Originally posted by bombers8
I won't even address the ridiculous assertion that his policy is to kill children. For you to even suggest it is absurd.
Yes, humor is often absurd. Humor is also often used to draw attention to a much less absurd fact that would otherwise be very dry and depressing. In
this case, the admittedly absurd notion that killing children is a primary goal
of Bush's policies serves as a reminder that while Democrats
go too far to one side by wanting to protect against collateral damage to caribou, Bush goes too far in a much more sinister direction by accepting
HUMAN BEINGS, including children, as collateral damage, and does so in a disgustingly cavalier manner.
And it's funny how the energy crisis just seemed to coincide with the beginning of his first term, isn't it?
Oh, is that because the evil democratic congress (oh wait, we don't have one of those) voted to raise the price of oil just to screw Bush? The
drilling bans weren't put in place on Bush's watch, they were there before. This problem came to a head on Bush's watch.
I don't blame him for causing it
I've been very clear that the errors of his predecessors have allowed these problems to fester until they
came to a point where they could no longer be ignored. My problem is that Bush hasn't done what he needs to do to fix these problems.
I'd LOVE to see you elaborate on this quip though. Who exactly conspired to make a Greek Tragedy out of both this issue and Bush's ability to
respond to it?
What exactly did Bush try to do that would really fix the problem?
He refuses to target his tax cuts narrowly enough, he demands hundreds of billions of dollars to occupy a strategically untennable position, he puts
us on the outs with the 4th biggest oil supplier to the US with an ill-conceived coup attempt... he's got money for everything BUT fixing the oil
But oh no, he's got a plan. Congress is just stopping him. Bush has got a plan alright. He's got a
that would reduce oil prices by only fifty cents a barrel, which in case you're interested,
translates into 2 cent break at the pump. On the bright side, it would be a roughly 20 billion dollar windfall for US oil companies.
And when would his "plan" do this for us? The oil would start flowing in 2013. Too little, too late.
You must also take into account that we only have so much refining and tanking capacity. No amount of offshoring or drilling in ANWR is going to save
us as our demand continues to spike, but Bush refuses to make truly bold moves. He wants to make small moves that make him look good for the short
term and help the rich far more than the common man.
He's not willing to rock the boat with ambitious funding for alternative energy. 1.2 Billion dollars over 5 years for fuel cells is not very
ambitious compared to 300 Billion over 5 years for dead people.
A tax credit to encourage people who are in the market for a new car to buy one that uses less gas IF they itemize... that's great. Want to take a
wild guess at how much that's going to help most of us?
Biodiesel is being used. Right now, as I type, there are vehicles in France running on 30% biodiesel. This started in the 90s. You can produce the
stuff with algae on land that is otherwise not really arable. How many production facilities has Bush asked the government to fund construction
He throws a single billion at some R&D guys and says "well, we'll have it in 20+ years, but why don't we go ahead and give my buddies in the oil
industry an annual 20 billion by opening up ANWR. It's all posturing. There's been no action.
What would people have said if FDR had told them "I'm giving a trivial slice of the budget to a think tank to come up with ways to get you jobs, but
if you think I'm actually going to spend real money and create jobs for you in the near term, you're nuts". I'll give you a hint: they said it to
As for your attempts to sidestep my points, I never claimed Bush didn't have opposition.
I said George Bush doesn't work with them, even though several of them are of his own party. When the voice of the people is on occasion represented
in Washington DC (in the form of Republicans breaking ranks because they know they can't back Bush's bad ideas and then go home to face their
constituents) your defense of Bush is that he has opponents? No kidding he has opponents. Inaction and tokenism should be opposed.
Nor did I ever claim that Bush didn't need
to work with those opponents. Forgive me if it went over your head, but given my criticism of Bush
I think it is obvious that my point is this: he needs to
but he doesn't
Don't believe me? Have you forgotten his threat to veto the Patriot Act's renewal if it was weakened? He would do nothing before he did it anyone
Then of course there's the tried and true "wild eyed liberal" defense. I don't hate Bush's policies because I hate Bush. I hate Bush because I
hate his policies. I supported him in 2000, I voted for him in 2004 (actually I voted against Kerry in 2004 but oh well). Most people who stuck with
this man as long as I did simply will never change their minds. I've poked fun at him, I've disagreed with him on social issues because I do not
like religiously-motivated policy, but I gave him a shot. Nearly 6 years later, the verdict is in. I was wrong about Bush. His focus is wrong, his
agenda is dangerous, and above all, when it comes to the trying issues which the mistakes of his predecessors have thrust upon him, his policy
consists wholly of lies, lipservice, and stalling.
And last but not least, this thread is not about democrats. At this point I'm sure you would like to talk about just about anything other than Bush
because the man is beyond defense, but he is the topic of this thread. For the record, I'll say that the democratic party can kiss the least sanitary
part of my body, but that's as far as I will follow that red herring.