GW Bush reminds me of Windows

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iPodmini-girl, Jan 17, 2004.

  1. iPodmini-girl macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Location:
    upstate NY
    #1
    OK so I've been having a bit of insomnia, so bear with me. I was reading news and reading threads here and suddenly thought....hhmm....Windows and George Bush are kinda similar. Here's why I think so, let me know what you all think

    1. both take away choice and freedoms

    2. says one thing, does another

    3. does a lot of things under the radar so you don't know about it and therefore can't stop it from happening

    4. generally doesn't make sense (plug and play never works, so why have it....and GWB....well have you ever heard him speak??)

    Well that's a few anyways, it makes sense to my sleep deprived mind...

    Mel :)
     
  2. x86isslow macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    i have a feeling this will get moved from community discussion to politics very soon...

    btw, bush maybe a total ... but he does have a mac on his desk.:eek:
     
  3. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern California
    #3
    My response:

    1. Agreed! He continues the taking away of freedoms and choices the way every other president has in these modern times, and thats by spending our money to advance socialism. e.g. expansion of medicare, expansion of space program, federal money towards encouragement of marriage, faith based initiatives, to name a few. Most importantly he signed the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, an absolute assault on our 1st Ammendment Rights.

    2. Like what?

    3. Such as?

    4. I'll give you that.

    Well we're 2 of 4, 50% in agreement, not bad. Although I doubt you would site the same taking away of freedoms and choices that I did.
     
  4. etoiles macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #4
    He does ? Man, that changes EVERYTHING ! ;)
     
  5. iPodmini-girl thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Location:
    upstate NY
    #5
    example of says one thing does another: no child left behind....but gives no money to acheive the goals this program schools must meet; kyoto protocol, backed out right after elected

    under the radar: most people don't realize there is an office of faith based initiatives, it wasn't exactly widely published


    oh yes, a few of my "favorite" things:
    his freedom stealing desire to "codify marriage" so that only hetero couples can marry, the odd conditions under which he became president (supreme court was stacked in his favor, his little brother is the gov of Fla), the immense budget surplus that is now a large deficit, and his keen desire to help big business (particularly oil companies that want to drill out federally protected wilderness in Alaska) over doing anything postive for the environment
     
  6. ShadowHunter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fresno
    #6
    1.) When he was elected, he let one of the most liberal Senators have free-reign with the education budget, naturally it grew by leaps and bounds. How is that not allocating money to the task??

    2.) He never supported Kyoto, made that very clear. Who the heck could in all seriousness anyway? It was just a joke plan, under the guise of "environmental concern," that would have crippled the US economy while barely touching the others. It was all about jealousy on the part of a bunch of socialistic or 3rd world countries that are broke. Why don't we hound China, who is WAY less environmentally concerned then we are?

    3.) Who cares if theres an office of faith based initiatives? He is taking advantage of organizations that are best suited to directly help people (something that the government has completely to do in almost every instance). No one is proposing 1 particular religion, not even generally.

    4.) Can we cut it out with the typical liberal regurgitated drivel?
    a.) Over 50% of the popuation supports marriage as male-female only.
    b.) Bush won Floriduh fair and square, the US supreme court just prevented the Floriduh supreme court from stepping OUTSIDE of the law. Recall that Gore was the one who filed suits?
    c.) The budget surplus that is gone is because the economy went into the crapper, a trend that started well before Bush came to office.
    d.) and remember without big business, you can kiss goodbye most jobs in the US and our entire economy. can this argument just die already, the "big business anti people" crap belongs in the liberal arguments in the 70s, not the 00s.
    e.) drilling is alaska would have had a very minimal impact on the local wildlife, they were talking about drilling extraordinairily small portions of alaska that could have ENDED our dependence on middle east oil. When gas is $3/gallon I blame the liberals who prevented us from ever having cheap oil.
     
  7. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #7
    Do you happen to know what kind of Mac that President Bush has on his desk? I don't really want to turn this into political discussion. My thought is that Bush is more like a Mac. He has deep seated beliefs and those principles guide his decisons. He says what he means and follows through.
     
  8. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #8
    So does Wes Clark. ;)
     
  9. etoiles macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #9
    CO2 emissions (1995):

    US 643.4 Ton/km2 (5.98E+09 Ton/y)
    China 363.5 Ton/km2 (3.32E+09 Ton/y)

    The US is number one CO2 polluter in the world, preceding China by quite a margin. And then you have to realize that most of the production of American goods doesn't even happen in the US, but in China, Mexico etc., so the actual impact of the 'American way of life' in the world is much bigger... don't get me wrong, I like my comfort, too. But everybody should make an effort. And things like pushing for fuel efficient cars is not going to cripple the economy. Except maybe some oil companies in the short term...wait a minute.
     
  10. iPodmini-girl thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Location:
    upstate NY
    #10
    There's not enough oil in Alaska to end our dependence on foreign sources for oil. Oil is a limited resource anyway as it's non-renewable, why not focus on some viable alternatives to oil, that would end our dependence on foreign oil.


    As for what's wrong with NO Child Left Behind: http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0305/cover.html that's just one article, there's many more


    I see a great problem with big business getting the treatment it does from Bush, IMO, he is under the thumb of many, and that's not good....plus his background predisposes him to prefer oil and big business
     
  11. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #11
    Do you realise what this makes you sound like? You think that we are all commy bastards in the rest of the world? DO oyu really think the US of A is the shining light meant to show us the path to happiness? The reason why it iwll cripple your economy is because you economy relies on being able to **** up the environment to make money. You realise you use up over half the worlds resources but you are only fraction of its population?

    A great example of how the majority can simply be wrong and misinformed. There is no justification for this being illegal except the religious underpinnings of government. It's called progress people! :rolleyes:

    How can cheaper fuel prices be a good thing? Everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that we need to reduce our reliance on oil. Making it cheaper would only increase its use. There are solutions to this problem, my favourite is replacing our petroleum economy with a Hydrogen economy. Studies have proven its completely viable. We just need the oil companies and the Bush family to stop shoving oil down our throats.
     
  12. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #12
    That doesn't make it right to deny those rights to those who don't fit the male-female definition of marriage.
     
  13. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #13
    its not the anti big business argument. its the anti government being controlled by a select few big business that gets my goat. There is no reason for Bush to be campaigning for me oil except for the fct that he is ion the oil companies pockets.

    there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of big business, but there is a lot wrong with some big businesses. The business world does not run on the same ethics as society in general.
     
  14. iPodmini-girl thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Location:
    upstate NY
    #14
    I did forget to respond to the anti'gay marriage standpoint taken. What others have said is true, religion is largely responsible for this standpoint. I don't understand how in a society that makes it illegal to not hire somebody based on sexual orientation that it is legal to deny these same people the rights of marriage. If a gay couple has a death, the remaining partner has no legal rights in most instances as to funeral arrangements, life insurance, etc. I feel that denying anyone the right to marry is clearly violating their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the US Constitution. Also, most people used to think slavery was ok, and now it's viewed as totally unacceptable; even after slavery was over, minorities were scorned, that's no longer ok either; it was once acceptable to assume women were intellectually inferior, unworthy of education, and should have no opinion in the political process, well that's changed too.....same idea, we're all humans and entitled to the same privileges, rights, and protections



    Shadowhunter: in response to what you termed "regurgitated drivel" I am not regurgitating anything, I'm stating my opinions, I could apply the same statement to you except sub in conservative right wing instead of liberal

    Also, the US is just a slob really. How many other countries actually ship out their garbage to other countries because they don't want to deal with it? We are the #1 consumers in the world. I personally think autos need some tighter regulations on fuel economy. Nobody in Northern NJ or NYC need to be driving Hummers....there's no terrain there which requires it. Yet, I see many drive up to where I live from those areas (I live in a touristy mountainous area). Ppl in cities don't often need suv's at all, especially single people, it's a bit of overkill. Do we need cars? Yes. Do I own one? Yes. Do I drive an environmentally friendly (relatively) car? Yes. Although I live in an area which makes 4 wheel drive a logical option, and useful, I still drive a small sedan which is great on gas and gets me around just fine.
     
  15. ShadowHunter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fresno
    #15
    That data is 9 years old!! You might be right, but let's at least look at something recent that goes along with the tons of new regulations that have been introduced in the past few years.

    edit: Ok, I bow out of this thread. I would never get anything done today if I replied to everything!!!!
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    Because like your reply above, you have no legitimate answer to all the refutation you've encountered.
     
  17. ShadowHunter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fresno
    #17
    Ok, I said no more, but I just have to say my opinion here.

    This is where the fundamental differences between liberal/conservative show. You think that our freedom of choice should be limited or regulated by the government based on need, (debateable) damage to the environment, etc. I believe in absolute freedom of choice, while accepting consequences, as I believe was the intent of the founders of this nation. These are just fundamental differences, and I think it really makes it difficult for either side to see eye to eye.

    Ok, back to work.
     
  18. ShadowHunter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fresno
    #18
    Figures someone would say it :rolleyes:
     
  19. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    And you still have yet to refute a single point with something other than stereotypes and generalisations.
     
  20. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern California
    #20
    3.) Who cares if theres an office of faith based initiatives? He is taking advantage of organizations that are best suited to directly help people (something that the government has completely to do in almost every instance). No one is proposing 1 particular religion, not even generally.

    I care! Nowhere is it authorized in the constitution to do this.

    The US is number one CO2 polluter in the world, preceding China by quite a margin. And then you have to realize that most of the production of American goods doesn't even happen in the US, but in China, Mexico etc., so the actual impact of the 'American way of life' in the world is much bigger... don't get me wrong, I like my comfort, too. But everybody should make an effort. And things like pushing for fuel efficient cars is not going to cripple the economy. Except maybe some oil companies in the short term...wait a minute.

    US businesses overseas and in Mexico help those nations economies greatly. So its those countries way of life and their governments who allow this impact.

    There is nothing wrong with consumers pushing for fuel efficient cars, but it becomes tyranny once the federal government threatens to legislate it. Anyone who doesn't think that a federal requirement for fuel effiecient cars would hurt our economy is fooling themselves. It would have an immediate impact on oil and automobile companies and all the jobs they supply. Also, allow me to ask, whats the first thing automobile manufacturers do to increase fuel effeciency? Thats Right!!! they make the cars smaller, lighter, and thus a whole lot more dangerous to drive! Costing us precious human lifes all in the name of protecting the environment. Lets let the free market fix this problem.

    Nobody in Northern NJ or NYC need to be driving Hummers....there's no terrain there which requires it. Yet, I see many drive up to where I live from those areas (I live in a touristy mountainous area). Ppl in cities don't often need suv's at all, especially single people, it's a bit of overkill.

    Whatever happened to the idea of liberty?!
     
  21. iPodmini-girl thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Location:
    upstate NY
    #21
    my point was that hummers are just wasteful vehicles that suck up resources quickly and add to pollution at a faster rate
     
  22. etoiles macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #22
    I am sure the roads would be lot safer if we all drove around in battle tanks ;)
    small cars are not 'a lot more dangerous to drive'. Certain SUV's can be more dangerous than tiny cars because they wont deform as well upon impact, resulting in your body absorbing more of the shock...

    Well, liberty always has its limits. You cannot walk up to the next person and hit him/her without facing consequences. Your liberty ends where the next persons liberty starts. When you share space with other people (such as in a big city) you have certain things to respect. A good thing to ask yourself is: what if everybody did it ? Where you go from there is up to you.
     
  23. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    The government has the power to regulate automobiles.
     
  24. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #24
    exactly.

    I'm all for liberty too, but you have to realise the seriousness of this situation. Shadow, you said yourself its about freedom of choice but you have to live with the consequences. The problem with this is that its not just you who lives with the consequences of you driving a huge SUV. The victim is the environment and don't think that doesn't mean it harms us as well. Restriction of freedoms is what the Law is what it is for. I agree that we shouldn't have to legislate this but until society is taught to be responsible and is well informed it is necessary. I believe we are in a crisis of the environment and something really has to be done right now. This is where agreements like kyoto can come in handy, if country's are set targets then the people, with all there patriotic feelings will want to pull together and meet these targets. The problem is the american governments and majorities are so egotistical that they feel as if agreeing to these things are like admitting they have been wrong all along.
     
  25. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern California
    #25
    my point was that hummers are just wasteful vehicles that suck up resources quickly and add to pollution at a faster rate

    That may be, but would you have the federal government regulate them or do you think it should be left to the states?

    The government has the power to regulate automobiles.

    Yes it does, but just because the government has the power to do something doesn't mean that it should. Example: Before the 14th ammendment of the U.S. constitution it was technically legal for an individual state to take away rights to speech, religion, guns, etc. This is one of the reasons slavery was legally acceptable in certain states. Does that mean that government should act if it can justify it for some reason such as the greater good?

    I think that if an automobile is going to be regulated its better left to the states. For example: California or New York's pollution problems differ greatly with smaller states that have less traffic congestion. It would be silly to have a 1 size fits all regulation when its not necessary for these smaller states.

    This is where agreements like kyoto can come in handy, if country's are set targets then the people, with all there patriotic feelings will want to pull together and meet these targets. The problem is the american governments and majorities are so egotistical that they feel as if agreeing to these things are like admitting they have been wrong all along.

    Its not that Americans are egotistical or afraid to admit their wrong, its that agreements like Kyoto are overbearing and will cripple an econonomy. If you cripple the U.S. economy the rest of the worlds will follow.
     

Share This Page