George Bush, Arrogant prick or Demon from Hell?

[songsmith]

Well, Rob has his politics, and sticks to 'em, you can't fault him for that. Personally I'm flip-flopping like Kerry on too much caffiene, just because the situation changes so drastically from day-to-day. This thread started before the Abu Ghraib deal, before Nick Berg, before the "wedding party" got bombed at 2:35 am (note to self... don't shoot at Army choppers for any reason, and they won't have to shoot back). Now I have my core ideals, but I only see what the media wants me to see, and that changes so frequently.
Per Abu Ghraib, we need to remember that Saddam emptied the prison system before the war, so bad guys are everywhere. Really bad, bad guys. Also, people want to blow us up, so we have to put them in jail, and if I have to personally go over there and beat their sorry asses to a pulp, I'm going to make it hurt.
Per the upcoming election, I, too, would have chosen John Edwards out of the Dems... he was the ONLY one who actually said what he would do if elected. I agree that neither candidate is my first choice, but I support the office of President and Commander-In-Chief. I want our guys to come home safe, but truth is, it's an all-volunteer military, and those brave folks had to know they were issued M-16's for a reason.
As far as using words like "libs" or "left-wingers", hey as a political moderate, those words hit me the same as "Moral Majority" or "Right To Life"... they're just catch phrases thought up by the opposing sides, and none of them mean a thing to me. Hearing Rush using the word, "Liberal" like a cuss-word, well, Rush has some issues, man. He probably moans his own name when he gets off. Franken's no different.
Too bad Ross Perot was too big a dork to get elected. We could use a third major party. Right now we're playing Rock-Paper-Scissors without the Rock.----->JMS

[mad hatter]

Rob does have is politics and sticks to 'em, but I'd also say that most of us on this thread do, as well. No one knows what's completely right or completely wrong. We know what we hear and how we are affected. The only thing anyone here can do is vote, and hopefully this year the majority of the American people will actually get what they voted for. Then we need to do away with the electoral college, there's simply no need for it anymore.

[songsmith]

I totally agree with losing the electoral college. I believe it was necessary back in 1790, when most of the electorate wasn't educated enough to read or write and the media was local-only , but it's just not needed anymore, and can be problematic, as in 2000. It worked in the GOP's favor that time, but next time it might not. Technology has rendered it unneeded.--->JMS

[bassist_25]

I think that John Edwards would have been the best selection, that is not to be, yet.

I find it hard to believe that either Kerry or Bush can sympathize with any of our problems. These are men that have led lives of priviledge, They have money and lots of it. They have never really had to struggle to survive. I doubt that they have ever lived "week to week" on a paycheck that was less then $1000.

Anybody here ever had to do that? This brings up the cold hard truth about Politics. We, as common people, have never been represented by people who were like us. The political scene has usually been dominated by big money and the priviliedged few.

It's interesting you say that, because in my personal experience, I've seen quite the opposite. I think people like to elect officials that they can indentify with. There's a bunch of socialology to it, that I really don't want to get into right now; but I think that's one of the main reasons Bush has appeal. He seems like the Average Joe. Clinton took on a hip persona, and he garnered a lot of the young vote. I think it's more of a popularity contest than anything.

It's kind of what I said at the beginning of this thread about religion; that's why people make such a big deal out of the faith of a President. They say, "Hey he's Catholic. He's just like me." I believe in a secular government, so I don't give two shits what faith the President is. Some people do.

I have learned one thing though; vote for who you believe in; don't try to look at the election as a stradegy. Dean was burning up the polls, but then everyone started shitting themselves when the primaries came around. They all started saying, "Oh no, Dean is too liberal. He'll never get elected, so we better vote for someone more moderate". So now we're stuck with Kerry. A lot of the Dems are boohooing because Nader is in the race. I'm glad Nader is in the race. Even if I weren't a Nader supporter I would still be glad he's in the race. Why? Because he gives a welcomed alternative to the other two parties. You don't have to vote for Bush or Kerry. If more people took an interest in third party and independent candidates, every election year wouldn't look so grim.

[tornandfrayed]

The problem with Nader being in the race is that he will get votes, but they will come from liberals who would have voted for Kerry had Nader not been available. This splits the Liberal vote theoretically providing GWB an easy way to re-election.

Do you really believe that GWB has had a problem making his mortage? Maybe short a couple bucks when the Gas bill came due! How about John Kerry telling his beloved Heinz heiress that she should put off buying steaks this week til payday rolls around? Think these guys ever had to work at a tire shop or drive a truck or anything like that?

How many of you have gone for two months without ever looking in your check book at your balance? How about those days when the maid is off and your favorite $2000 suit is at the cleaner? Ain't it a bitch.

I don't know that these candidates have lived the same kind of life that the "Average" American lives. I could be wrong but I find it hard to picture GWB digging for change for a pack of smokes!

[lonewolf]

Yep, who can forget Ann Richards' "he can't help it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth"

I could be wrong but I find it hard to picture GWB digging for change for a pack of smokes!

Change Dave? for smokes? Did you really mean

I could be wrong but I find it hard to picture GWB digging for a $5 bill for a pack of smokes!

Don't forget who did this to us. It was the "new age" wing of the democratic party. You know, the people who say they stand up for the common man and then turn around and put heavy taxes on the items that hurt the common man the most. How many "rich" people worry about the price of gas, beer and cigarettes?

To pre-empt any comment on gas, a little reminder that George Bush cut the federal tax on gasoline and the price should be coming down soon with increased production.

[songsmith]

Don't look for it to come down very far. The oil companies, for the last 50 years the most corrupt, richest corporations on the planet, are saying it's China's fault now... their economy is exploding, and they need a lot of petroleum to drive it, so demand is up. I'm not buying their story. I lived through the 70's "gasoline shortage," the one that never existed, and I think it's BS. It almost seems like each utility gets their time in the sun... gasoline, then the California electricity "crunch", then natural gas, then cable rates skyrocket... I see a pattern here... ------>JMS

[esa]

Don't forget who did this to us. It was the "new age" wing of the democratic party. You know, the people who say they stand up for the common man and then turn around and put heavy taxes on the items that hurt the common man the most. How many "rich" people worry about the price of gas, beer and cigarettes?

There is another idea though. I get bashed alot for being Republican and hoping like hell I'll get a check back from tax refunds. Older democratic people keep saying how it must be nice (me) to be rich. Etc etc etc. Okay.. well then the retort on that is this: How many older adults are paying taxes on anything? Between SSI and people that are on welfare... no wonder we're paying for things out the ass. I'm not knocking either of those programs either. But, welfare...when taking advantage of (in other words, "I got laid off. I will be on unemployment for a month till I get a job and get on my feet again" is okay vs. "Oh...well...government checks are about to run out. It's about time I have another kid so I don't have to go back to work" is not.) is a bad thing sometimes.

My lazy ass generation and the ones that are now following in its footsteps need to go out there and work...contribute to things. Maybe then I wouldn't be dropping $5 for a pack of smokes and $20 for 9 gallons of gas...

[esa]

And just f.y.i. I'm not rich. So don't sic all the tellemarketers and donation organizations after me!!!! lol

[lonewolf]

Yep, the oil companies do this every chance they get. They know that public outcry and political pressure will eventually force the price back down, so they suck off the cream while they can.

Political pressure on OPEC (mostly on Saudi Arabia) will force them to increase production to exceed demand by a larger margin. It will probably be gradual so the Saudis can save face in the eyes of their peers. Plus, its an election year, and I would expect GWB to do something that helps push the price back down as well. The strategic reserve, however, will NOT be opened. Barring a catastrophic event like 9/11, the price of oil will probably settle in at around $30/bbl by the election. That will translate into about $1.60/gal for gas. The result will be a new, higher price range for gas.

I wouldn't short the oil companies just yet, though.....

[bassist_25]

There is another idea though. I get bashed alot for being Republican and hoping like hell I'll get a check back from tax refunds. Older democratic people keep saying how it must be nice (me) to be rich. Etc etc etc. Okay.. well then the retort on that is this: How many older adults are paying taxes on anything? Between SSI and people that are on welfare... no wonder we're paying for things out the ass. I'm not knocking either of those programs either. But, welfare...when taking advantage of (in other words, "I got laid off. I will be on unemployment for a month till I get a job and get on my feet again" is okay vs. "Oh...well...government checks are about to run out. It's about time I have another kid so I don't have to go back to work" is not.) is a bad thing sometimes.

My lazy ass generation and the ones that are now following in its footsteps need to go out there and work...contribute to things. Maybe then I wouldn't be dropping $5 for a pack of smokes and $20 for 9 gallons of gas...

Mark Twain once said, "A young man who isn't a liberal has no heart, and an old man who isn't a conservative has no brain".

I've always said, "A young man who isn't a liberal has no heart, and an old man who isn't a conservative must have never came into a lot of money during his lifetime"

While that is a joke (nobody take offense, please), I find it to be true in many instances. I know many people, who are rather liberal when it comes to civil issues, but they always vote Republican because of the whole tax thing. We're all products of social Darwinism here, right? What's mine is mine. While Robert Nozick's vision of a taxless society is a romantic idea, let's face it, you can't run a society without taxation. But don't get me wrong, (or "Make no mistake" as Bush would so eloquently put it), I'm not a socialist. I'm all for cutting spending. But that's one of the many contridictions I see with certain conservative politics; they say they are for cutting spending. But what they really mean is, they are all for cutting spending on things they don't like, (education, welfare, ect.) while soaking obscene amounts of money into causes they do like. (the war on drugs, military, ect.) Don't buy into the "lower taxes" hype when it comes to voting. Both parties like to spend. Between this war, and shooting a shuttle up into space, Bush would make many Dems look frugal.

As far as the job issue goes; it would be nice if finding a job were all cut and dry. You go straight from high school, to college, and you are given a position the next week from graduation. But unfortunatley, it doesn't work that way. Maybe I'm cynical, and I have nothing to go on other than empirical experience, but I can gurantee that many people who hold "professional" positions in this area, didn't get them because of their experience, or their qualifications, or their education; they were given the position because of nepotism. Is finding a job around here hard when you don't have the right last name? You bet your ass it is. I tried to get hired as a stockboy at Wal-mart after working an IT position. I made it to my second interview and didn't get hired. (They gave me the BS reason that they "couldn't get ahold of my references") I came from a professional position with tremendous amounts of responsability, (if a network is down, many places can't do business) that required intellect, talent, and education, to not being able to be hired for a crap stockboy position. I'm rather glad I didn't get hired, though. I was interviewed by about four people. (none who even shook my hand, mind you) Then I was given that personality test, concocted by corporate psychometrics, just to make sure I'm subservient to authority, and they would be able to assimilate me into being part of their company. (even though, I'm just a number in their huge corporate machine) The funny part is, when I got home, I didn't the math. It turns out, I would make just as much (or even more) money, playing music on the weekends, than working there all week.

Soon, I realized that I had to quit relying on these companies to give me a job. Why should I go in and try to impress some human resources person, who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, for some position I'm already over-qualified for, when they are just going to hire their nephew anyways? I was already planning on attending college again, so job hours would make finding work even harder. So I did the logical thing: I decided to work for myself. Yeah, I have to pay more taxes and I have to take risks, but if I fail, it's my own damn fault for being a bad businessman, not because someone was not willing to give me a job. Most places won't pay you what you're worth, anyways. My accountant told me that you usually see a lot of small businesses spring up when the economy is doing poor. I use to be a die-hard pessimist, but now I'm into taking lemons and making lemonade. (I know, cliche saying ) For the first time in my life, I feel as though I'm in charge of my own destiny.

Wow, I didn't expect this post to be that long.

[HurricaneBob]

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium". Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 111 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of governmentium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass".

[RobTheDrummer]

hey bobby, that was probably the most thought out post on here!

And where were you wednesday??