Bush saves the world

[Back]

Bushes Promoting Youth Initiative (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l3&flok=FF-APO-1151&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050401%2F2144647524.htm&sc=1151)


``In the fall, we're hosting a White House conference on helping America's youth, bringing together researchers, community leaders, educators and others who want to find solutions to the challenges young Americans face,'' Mrs. Bush said.

Cake anyone?

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Backlash]

[Artha]

Well, he is basically Jesus (www.bushislord.com)

[Back]

False prophet more like.

[Artha]

How can you argue with this?

http://www.bushislord.com/images/1.jpg

[Back]

Right. A cheesy cross and tinfoil crown makes him THE KING OF ALL.

To whack jobs sure.

[Artha]

Alright, alright. Here's a genuine sign from God.

http://www.bushislord.com/images/bushlord.jpg

See that light? That's basically God saying, "We're rooting for you, Georgie!"

Players' Corner Forums » Off-Topic » Bush saves the world

Um...

He's not dead.

:unfair:

[Artha]

He's just getting super pumped for his fight with Satan.

[Atlanteax]

Bush will go :medieval: on any evil-doers in the way of American prosperity!

[Slider]

damn the balls on this guy...actually trying to help kids...damn...screw 'em I say

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Backlash
Right. A cheesy cross and tinfoil crown makes him THE KING OF ALL.

To whack jobs sure.

dammit

there goes plan B.........................

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Slider
damn the balls on this guy...actually trying to help kids...damn...screw 'em I say


I have a hard problem believing President Bush is going to alter his entire agenda and behavior thus far to actually address the needs of young Americans. I get the impression from the man that a whole parcel of youth groups could come to him about an issue -- say stem cell research, and since it does not fit what he wants, he would absolutely cast them aside, no matter how many assembled. That's speculation though.

Let's see -- actual problems kids face today:

Under Bush's decree, there's a push for abstinence only education in school. Abstinence education doesn't work... plain and simple.


Separation of church and state has now been eroded at least twice. Once personally by Bush to push his charter schools, the other time by a right wing congress to try to strong arm a right to life outcome in the Terri Schiavo case. Kids face the errosion of the most precious part of the Constituion: separation of church and state, separation from holier than thou rhetoric.


Kids today face a future with an uncertain social security system, and nobody has braved the bigger question, why is the return on the social security fund so low?

Who is investing it that it's "teering on the edge of bankruptcy"? I can get 1% on my accounts trading them. What is wrong with the brokerages/investment firms the government hires? ::Jeopardy music plays::


Why aren't the kids in Iraq and abroad properly armored for combat? Oh wait, our government answered that by dismissing the question when it was posed.

Why is enrollment in our armed forces so incredibly low? Could it be because we've cut veteren's benefits incredibly AND we've cut leave AND we're forcing a backdoor draft on reservists?

How many years are we going to be involved in a war that, intelligence shows, we never should have involved ourselves in in the first place?

Why are we, as one of the richest nations in the world, one of the ONLY nations in the world not providing affordable healthcare to our citizens?

I could go on and on... but I think, based on the great "leadership" already exhibited by a man who cowered in fear on sept 11 then hid for days afterward and has pushed only major healthcare, major brokerages, and right to life, the only thing Bush's conference is aimed at is furthering the arm of religion and big business via Charter Schools and his own disregard of the Constitution. I can't expect anything more from him. Perhaps I'll be "shocked and awed" for the first time, but I doubt it.


-Melissa

[ElanthianSiren]

As an aside, I see him also pushing his rhetoric of one mommy, one daddy, raising baby. Well done. I'm going to get out my Leave it to Beaver suit, preparing for the 1950s timewarp.

If one mommy and one daddy are gonna raise a baby, Bush should be prepared to raise the standard of living in this country so only daddy needs to work again, or remove his head from the ass of the 1950s and realize it's 2005.

-Melissa

[Artha]

Separation of church and state has now been eroded at least twice.
This is also not only not a law, but it's not in the constitution. Thanks.

[Chadj]

Bush is the Anti-Christ that Nostradamus and the Bible predicted.

Proof of the AntiChrist (http://www.geocities.com/trebor_92627/Bush.htm)

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Chadj]

[Artha]

You can't be both the Lord and the Anti-Christ. That's a paradox way beyond ninja proportions.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Artha

Separation of church and state has now been eroded at least twice.
This is also not only not a law, but it's not in the constitution. Thanks.

Ahem...

Church/state separation in the U.S. Constitution:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife. Many commentators feel that over two centuries of relative religious peace in the U.S. have shown that they were right.

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This was ratified by the States in 1791.



The establishment clause of the First Amendment:
The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Three tests have been derived from various court decisions to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component:

The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and
be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and
not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.

The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.

The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.

A simple set of criteria is that the government (and by extension public schools) may not:

promote one religion or faith group over any other
promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.

[Artha]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Yes, where does this say seperation of church and state?

[HarmNone]

Read the rest of it, Artha. There have been court rulings that have served to interpret that amendment for the purpose of government.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Under Bush's decree, there's a push for abstinence only education in school. Abstinence education doesn't work... plain and simple.I guess we'll just have to wait and see. :)

[GSTamral]

<<<
I have a hard problem believing President Bush is going to alter his entire agenda and behavior thus far to actually address the needs of young Americans. I get the impression from the man that a whole parcel of youth groups could come to him about an issue -- say stem cell research, and since it does not fit what he wants, he would absolutely cast them aside, no matter how many assembled. That's speculation though.
>>>

To say he is a stupid man is one thing. To say he doesnt care about kids is ridiculous. No child left behind may not be the right move, but our schools are getting worse and worse each year because liberals like to just keep throwing money into a school system that doesn't care. Unionized teachers who aren't accountable for their own stupidity and laziness, unless they sleep with a student. Let's not forget to differentiate between moral and stupid.


<<
Under Bush's decree, there's a push for abstinence only education in school. Abstinence education doesn't work... plain and simple.
>>

Agreed. It doesn't.

<<
Separation of church and state has now been eroded at least twice. Once personally by Bush to push his charter schools, the other time by a right wing congress to try to strong arm a right to life outcome in the Terri Schiavo case. Kids face the errosion of the most precious part of the Constituion: separation of church and state, separation from holier than thou rhetoric.
>>

This is a problem some children, including myself as a child, faced. Not all children believe things should be this way. The Schiavo case was a moral issue. One that has no right or wrong. Yes, congress should not have been involved. Yes, it was a legal matter where the husband had the right, but if the parents wanted to save their child, it is extremely ignorant and arrogant to claim without fault that they were "wrong". That harbors upon turning a moral opinion into fact. You are no more right about those issues than anyone else Melissa. Because there is no right answer. If you believe there is, you are just as extreme as the religious right, so extremism should not be something you pin on them.


<<
Kids today face a future with an uncertain social security system, and nobody has braved the bigger question, why is the return on the social security fund so low?
>>

Because a democrat allowed congress to tap into the social security fund and spend the money, so long as the money was returned to it. That prevents interest from growing on it at a better rate. Because the ratio of people taking money out to putting money in is growing rapidly. Because a democrat came up with the stupid idea of government funds tied to LIBOR. Because a republican decided to include social security among those funds. This list goes on and on, and most all of it happened well before Bush's term. If you inherit Enron, there is only so much you can do.

<<
Who is investing it that it's "teering on the edge of bankruptcy"? I can get 1% on my accounts trading them. What is wrong with the brokerages/investment firms the government hires? ::Jeopardy music plays::
>>

Nobody is investing the money. Bush WANTS the money to be invested, so it has a better chance. Stable investments such as the SPIDER fund or another large cap tracking fund would go a world towards increasing that rate of return. People who voted your way wanted to keep it where it is, growing at less than 1% a year, where nobody invests it, and it just sits there, earning interest ONLY when the federal bank gives another bank a loan.

<<
Why aren't the kids in Iraq and abroad properly armored for combat? Oh wait, our government answered that by dismissing the question when it was posed.
>>

Interesting you bring that one up, because it was a bunch of democrats that didn't want to spend the additional money. This also happened before the last election. Bush can't do anything to sign a bill that never reaches his desk. The matter was never before his authority to review.

<<
Why is enrollment in our armed forces so incredibly low? Could it be because we've cut veteren's benefits incredibly AND we've cut leave AND we're forcing a backdoor draft on reservists?
>>

Melissa, perhaps the fact that our military, as an organization, is 3 to 1 in support of Bush may come as some sort of major shock to you, but republicans have done nothing but increase the benefits (albeit not enough), increase wartime benefits (companies still have to pay their employees who are called on to serve in addition to military pay, something captain and mrs. asshole Clinton opposed, which was why ROTC attendance was down). Bush and his party have done nothing but help to increase the pay and benefits of the military. But the underlying answer to your question is amazingly simple. And Obvious. When our nation is at war, the number of people who are willing to sign up goes down.

<<
How many years are we going to be involved in a war that, intelligence shows, we never should have involved ourselves in in the first place?
>>

A good question, and one I would like to know the answer to as well. The war, to me, is pointless death.

<<
Why are we, as one of the richest nations in the world, one of the ONLY nations in the world not providing affordable healthcare to our citizens?
>>

Because liberals want to have the right to sue for unlimited amounts. This forces HMO's to exist, and eliminates many government health care options. It also vastly increases insurance costs for health care, because doctors need the insurance to make sure liberal freeloading shitwipes don't sue them for 2 million because they spilled hot coffee on themselves while waiting for an appointment.

<<
I could go on and on... but I think, based on the great "leadership" already exhibited by a man who cowered in fear on sept 11 then hid for days afterward and has pushed only major healthcare, major brokerages, and right to life, the only thing Bush's conference is aimed at is furthering the arm of religion and big business via Charter Schools and his own disregard of the Constitution. I can't expect anything more from him. Perhaps I'll be "shocked and awed" for the first time, but I doubt it.
>>>

Many of these problems were inherited by the administration. Many have been exacerbated by it. Many have been alleviated by it.

Why aren't the kids in Iraq and abroad properly armored for combat? Oh wait, our government answered that by dismissing the question when it was posed.

Our troops and equipment are armored better than any other nation on earth. I am sick and tired of hearing this argument, moreover from people who have no clue what they are talking about. (not directed at you specifically)

Example. This week on a 96.5 FM from Seattle there was a Army captain on the radio show getting up support for one of the "send stuff to soldiers" drives. A guy calls the radio show saying that he is going around and stealing the yellow ribbon bumper stickers from cars so he can sew them together to make ballistic helmets for our soldiers overseas. He was trying to be funny obviously. He then went into a rant about why our soldiers dont have helmets and armor, why our stryker vehicles dont have side skirts and so on. What people don't seem understand is EVERY solider overseas has Interceptor Body Armor. Hell I wont be going until '06 and I already have a full set and a Advanced Combat Helmet. Each vehicle serves a purpose, A HMMWV will not be able to withstand the explosion from a 152mm artillery round that is used as a IED no matter how much armor it has. Or as another example in a recent news piece about the Strykers mentioning that the seat belts are not adequate...(among some other things) Mind you they are not used by the soldiers riding inside the Strykers in the first place.

Everything can not be armored like a tank, its not practical for mobility let alone cost. U.S. soldiers have the best equipment, the best armor, the best of everything (except maybe the MRE's) in the world and it continues to get better as needs arise. So please quit bringing up this ignorant argument.

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Dave]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
To say he is a stupid man is one thing. To say he doesnt care about kids is ridiculous. No child left behind may not be the right move, but our schools are getting worse and worse each year because liberals like to just keep throwing money into a school system that doesn't care.

If you want to make this a Dem vs GOP issue, we can do that. The GOP has been nothing but damaging to education since the Reagan years. It's simply a matter of cause vs effect.

Prior to the Carter administration, the states wanted additional funds for an already ailing education system. Carter stepped up to the plate when he was elected and put the Dept of Ed in place. The GOP didn't want it and have done everything in their power since Reagan to demolish said department. The response has been stronger educator unions and responsive (often childish) legislation from the Dems. This has been a repetitive cycle to the day culminating with Bush pushing through an act that lacks funding and having the audacity to up the grant money given to religious organizations; money that could have been steered toward public education.


If you believe there is, you are just as extreme as the religious right, so extremism should not be something you pin on them.

Just as pinning the problems with today's US on Dems and Libs. Every political group that has voted as legislators or run this country as administrators are equally culpable for the problems. The finger pointing does nothing but demonstrate ignorance to the bigger picture.


Because a democrat allowed congress to tap into the social security fund and spend the money, so long as the money was returned to it. That prevents interest from growing on it at a better rate. Because the ratio of people taking money out to putting money in is growing rapidly. Because a democrat came up with the stupid idea of government funds tied to LIBOR. Because a republican decided to include social security among those funds. This list goes on and on, and most all of it happened well before Bush's term. If you inherit Enron, there is only so much you can do.

Can't reply ... to busy trying to catch my breath from laughing so hard.


....

Possibly one of the biggest loads dropped thus far.

[Keller]

It's like fucking Ali-Frazier. They keep coming back for more.

In other news: Separation of Church and State had a bit to do with the framers fear of the wacky Puritans and the communities they had established. It's been nearly 200 years since the Victorian Compromise and I don't think we're going to be seeing anyone burned at the stake for witchcraft or thrown out of town for being a non-believer.

I'm not a fan of the church interfering with the state, but to say the framers were making sure there would be no charter schools is fucking absurd. I think we have it pretty fucking good as far as the separation of church and state is concerned.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Prior to the Carter administration, the states wanted additional funds for an already ailing education system. Carter stepped up to the plate when he was elected and put the Dept of Ed in place. The GOP didn't want it and have done everything in their power since Reagan to demolish said department. The response has been stronger educator unions and responsive (often childish) legislation from the Dems. This has been a repetitive cycle to the day culminating with Bush pushing through an act that lacks funding and having the audacity to up the grant money given to religious organizations; money that could have been steered toward public education.
>>>

Prior to Carter, our education system was hitting the toilet. In the late 1950's, towards the end of the Ike years, in universal subjects such as science and math, the US was in the top 3. (#1 in both in 1958, the last year that has happened). By the Carter years, we were doing poorly. Horrible horrible Reagan brought our public schooling systems (at the high school level) back up. There are test results that prove this. The root of the issue is not democrats vs republicans. The root of the issue is that teachers in this country want to have less responsibility for their own actions and job, and still want a paycheck. The democrats sympathized with it. The republicans did not.

<<
Can't reply ... to busy trying to catch my breath from laughing so hard.
>>

Me too. A jobless wonder making commentary about education is something I find quite hysterical as well

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Me too. A jobless wonder making commentary about education is something I find quite hysterical as well

No shit. It's almost as funny as someone who didn't vote posting about politics.

Raven

[Keller]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by GSTamral
Me too. A jobless wonder making commentary about education is something I find quite hysterical as well

No shit. It's almost as funny as someone who didn't vote posting about politics.

Raven

But Tam's uncle is like India's best mathematician. His family is uber-smart. Heck, he's a Duke graduate with a Phoenix MBA and a member of MENSA. Who would question his authorit-ie?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Horrible horrible Reagan brought our public schooling systems (at the high school level) back up. There are test results that prove this. The root of the issue is not democrats vs republicans. The root of the issue is that teachers in this country want to have less responsibility for their own actions and job, and still want a paycheck. The democrats sympathized with it. The republicans did not.

Nice dodge, but the summation of your prior post was nothing but pointing fingers at Dems and liberals in general as the cause. The Reagan administration merely reaped the benefits of Carter's endeavors while attempting to dismantle them. One of Reagan's campaign promises was to dismantle the Department of Education.


Me too. A jobless wonder making commentary about education is something I find quite hysterical as well

:lol2:

What a dumbass.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Nice dodge, but the summation of your prior post was nothing but pointing fingers at Dems and liberals in general as the cause.
>>>

Yes, because as we all know Education sure did thrive under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. The Reagan years were the last years before FDR and Ike that we improved.. Gosh, I'm sure there is a partisan explanation for that one.

Oddly enough, its also improved in the last 2 years as well, after a steady decline during the Clinton years that was SO bad, they had to rebalance standardized test scores so what was once considered stupid is now the norm, so our amazing teachers don't get blamed for this mess. I guess we are reaping the benefits of Clinton now right? Or maybe, it couldn't get any worse? Wait wait I know, maybe its because we stopped allowing mexicans to come in?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Yes, because as we all know Education sure did thrive under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. The Reagan years were the last years before FDR and Ike that we improved.. Gosh, I'm sure there is a partisan explanation for that one.

From you there always is.


Oddly enough, its also improved in the last 2 years as well, after a steady decline during the Clinton years that was SO bad, they had to rebalance standardized test scores so what was once considered stupid is now the norm, so our amazing teachers don't get blamed for this mess. I guess we are reaping the benefits of Clinton now right? Or maybe, it couldn't get any worse? Wait wait I know, maybe its because we stopped allowing mexicans to come in?

Umm ... when you have a system in place that only goes after test scores ... yep, they're bound to improve.

The arts suffer, physical education suffers (even more so considering the joke it was), and the overall quality of education suffers.

It's great that Suzy scored well, but she can't function socially, her development and learning curve have taken a dive, and to cap it off ... she's getting fatter.

Really good job with education wouldn't you say?

Of course you would.

Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. [...] The average American (should be) content with their humble role in life, because they're not tempted to think about any other role.
William Torrey Harris , U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1889

[GSTamral]

<<
Umm ... when you have a system in place that only goes after test scores ... yep, they're bound to improve
>>

So wait. We should not measure ourselves based on aptitude in writing correct sentences, understanding words, knowing how to solve problems, understanding science, understanding economics, understanding foreign languages, and instead see our children's development in terms of how well they can draw pictures?

Of course YOU would.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
So wait. We should not measure ourselves based on aptitude in writing correct sentences, understanding words, knowing how to solve problems, understanding science, understanding economics, understanding foreign languages, and instead see our children's development in terms of how well they can draw pictures?

Of course YOU would.

When you remove the ability to culture artistic interests, all things suffer.

[JamusPsi]

and I don't think we're going to be seeing anyone burned at the stake for witchcraft or thrown out of town for being a non-believer.

You know, being a gay Texan and reading this, I got a bitter taste in my mouth.

It's just a FOX News Broadcast away.