Disturbing Trend

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Feb 18, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    There are five threads on the top of the Political Discussion forum that involve the Bush administration either distracting, distorting, lying, or lining the pockets of it's corporate "investors". Now, I realize that all administrations have their faults and priorities, but why is it that this administration seems intent on ****ing **** up? I mean, has any administration ever been so blatantly evil? It seems they'll say whatever it takes to distract/placate/scare the electorate into not looking closely at what they're doing.

    1) rather than combat hunger, poverty or any other pressing matter in America, they've decided to take on "Big Porn"
    2) they put out statements "we will create 2.6 million new jobs" and then back track them later. see also, economic growth estimates from last quarter, and unemployment nubmers from last month.
    3) bush's aids initiative, which sounds like it's turning into yet another fatted calf for corporations. see also, medicare bill, iraq war
    4) ashcroft's "war on freedom" including the patriot act, subpeonas for war protestors, goosestepping police (miami - ftaa), subpoenas of medical records from women who've had abortions, and "free speech zones"
    5) any number of other controversies that have come up, including but not limited to, doctored intel, outing of cia agents, the war on gay marriage, blatant lying in the sotu (nigerian uranium), wholescale rollback of environmental law, and human rights hypocrisy (guantanamo), among others

    I remember times when I didn't like what Clinton was doing, but for ****s sake people, look at that list. Every single item is an on-going investigation, a perversion of American ideals, or blatant selling out to the highest bidder. How can anyone consider re-electing this administration?
  2. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Jul 17, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Re: Disturbing Trend

    I'll field this as devils advocate:

    Warning - I don't necessarily agree with any of these statements, so don't bother arguing with me neceassarily, they aren't my beliefs:

    This administration takes the conservative argument that the greatest way to promote a civil society is through the reliance on a system of traditional moral values. The disintegration of society is in their eyes largely the result of a lack of moral clarity in which the blessing of intercourse is now exploited as a commodity. A return to tradtional, usually christian, morality will in turn promote such other lost values as committment to family, wedlock-only child birth, and charity, all of which will help combat such societal ills as hunger and poverty.

    Job estimates are always a matter of question, and nothing is certain in such and up and down medium as economics. Furthermore, putting forth the most optomistic of (still legitimate) estimates will only cause the economy to strive stronger towards these numbers - a sort of economy-wide self fulfilling profecy, in which hope for a brighter outlook will create a brighter outlook.

    The AIDS issue is one of the most critical social problems the world is facing today, and we should do whatever we can to stop it. However, government involvement alone will not help, as the bureaucracy of big government has proven itself slow moving to be fully effective. The market has always been better suited to quickley and adequately adress problems, and thus we must encourage the market to try to tackle these issues as best they can.

    The patriot act has made Americans safer by allowing prosecutors to have access to all the tools needed in order to identify threats to the safety of our people, including potential terrorists, etc.

    Free-Speech Zones are actually there to protect dissenters, whom we greatly appreciate, from accidentally being hit by cars in the presidential motorcade (haha, this one I put in just for fun, because this is actually the official stance of the Administration on why they have Free Speech Zones).

    But seriously, the president has been bold in his decisions to protect the country, certainly, and the American people should trust him to continue to make decisive action and not wait until another terrorist attack until he starts protecting his people, which is his number one concern.

    The intelligence we had was not doctored, it was what we had and we acted on it. It was intelligence that was thought to be true by not only us, but even other countries who opposed the war, such as France and Germany. We simply didn't know any better, and for this the administration is truly sorry, and will look into the faults of the intelligence community using an impartial panel of experts. We never would deliberately mislead the American people, and we're sorry these mistakes were made.

    Other issues:

    The war in Iraq has made Americans safer one because it has removed a harmful dictator from power, yes, but two, and more importantly, it has put pressue on other countries, such as Lybia and N. Korea, to abandon their weapons programs, admittedly more advanced than Iraqs, for fear of an invasion. Going through Iraq was justified because of the attrocities everyone knows Saddam comitted against his people, and it has made Americans safer by establishing an agressive approach against violent nations causing others to be more willing to negotiate with us now and in the future.

    It is true that this is a Wall-Street recovery, and that job creation has lacked. However, as Wall Street continues to recover and as growth returns, this benefitial corporate climate will eventually find its way down to the level of working Americans through the creation of new job markets, and through the lowering of costs and pricing. Outsourcing is actually a fine economic policy, despite being against common sense assumptions, because it will keep prices down and will thus tame inflation and lead to further economic growth, which will lead to more money in the pockets of americans and cheaper products for them on the market to save their money for the future.

    Alright, that's about all the conservative show I can put on for one day!

  3. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    All your arguments are actually quite sound, given a conservative perspective. Thanks for letting me practice on you. :)

    The (my) liberal response:
    Even before the moral disintigration of society, there was still hunger and poverty. It seems to me that previous generations who were concerned about these problems used their moral sense to insist upon government programs to address these issues. The Great Society wasn't invented by government as a way for the government to steal peoples' cash and give it away to the poor, it was pushed by people who felt they had a moral obligation to help those in need, and the government was the best equipped entity to deal with the problem. If I could combat hunger by giving away food, or by banning nudie-mags, I'd give away food.
    It took a little over a week for the White House to back off their own numbers, claiming "[Bush] is not a statistician". Have the economic numbers changed so much in a week? Or was their contention too full of holes to hold any water? I guess it could be a matter of personal opinion, but considering their track record....
    In some cases, the market will not work at all, this is why it is sometimes better for all involved to depend on government to take care of a problem. For instance, without government spending, all roads would be toll roads, as would all sidewalks :). Can you imagine having a private army to defend the country? "Sorry, you missed your payment last month, guess the Canadians get to keep Maine." What I'm trying to say is, there's no money in solving the AIDS problem. The drugs we have are way too expensive for the people who need them to afford them, and the drug companies are in business to make money. Government is there to bridge the gap. In this specific case, cheap alternatives are available, which should please the administration, being as how they are desperate to cut social spending to fund their military buildup, but instead they are leaning towards paying retail, in a giveaway to corporate coffers.
    My sig says, "certain ends preclude certain means, or else victory becomes a meaningless word". I would never give away my rights and freedoms in order to be more "secure", and I'm disturbed by the number of people who are willing to give away *my* freedoms in order to feel more secure. The tools necessary to do the job were already in place, the just weren't used. If any provision seems reasonable, it would be the one mandating more inter-agency communication. Secret warrants with no probable cause, subpeonas for library records, and detention without charges or access to a lawyer however, are more dangerous to our society than the terrorists themselves.

    Boldness is definitely the word to chose when describing the president's actions. (was that on purpose? ;) ) He has endangered rights held close by Americans for over two centuries, and shows no shame in using tactics that he condems others for. No one said he has to wait around for another attack to occur. No president would ever do that. But it doesn't mean he should ride slipshod over the Constitution and good sense.
    The adminstration only presented one side of the case for war to the nation. And they did it while lying, as well. The famous "fifteen words" had been discounted months before they were read in Bush's SOTU. The administration consistently put the worst case forward, while never mentioning any other possibilities. There was never any internal debate, just a push for war.
    Not according to various media outlets. Yahoo just the other day carried a story pointing to growing dissention in Iraq, which could lead to civil war, and the opening of the borders to terrorists, who were not in the country before the war (another "intelligence failure")

    As for intimidating other countries into compliance, is that really the way to go? Forcing peace at the point of a gun rarely works. It only lasts until those forced can find a way to turn the gun on their attackers. Not to mention the "do as we say, not as we do" precedent that we've set in international politics regarding WMD and pre-emptive war.
    Keeping prices and inflation down are irrelevant if people have no jobs to get paychecks to buy the cheap items. I'm a proponent of the "fair trade, not free trade" system. No current economic power got to where it is today by pursuing free trade policies, why would we expect it to work now? The only ones who benefit from free trade are corporations, and the executives who run them. Now, having said that, I still believe corporations are necessary to economic development, via the "work together" theory. However, they also need to be tightly regulated in order to prevent the abuses that currently plague them. The last time we used a "less regulation and let the market take care of itself" was over a hundred years ago. It was called the "gilded age", and with good reason.
  4. wwworry macrumors regular

    Mar 23, 2002
    So, retreat to standard arguments....

    anyway Bush has not done a good job, the most lying administration since Nixon, the worst economy since Herbert Hoover, and the biggest debt since ever.
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    Truth,Honesty, have been replaced with Spin and more Spin. I think he will follow his father in being a 1 Term president.
  6. toontra macrumors 6502

    Feb 6, 2003
    London UK
    As an overseas observer, I would be deeply saddened if, after all the issues highlighted above, Bush was re-elected. Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me.

    As I've been vaguely following US events as they relate to the war, I've been amazed what an easy ride the government gets from the press over there (with one or two exceptions) and, probably related, I've been shocked about the public's knowledge of political issues, especially relating to foreign affairs (remember the polls saying over 50% thought WMD had been discovered!).

    There appears to be something rotten at the heart of the US democratic process, it seems to be getting worse and no-one appears capable of sorting it out.

    PS I feel entitled to make these remarks because, as has been shown in the last year, US policy has a direct impact on us in the UK (not to mention the rest of the world).
  7. wwworry macrumors regular

    Mar 23, 2002
    toontra, if he is re-elected would you be willing to adopt some lost cousins from across the atlantic? There are many here who find the stench of this administration unbearable.
  8. groovebuster macrumors 65816


    Jan 22, 2002
    3rd rock from the sun...
    But running away doesn't change your country and'll make it even worse.

    Please stay where you are and make sure that "he" isn't going on to screw up our planet completely. Because then it will become unbearable not only in the US but also at your "hiding place".

  9. Sparky's macrumors 6502a


    Feb 11, 2004

    Wow! I have read and re-read the 2 top posts and just have to sit back.... and sit back, I couldn't touch the discussion with comments at all. Kudos and Bravo!
    I have been trying to understand the upcoming election and the driving force of politics that seems to be buzzing ever louder now as the culmination of 4 years of complete incompetance reveals itself. As a registered Republican I am embarassed to say I thought I was satisfied with the 2000 outcome. I just never knew that 47% of the vote would go to your head!!!. There is a line in the book by Charles Lewis "The buying of the President 2004" that says;
    So, it's note your vote for a candidate you need to worry about so much as the power lobby you are putting in DC. to represent you!
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040


    Jul 23, 2002
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar

Share This Page