Where questions about Bush

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Where are the 380 tons of explosives we were supposed to be guarding in Iraq?
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Where are the ties to Al Qaeda?
Where is the coalition Bush imagines?
Where are the casualties that our cameras are not allowed to photograph?
Where is the punishment for the officers and officials who bear the real responsibility for Abu Ghraib?
Where is Osama?
Where is the person who disclosed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame?
Where is the respect that the rest of the world once held for the United States?
Where is Bush's respect for the other people of the world?
Where is Bush's respect for the environment?
Where is Bush's respect for science, for learning, for truth?
Where is the budget surplus Bush inherited?
Where is the funding for education that Bush promised?
Where are the jobs Bush promised?
Where is the money from the Bush tax shift?
Where is the money our children will need to pay off the Bush debt?
Where is our flu vaccine?
Where is our health insurance?
Where is Bush's respect for law, for the constitution?
Where are the votes that elected Al Gore?
Where are the people who served with George Bush in the Alabama Air National Guard?
Where were George Bush and Dick Cheney when it was their turn to serve?
Where is George Bush's sense of responsibility?
Where is George Bush leading this country?
Is this where we want to go?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 884 • Replies: 18

No top replies

I'll watch for a while before commenting.

0 Replies

Re: Where questions about Bush
I'm not a Bush supporter but I don't support Kerry either, yet BS like this still gets on my nerves. I'll hit the easiest ones since i have to go to lunch shortly.

GreatBlue wrote:

Where are the 380 tons of explosives we were supposed to be guarding in Iraq?

Guarding? They weren't there when our troops arrived, how could we have been guarding them? US: No Explosives When GIs Arrived

Quote:

Where is the coalition Bush imagines?

Off the top of my head UK, Japan, Australia. Therer are more, but a simple search by you should turn these up.

Quote:

Where are the casualties that our cameras are not allowed to photograph?

First off, casualties have been photgraphed, interviewed, etc; there's really very little restriction on that. The "no photos" policy you're referring to is likely that of flag draped coffins being transported. Said ban was instituted in 1991, you can't blame Bush for that one, try again.

Quote:

Where is the respect that the rest of the world once held for the United States?

Are you saying that the world used to respect the US, but no longer does? Please clarify.

Quote:

Where is our flu vaccine?

Got to your doctor's office.

Quote:

Where is our health insurance?

Ayone can purchase health insurance either from a private company or through their employer. The government already supplies more than enough insurance, anyone else should work and pay for it instead of expecting other taxpayers to foot the bill.

Quote:

Where is Bush's respect for law, for the constitution?

I don't know, but a lack of respect of the Constitution sems to be a common trait among many politicians these days.

Quote:

Where are the votes that elected Al Gore?

That horse is long dead, put the club away. Gore was not elected, give it up.

0 Replies

Not bad Cannibal...welcome to A2k

0 Replies

Cheers, Cannibal. Nice reply. Welcome aboard. Very Happy

0 Replies

Re: Where questions about Bush

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Quote:
Where is our health insurance?
Ayone can purchase health insurance either from a private company or through their employer. The government already supplies more than enough insurance, anyone else should work and pay for it instead of expecting other taxpayers to foot the bill.
Quote:

That seems to work fairly well in England, no worse than your system. If you saw someone dying at the side of the road would you check to see whether he was employed or not before you helped him up?

0 Replies

Re: Where questions about Bush
Thanks for the welcome guys.

agrote wrote:

That seems to work fairly well in England, no worse than your system. If you saw someone dying at the side of the road would you check to see whether he was employed or not before you helped him up?

England's system has problems of its own. The biggest, waiting lists. If I need any surgery, I can count on having it done within a month. If my doctor refers me to a specialist, I'll get in within a couple weeks.
Hospital Waiting Times/List Statistics
Elderly and Poor Less Likely to Get Knee Replacement Surgery

I prefer to not worry about being put on a waiting list. Besides, there's no reason for me to pay for someone else's medical care. If they cared about their health, they'd find a way to get insurance or at least take care of their bodies.

0 Replies

By your definition then, wouldn't that make Jesus a conservative?

0 Replies

McG.

Cannibal, health insurance is very expensive. If your employer offers it as a benefit, it is somewhat cheaper. If your employer does not offer it, it is pretty much unaffordable for most people.

Personally, I think it's overrated. Health insurance should only be for emergencies. Most states have free preventive care for those who make little enough. Myself, I prefer to just pay the doctor. It's cheaper for me and cheaper for the doctor.

0 Replies

For someone that gets their panties in a bunch about being labeled "liberal" Frank, you really don't have room to accuse others of "hiding".

Frank wrote:

Actually, one of the reasons for government...especially the one instituted in the United States...is to provide a safety net for the folks who simply cannot compete in the dog-eat-dog environment unbridled capitalism engenders.

Funny, I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Could you point that out to me so I can read it for myself?

0 Replies

^^^My thoughts exactly.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

For someone that gets their panties in a bunch about being labeled "liberal" Frank, you really don't have room to accuse others of "hiding".

Actually I have plenty of room I could even swing a golf club there is so much room.

Quote:

Frank wrote:
Actually, one of the reasons for government...especially the one instituted in the United States...is to provide a safety net for the folks who simply cannot compete in the dog-eat-dog environment unbridled capitalism engenders.

Funny, I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Could you point that out to me so I can read it for myself?

"...promote the general welfare..."

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

"...promote the general welfare..."

Congratulations on taking something entirely out of context. "General welfare" means the Amercian people as a whole. The founding fathers had no interest in creating universal healthcare or income redistribution. They realized that there was no point in hindering hard workers so that the lazy could live well, it's sad that so many today have forgotten this.

0 Replies

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

"...promote the general welfare..."
Congratulations on taking something entirely out of context. "General welfare" means the Amercian people as a whole. The founding fathers had no interest in creating universal healthcare or income redistribution. They realized that there was no point in hindering hard workers so that the lazy could live well, it's sad that so many today have forgotten this.

It sounds as if you have some backing up of assertions to do yourself cannibal.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

And many of the people who need help are not "lazy"...but rather they are disadvantaged in this dog-eat-dog unbridled capitalistic society.

No they're lazy. No matter what their so-called problems are, others have gotten further in life by trying hard. Most people on "the bottom" are simply too lazy to try hard enough to work themselves out of poverty. From the single mother who can't keep her legs closed to the junkie who only tries for his next rock; they aren't disadvantaged, they're lazy. They're certainly at a disadvantage now, but that's due to past and current laziness.

Quote:

Well...the courts of this land...where all the safety net programs have been challenged...disagree with you.

So the draft is a good thing and should be kept since no challenge has ever gone against it? Should we have kept slavery too?

C'mon Frank, you still haven't explained your justification of armed robbery.

Einherjar wrote:

It sounds as if you have some backing up of assertions to do yourself cannibal.

That's rather simple and obvious as well. The founding fathers did not institute a universal health care system nor did they have a system of income redistribution. I'd interested to see evidence to the contrary.

0 Replies

Re: Where questions about Bush

Frank Apisa wrote:

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Ad hominem attacks are so crass. I will not lower myself to engage in them.

(where was that emoticon that was rolling on the floor laughing again?)

0 Replies

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
It sounds as if you have some backing up of assertions to do yourself cannibal.
That's rather simple and obvious as well. The founding fathers did not institute a universal health care system nor did they have a system of income redistribution. I'd interested to see evidence to the contrary.

Actually they put nothing in the constitution either way, although the "promote the general welfare" bit opens for an utilitarian aproach, which is usually used for justifying social programmes.

Do you really think

Quote:

They realized that there was no point in hindering hard workers so that the lazy could live well, it's sad that so many today have forgotten this.

can be concluded from the fact that the constitution does not adress this issue?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

No, they are not. But it takes someone with a bit of brains and reality to understand that...and apparently brains and reality are not requirements for conservatives who call themselves libertarians.

If they're not just lazy, then what specifically is their problem? Why is that other people began in their exact situation and thrived while they have barely survived (and even then only by leeching off of better members of society)?

Quote:

Quote:
No matter what their so-called problems are, others have gotten further in life by trying hard. Most people on "the bottom" are simply too lazy to try hard enough to work themselves out of poverty. From the single mother who can't keep her legs closed to the junkie who only tries for his next rock; they aren't disadvantaged, they're lazy. They're certainly at a disadvantage now, but that's due to past and current laziness.

I'd love to give you at least one courteous response, Crowley, but to be honest, when I said your kind of thinking makes my flesh crawl...I was trying to be nice.

What I said is true, why can't you accept the facts? Many people in this country have started from the bottom and worked themselves to the top. Why should they suffer because others were unwilling to do the same?

Quote:

The courts of this land have indicated that the safety net programs are constitutionally legal...in part on the basis of the "...promote the general welfare.." comment.
I have no idea of what that has to do with the draft or slavery. If you flesh this notion out...I will respond.

Those courts have also upheld the draft, does that mean we should keep it? Those courts upheld slavery, should we have kept that also?

Quote:

C'mon, Crowley...you still haven't explained your creation of a straw man...which is all this is, since I have never attempted to "justify" "armed robbery."

When someone (in this case the government) takes money by force it's armed robbery. I'm all for paying one's taxes (even if they are too high), but taking my money for purposes of income redistribution is far too socialist for my taste.

Quote:

(Get someone to help you with your analogies. You are not up to the job on your own.)

Maybe you should have someone help you with your arguments sonce you haven't been able to produce any.

Einherjar wrote:

Actually they put nothing in the constitution either way, although the "promote the general welfare" bit opens for an utilitarian aproach, which is usually used for justifying social programmes.

If they meant for "promote the general welfare" to encompass income redistribution and universal health care, then why didn't they implement such programs?

Quote:

Do you really think
Quote:
They realized that there was no point in hindering hard workers so that the lazy could live well, it's sad that so many today have forgotten this.

can be concluded from the fact that the constitution does not adress this issue?

No, nor did I ever say that such was based on the Constitution alone. The founding fathers never created laws which stole from hard workers in order to reward the lazy ones. Can you cite any laws of theirs in which they used for income distribution or creating a universal health care system?

0 Replies

Einherjar, you live in Norway, do you have a national health insurance in your country?

0 Replies

Where questions about Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know