Bush Needs to Lose One

The thing about blowhards is, they deflate quicker than an airbag masquerading as Rush Limbaugh. I mean, they go on, and on, and on and on… until something or somebody jams that rhetoric right back at them. I don’t mean the petty argumentative positioning BS, I mean, the oh yeah, I’m gonna kick the ever-loving snot right out of you, your position and your posse.

The senate passed the children’s health initiative with 67 votes for, and Bush is “threatening” to veto it. No real reason but pride here… that, and lots of pissed of campaign donors from the sickness health industry. I think the real problem with this president is, nobody has gotten down to his level and really ’splained stuff to him. As long as he keeps riding herd over the legislative, he’s going to continue to be an impossible asshole who thinks he’s gone out of his way for governmental concession by issuing a signing statement.

Bush needs to threaten a veto and lose. Publicly, with lots of cranky voters speaking up and saying “hey, asshole, remember us? That’s OUR kids you’re fucking with.”

So, for the sake of a LOT of kids, I think it’s time to take this president down a peg. You can’t communicate with a bully unless he’s scared of you. Time to smack George’s ass and call him Sally.

Way past time.

14 Responses to “Bush Needs to Lose One”

  1. SteveIL Says:

    Have you read the legislation? Have you seen Ken Grandlund’s critique of it here?

    Maybe instead of using this phrase:

    Publicly, with lots of cranky voters speaking up and saying “hey, asshole, remember us? That’s OUR kids you’re fucking with.”

    maybe you say something like this:

    Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, and smoke a lot of ‘em. Because that’s the only way were paying for this piece of crap bill. And, make sure the kids smoke too so they can help pay for this.

    Yeah, I think that’s more accurate. Don’t ya think?

  2. SteveIL Says:

    Or maybe you can add this:

    Parents, encourage your kids to smoke; they can then use S-CHIP and pay for it too!!!”

  3. mr bigstuff Says:

    ill steve,
    why don’t you apply your alleged mind to how we’re going to pay for the biggest mistake in american history (invading iraq) made by the worst president in american history.

  4. SteveIL Says:

    Hey, mr. small stuff, why don’t you come up with a plan to raise cigarette taxes to pay for invading Iraq?

  5. Christopher Radulich Says:

    It would be nice for the people who started the war and those who support it would do the responsible thing and pay for. I , who does not support the war, have already written my representives many times to add a 1% surcharge to income tax to pay for it. I’ve done this for 2 reason. The first being that I believing in paying for things that my government implements. Second I believe all support would vanish for this war if the majority of the people actually had to sacrifice something.

  6. Jersey McJones Says:

    Hey, I have a better idea, SteveIL - how about the war SUPPORTERS pay for the war?

    JMJ

  7. SteveIL Says:

    Hey, I have a better idea, SteveIL - how about the war SUPPORTERS pay for the war?

    Fine. Then supporters of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid can pay for those things. That’s at least 1.4 trillion dollars. For the next year. For every year thereafter, the cost gets higher.

  8. Christopher Radulich Says:

    Steve

    How about responding to my idea about 1% surcharge.

  9. SteveIL Says:

    Ok, Chris,

    I don’t think your idea is all that bad. If anything, Bush did this country a great disservice by not involving the American people in one way or another after 9/11 happened, and continues to do a disservice. If told to the American people with heart, I don’t think the American people would have a problem paying this surcharge. It would have brought the American people closer to the government, and it would also require the President and the Congress to actually work together. War bonds were a wonderful way to get support and money during WWII, but nobody, not Bush, not congressional Republicans, and not congressional Democrats, have thought up these things and really made a push to bring them to the forefront. I think the American people are pissed off not because we’re at war, but because the government (the civilians, not the soldiers) has tried to do the war without involving us.

    Like I said, you don’t have a bad idea.

  10. Christopher Radulich Says:

    Thats reasonable, but have you written to your representative to tell them?

  11. William Weber Says:

    Oh, yeah that is just what we need. Another open ended entitlement program which will, without doubt, continue to expand forever well beyond the set of initial recipients.

  12. SteveIL Says:

    Chris said:

    Thats reasonable, but have you written to your representati ve to tell them?

    I can do that, provided you do the same.

    By the way, it looks like war bonds bills were introduced in Congress after 9/11, but taken out by the conference that reconciled the House and Senate differences (passed into law, H.R. 2590).

    Also, Tom Tancredo introduced H.R. 3266 this past July in order to allow for the issuance of war bonds.

  13. Christopher Radulich Says:

    I’ve written them three or four times I even suggested that they call it the patriot tax. I will write them again.

    While war bonds are something, they are still debt to be passed on to our children. I perfer a tax now.

  14. Christopher Radulich Says:

    Steve I wrote this to my senators and congresswoman. Have you written yours?

    Once again it it is time to vote on the funding for the war. While it is my fervent hope that you would vote against it, I realize this may not be practical. May I suggest that a tax be added to the funding to pay for the war. I suggest a 1% surcharge on all gross income corporate and personal. I could be called the patriot tax.

    If this war is truely important as the supporters say we should be willing to pay for it and not pass the cost on to our descendents.

Leave a Reply


Fish.Travel