Ok bush bashers,
Exactly how much credibillity does an unnamed whitehouse spokesperson have really? More importantly...how desperate are you to believe an unnamed
source? Is this the level of denial of ignorance that you deem acceptable?
Rumormills.com ....hmmm this seems like a credible source...NOT!!!!
lets look at the first sentance on the site,
I'm not saying the report below is true; of course, I have no way of knowing.
That pretty much sums up the idea that this is COMPLETE SPECULATION AND OPINION!!!
its amusing that so many of you actually believe this crap, on face value, from an unnamed source. So Bush tells this unnammed source everything eh?
How can you even begin to guage the accuracy of this "info" and how much they know or dont about "bush's plans"?
Lets look at these talking points
1) homosexuality made illegal.....Ummm didnt the USA recently de-criminilize the acts of a sexual nature that would be associated with homosexual
relations? Arent homosexuals allowed to adopt children? The voters passing a law thru democratic means that endorses marriage as for a man and woman
only is not banning anything....its recognising marriage as a special interest minority group with defined entitlements, much like many other special
interest minority groups have....
2) a form of Creationism to be taught in all schools
BIG DEAL!!! creationism will be taught alongside (NOT INSTEAD OF) other THEORIES....theory means "idea not proven as fact". So what that more
thoeries about the origins of man are made available for students to learn about and judge for themselves if here is enough "proof" for them to
adopt that view of mankinds evolution. Teaching some theories and not all theories was ok with you? You have a problem saying to students..."here
is another theory on the origins of man"? I suppose that info was to be supressed eh?
3) a modified draft.
Hmmm, well the President has said that there would be no draft.
As there isnt one now, and there is nothing official in the works....id have to say i'll believe this when i see it. This would be the opposite of
the stated policy. From what ive seen, only democrats have kicked this idea around so far.
4) utter destruction of Iraqi cities that harbor any terrorists, regardless of the civilian casualties
Umm excuse me for pointing this out, but we dont need 150000 troops to accomplish this.....a push of a button and 15 min later, bagdad will glow in
the dark....heck we dont even need nukes, we could destroy everything we wanted from the air...Explain to me why we stopped sacking falluja months ago
if we werent worried about indiscrimate destruction and killing?...Why didnt we do then, what we just did in falluja, if we werent concerned with
destruction and causing unnessisary casualties? This is too easy and again a directly OPPOSITE idea comming from unnamed sources (and wishful
thinking liberals)....this is not stated policy from the President.
5) the securing of oil areas in Iran and the subsequent cutting off of exports to China .
This is almost humurous.....how do you think we're going to cut off China's oil needs, when we need china to make tons of cheap stuff for us to
consume here? Like China or Iran is just going to lay there and allow this to happen, let alone the rest of the world....this is one of the BIGGEST
things on the hate Bush wish list thats never gonna hapen.
6) France, Germany and several other countries to be "starved of oil" for their lack of support for Bush
This assumes that the USA will own all the oil to determine who gets what....BIG AND UNLIKLEY ASSUMPTION HERE!!!! Not only are there places not under
the USA control that sell oil, but NOONE on the planet will abide by ANYONE having that much control over this substance....which is one of the
reasons saddam is gone now....tooo much interest in this vital commodity vested in the hands of ONE person, with a very well known, violent history of
7) a board to be set up to control "vile and degrading pornography
Umm isnt that what the FCC is? HOW LONG HAVE WE HAD THIS? Longer than Bush's time around. Its the Federal Communications Commision...set up to
monitor and define indecency.
I dont think they will ever put this back into the bottle...especially as the USA porn industry pays MORE taxes than hollywood does as they are making
WAY more $$$ than regular movie making. You cant control what isnt defined....define indecent pornography, then try and control it.
8. "encouragement" to produce more Mel Gibson-style religious films
Define "encouragement"....was Bush so powerful he and his people could keep mmoores film hidden? NO, that piece of wasted celluloid ran all over the
USA. How exactly is the government controlling the media again?
9. resurrection of the old sedition laws to prevent any more criticism of government or what is amounting to the state religion,
PLEASE provide examples where the government is advocating a state religion; meaning enacting laws, saying verifably in public that the entire USA
government is adopting a paticular religion, institutionally into the mainstream culture. Again I'll believe the laws will be brought back when i
see it. 4 years from now, look back and see the laws were never re-enstated, and picture me saying I TOLD YOU SO!
How could they possibly hope to contain the internet dissention?
10. a strong encouragement to permit open and free immigration by Mexicans
Hmmm, why havnt any of you tried to put gods words into bushes mouth on this one?
Blame yourselves for not wanting to spend a little more at the store for produce, AND MOSTLY the companies that hire illegals to cut costs.
YES, Bush has said that he is for some kind of way to give illegals some kind of ID or work visa, and i think it will fall to border security before
it even gets close to becoming reality.
11. investigation of legal possibilities to permit Bush to run again
WHO is conducting this investigation? So what? like democrats didnt explore this idea for Clinton? People can pipe dream about ways to change the
system all day, actually taking actions to get the results is different than lip flapping....What tangible things have been done to allow Bush to be
elected to a third term?
12. the calculated marginalization of the Democrat party
Ummm i think that the democrats have done PLENTY to have marginalized themselves with exclusionary rhetoric pushing away moderates by calling them
bible thumbers and homophobes. Pushing their liberal agenda has done more to get republicans elected then republicans have.
Hmm so all in all here, i dont see where there is more than SPECULATIVE WISHFUL THINKING going on here....where is the tangible evidence of any of
this antiBush, antiUSA, predictions from this unnamed source?
If this was soo legit, why not use your name and blow the wistle instead of hidding and providing nothing but devicive speculation?
[edit on 19-11-2004 by CazMedia]