Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

irateplatypus · 09-06-2004, 01:40 PM

wow... what an unnecessarily long post. i won't pretend to have the time to respond to all the "flip-flops"... but if you think one is particularly compelling please bring it up for discussion.

Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.
Legit.

Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.
like actually for deficits? as in, he creates deficits in his spare time? i'm certain that he isn't for deficits but realizes that in order to cope with the WORLD TRADE CENTER being knocked over and prosecuting two major wars... deficit spending is necessary. this isn't anything new.

Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now he's against them again.
Bush was never for free trade at all times in all places. "Free trade" is a trade philosophy that puts the limitation of federal involvement as primary goal. Bush did levy steel tariffs... would you rather him not and leave our steel industry vulnerable? i guarantee you all the democrats would be using Bush's inability to act on behalf of the poor steel worker as a platform in their campaign if he had not. Do you honestly think Bush was against all tariffs at all times from all countries? surely not.

Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
An American President advocates complete isolation from the Isreali-Palestinian conflict? come on, you're just making this stuff up.

Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
I clearly remember Bush coming out of the box with a proposed Consitutional amendment. I remember because I was against the President on this.

Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts their benefits and health care.
I'm in the Air Force and am pretty sure I would have heard about it. He may have cut some programs... but I do know that the military is very happy with the support they're getting from their commander in chief.

Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other places and took many more anti-environmental actions.
This one has quite a few holes in it. Does drilling in and of itself indicate poor environmental policy? It's certainly implied. What made it secret... the fact that no one cared about it? Is sound environmental policy necessarily betrayed by this one stated fact? Methinks not.

Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.
Bush passed the biggest education reform bill (written in a spirit of bi-partisanship by democrat Ted Kennedy) in over thirty years. If you're going to attack the President on something, education isn't your most effective battle.

Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had served six years in the U.S. Senate.
I don't have a clue when this was said or in what context. Frankly... I think it's made up though it'd be a decent point if it were true.

Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again. Now he's
saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they will. Or is he?
Now it's getting really silly. Why does leaving when the provisional authority asks necessitate it being premature? Why is it that when the Iraqi's ask us to leave it must be premature? It doesn't... poorly conceived.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
Politicking... legit complaint.

Some of the other ones were just too strange for a cogent response. People moan of Bush's "cowboy uncompromising divisive attitude" but complain when genuine compromise is exhibited, equating it with a Kerry flipflop. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's not about the issues for many people, it's a deep personal distaste for the President. If you're voting for Kerry... fine, doesn't bother me. Just don't let something this poorly written sway your vote.

Edit: some spelling mistakes that were bugging me.

09-06-2004, 01:40 PM	#35 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	wow... what an unnecessarily long post. i won't pretend to have the time to respond to all the "flip-flops"... but if you think one is particularly compelling please bring it up for discussion. Bush was against nation building; now he's for it. Legit. Bush was against deficits; now he's for them. like actually for deficits? as in, he creates deficits in his spare time? i'm certain that he isn't for deficits but realizes that in order to cope with the WORLD TRADE CENTER being knocked over and prosecuting two major wars... deficit spending is necessary. this isn't anything new. Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now he's against them again. Bush was never for free trade at all times in all places. "Free trade" is a trade philosophy that puts the limitation of federal involvement as primary goal. Bush did levy steel tariffs... would you rather him not and leave our steel industry vulnerable? i guarantee you all the democrats would be using Bush's inability to act on behalf of the poor steel worker as a platform in their campaign if he had not. Do you honestly think Bush was against all tariffs at all times from all countries? surely not. Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State. An American President advocates complete isolation from the Isreali-Palestinian conflict? come on, you're just making this stuff up. Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. I clearly remember Bush coming out of the box with a proposed Consitutional amendment. I remember because I was against the President on this. Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts their benefits and health care. I'm in the Air Force and am pretty sure I would have heard about it. He may have cut some programs... but I do know that the military is very happy with the support they're getting from their commander in chief. Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other places and took many more anti-environmental actions. This one has quite a few holes in it. Does drilling in and of itself indicate poor environmental policy? It's certainly implied. What made it secret... the fact that no one cared about it? Is sound environmental policy necessarily betrayed by this one stated fact? Methinks not. Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues. Bush passed the biggest education reform bill (written in a spirit of bi-partisanship by democrat Ted Kennedy) in over thirty years. If you're going to attack the President on something, education isn't your most effective battle. Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had served six years in the U.S. Senate. I don't have a clue when this was said or in what context. Frankly... I think it's made up though it'd be a decent point if it were true. Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again. Now he's saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they will. Or is he? Now it's getting really silly. Why does leaving when the provisional authority asks necessitate it being premature? Why is it that when the Iraqi's ask us to leave it must be premature? It doesn't... poorly conceived. "The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001 "I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002 Politicking... legit complaint. Some of the other ones were just too strange for a cogent response. People moan of Bush's "cowboy uncompromising divisive attitude" but complain when genuine compromise is exhibited, equating it with a Kerry flipflop. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's not about the issues for many people, it's a deep personal distaste for the President. If you're voting for Kerry... fine, doesn't bother me. Just don't let something this poorly written sway your vote. Edit: some spelling mistakes that were bugging me. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 09-06-2004 at 01:47 PM..