If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
We need more guns not medicare
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Bush's latest spending plans have been released, and surprise surprise its more spending on the military and less on medicare.
How a society which calls itself God fearing can have these priorities is totally and completely beyond me.
Oh and he's hoping to only have a $350bn budget over spend next year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4686684.stm
How a society which calls itself God fearing can have these priorities is totally and completely beyond me.
Oh and he's hoping to only have a $350bn budget over spend next year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4686684.stm
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Theres a really easy way out of his fiscal hole, and that's to kick off yet more wars.
Coming soon - Iranian terrorists blow up some american icon. I hope it's Ronald MacDonald. :hyper:
No!
Coming soon to Iran...McDonald's!
Don’t really agree but don’t really care either, it’s US domestic policy and so I don’t really see how it concerns people that live outside of America. If Americans wanted more medicare they’d have elected more Democrats in Congress and Kerry for President; perhaps the House will go blue at the next congressional election and maybe they will elect a Democrat to the White House in ’08 – but at the moment it’s a Republican presidency and a Republican Congress so bigger spending on defence and less on social stuff is what most people would expect.
Despite the aspirations of some American Christians I think you’ll find that US society doesn’t call itself God fearing, indeed quite the opposite; separation of religion and state is pretty clearly defined. Although the priorities of this presidency do seem pretty contradictory with Christian teachings but then there are plenty of Republicans and influential neo-con thinkers that aren’t Christian or even remotely religious; I think the right have rather capitalised upon religion for electoral advantage.
Hardly, in terms of Church attendance they are way and above Western Europe, religion is a big issue there and I think its that which is the big difference between the US and the EU.
It gets asphyxiating after only a couple of days.
Don't know why everyone has a go at Bush though, he's only protecting the intrests of the United States? They're the world power at the moment so why can't they fight wars and conquer places? Don't see anyone having a go at England for expanding its empire hundreds of years ago and taking many colonies, when we were world power..
Well it's not like theres gonna be a protest about it nowadays is there? What would that achieve...
And @ the person that said 'we shouldnt care about US domestic policy' - Do you think they are spending on military so the tanks can sit on america's shores and defend it?
They are making sure they are ready in time for whatever 'terrorist' attack might happen next so they can get iran.. It has a lot more implications than just US domestic spending :P
Thats all I can say. Really.
Hmm, a thoroughly intelligent contribution.
As I’ve already said if Americans wanted more medicare they’d have elected a Democrat for president – maybe they will next time. In the mean time I think it’s pretty arrogant for people who don’t live in America to say what American domestic policy should be. It’s up to Americans and since their policy on medicare doesn’t affect the rest of the world it’s entirely their decision – and in elections to the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House the American people have endorsed Republican policies pretty clearly. I don't see any reason why we should not respect that.
I suspect very few of those foolish enough to vote for the Republicans did so because of their domestic policies on health. They were in fact led to believe that voting Republican would keep their country safe against bad old terrorists. I'm sure many who voted Republican are now wishing their vote had gone elsewhere...
If the American voting public had any sense left in them they will vote for the Democrat candidate, even if it were the Devil himself, rather than for the ultra corrupt, cheating, lying, mudering illegal Republican government.
Democrats might speak differently on health but in reality most of them aren’t particularly different with regard to it. I would ideally like to see a Democrat presidency as I think whether a British government is Labour or Conservative the transatlantic relationship will be stronger with a Democrat in the White House. However, Europeans telling Americans to vote Democrat doesn’t really help; the patronising and arrogant approach of some Guardian readers in 2004 with regard to Ohio voters was unsurprisingly not particularly effective. I’m sure you’d be pretty disgusted if a Texan wrote to you telling you to vote Tory.
I can't wait till George is gone - then we will know its really Rumsfeld and co running the party and the US of A.
VOTE DEMOCRAT FOOLS! Not that it'd make a difference.
What do you have against Bush? and show me some proof that if the US population is regretting voting for Republican. If it had been England had been in the 9/11 situation, i'd expect Blair to stand up and retaliate.
A lot of governments are cheating, lying, murdering ... that's politics.
Yes.... but retaliating against an unconnected country doesn't really help.
Oh, the fact now only 40% or so support Bush maybe be a sign they are fed up with their economy being destroyed?
- He's mad
- He's dangerous
- He's not in a mental state to be in charge of a nuclear nation
- He claims he hears God in his head ordering to go to war and kill people
- He's a rabid antiabortionist seeking to limit if not remove the right to have abortions in the US
- He dances to the tune of Christian fundamentalists and is pushing for the introduction of religious dogma in science lessons (ID)
- He refuses to sign up to the Kyoto agreement
- He refuses to make any significant cuts in the amount of pollution the US produces
- He actually denies there is such thing as global warming
- He is the most unilateralist US President in history
- If he had been any competent (or wanted to be) he might have stopped 9/11
- He used 9/11 to justify an illegal war elsewhere by lying about who was behind it
- He consistently lied and attempted to mislead to the UN and to every country in the world in order to justify his illegal war against a sovereign nation
- He bribed countries into supporting his illegal war
- He bullied countries into supporting his illegal war
- He attacked and insulted countries that refused to support his illegal war
- He illegally bugged and spied on UN delegates of countries that were against the war or undecided, with the purpose of blackmailing them
- He proceeded with an illegal and pointless war that cost the lives of more than 100,000 Iraqis and several thousand allied troops for no reason
- He has made the world an infinitely more dangerous place to live in
- He has made the world a far more divided place, with an ever increasing sensation of "them and us" between the West and Muslim countries
- He has created Nazi-style concentration camps all over the world where individuals are illegally held with no legal rights
- He was approved of torture and human right abuses banned by the International Convention of Human Rights
- He has torn up no proliferation treaties and started development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, thus starting a new arms race with Russia and China
- He has repeatedly broken WTO rules by imposing illegal tariffs on imports from competing countries
- He has illegally bullied and threatened nations into buying US products instead of those from other nations (commercial airplanes being a prime example)
That's just off the top of my head. If those are not enough reasons for you I'm sure I can think of a few more.
How about the lowest ever approval ratings in US history?
I don't know about Blair because he's as much of a cunt as Bush, but a normal Prime Minister or President would try to retaliate against the right people (instead of attacking a sovereign nation that had fuck all to do with it). A normal Prime Minister or President would also refuse to approve of torture and to create Nazi-style concentration camps.
So Saddam's government was just about politics was it?
And if it was, then why removing it? It's all just politics isn't it? :rolleyes:
It’s unfortunate that you cannot express your opposition differently as it's really quite offensive to term everything you don't like as 'Nazi-style'. If you’d ever studied Nazi Germany you might have a little more sensitivity and realise that while there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of present American, or Israeli actions they should not be compared to the atrocities of Nazi Germany. I realise that you are merely ignorant but since many of those who obsessively seek to associate Israeli actions for instance with Nazi Germany’s are pursuing a relentless agenda to trivialise the Holocaust you're using the same approach as some pretty nasty people..
- In both cases we have custom built detention camps in which people are held illegally against their will and with no legal rights
- Ditto dehumanised and humiliating treatment of inmates
- Ditto torture
- Even ditto medical procedures, to a degree: many ex-Guantanamo prisoners have reported to having been injected with a number of unknown substances
Everyone is fully aware of the Holocaust, Disillusioned, and that horrifying chapter in history doesn't just get trivialised or loses its significant for simply comparing other events to it.
If anything it serves the purpose of raising awareness on people and ensuring History doesn't repeat itself. And I think we're in more need of reminding than ever, seeing as the neo-con Imperial government of G. W. Bush looks like a Fourth Reich more and more by the day.
Is this ‘imperial’ United States you speak of going to indiscriminately round up Muslims in say Afghanistan and Iraq then and send them to this ‘death chamber’ at this ‘Nazi-style concentration camp’?
I have concerns about Gitmo but would this happen in Nazi Germany?
The fact is the Bush administration has understandably not ruled out the use of the death penalty for terrorists; imposed by military court martial or military tribunals few countries would rule out the possibility of capital punishment in wartime. And while there some justifiable concerns about Gitmo and without composing a comparative study of America and Nazi Germany I can’t really expand much further on what I’ve already said but I stand by my earlier comment.
You could almost say so.
I haven't said the US is Nazi Germany. I've said some of their actions, in particular the building of concentration camps for the illegal detention without trial of individuals is akin to those built by the Nazis. And there are similarities, without a doubt.
What "terrorists"? Four years on, not a single person has been charged with anything.
Well I understand your concerns but I can honestly say my comments are not meant to downgrade the significance of the Holocaust. However I will continue to compare certain actions and measures with similar ones taken by the Nazis, when appropriate.
so true it's scary