Bush's only good point is lower taxes

After listening to the State of Union, Bush's only good point he made was keeping lower taxes for married couples and the child tax credit. Everything else had that "Bush" spin that I totally disagree with.

employment on the rise?
drug testing in schools?
constitutional amendment against same sex marriage?
downplay of WMD"S (is it me or did totally disregard that and is emphasizing "removing the dictator")
his insurance proposals aren't realistic
and let's not even talk about the immigration issue

just a few of the questionable points of his speech. I really don't want this guy as President for another 4 years...it seems he doesn't live in the same reality as most americans.

Drug testing in schools not to punish you, but because we love you and we don't want to lose you. (something like that)

This is outrageous!

And Edwards took that off the table with his first publication, and Kerry has now agreed.

The only Dem I know of for raising MC taxes is Dean (and I think Clark).

So what's the issue? I suppose if you love the Patriot Act and hate gays OR are in the top 2% of earners, vote bush.

[Edited on 20-1-2004 by RANT]

the money they would have to spend on enforcing drug testing in schools should simply go into making the school system better, then the kids would be better educated and capable of not choosing drugs as an option.


And Is a Constitutional Amendment really necessary to "protect" the institution of marriage between a "man and woman"?

I think the Patriot act part of his speech will damage him a little. The gay marrige thing isn't something anyone should really care about, and most likely isn't much of a concern anywhere but the South.

Originally posted by Bangin
Drug testing in schools not to punish you, but because we love you and we don't want to lose you. (something like that)

This is outrageous!

Based on that speech and his past coc aine use I think we should be drug testing him.

You know,...it seems more and more, that the war on terrorism,..is being directly aimed at the citizens of the USA.

Fix all of the problems at once...the money, the economy, the terrorists, the drugs, the nuclear,....is there anything else that can be forcefully fixed in just one more term?

Originally posted by Losonczy
Based on that speech and his past coc aine use I think we should be drug testing him.

If they had been drug testing students at Yale, or wherever he went, he never would have graduated. He would have been kicked out before he even started.

One of the things that caught my attention was this,

"Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country - mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or Star of David or crescent on the wall."

I know what the cross and Star of David represent, but I can't recall what the crescent stands for. Can someone refresh my memory please?

Cresent=Islam, I believe.



regards
seekerof

Hey, nobody even mentioned the Patriot Act that must be signed! more gestapo legislation from this American Nazi regime...please read signature line.....

Originally posted by worldwatcher
the money they would have to spend on enforcing drug testing in schools should simply go into making the school system better, then the kids would be better educated and capable of not choosing drugs as an option.


And Is a Constitutional Amendment really necessary to "protect" the institution of marriage between a "man and woman"?

Worldwatcher...this country spends more money per student than anywhere in the world...yet we have little to show for it. Education doesn't need more money...it needs more ACCOUNTABILITY!

And yes, I think an amendment is needed to preserve the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Otherwise as the president said, we will have out of control judges deciding what is law, bypassing the will of the people!

Not again with proposing an amendment for something so shallow (comparitively to the purpose of the document) as protecting hetero marriage, and denying same-sex marriage.


If this were to EVER happen, it will be graffiti on the document, and will open the door to ammending so many other things already wished for, but yet unable to do yet.





[Edited on 20-1-2004 by smirkley]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Crescent=Islam, I believe.
regards
seekerof

Thanks, that was it. Although apparently, it is not an Islamic religious symbol. It is more of a secular symbol of their state and nation.

by CSRules
And yes, I think an amendment is needed to preserve the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Otherwise as the president said, we will have out of control judges deciding what is law, bypassing the will of the people!

First of all how is allowing same-sex marriage a threat to the institution? The government is not supposed to pass laws based on religious beliefs, so they can't use the excuse that "God says so". The government should not have a say one way or another on who may or may not enter into the bonds of marriage. It is a personal decision between the people involved and no one else.

Secondly,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." --10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

That means that the states have the right to make their own laws and decisions about anything that the Constitution doesn't delegate to the Federal Government. The states that have decided to recognize same-sex marriages and medicinal marijuana, were completely within their Constitutionally protected rights to do so. The STATE'S rights were violated when the federal government decided to override their decisions.

It is much more of a threat to our freedoms, if we rely on the Federal government to make laws for the entire nation, then if we allow the individual states to do so. It is a far simpler task to effect change on a state and local level then on a federal level. Not only that, but if individual states can make decisions based on what their own majority wants, it gives people, who disagree with what one state does, the option of moving to a state that more closely reflects their ideals.
If we allow a central government to decide what is good for all the states, collectively, then we end up with one single federal state instead of the many independent states, like it was intended.

I am far more concerned about an out-of-control President and Congress then an out-of-control state judge. You should be too!

Originally posted by CSRules

Originally posted by worldwatcher
the money they would have to spend on enforcing drug testing in schools should simply go into making the school system better, then the kids would be better educated and capable of not choosing drugs as an option.


And Is a Constitutional Amendment really necessary to "protect" the institution of marriage between a "man and woman"?

Worldwatcher...this country spends more money per student than anywhere in the world...yet we have little to show for it. Education doesn't need more money...it needs more ACCOUNTABILITY!

And yes, I think an amendment is needed to preserve the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Otherwise as the president said, we will have out of control judges deciding what is law, bypassing the will of the people!

Nobody needs to be telling anyone else who they can or can't marry. NO Laws or Amendments or anything else is required.

WTF is the "institution of marriage" and why does it need to be preserved, and from who? It's not a "Thing", it's a consept. An Mental Abstraction of Thought. It's NOT a REAL THING in other words. Are you trying to say that Homosexual Marriages is somehow destroying Hetrosexual Marriages? HOW?

Originally posted by mOjOm

Nobody needs to be telling anyone else who they can or can't marry. NO Laws or Amendments or anything else is required.

WTF is the "institution of marriage" and why does it need to be preserved, and from who? It's not a "Thing", it's a consept. An Mental Abstraction of Thought. It's NOT a REAL THING in other words. Are you trying to say that Homosexual Marriages is somehow destroying Hetrosexual Marriages? HOW?

thanks for asking the question Mojom. I also need to know exactly HOW?

Bush seems to want to "God's Morals" in this country's political agenda. Where is the Democracy in that?

In a Democratic Country people are free to make decisions for themselves, since when does Democracy say that you are only free to make those decisions for yourselves as long as you follow "Bush's Morals"?

constitutional amendment against same sex marriage?

downplay of WMD"S (is it me or did totally disregard that and is emphasizing "removing the dictator")

Well, on the marriage bit, that's really shooting yourself in the foot... Every gay couple I know are pretty moderately well-off at least, and they vote!

As for WMD's, well, when the audience doesn't like the tune...you play a different one, hehe....

What is so sacred about the marriage of a man and woman anymore when at least half of all marriages end in divorce. Gay couples probably have their $hit together better than most man/woman couples. No, I'm not gay, but I do believe they should have the same rights everyone else has. PERIOD!

Correct me if I'm wrong since I am not an American but in general: Isn't using drug tests at schools to test kids practically admitting that there went something wrong on the way? If so, wouldn't it just be better to make sure that kids have no way of getting those drugs, and that they get education on what drugs can do to you. Furthermore, what if you fail a drug test at school? You get kicked out? Wow well that would help a great deal since school is probably one of the few things that keeps structure in the life of the kid.