Along with real brownshirts, the loonies are proud to offer information to help teenagers and college-age youths convince Mom not to vote for Bush.
I checked the site, and there is some good information. Of course, if you have a broader range of knowledge, these are merely talking points. Here are one each from their categories.
In 2003, despite 16% unemployment among those 18-24, the Bush Administration cut $180 million from youth job training grants.
And how does the government create jobs? Did any of those 18-24 year olds ever avail themselves of any training prior to the cut? And why is the federal government involved in training–I see nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to do anything like that.
In June 2004, the Bush administration proposed eliminating a rule protecting roadless areas of national forest, opting instead to give control over logging and commercial development to state and local officials.
Wow. You mean state and local officials, far more attuned to a local constituency, will have some authority to determine how best to protect the forests?
In 2003, Bush boasted that his tax cuts would provide an average of $2000 for small business owners. However, excluding small-business owners in the top tax bracket (earning over $310,000/year), only 20% will receive this amount. In total, half will receive less than $500 – and the bottom quarter will receive nothing at all.
Why did we exclude that block? Did they not fit the preconceived notion? And doesn’t “average” mean, I don’t know, average?
Since 9/11, the Justice Department under Bush classified significantly more cases (3,500) as terrorism than in the two years prior to the attacks. However, of these cases only 16 defendants were convicted and sentenced to 5 or more years in prison–less than in the two years before the attacks.
Who would have dreamed that law enforcement might be a little more concerned about terrorist activity, and preventing disasters than they were before 9/11? Were any of the others convicted and sentenced to less than 5 years? Were some detained, questioned, and then released? What, exactly, is your point?
In March 2003, lawyers for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that Bush, and any agents following his orders, were not bound by laws prohibiting torture–including the Geneva Conventions and U.S. Torture Statute–during the duration of the War on Terror.
As far as a “Torture Statute”, I’ve never heard of such a thing. Cite it, please. By the way, the Geneva Conventions apply only to those countries who have mutually signed them. Vietnam didn’t, and the North Vietnamese used that as support in their defense that they tortured Americans. The US has always had a policy of following the Conventions whether the enemy does or not. What Rumsfeld’s lawyers said (if, in fact they said it) is true. That doesn’t mean he advocates torture as implied.
According to a government report, a “pattern of contractor management problems” in the Bush administration has led to cost disputes between the government and Halliburton, which has already been paid $5 billion in taxpayer money.
Funny how no mention is made of the fact that both Halliburton accounting and Pentagon accounting found the problems and did what they were supposed to do: fix them.
In February 2003, the Bush administration demanded that Congress strip $230 million from the budget for vocational/community college education.
Okay, does this $230 million include the $180 million mentioned earlier? Again, education is a local issue. Why is the federal government even involved?
After 2 years of the Bush administration, the percentage of Mexicans holding a “bad” or “very bad” opinion of the U.S. rose from 22% to 58%.
I guess the ones risking death to get from Mexico to the US illegally are part of that 42% that likes us. Or the 36% difference in two years indicates the number of those who like the US who have already crossed the border and no longer show up in the statistics.
As of April 2004, only 10% of Europeans had a positive opinion of George Bush.
He’ll be disappointed to hear that, I’m sure. I wonder if they hate me, too. Yes.
In 2001, the Bush administration disbanded the President’s Interagency Council on Women, as well as the White House Office of Women’s Initiatives and Outreach.
I don’t think Bush has the same concept of Women’s Outreach as Clinton did. Can anyone explain to me why in the world the White House would need such programs?
Bill Clinton’s notion of “Outreach to Women”.
That a laugh…
While G.W. Bush has now liberated some 70 million people in Afganistan and Iraq, (I figure 50% will be female) that means Dubya has set free about 25 million women and girl children.
To the everlasting shame of democrats, all Bill Clinton ever did was get a few women on their knees.
That’s hardly a fair comparison for a talking point.
Comment by john — October 6, 2004 @ 3:36 pm
Geesh~! that’s a typo, I shoulda said; G.W. Bush has liberated some 50 million,,,etc.
Comment by john — October 6, 2004 @ 3:39 pm