This is your President

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth_SnowDog, May 10, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    He has walked out of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty (effectively ending the government's participation in the worldwide effort to reduce/eliminate nuclear weaponry), given federal support to states to promote conventionally married two-parent families over single-parent families, allowed his administration to violate Americans' first amendment rights by using taxpayer dollars to cover works of art on government facility grounds, unilaterally declared a human fetus a "child" with rights (essentially opening the door for healthcare insurance providers to charge premiums for a child that is not yet biologically independent of its mother), has attempted to soften the separation of church and state with his "faith-based" initiatives and now...

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is pushing rule changes to encourage more single-sex classes and schools, marking a significant change in the U.S. government's 30-year policy prohibiting gender discrimination in public schools.

    Here's the article.

    Discuss...
  2. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    He has walked out of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty (effectively ending the government's participation in the worldwide effort to reduce/eliminate nuclear weaponry)

    Uhhh . . . that's jumping the gun. Protecting yourself from ballistic nuclear attacks by no means dedicates you to augmenting your nuclear arsenal, nor stops you from shrinking it.

    given federal support to states to promote conventionally married two-parent families over single-parent families

    I assume this is supposed to be a bad thing, since I'm getting this negative vibe, but I don't see how it is a bad thing . . .

    allowed his administration to violate Americans' first amendment rights by using taxpayer dollars to cover works of art on government facility grounds

    There's a difference between 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom to display art.' But I agree Ashcroft seems to be somewhat of a ninny.
    Oh, and he hasn't violated the first amendment--only the spirit of it. It says "Congress shall make no law . . ." not "There shall be no policy . . ."

    has attempted to soften the separation of church and state with his "faith-based" initiatives and now...

    Most of those barriers are worthless, and harmful. They're used to discriminate against religion, which is not what seperation of church and state is about (not that it's about anything at all . . . its origin is so laughably misrepresented).

    As for the school thing, that's interesting. Yes, it's discrimination. But is it bad?
    The civil rights groups complain about gender equality, but this is really an issue of education quality. I don't think anybody is going to argue that kids in single-sex classrooms often do perform better, often do focus on the task at hand--learning.
    I, frankly, don't see a problem with it. If the government is going to shovel out money, let's at least use it in the most efficient way.

    Now, I dare you to guess who I would've voted for. I dare ya [face_devil]
  3. Darth_AYBABTU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 8, 2001
    star 6

    ABM -- a relic of the Cold War

    two-parent families -- Aren't there plenty of studies showing that two-parent kids are more likely to be successful than single-parent families? Why is it bad to promote two loving parents over only one?

    art -- no rights violated; statues were commissioned by government; drapes were hung as more photogenic background for television

    fetus -- interesting example you used, ignoring the published reasoning behind the decision, which was to grant medical coverage for pre-natal care to the underprivileged

    faith-based initiatives -- Oh the horror! We're trying to feed the homeless! Ahhh!

    single-sex classes -- So we'll have some all-boy and all-girl schools. Parents and students would have more options. Studies show that students perform better in same-sex classes. No one is being forced to attend them. It's just an option being made available. In fact, it isn't even being made available. It's just one of a number of proposals on the table. It may be boring as hell, but I don't see where the fuss is with this.

    I'm glad this is my president.

    AYBABTU?

  4. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Is it the government's job to endorse particular lifestyles?

    Is it the government's job to be "ninny" about statues our tax dollars paid for when, if the concern was the impression it would make on the American people who have seen those statues a million times and not once complained of them being "obscene", all Ashcroft had to do was hold the press conference elsewhere without the statues in view? And yes courts could potentially interpret this as a violation of the first amendment, even though a law was not established... the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in interpreting the first amendment to include that the government cannot institute a policy or enact certain abridgements of the right to freedom of expression. Art is a form of expression.

    Regardless, I view it as a violation of our civil rights that our government would charge us $8000 to put shrouds on statues that we really haven't demonstrated any objection towards whatsoever. Of course, if government, whether Republican or Democrat, can find a way to make us spend money on the way in and on the way out of something... they will. They probably spent just as much money taking the shrouds off as they did putting them on.

    As for faith-based initiatives... loosening the restrictions without explicitly requiring that faith-based charities do not use federal dollars to sell their religious beliefs in exchange for their help (how altruistic is that?) is borderline on religious endorsement by the government. And really... since when were religious charities the only charities around? We're only talking about federal funding... and no, I don't think any religious organizations should get my tax dollars at all.

    This latest move is just another in a series of moves on the part of the Bush administration to desperately hang on to their ultra-conservative support... because their core constituency seems to be people who want the government to interfere in every aspect of our values, but ironically they don't want government intervention in corporate America's sense of "values".

    When the fervor over the "Where's Osama?" adventure wears off and people realize that spending hundreds of billions of dollars to improve defense hasn't brought us anywhere closer to stopping four guys with boxcutters from getting on a plane and flying it into a skyscraper... and the vindication against Osama is never found... people will remember how dissatisfied they were with their president before the WTC attacks... and he'll be stuck with that core constituency... whom he's been trying pretty hard to please lately.

    Instead of actually demonstrating leadership, he seems to think the office is a four-year platform for re-election campaigning... Filibustering real issues by keeping us discussing all the "family values" stuff that really should be the family's responsibility, not the government's.
  5. toochilled Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 2000
    star 5
    George Bush, - The man who pulled out of the most important middle east conference in years because he thought the US shouldn't get involved.

    Two weeks later it;'[s the second week of September.

    THEN he decides to get involved....


    Aaaaaaaah yes, he truly is a visionary....

    //bangs head on desk.



    Seriously though folks - Bush is just plain scary. Yes - you may agree with him but leadership should NOT be about merely pleasing the democracy...
  6. DarthPhelps Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2002
    star 5
    As you know, I am slow, so I would appreciate your definition of 'civil rights', because that term gets thrown around almost as often as the "race card" gets played, and I'm just not seeing how it applies here.

    Thanks
  7. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    civil rights (the dictionary definition):

    The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

    adj


    Civil rights in the broader sense is where I'm sitting... I believe we are entitled to freedom from being screwed out of our money, freedom from government endorsement of lifestyles or religions of any kind (if we aren't capable of babysitting our own children's values and morals, why should we pawn that responsibility off on government?), and freedom from discrimination based on race, gender or other involuntary factors inherent to each person's individuality. To me, these are civil rights, and without imbuing the character of 1960s Civil Rights Movement issues, these are what civil rights are.
  8. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    Is it the government's job to endorse particular lifestyles?

    I suppose you're referring to two-parent homes being preferred for adoption.
    Look, SnowDog, you're an intelligent guy. I respect your opinion, because you often have something to back it up (even it you're wrong ;)). This is just crazy, however.
    The government 'endorsing a lifestyle' which has been shown to be better for adopted kids is not wrong. It's a good thing. Or should the government stop telling people that crack addicts have it worse, because it unfairly promotes other life styles?
    Methinks you're sore on this point because it endorses a stance that some of the more prominent religions have touted. I mean, the organizations which you've been mocking with an utter lack of respect recently can't be right about something, can they?

    As for the statue, I agree with you. But that's an attack on Ashcroft, not Bush.

    As for faith-based initiatives... loosening the restrictions without explicitly requiring that faith-based charities do not use federal dollars to sell their religious beliefs in exchange for their help (how altruistic is that?) is borderline on religious endorsement by the government.

    No it's not.
    Religious charities which use federal money to sell their religious beliefs shouldn't be getting federal money. That's obvious. But there's no other reason to allow undue government discrimination (ie, refusing funds to faith-based charities).

    And really... since when were religious charities the only charities around? We're only talking about federal funding... and no, I don't think any religious organizations should get my tax dollars at all.

    Religious charities aren't the only charities around, but they are often much more local in scope that other charities. Local = good, because it reduces wasted funds and increases the general benefits of those funds.
    And I'd rather give my money to a church than to my government, and I'm not very religious at all. The last time I went to church as last Christmas, and that was under duress.

    Filibustering real issues by keeping us discussing all the "family values" stuff that really should be the family's responsibility, not the government's.

    The President is the President, not 'the government.' He's a leader--the leader--of our nation. He's a figurehead. He represents America, what we stand for and what we believe. Espousing values or a lifestyle he thinks worthy over others less so is part of his job description.
    His mission is to make this a better country, and refusing to promote certain values over others would turn him into a worthless PC schmuck.

    Toochilled . . .

    Voluntarily not getting involved in one of the most inflamed regions on the face of the earth is a BAD thing? Especially when it has little to do with us?
    It obviously became very important AFTER September 11th, but using Bush's sudden interest in the region as an argument for . . . for what? It's the logical thing to do.

    Yes - you may agree with him but leadership should NOT be about merely pleasing the democracy...

    No, this thread is about Bush. Leave Clinton out of this. [face_devil]

    And to close my argument: "Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do." - Jean-Paul Sartre
  9. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    StarFire: No, I was actually referring to an initiative in which Bush was trying to support the federal funding of state-based advertising campaigns promoting the concept of marriage (particularly heterosexual marriage)... essentially using your tax dollars to encourage people to get married. Nothing to do with adoption, per se.

    Methinks you're sore on this point because it endorses a stance that some of the more prominent religions have touted.

    As an example... I don't endorse homosexuality any more than I endorse heterosexuality... My personal preference is obviously heterosexuality. Do I encourage government to use my funds and everyone else's to promote heterosexuality? Absolutely not. I have no business enforcing my preferences on the entire populace.

    The president is not responsible for infusing this country with values... He is responsible for being a reflection of the values we choose, enforcing those values we democratically choose, and representing those values on our behalf out in the world. In a democratic republic, as an "executive" it is his job to execute the people's will as they define it. If you want a government where the people are supposed to act according to the head of state's will... that's a monarchy or dictatorship.

    If you want to give your money to the church to support a non-secular charity, you have a checkbook... go write them a check. We should have that choice... instead of using federal funds to endorse religious charities (But then Bush is ironically refusing federal funds to endorse secular scientific research, i.e. stem-cell research? huh?).

  10. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    No, I was actually referring to an initiative in which Bush was trying to support the federal funding of state-based advertising campaigns promoting the concept of marriage (particularly heterosexual marriage)... essentially using your tax dollars to encourage people to get married. Nothing to do with adoption, per se.

    Sorry about my mistake. But I stand by my opinion :)
    Financially speaking, people are better of married. A majority of married couples who were using their brains and not just some anatomy which is decidedly lower on their bodies will tell you that they're better off than before they were married.
    Endorsing marriage means endorsing responsibility. I'd rather my tax dollars be spent on promoting marriage than, say, social security, because the former is decidedly more beneficial.
    Asking people to commit to something greater than either individual fosters responsibility. I think providing benefits to such a state is fine, but inferring penalties on being single wouldn't be.

    Do I encourage government to use my funds and everyone else's to promote heterosexuality? Absolutely not. I have no business enforcing my preferences on the entire populace.

    Neither preference has been shown to be obviously detrimental to society.
    But, going back to the crack addict, whose lifestyle is decidedly harmful to himself and those around him, and supports dealers who hook others on their product in a cycle of death that pretty much grows exponentially larger, should the government fail to decry his lifestyle? Noooooo. Why? Because it sucks. Society suffers a definite negative impact from this form of lifestyle.
    If marriage is beneficial to society (which I believe it is), I don't see a problem with the government promoting it and favoring it above other lifestyles. Why should I?

    The president is not responsible for infusing this country with values... He is responsible for being a reflection of the values we choose, enforcing those values we democratically choose, and representing those values on our behalf out in the world.

    Very strongly disagree. The President is not a barometer of the people. He does not--should not--dictate policy or values based on the latest polling data.
    The President is a leader, democratically elected, and always the lesser of two evils. He's the guy who we grudgingly put into office, for better or for worse. We voted for him not only as a man, but also for his ideas, his values, and his policies.
    If he just reflected the people, we might as well hire someone who looks nicer and doesn't screw up his grammar to read the latest Gallup poll.

    If you want to give your money to the church to support a non-secular charity, you have a checkbook...

    [face_blush]

    go write them a check.

    I will. I mean I would.
    But then I want the government to stop using my money I gave them to fund other, much more inefficient charities. Let me use it, because I guarantee I can do better.

    But then Bush is ironically refusing federal funds to endorse secular scientific research, i.e. stem-cell research? huh?

    Gosh dang that Bush. He also refuses to spend money on providing each of our CIA agents a Port-O-Rack, so they can torture people on the spot. Dang that Bush and his values. If only he spent money on EVERYTHING, even those projects which engendered what he strongly disagreed with! Why, if it wasn't for his stupid morals we could spend millions cloning humans and cutting them up to see whether they bleed like we do (and get some cheap kicks, too). Dang it! Why won't he see?! He needs to fund mass executions in the town square! Won't somebody think of the children?!

    And to put everything into much-needed perspective: "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." - Mark Twain
  11. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    This is your fellow JC member Darth_SnowDog.

    He wants us to remain buried in the Cold War and to do nothing to protect ourselves from the rouge nations that do not play by the rules of that game.

    He wants to disintigrate the family system destabilize society.

    He supports the display of the Ten Commandments in schools and public parks.

    He supports the killing of humans by declassifying them into fetus, thereby making them sub-human, just like the Nazis did to the Jews and the early Americans did to the slaves.

    He supports state exclusion of religion

    AND

    He hates President Bush because Bush does what he thinks is right without first consulting him and whatever group he belongs to.
  12. R2D2-PENA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 3
    Well said Jediflyer, except i agree about the Ten Commandments one.
  13. GeistDesFritz Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2002
    star 3
    He has walked out of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty
    In my opinion, that treaty was already dead because one of the parties that signed it, the USSR is no longer in existence and hasn't been since 1992.
  14. Admiral_Thrawn60 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2000
    star 6
    It should also be wanted that he is planning to take hostile action against Iraq, a nation that has not recently made moves against the US. The operation will undoubtedly cause many American lives.

    He also damaged international relations when he accused the 3 countries in the Axis of Evil of being evil.
  15. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    a nation that has not recently made moves against the US.

    Is it always necessary to wait until something goes wrong, and such a movie is in fact made?

  16. flying_fishi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2002
    star 6
    Personally, I am a huge fan of the single-sex classes.
    Last year I attended a co-ed school in Australia. As part of an experiment, my year's history and English classes were split into single-sex groups. A poll at the end of the year found that most students liked the arrangement.
    Personally, I found it easier to participate in class discussions and such. The atmosphere in the room was great too.
  17. AJA Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 1998
    star 4
    I don't want to get into discussing all of these subjects, but I must point out that Darth_SnowDog's point about the ABM treaty is incorrect. From the beginning of his campaign for President, Bush has advocated the largest reduction in nuclear weapons that any US President has made since their invention, and he has remained consistent on that point in negotiations with Russia over the ABM treaty. He has offered this reduction, which Putin is keenly interested in, as a part of a deal in exchange for Russia's acceptance of further US missle defense testing.

    In other words, suggesting that Bush's plan would lead to nuclear proliferation is not only incorrect, it is the opposite of what would result, since reductions would go hand in hand with any new agreement.
  18. Republic_Clone_69 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 1
    I think the post Jediflyer made should be considered libel. Destabalizing society? Comparison to a Nazi? (Somehow, I don't think Hitler was liberal.)
    Remember, opinions on such debated subjects are just that... these are not black and white issues.
  19. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Jediflyer:

    This is your fellow JC member Darth_SnowDog.

    I dunno, after your rather libelious commentary, I hardly consider myself your fellow. :D

    He wants us to remain buried in the Cold War and to do nothing to protect ourselves from the rouge nations that do not play by the rules of that game.

    No, I just consider it bad juju when a president starts making edicts like a monarch, instead of waiting for these issues to be voted on by the people's representation... Congress.

    The president doesn't make policy, he executes it. For the millionth time for those who still think the president "leads" the country by declaring policy instead of setting policy into motion... that is not the purpose of our government as defined by the Constitution, statutes, laws and ordinances we have, as a people, ratified and maintained for prosperity... and are capable of changing only when we, the people, give our consent.

    He wants to disintigrate the family system destabilize society.

    Oh, ok... so what we should teach is that it's ok to live in a squalid trailer park and beat your kids ten times a day... as long as you're married.

    But if you're responsible, financially stable (Personally, even before I was married, I was more financially stable and responsble than the average American couple...). Why don't we just start spending taxpayers money to tell homosexuals they're going to hell if they don't repent... I mean, in the conservative fundamentalist Christian view (which is allegedly the majority in this country) that is a fact, right?

    He supports the display of the Ten Commandments in schools and public parks.

    I don't support the posting of any religious material at the expense of the taxpayers on any publicly-owned grounds, including schools and parks. If you can't find time to discuss your own religious beliefs on your own dime, then that's your problem... not the state's.

    He supports the killing of humans by declassifying them into fetus, thereby making them sub-human, just like the Nazis did to the Jews and the early Americans did to the slaves.

    Show me one human fetus before the third trimester that has successfully lived as a biologically-separate entity outside the mother's womb, as opposed to being inextricably linked to the mother. How is it that it escapes everyone that the basic advantage to this edict is that healthcare companies can now charge expecting parents three insurance premiums instead of two... when two was, until now, all it took to provide prenatal care under most health plans...

    Of course if you're one of the married couples having a kid and you don't have adequate healthcare because you both work part time at a beer factory, and you haven't got the skill or the perseverance to provide anything for your child's future... Hey, as long as you're married, any idiot should have a license to be a parent... even married pedophiles, right?

    He supports state exclusion of religion

    No... I support state exclusion FROM religious influence. If the people's views are already being represented in a secular fashion through Congress... and everyone's view is colored by their beliefs... I'm fine with that. At least it's democratic representation. I'm also against numerous other lobbies, including corporate ones, taking the vote away from the American people. If you think the Ten Commandments should be up in schools or that "conventional" marriage is the key to a functioning family... despite so many married families being grossly dysfunctional or even abusive yet refusing to use common sense and file divorce for fear that their religion might not accept that logic... If you think that it demonstrates good character when you go around calling other countries "evil", despite your own nation's reputation for being the World Gestapo in the opinion of the rest of the world (Why are we always right when we do the same things we criticize other countries for doing?)... well, get off your couch and go vote.

    Are you a
  20. Lord Bane Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 26, 1999
    star 5
    To think Bush is a king is to ignore the compromises he has had to make as well as the ideas that have been flatly denied by opposition. He has no more power than Reagan or FDR had.

    I still don't see how leaving the ABM treaty is a bad thing. I don't see how promoting stable, two parent families is a bad thing. I don't see how promoting some sort of moral foundation is a bad thing; who cares what religion it came from? You still have to swear before God when testifying, among other things.
  21. Dathka Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2002
    star 1
    Oh, ok... so what we should teach is that it's ok to live in a squalid trailer park and beat your kids ten times a day... as long as you're married.
    In the african-american community married couples each make 80% more then their unmarried counterparts. Just this stat alone is enough for me to support Bush in his wish to promote marriage. And what harm can it do if he fails?


    "Are you afraid that by leaving everything to democratic process..."

    This country is not a pure democracy by any definition and was never intended to be.
    A pure democracy can gaurantee no certain rights to it's citizens as by definition the will of the majority governs. Luckily we live in a democratic republic where the constitution and bill of rights bring some stability into what would otherwise be a huge mess of a country.
    I also don't think that I have the time and engergy to find out every single detail about every law that goes through congress, so I vote for a representative or senator who shares my values and whose judgement I trust.
    If they were supposed to follow the wishes of their constituents 100% it would be a lot more efficient just to remove them and run the entire country based on polls.


    "The president doesn't make policy"

    The President is NOT supposed to make policy. HOWEVER I see no problem with him pointing out nations supporting terrorism and then spitting PC in the face by placing a label on them.
    If there is one thing that we should have learned from the world wars it's that people need to stand up to evil before it ripens... but that's going into a new topic so I'll drop it.


    "I don't support the posting of any religious material at the expense of the taxpayers on any publicly-owned grounds, including schools and parks. If you can't find time to discuss your own religious beliefs on your own dime, then that's your problem... not the state's."

    I agree with that. However religion should not be discriminated against either just becuase it's religion.
    Case in point: The history of law is bound tightly with religion which is why the Supreme Cout has no problem displaying the ten commandments on its grounds as well as several other items of religious origin. There should be no direct attempt promote a certain religion but neither should anything be not allowed just because it has religious origin.


    "Show me one human fetus before the third trimester that has successfully lived as a biologically-separate entity outside the mother's womb, as opposed to being inextricably linked to the mother."

    I honestly don't know when we can call a fetus a person, but your argument is a bit flawed.
    Show me a three year old who could survive without his or her mother or any other adult caregiver. I know that oversimplifies the whole bit, but hopefully it does make a good point. Just because someone is dependent for survival upon another entity does that make them any less a person?
    My personal view is that since we can't determine when it's a baby and when it's a fetus we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.



  22. Admiral_Thrawn60 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2000
    star 6
    AT60: [Iraq is] a nation that has not recently made moves against the US.

    KnightWriter: Is it always necessary to wait until something goes wrong, and such a movie is in fact made?

    Are you saying it's OK for America to be the aggressor in war? Isn't that title normally reserved for the "bad guys"?
  23. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    It's not black and white. Much of the work goes on quietly, where we can't see it. There is no doubt that Iraq has attempted in the past and likely is still attempting to build weapons of mass destruction, along with possibly aiding terrorists and threatening U.S. national security. America would be foolish to always wait for something major to happen.
  24. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    I wouldn't define the "bad guys" as those who strike first; if we'd gone to war on Hitler before Pearl Harbor, would we have been the bad guys then?
  25. DARTHPIGFEET Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2001
    star 4
    Okay and your point is what by posting this?

    There is nothing wrong here.

    Next case please.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.