An Open Letter To George Bush
Jammer
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
in Discussions
Hey George
Its me, Joe.
As you know, I've been a pretty big supporter of yours. I think you did a bang up job after 9/11. The leadership was dead on. I'm also happy with your economic policy. Let Greenspan do his job, and keep taxes down. You started off with the right idea.
Then Iraq came. I'll admit, I bought the WMD stories. It didn't make sense for Saddam NOT to have weapons. He couldn't be trusted. You presented plenty of evidence. I was thrilled at the toppling of Saddam's statue. I'm proud of our military for what they've done. I couldn't have been happier with your performance. Re-Election, HO! in my book.
Then I read about the Office of Special Affairs you planted in the CIA. Your administration set up an office to get the juicest intelligence on Iraq, regardless of its merits, bypassing the normal procedure. Lying about the war? Eh, maybe. I still supported it, for the humanitarian benefit of it. I'm a huge supporter of the liberalization of other nations. The threat of terrorism will not stop until we can convince the enemy that our way of life is superior. We need to show them the merits of freedom and democracy.
You were on pretty steady footing, Mr. Bush. I'd rank you at about 60%. Thats damn good in my book.
Then you spent some money.
And some more money.
And a bit more.
And, what the heck, a bit MORE money.
Now, Mr. Bush, I understand the need for defecit spending, especially in times of need. You said last year in the State of the Union a small defecit would be neccesary. I was fine with that.
I was not fine running hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. THATS NOT COOL. You said you were a fiscal conservative. I'm calling Shennanigans on that right now! You've done nothing but spend spend spend! And its not just you; the entire Republican establishment, with few exceptions, has approved massive appropriations of pork in the budget. Your Medicare package made Baby Jesus cry.
Then you announce the Mission to Mars.
WHAT THE HELL?! Honestly. With all the problems we have right now, why in the hell would you spend money to go to Mars? And ANOTHER 10 billion for Iraq? STOP SPENDING SO MUCH DAMN MONEY.
Honestly now! Even I'm considering voting Democratic if the canidate promises to reduce the debt. This is getting absurd. I've supported Bush's message abroad, but domestically, he is the worst president in some time. I mean, sweet Jesus...STOP SPENDING MONEY
Sincerely,
Joe
Its me, Joe.
As you know, I've been a pretty big supporter of yours. I think you did a bang up job after 9/11. The leadership was dead on. I'm also happy with your economic policy. Let Greenspan do his job, and keep taxes down. You started off with the right idea.
Then Iraq came. I'll admit, I bought the WMD stories. It didn't make sense for Saddam NOT to have weapons. He couldn't be trusted. You presented plenty of evidence. I was thrilled at the toppling of Saddam's statue. I'm proud of our military for what they've done. I couldn't have been happier with your performance. Re-Election, HO! in my book.
Then I read about the Office of Special Affairs you planted in the CIA. Your administration set up an office to get the juicest intelligence on Iraq, regardless of its merits, bypassing the normal procedure. Lying about the war? Eh, maybe. I still supported it, for the humanitarian benefit of it. I'm a huge supporter of the liberalization of other nations. The threat of terrorism will not stop until we can convince the enemy that our way of life is superior. We need to show them the merits of freedom and democracy.
You were on pretty steady footing, Mr. Bush. I'd rank you at about 60%. Thats damn good in my book.
Then you spent some money.
And some more money.
And a bit more.
And, what the heck, a bit MORE money.
Now, Mr. Bush, I understand the need for defecit spending, especially in times of need. You said last year in the State of the Union a small defecit would be neccesary. I was fine with that.
I was not fine running hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. THATS NOT COOL. You said you were a fiscal conservative. I'm calling Shennanigans on that right now! You've done nothing but spend spend spend! And its not just you; the entire Republican establishment, with few exceptions, has approved massive appropriations of pork in the budget. Your Medicare package made Baby Jesus cry.
Then you announce the Mission to Mars.
WHAT THE HELL?! Honestly. With all the problems we have right now, why in the hell would you spend money to go to Mars? And ANOTHER 10 billion for Iraq? STOP SPENDING SO MUCH DAMN MONEY.
Honestly now! Even I'm considering voting Democratic if the canidate promises to reduce the debt. This is getting absurd. I've supported Bush's message abroad, but domestically, he is the worst president in some time. I mean, sweet Jesus...STOP SPENDING MONEY
Sincerely,
Joe
Comments
nah jk
You gonna mail this to him?
Pretzels. Send him a bag of Pretzels.
Its me, Joe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Joe, did you vote? Cus if not you got the government you deserved, congratulations!
Seriously now. For an external perspective. We saw: Clinton managed to get a hold on the defecit, but thanks to his trimming the defence budget he got blamed for Sept 11th. I'm not sure whether it was an attempt to immediately differentiate himself from Clinton, or a genuine belief that the budget needed hammering for the sake of internal integity (surprisingly Bush Jr is one of the politicians I don't actually attach the quality of guile to), but in any case any stabilisation of your economy post recent slump may be jeapordised (depending which economic school you subscribe to) by Bush throwing your cash about.
He either doesn't have any or he's very good at it ...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's not why we went to war. We weren't told "We are doing this for democracy and freedom". We were told Saddam had WMDs and he could order a launch within 45 minutes that could hit us. We were also told he had solid links to terrorist groups who were going to use those weapons against us.
Lying about this kind of thing is a big deal. Heck, it's a big deal to lie about anything in politics, but you're talking about a war. American citizens are dead, and so are thousands of Iraqis. Billions have been spent on this war, the tax dollars of citizens. The public deserves the absolute truth on issues like this. So what if the end result was, or is, a liberated Iraq. If we had to be lied to in order for this to happen, I say it wasn't worthwhile.
On the basis of just that alone I wouldn't vote for Bush if I was an American. As it is I'm certainly not voting for our glorious leader who went right along with the whole WMD "threat". Lying to the public just isn't on, especially when it consumes this many lives and money.
[/ot]
yup, Bush seems worse than most politicians, hopefully the coming elections will be slightly more legit than the last ones...
Its me, Joe. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Joe, did you vote? Cus if not you got the government you deserved, congratulations! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't old enough at the time d00der :-(
I voted the first time I could though, last year's local republican primaries.
That said, well written Jammer. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you're **** off with the candidates, vote for a 3rd party or just vote for the guy least likely to win. Thats more of a protest than not showing up.
And if you're not a politically informed voter you stay the hell away from the booth and do everyone a favour - Which is what i've done for the last 4 years.
Meanwhile, far below the surface of the earth:
Mephistophiles: Fogarty! what's going on?
Fogarty: Sorry, it got a bit hot in here, I just nicked the thermostat
Mephistophiles: It's damned cold. What's it at?
*they both look*
Fogarty: Erm... 32 degrees... fahrenheit?
Mephistophilies: That's it, Fogarty. I'm going to have to let you go. You're watered.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Rhuadin
EDIT: What I really mean is that I am quite surprised. Jammer, I'm proud of you for not blindly sticking to your respective political party. Now, if only more republicans (and democrats -- they do stupid things too) were a bit more open minded like you, instead of merely following their parties like sheep, the USA would be a far better place.
That's only because you have never been to a place with the horrible alternatives that most humans live under. Bring back the draft.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're a politically informed citizen it's always in your best interests to vote for somebody<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree with this completely, the same way I disagree with countries like Australia that force you to vote and penalize you if you do not. Part of being free is being able to say 'my lack of vote is my protest'; if you had to choose between killing 5 men, would you just choose the poorest, or would you denounce the act of killing and do nothing? I'm not advocating apathy and laziness though.
That's a good post, Jammer. I do find it pretty amusing (and you'll find my quotes on this previously in other topics) that ever since Reagan, the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility and the Republicans seem to favor deficit spending. But such changes are commonplace in politics - a hundred fifty years ago the Republican party made the greatest civil right decision ever, while Democrats opposed it (to the point of a civil war!). This is why I do not pledge my loyalty (or vote) to members of either party, and only to specific individuals. And nowadays, you have imbecile racist rednecks like Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond being placed in charge of the GOP. Go figure.
It is a double edged sword, granted, but it does have some advantages. For starters, people are more inclined to be politically aware; after all, if you have to vote, you might as well see what your options are. Any government that comes to power does so with the support of a majority of the entire population, not just a section. Governments must appeal to the entire population, not merely those who have a tendancy to vote.
There are protest votes though. Some of my uni friends, disillusioned with the popular parties, simply vote for David Free Marijuana. Others do what we call "donkey voting"; simply writing 1 2 3 4 5 6 etc down the page next to the candidates. This is by no means the norm however; I have met few Australians who do this. Most instead follow either Liberal / Nationals or Labor, with a few Greens and Democrats, and vote accordingly.
I must admit that I find it bizzare that US citizens chose not to vote. You fought a revolutionary war to gain this right, and yet you give it up for free. If you believe that there are no options that are right for you, start your own party and vote for yourself. Write to your representatives and voice your concerns. Not voting just strikes me as pointless; it's not really much a political statement. How is a political party going to know what you think of them if you don't vote? How will they know what to change, or what you as a citizen want? More importantly, what right have you to complain about your government if you never took part in the decision process?
In the last 20 years or so the only group willing to strangle the massive federal spending was the 104th Congress. Remember <a href='http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html' target='_blank'>The Contract With America</a>? After an election that Peter Jennings described as a "temper tantrum" by a nation of voters, the Republican party took control of the Congress in 1994. IMHO that power shift was due heavily on the Contract. That attempt to pass sweeping legislation to lasso the Federal government was snuffed first by the Senate (which included some down voting Republicans) and then slashed by President Clinton. Then the stained dress and the blood thirsty prosecutor wiped any and all media coverage of the Contract's results.
Remember, the President puts his hand out but the House signs the checks. Of course, considering that the Republican party currently controls the House, it seems to me we need another "temper tantrum" next fall.
Ryo, your whole thing there merely comes across as patronizing, as well as rather hypocritical. Until you stop being a Commonwealth of Britain you're in no position to make any claims about how American democracy is flawed - and you made the mistake of telling me about the Whitlam Affair. More to the point, I spoke of myself personally, and specifically pointed out that I was not giving license to be lazy. Being forced to do something is what our founders fought against - if they had believed that the electorate should be mandatory, they would probably have made it a constitutional piece of the original Bill of Rights.
Awful lot of words being placed in mouths today, eh?
I believe that voting is not just a right, it is a duty. If you're a citizen of Australia or America, you have the right to vote. But it is also your duty to vote. You should be taking part in the democratic political process that forms the foundations of our government and society. Myself, and the millions of other Australians eligable to vote don't get up in arms about having to vote, any more than we do about having to pay taxes. You're a citizen of a country and you have responabilities to that country, such as paying taxes, obeying laws and voting.
Why should I not be allowed to voice my opinions about the US system just because the system in my country is differant? You might as well ban Nem0 from talking in any Iraq war threads because the guy is German! I don't like the fact that Australia is ruled by Britian and I want it to change; does that give me the right to criticise?
I also disagree with this this, but for completely different reasons. America does not care about the votes of the people, only the votes of the electoral college. Though Wisconsin's population may vote 51% democrat, all 100% of their electoral college will vote that way. Thus, not voting is pretty much the same as voting as far as I am concerned, since the state will vote for me anyway.
Then that's really a flawed system. Unless it's set up like local elections here, whereas if a majority of the people in a region vote for one party, the representative gets in. Is the Electoral College similar to the "2 senators/state" system then in that it exists to ensure that the largest states don't overwhelm the smaller states? But then again I seem to remember that the larger states get more Electoral College votes.... Why is the EC there again?
Then that's really a flawed system. Unless it's set up like local elections here, whereas if a majority of the people in a region vote for one party, the representative gets in. Is the Electoral College similar to the "2 senators/state" system then in that it exists to ensure that the largest states don't overwhelm the smaller states? But then again I seem to remember that the larger states get more Electoral College votes.... Why is the EC there again? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
IIRC, the original purpose was to make sure the people didn't vote the wrong person into office (IE, a lunatic or something, if I understand correctly). Supposedly they weren't sure if the american people could be trusted to make such an important decision. This is probably wrong, or at least a bit off, but I've got too many other things to do to check it right now, so I'll probably post later with the real reason.
And yes, each state gets a number of electoral votes based (mostly?) on the size of its population. Though supports of the EC will claim that this somehow gives smaller states more power.
<a href='http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm</a>
The number of Electoral votes a state gets is equal to the number of Senators and Representatives the state has. Maine, my home state, has 2 Senators (As does every state) and 2 Representatives (Based on population). As such, Maine has 4 vote in the Electoral College. However, Maine and Nebraska have seperate systems that I like. Maine and Nebraska each assign two votes by statewide elections and the remaining votes by congressional district.
The 2000 election wasn't the first time that a President won without the popular vote. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes won the electoral vote, while Tilden won the popular vote. There was a spat about it, much like the 2000 election, however, the courts weren't involved. Hayes got to be president by agreeing to withdraw Federal troops from the South.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote. In this case, the EC worked as it was supposed to, by keeping one region from dominating politics.
Today, a candidate must win 270 of the 538 electoral votes to become President. By giving smaller states more votes (based on the number of senators that each state automatically gets), it skews the vote to give them slightly more power. Maine has 1.2 million people or 0.4% of the U.S. population. But it has 4 of 538 EC votes, 0.7% of the college power. While highly populated states like New York and California are still more desirable than low population states, the system keeps the small states at some value and therefore keeping them important in the national political process.
I have also heard that when the EC was created the government was worried about whether Joe Average was really capable to make an informed decision to vote ( I mean, how much of the population was illiterate?? ). With the EC it is majority rules per state... Well, to be honest that is how it is traditionally done. I do believe that technically, each representative can vote how ever they wish, regardless of who "won" the state... But I don't think that's ever happened.
Sorry, I've got a cold.
Everyone feel free to discuss the original topic again <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And the demoncrats were the same as they were 50 years ago?!
An interesting letter. I think there's the spending he's proposed in several areas does seem a bit excessive, although I don't think it's as bad as you seem to think. Out of his recent proposals, the one that made me hopefull is the one about limiting spending by cutting wastefull sections from the budget so that money can be focused on important things. I doubt any congress will ever have the guts to do it, but it would sure help, Because it does seem like everyone in our capital considers a lot of things important to spend my money on that I do not consider so very important. We'll see where this leads in the next year.
To the tangent leading off of this topic:
100 years ago, I, with my current views, would have been a fairly extreme leftist. I would be considered pro-labor, pro-civil rights, pro-environtmentalist, and pro-women's rights. Now, after various labor reforms, civil rights amendments for minorities, clean water and air acts, civil rights amendments for women, and a veriety of other improvements, all these movements just kept going for more and more, and suddenly I'm on the far right. Apperently I'm now hatefull, anti-worker, racist, anti-earth, sexist, a right wing extremist, and generally a bad person for having the same views that would have made me a liberal not long ago.
Politics are funny that way. They tend to act as something of a pendulum in this country, so for those who hate the right wing, I'm sorry. It's likely that the trend will be in the more right leaning direction for at least another 10 years unless something odd happens to break the cycle. At some point after that it's likely to swing back the other way again. Both parties are changing rapidly, and occationally one party gets weak enough that it gets replaced with another more viable opposition party. Anyone who stays with one American political party for life is probably not paying attention, unless they are a single issue voter. I'll be interested to see how things shape up over the next 10 years, and how long I'll be considered a right wing extremist compared to the "norm". <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sorry, I've got a cold. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just watch me!
I don't think the US should go make every country into a Mini-USA, though I think foreign policy and trade agreements should encourage liberalzation (in the classical sense). War should only be used if said nation is also a threat to the US.
And before anyone says it, I do think Iraq was a threat to the US. It may not have had first strike capabilities, but Saddam planned to restart his programs once the world thought he had reformed (as evidenced by burying nuclear project materials, with explicit instructions to restart the program.) The war in Iraq prevented another North Korea situation down the road. But that is totally off topic.
I hope your cold clears up.
The only caveat is that many people are completely oblivious of this fact, billions of dollars are thrown in a bottomless pit that never gets anything done.