would venture to guess that they really do not care, because to cater too much to minorites, and African Americans in general, would alienate all the white, rascist bigots who predominantly vote Republican. And they certainly need their votes now in such a tight election.

Believe or not, winning isn't everything. Bringing America together is a hell of a lot more important (IMO). And Bush has done just the opposite. The fake moderate front at the GOP convention is only proof of Bush's disengenuous approach yet again in this 2004 election cycle.

And it is obvious.

How easy it is for Americans to forget the myriad actions by this administration in the last four years, and then to somehow be blindly convinced that the GOP is just one, big, all inclusive happy tent of compassion.

Americans are pretty stupid these days. They'll fall for anything. Fear of terrorism has been the perfect weapon for the Bush administration to scare their consituencies into a frenzy. These conventions are ALL smoke and mirrors, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. But the message of hope and unity coming out of the Democratic party's convention is certainly more motivating than the scare and glare from the GOPers, as they unashamedly refered to 9/11 a millions times on the first night.

Good point about Clinton and Reagan, dookie.

Clinton of course was never a liberal. As Michael Moore said, "he was the best Republican President we ever had".

And Reagan was a staunch conservative who appealed more to what the Dems used to be, ie., political moderates.

Larry434:

Thanx for reinforcing my point regarding Dumbya's failed divisive policies, and the fact that the facade we are seeing this week can't be further from the truth regarding the Bush administration.