Bush can't face reality

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush set energy self-sufficiency goals Tuesday night that would still leave the country vulnerable to unstable oil sources. He also declared he is helping more people get health care, despite a rising number of uninsured.

Whether promoting a plan to "save Social Security" or describing Iraqi security forces as "increasingly capable of defeating the enemy," Bush skipped over some complex realities in his state of the union speech.


ENERGY:

By identifying only Middle East oil imports for reductions, Bush was ignoring some of the largest sources of U.S. petroleum, among them Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. The U.S. considers Venezuela a source of political instability in the region; relations with Mexico have been strained over immigration; and violence has curbed nearly 10 per cent of Nigeria's oil output.

Imports of oil and refined product from the Persian Gulf make up less than a fifth of all imports, according to the government.

Bush has spoken of reducing reliance on foreign oil in every state of the union speech, if not as explicitly as in this one, and presidents back to Richard Nixon outlined similar goals, to little or no effect.

Nixon announced Project Independence in 1973, setting a goal of energy self-sufficiency in seven years. Then, the U.S. imported 35 per cent of its oil; now it's close to 60 per cent. This, despite substantive steps taken by Nixon and Jimmy Carter to spur both supply and conservation, including construction of the Alaskan oil pipeline and reduction in the highway speed limit to 90 kilometres an hour for many years.


HEALTH CARE:

Noting that the government must help provide health care for the poor and elderly, Bush asserted, "We are meeting that responsibility."

It is true that a new prescription drug benefit took effect this year, a new entitlement for up to 42 million disabled and older people. But implementation has been rocky: Mark McClellan, the administration's top Medicare official, recently acknowledged that tens of thousands of recipients probably didn't get medicine due to confusion and computer glitches, prompting some legislators to seek an extension of the May 15 signup deadline to work out the snafus.

An incomplete picture also emerges on health care for the poor.

The number of uninsured has increased nearly five million since Bush took office in 2001, to 45.5 million in 2004, two-thirds of the total from low-income families, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

And while total federal spending on the health-care "safety net" for the uninsured edged up from 2001 to 2004 - adjusted for inflation, slightly more than one per cent - spending actually decreased from $546 to $498 US per uninsured person due to the jump in uninsured, the Kaiser group said.

Bush actually is expected to propose curbing the growth of benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in his 2007 budget request next week.


SOCIAL SECURITY:

Bush said Congress did not act last year on his "proposal to save Social Security." In fact, his plan does not take care of Social Security's future solvency; instead, he wants to let younger workers divert some of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts to take advantage of the possibilities for a better return.


IRAQ:

Bush's upbeat account of progress in Iraq, coupled with an acknowledgment that "our enemy is brutal," left unstated a variety of setbacks in turning control over to Iraqi forces, including Iraqi army desertions in the volatile west.


KATRINA:

Addressing hurricane Katrina aid, Bush said a hopeful society "comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency" and the government is meeting New Orleans' "immediate needs."

Federal money is indeed being used to build stronger levees and provide business loans and housing assistance. But the government has declined to rebuild levees strong enough to sustain a Category 5 hurricane, and it recently rejected as unnecessary a $30 billion redevelopment plan for Louisiana that state officials considered the cornerstone of their hopes for rebuilding.


HOMELAND SECURITY:

Bush urged Americans to back his secretive domestic spy program, saying he was using his "authority given to me by the constitution and by statute" and noting that "appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed."

Bush did not address the counterarguments that he failed to heed a separate 1978 law that specifically calls for court approval to conduct the surveillance. Some legislators have also questioned why Bush did not brief more than eight members of Congress about the program, which has been in effect since 2001.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=w0131119A.xml
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Supreme Court Challenge

If the Supreme Court of the United States were to have the issue of such surveillance brought before them, would they have the authority, in the United States, to overrule His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States, on this particular matter?
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: Supreme Court Challenge

FiveParadox said:
If the Supreme Court of the United States were to have the issue of such surveillance brought before them, would they have the authority, in the United States, to overrule His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States, on this particular matter?

Yes
 

Virtual Burlesque

Nominee Member
Feb 19, 2005
55
0
6
Ontario
Re: Supreme Court Challenge

I think not said:
FiveParadox said:
If the Supreme Court of the United States were to have the issue of such surveillance brought before them, would they have the authority, in the United States, to overrule His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States, on this particular matter?

Yes
And it would not be the first time. That very thing has already happened in at least one case:

Court overrules Bush on assisted suicide
January 18, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/db4p6

Since then, Bush has managed to stack another appointee on the bench, so the question how unbiased their judgement would be is debatable.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: Supreme Court Challenge

Virtual Burlesque said:
Since then, Bush has managed to stack another appointee on the bench, so the question how unbiased their judgement would be is debatable.

It's never "stacking" when a Democrat appoints a judge; then it is fair and balanced approach. Demmies need their heads checked.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Judges legislate from the bench when they are asked to interpret the Constitution on a particular suit. Roe vs Wade for example. I have no problem when the Supreme Court takes action to defend the laws of the land, that's their job.
 

Virtual Burlesque

Nominee Member
Feb 19, 2005
55
0
6
Ontario
Re: RE: Bush can't face reali

tawker said:
Well, the courts are stacked either way, I hope it balances out.

As long as judges don't legislate from the bench, that's ok. I just don't want the court to use right wing religious beliefs in rulings.
With their long robes, you can't see how the supreme court is stacked or packaged out.

But, since the Elephant has been cadging (more than) peanuts from the radicals in their base for over fifteen years, promising things like the toppling of Roe vs Wade, reinstatement of school prayer, or making the impure thoughts of a fifteen-year-old about his classmate a hanging matter, your hopes that the new Republican Supremes will merely interpret and uphold present law seems rather naive.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Bush can't face reali

Virtual Burlesque said:
But, since the Elephant has been cadging (more than) peanuts from the radicals in their base for over fifteen years, promising things like the toppling of Roe vs Wade, reinstatement of school prayer, or making the impure thoughts of a fifteen-year-old about his classmate a hanging matter, your hopes that the new Republican Supremes will merely interpret and uphold present law seems rather naive.

And believing only left leaning judges can interpret the law, isn't?
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
Judges legislate from the bench when they are asked to interpret the Constitution on a particular suit. Roe vs Wade for example.

The problem, as I understand it, is that the radical conservative judges are claiming to uphold the Constitution, but are actually putting a "literalist" interpretation on it that is, in the opinion of many legal scholars, contrary to the intentions of those who drafted the document. I think the "legislating from the bench" angle has become a term of abuse by radical conservatives rather than a legitimate legal perspective.

Od course, since the issues involve some knowledge of US Constitutional Law, virtually every person commenting on this issue in the media is talking out their ass.

Here is what seems like a decent summary of some issues

The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
"The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next. "


And let your Demmie friends know that.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Contrasting Interpretation of Constitutions

In my opinion, one cannot "blame" the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Supreme Court of the United States for "legislating from the bench" — this occurs, in every instance, I would think, through a reference from the Government of their respective nation, yes?

Furthermore, I would argue that the Constitution cannot be interpreted at face value — that the founders of Canada, at least, and I would assume the United States, intended their provisions in the Constitution to have the capacity to "evolve," and for the Courts to carry such an evolution onward in relation to the modern and changing requirements of a just and democratic society.

I would give reference to a speech made by the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada and Privy Councillor. This passage is particularly relevent to this discussion:

The Rt. Hon. Beverly McLachlin said:
When we deconstruct the charge that the courts are overstepping their boundaries, we find that the claim can be understood in four different ways. First, the claim may be understood as saying that judges should never go against the will of elected representatives. This suggests that the choices of Parliament and legislative assemblies should never be undone by unelected judges. But that, as I have argued, is plainly false under our Constitution. The Legislative and the Executive strive in good faith to discharge their role in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution. They seek to bring forward laws which do not impinge on the Charter, and to implement those laws without infringing fundamental rights. But every now and then, these efforts are called into question, and someone must arbitrate the dispute. Under our Constitution, that “someone” is the judicial branch. As I said earlier, the terms of our Constitution Acts call on judges to be the arbiters of constitutional validity, both in terms of division of powers, and in terms of respect for fundamental rights. In performing that duty, judges must inevitably strike down legislation, and go against the will of elected representatives, whenever it fails to meet our constitutional standards.
I would agree with Ms. McLachlin entirely.

:?: Sources
1. Click here here for Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, P.C., Respecting Democratic Roles (this is an external link to a page on the Supreme Court of Canada Web site).
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Pastafarian, for all your erudition, the achilles heel of the liberal left is not to understand who they argue with.

Contrary to liberal left attitudes, the conservatives
have little of the snobbery that so describes the liberal left.

Shot fired over the bow.

Understand ?

You, Pastafarian, probably didn't catch on to the conservative movement's disagreement with Thomas, Roberts and Scalia over the Oregon assisted suicide law.

It's an old conservative principle that wants the States
to have a power to decide for themselves rather than Washington DC, and the liberal majority let the Oregon state law stand when the alleged conservative on the Supreme Court went with the power of Washington DC to dictate to the states on what to do.

Outsiders little understand other countries.

As a conservative I've understood the long history of snobbery back to 1776, of liberals, of Europeans and even of our wonderful northern neighbors.

Intellectual snobbery.

It's what's for dinner.

It's the other white meat.
 

Graciously Yours

New Member
Jan 20, 2006
35
0
6
Within Myself
RE: Bush can't face reali

Jim,

Consider the shot from the bow received and another volly back,,,,

The problem isn't so much that the "left" or the "demmies" or whatever label you feel comfortable with not understanding whom they are arguing with. It is more that no one knows any more. The simple truth as I see it is that the "right", have lost their war - not the liberals. I am not loft leaning, however I side more with their recent actions than I do those that call themself's "right". Those who claim to be so right, seem more facsist to me, gone is the idea that many small producers allow for the control of products to reside in the peoples hands, while at the same time allowing the economy to be fliud and free to evolve - while, assumingly, keeping the power to the consumer. Such an idealistic view is what brought me to the "right" side.

I truly beleived that the "right" philosophy benifited the most amount of people, most of the time. Which is all you can truly expect.

What is going on recently is not "right", it is the destruction of the capitalist system, and those that seem to claim it as their own are actively destroying the very basis of it with their naivity. If I call someone Demmie, it automatically makes people think I am a republican. If I call someone a Fiberal, they automatically think I am a COnservitive. If I call someone a Neo-con, people think I am a Demacrat. I don't have to be any of those things, but the reaction is assured regardless.

So even when people are not something, merely by using the right wording you can make people think any number of things. Even that Iraq and Saddam were involved with 911.

In conclusion, just because those around Bush and the new republicans call others Demmie's or other such nonesense, or even if they call themself's Republicans or Conservatives - it is there actions that define them.....

Bush is cozy with big business - what do you call the melding of the corperte and state power???

It ain't republican, or Conservative..
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Well, Graciously Yours, I accept the sincerety of your view and the feeling you have on the subject.

I like for brevity's sake to use a dichotomy, a thesis and an antithesis, a Republican and a Democrat, a Conservative and a Liberal, to form a more perfect union, a more perfect synthesis of the best of both insulated worlds.

It's just a device I like to use, to advance the argument.

I find it tougher to disavow labels, so I embrace the labels
to reach for something more.

It's a construct, a foundation, to build a synthesis of
opposing camps.

I no longer agree with people who disavow these labels,
because all of us end up sitting in one camp or another
after we double talk our way there.

Get my meaning ?

And so I honestly believe that we hold on to our opinions
like we hold on to the love of our pet dog, and for any
of us to backstroke or bend, it would be like emotionally
divorcing ourselves from a much loved pet.

Impossible, isn't it ?

We are hard put to question our own unspoken presumptions, our unspoke assumptions.

And so when we debate the false choices of Capitalism
vs Socialism or the false choices of Conservatives vs. Liberals, we fall into a fundamental error, because all of us know in our hearts, no one has a monopoly on the truth, and nor can you GOOGLE the truth, and so you must embrace the labels, understand them and reach
for a more eclectic perfect union of ideas that both sides or all sides have to offer.
 

Graciously Yours

New Member
Jan 20, 2006
35
0
6
Within Myself
RE: Bush can't face reali

Jim, I understand what you are saying and even to a degree agree with it. However, at what level does our imprecise nature, which so often causes the use of labels, cause they actual problem.

I am reminded of a discussion on Welfare reform. A lady called into the radio show just reaming out some guest about not caring about the poor and as an example used the issue of a lady with 8 kids, from different fathers, collecting welfare to survive. How could the guest support cutting welfare with those with such need? She couldn't make the logical jump from cause to effect, and back again. If the welfare system wasn't so easy to get, the likelyhood is that she never would have had 8 kids to begin with. I'm not sure if I am getting what I am trying to say across.

People are to Labels. What Welfare was to that lady. People need welfare to get some help, but that help is what envaribly traps them. People use labels to distingish between people, but it is the distinction that underlines a "us" Vs "them" mentality, which only traps people. Does that make any sense?? Damn insomina!

Are you saying you beleive, the same things or have the same opinions as you did a year ago? 6 years ago? I can't see how a person couldn't change their viewpoints, belief's or opinions as one grows and experiences new things. Did I understand you correctly?
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
The youthful energy inspires us to reach too hard for
a final truth, and the older have seen it all, and we need
both for a more perfect union.

Your example of welfare again points out the problem
of false choices that define the achilles heel of logical
debate.

False choices of logic involve Capitalism vs Socialism,
Conservates vs Liberal, Personal Responsiblilty vs Welfare because as a famous author once said, NO Man is an Island.

Mother Teresa captured the perfect synthesis of ideas when she said YOU TEACH a person to fish, but I will feed that person fish until he is strong enough to fish on his own. And yet when we help one another, how much
is that help a trap stopping them from emancipation ??

A riddle indeed.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
You gotta laff at people griping that Bush stacked 2 guys on the SC.
It doen't bother them when Cretien and Dithers stack the Canadian SC with their personal choices.
Bawahahahaha