Re-elect Bush!!!

[Forged]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
1) I, as many others, believe that the federal government has no right to dictate to libraries lest they be federal libraries. It is the state's responsiblity to manage state libraries and local's responsibility to manage local libraries. I supported this decision.

2) I don't believe the government has any business dictating how businesses (including medical) advance. They can sponsor, but not pour in support.

3) He likes to be a diplomat between environmental and business organizations. He wanted a full report, and I don't see the harm as business were preparing for the bill, anyway.

4) Uh... Never put all your eggs in one basket. Bush elected to cut funding here in order to diversify "child care" organizations. I believe the cut helped to budget more into Boy Scouts, JROTC, Big Brother/Sister, and others.

5) Again: Government has no business dictating how businesses carry out their, uh, business. It should sponser, never support.

6) Bush has admitted that he made mistakes (DUI), and he is honest enough that I believe him when he says he never did coke. Alcohal is not a drug. A drug, by his bill, is any illegal substance.

7) Again, he believes in diversifying where this funding goes. The government was denying funding to good organizations just because they had a religious affiliation (Christian, Jewish, etc.).

1. ehh maybe.

2.The Goverment Train Doctors. My stepfather was trained by the govt. (in advanced pediatrics even heh)

3.So you enjoy drinking arsenic?

4.Point Taken

5.Childcare not nusery homes. Childcare such as HeadStart, shhould have been more specific on that one.

6.So you consider someone driving drunk less of a threat than someone who happend to have been caught with a little weed?
I don't understand the justness of this paticular bill, it just means the people who can't afford to go to college, and do drugs everyonce and a whikle (as most teens do) is doomed to a life of failure and misery for something he did between the ages of 13-18...

7. Allright w/e, that didn't seem to make sense.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by Forged
3.So you enjoy drinking arsenic?

I hate to bust your bubble, but fact is, Clinton instituted the new arsenic restrictions near the end of his term, without having studies or anything done to see if these new restrictions were even needed. When Bush got into office, he requested tests to see if these restrictions were necissary. When he got the tests back, he made an informed desicion, and decided to keep the restrictions. Bush never rose the bar on arsenic ammounts, or put the restrictions of hiatus.

 

[bamthedoc]

That's one of the reasons I like Bush. He looks at all sides of an issue before making a decision. I like that he takes his time and allows himself to make a well informed decision. He does speak his heart, and that's another thing I like.

As for the "drug" issue... I don't really like the idea of supporting a drug habbit by allowing them to get financial aid just because they can't get their priorities straight. They have a choice: Do Drugs OR Go To College. Alcohol may not be an illegal substance, and I won't say something that isn't true: I don't like the ideas of drunkards on the streets.

I don't know exactly what the bill entails, but I'd imagine a "one timer" won't be disqualified. Rather, a "junkie" would be. That's what I'd assume, but, either way, I needn't worry. I don't use illegal substances nor do I abuse legal ones.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
6) Bush has admitted that he made mistakes (DUI), and he is honest enough that I believe him when he says he never did coke. Alcohal is not a drug. A drug, by his bill, is any illegal substance.

7) Again, he believes in diversifying where this funding goes. The government was denying funding to good organizations just because they had a religious affiliation (Christian, Jewish, etc.).

6) Whoa, he was honest enough to admit something that's on his criminal record in the first place which anyone could easily dig up? What a trustworthy man. If he had lied about it the consequenses would be even greater so why wouldn't he tell the truth? Any coke use that he may have gotten away with wouldn't be on his record. It would be simple to lie about it. I fail to see how him telling the truth makes him any more trustworthy.

And Bush's bill doesn't change the English language. Alcohol is a drug. Something as little as caffeine is a drug, whether his bill states so or not. Even so, DUI is illegal and therefore in that instance alcohol would be a drug according to the bill. Why are you trying to justify it when you said that you don't even agree with it?

7) Again, why are you trying to justify this but at the same time justify the cuts to public libraries? You're saying that states should handle the libraries but shouldn't handle charities? What's the difference? And why should the government support charities at all? It's like you're agreeing that social programs are a good idea but you'd rather the government pass the burden off on a charity rather than handle the problem itself.

 

[bamthedoc]

I'd be happier if charities weren't funded by the government, at all. As it is, however, I would rather settle with diversification and allowance of religious charities than too many that I don't like.

As for the "honesty" thing, I'm refering to him in "general" as opposed to telling us what can easily be looked up.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

I dont mind if the goverment give moneys to charitys as long as the liberies, schools and hospitals.... NO president is completely honest the ones that appear honest are good at covering it up