Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a presidents choice to do whatever he wants with his administration
Let me understand you... He gets to do whatever he wants even if it's completely against the best interest of the people paying his salary? He can hire incompetent cronies and cover their asses when they screw up? He can use executive privilege to cover up "mistakes" and secret meetings? He can hire people to head governmental departments even when they are ideologically against everything that department stands for? All of this is OK, or is it just that Bush can do this? If it were Clinton (either one) would you be full of rage?
Not all the only people complaining about this issue around the Surgeon General are from the left, but, gee, thanks for politicizing the issue when everyone suffers. The other Surgeon Generals' weighed in after examining the outgoing one's records. They measured that against what they had to contend with in office and found a terrible truth: Bush has pushed ideology at the expense of this country. He's invalidated the truth to suit his needs. But, hey, he can do whatever he wants with his Administration, right?
I was full of rage the entire time clinton was in office, very few people in the military weren't
and basically because he was just like that too. I wish we could instantly fire all of our "leaders", but unfortunately/fortunately there are rules in place that don't allow that..
I just don't get how this is suddenly something new? the crap's been going on for pretty much ever
well, clinton obviously didn't rule by religion, that's different
An old Elvis song has these lyrics...
"I'd rather go on hearing your lies than go on living without you..."
Unfortunately, that's how many Americans regard W.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visvaldis
An old Elvis song has these lyrics...
"I'd rather go on hearing your lies than go on living without you..."
Unfortunately, that's how many Americans regard W.
What a sad song..............................and sad reason to back a president
..... the crap's been going on for pretty much ever
NO IT HASN'T! NOWHERE CLOSE TO THIS DEGREE! Stop generalizing. Stop dismissing the sins of 'your' guys. Read. Think. Get out of your GOP box and be an objective observer.
Bush & Rove, solely in the name of evangelical theocracy, pushed real science out the door and substituted myth and voodoo at the expense of OUR entire nation. They weren't elected to put the radical evangelical point of view into public law, they were elected to be the leaders of all the people, and by last count the evangelical 'universe' in this country is 30M max, that's 10% at best. Get it yet? Suppose Bush's fundie backers were really Islamic, Hindu, Jewish or Buddists? Should we change our national policies to suit THEIR beliefs? Gimme a break!!!! Do you get it yet?
We all expect 'some' politics in the office of the Surgeon General, Reagan got constant pounding by the fundies but he let Koop move out on good science. But these bush clowns have pushed favoritism and politics so far beyond the bounds of decency and respectability that it deserves to be the front page scandal it is....in a LONG string of scandals. Their actions are a disgrace and, YET AGAIN, another reason for our great nation to be the laughingstock of the world. Haven't you had enough? The majority of OUR nation, gee, only 72% of us, HAVE had enough of Bush, et al. Get it yet?
Our nation has pushed medical science to the forefront of the world, but now, medical science, science that stands the test of incredible testing, scrutiny and peer review, our best science takes a back seat to phony TV preachers who think THEY know what's best...for OTHERS.
This is so sad that I can't find words to describe the despair at seeing our constitution trampled by the vile corruptness of power hungry old imbeciles like Robertson and Dobson.
And yes, I was a career Army civilian for 31 years and hated seeing that marvelous Army slashed after Desert Storm (by Bush senior) from 18 divisions to 12 or 14, then later see it cut even more by Clinton to 10 divisions. Army leaders and Congress went along with it....
Last edited by Mike from back east; 07-11-2007 at 08:35 PM..
It's a presidents choice to do whatever he wants with his administration.. not like this is some sort of breaking news or something..
although at times I wonder if those on the left have been asleep their entire life and suddenly awoke 6+ years ago.. good example would be getting upset about getting rid of some attorneys or commuting a sentence.
here's some more breaking news for y'all: we landed on the freaking moon!!
What a horribly lame excuse! I didn't like Clinton, either. I voted for Bush (Sr) and Dole, in both elections. I even voted for Bush in 2000. But Clinton was WORLDS better than the PIG we have in office, right now. What happened with Clinton is irrelevant. If Bush is doing something that is wrong, it's wrong. End of story. Aren't Bush supporters usually the ones opposed to moral relativism? Why are they so happy to apply a concept they despise to back this president? That reeks of hypocrisy. The fact that other presidents are also guilty does not excuse Bush.
I am a former Republican that refuses to be blinded by party loyalty. I am American before I am anything else. This President has sold us out! He has sold us out! As far as I'm concerned, he is a traitor. In fact, he's damaged this country far more than any single traitor. F*** Bush!
Let me understand you... He gets to do whatever he wants even if it's completely against the best interest of the people paying his salary? He can hire incompetent cronies and cover their asses when they screw up? He can use executive privilege to cover up "mistakes" and secret meetings? He can hire people to head governmental departments even when they are ideologically against everything that department stands for? All of this is OK, or is it just that Bush can do this? If it were Clinton (either one) would you be full of rage?
While I understand your sentiment, it isn't how Washington works. This applies regardless of which party is in power. Hiring cronies, competent or not, is part of the perogative of the winning team. Asserting executive privilege is supposed to be selectively used, and legally challenged if used inappropriately. Department heads are designated based upon the view of the winning team, remember James Watt at Interior under Ron Reagan? Even if you dislike President Bush, you have to admit that for the first term he did an excellent job of appointing folks loyal to his points of view, and effectively executing change rapidly.
MikefromBackEast, if it was so objectionable to a majority of the voters, why wasn't a change in leadership taken in the 2004 election? It isn't like the stuff you find objectionable didn't take place until after Bush's reelection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
