Schwarzeneggar is California Governor !

[jrs]

Polls are in and all is counted. Mr. Arnold Schwarzeneggar is the new governor of California.

The thing here is, what do you all think about this???

[Beale the Rippe]

Hehehehe....funny and cool. :D I'm pretty happy.

[Ezikiel]

Polls are in and all is counted. Mr. Arnold Schwarzeneggar is the new mayor of California.

The thing here is, what do you all think about this???

He's the new governer not the new mayor. ;)

[jrs]

Polls are in and all is counted. Mr. Arnold Schwarzeneggar is the new governor of California.

The thing here is, what do you all think about this???


;D

[Ezikiel]

I am very happy for Mr. Schwarzenneggar, everybody knew all these rumors surrounding him weren't gonna matter election day. I never thought I'd see the day of Arnie being a governer.

[Beale the Rippe]

;D

Pssst. Over here... Nice save. :D

[LordSlaytan]

I am not happy at all. This is the beginning of a slippery slope that cannot be undone for some time. What will be next?

[Monkeypunch]

Let the cartoonocracy begin. This is beyond an embarrassment. I want to see Yoda defend this sick, immoral, hitler-loving freak just because he's a republican.

[LordSlaytan]

Let the cartoonocracy begin. This is beyond an embarrassment. I want to see Yoda defend this sick, immoral, hitler-loving freak just because he's a republican.

I really doubt that he's a Hitler lover. You can say that somebody is brilliant or mad without loving that person. Hitler was one in a million...a monster, a man, and one of the most, if not the most, influential and powerful people of the twentieth century.

[nebbit]

He said if he becomes Governor NO MORE TERMINATOR :bawling:

There has been a debate in Aussie who would we have for Prime Minister: the result was Our Russ {Crowe} and his deputy : John Eales X captain of the Australian Rugby Union Team. :rotfl:

[Revenge of Mr M]

lol, this reminds me of when Will Smith said he could become President if he really wanted to... and he would have too

[Beale the Rippe]

Yeah....I don't think he is a "sick, immoral, Hitler loving freak", but it is kind of funny that he got elected. It is also very sad, as now EVERYONE is trying to get their elected officials recalled. Just a few weeks ago a group of racists tried to get Laura Miller (the mayor of Dallas...which is sort of where I live...) recalled because she fired a corrupt police cheif that happened to be an african american. This is just the beginning...and I can't see this as anything good in the future.

[Golgot]

He said if he becomes Governor NO MORE TERMINATOR :bawling:

That must be why he got it ;)

Seriously, this is a very distressing turn of events. Anyone want to fill me in on the details of all this i.e. Why did everyone want to recall Gray Davis (if i've got that right, that's an uncharismatic name to go with an uncharismatic guy. I've seen him dancing/"rabble-rousing". Mr Bean could do better. ****, have i just mentioned the new mayor of London? ;))

So, i understand it's economic failings that have lead to this. So, my questions to y'all are...

-Were the economic failings down to Gray and his policies - or are they connected to disfatisfaction stemming from energy (Enron ;)) problems, and other failings? What are the issues that have brought about Gray's fall so soon into his re-election (if i've got that right)

-In what way is Arnie suitable to sorting out financial/economic problems? (was it his political stance i.e. "semi-republican" as r3 has put it, that helped him see of the others? And were they really THAT BAD that arnie seemed like the wisest choice?)

This is all very worrying for democracy as far as i can tell. I heard today there's some move to change the born-and-bred-Presidents-only law as well. Anyone know anything about this? (and anyone planning to vote Arnie for president a few years down the line?)

[Hondo333]

Our Russ {Crowe}

OUR Russ, no i think we gave him back to new zealand after we tried him out for a while and he was no good. :)

[blibblobblib]

I think this is cool....but then again i dont live in America or even California...or even have a slight interest in poilitics of any sort so i would think this is cool.

What are the rammifications of ARNIE being govenor? :confused:

[Revenge of Mr M]

I think this is cool....but then again i dont live in America or even California...or even have a slight interest in poilitics of any sort so i would think this is cool.

What are the rammifications of ARNIE being govenor? :confused:

No one knows because he is apparently not very experienced.

[Yoda]

Let the cartoonocracy begin. This is beyond an embarrassment. I want to see Yoda defend this sick, immoral, hitler-loving freak just because he's a republican.
I'd rather see you defend your decision to refer to him as a "sick, immoral, hitler-loving freak." Got any sources? Whacked-out conspiracy theory websites don't count.


-Were the economic failings down to Gray and his policies - or are they connected to disfatisfaction stemming from energy (Enron ;)) problems, and other failings? What are the issues that have brought about Gray's fall so soon into his re-election (if i've got that right)
Wha? You're implying that a booming economy in American's largest state can be transformed into an economc wasteland simply because of "dissatisfaction" about the Enron debacle?

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.


-In what way is Arnie suitable to sorting out financial/economic problems? (was it his political stance i.e. "semi-republican" as r3 has put it, that helped him see of the others? And were they really THAT BAD that arnie seemed like the wisest choice?)
His strength, at least in the mind of most of the voters, I'd imagine, is that he's an outsider. He's a Republican, but a moderate. His policy is, more or less, that politics as usual got us into this mess, and it's unlikely to get us out.


This is all very worrying for democracy as far as i can tell. I heard today there's some move to change the born-and-bred-Presidents-only law as well. Anyone know anything about this? (and anyone planning to vote Arnie for president a few years down the line?)
Why, pray tell, is any of this "worrying for democracy"?

I haven't heard of the movement you speak of. I don't think it'll garner much support, though.

[Golgot]

Alright, here's what i (half)understand to be the set-up...

the prob:

-huge defecit (despite being the 4th biggest economy in the world, or some such thing)
-increasing (manufacturing?) job losses in this area. [tho i read the other day that "service" employment is rising nation-wide, to join other small rises in the american economy across the board. Even if they're rising in California too, the state seems to be in a sticky mess]

Arnie's promises:

-an end to Gray's car-tax
-a promise not to cut education funding.
-to get 2 billion (i think i heard million, but it'd have to be billions wouldn't it??) out of the native indian gambling casinos etc. [i think that boy's gonna face some stiff resistance there - but i guess politically they might not be that well defended. No idea really :)]

Erm, and that's about it as far as i can see. Can't see any huge solutions on the face of it. I think their defecit is pretty big. But what i REALLY want cleared up is....

What are considered to be the main causes of the current deficit? It seems the energy crisis/Enron's deregulation-bill really hit the area hard (having to "import" energy inefficiently/expensively etc). But beyond that, what's caused this crisis? And can Arnie REALLY fix it? My doubts are bigger than his biceps

NB - Legislation has been proposed that would allow someone like Arnie to run for president.

[Caitlyn]

-to get 2 billion (i think i heard million, but it'd have to be billions wouldn't it??) out of the native indian gambling casinos etc. [i think that boy's gonna face some stiff resistance there - but i guess politically they might not be that well defended. No idea really :)

The more I read about this, the more upset I am getting with Mr. Terminator...

[Steve]

Here's hoping Gray Davis starts making action movies.:cool:

That California mess was the greatest thing ever - democracy run amok. It's what the founding fathers were trying to prevent. It's amazing that the people chose Arnold, though. I'd have voted for Terrell Owens. I don't quite think he's a Hitler-loving freak - sounds to me like ethnocentric mischief! Release the hounds, Yoda! And I think we need not bring up Bill Clinton to rebut the charges of sexism and sexual harassment. Where he stands on policy, nobody really knows yet...but he's no monster. Get a hold of yourself, Monkeypunch.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'd have voted for Terrell Owens.

Terrell... that's the name of my sister's wannabe transsexual nextdoor neighbor. I'd hate to see him as governor of California.

I would have voted for http://www.thespeciousreport.com/angelyne01.jpg

[Steve]

Wouldn't it have been so much more entertaining if Arnold had come onstage and lifted the podium over his head and did presses with it? Or even if he had catchphrases, like "I will power-lift the deficit!" I would have been happier. But regardless, I'm kinda pro-Schwarzenegger at this point. Maybe he'll name Bruce Willis, Steven Seagal, Jean Claude Van Damme, and Wesley Snipes to his Transition Team.

[nebbit]

Wouldn't it have been so much more entertaining if Arnold had come onstage and lifted the podium over his head and did presses with it?

Now this would have been impressive. :rotfl:

[Monkeypunch]

Get a hold of yourself, Monkeypunch.

Yeah, I over-reacted. In the end, I don't live in california, so, doesn't affect me. I've mellowed out considerably in the past week, and realize that my comments were pretty extreme. Don't get me wrong, George W. Bush still must go, and I'm still working towards the goal of complete washington regime change through legal voting, as we all should, but I was a little reactionary over arnold's new position. Hell, they're already looking to recall THAT election as we speak, so... Again, I apologize for my insane ranting. It added nothing to the conversation.

[Yoda]

Yeah, I over-reacted. In the end, I don't live in california, so, doesn't affect me. I've mellowed out considerably in the past week, and realize that my comments were pretty extreme. Don't get me wrong, George W. Bush still must go, and I'm still working towards the goal of complete washington regime change through legal voting, as we all should, but I was a little reactionary over arnold's new position. Hell, they're already looking to recall THAT election as we speak, so... Again, I apologize for my insane ranting. It added nothing to the conversation.
You're a good man, Monkeypunch. :)

[Monkeypunch]

You're a good man, Monkeypunch. :)

Thank you.

[Golgot]

The much-underestimated Arnie has an Economics degree apparently. So why doesn't he have any viable sounding economic policies??

But.....heheheheh....another recall. I take it someone somewhere has already made the "total" joke. :rolleyes:

[Knoxville]

I don't live in California, so the fact that Arnie has become Govenor, won't affect me on a political level, but from sheer love of Arnie, I'm really happy he got elected.

[Steve]

Hell, they're already looking to recall THAT election as we speak, so...

Hell yes! Recall the recall! This, ladies and gentlemen, is democracy! :cool:

[Piddzilla]

Yay!

[Golgot]

Yay!

:rotfl:

Wow, s/he really IS green ;)

[Monkeypunch]

By the way whoever bashed on President Bush...You are wrong he is an awesome President and I hope he gets re-elected. I know I will be voting for him!!!

Well, I am the guy who bashed on "President" Bush, and I will continue to do so. He is a terrible president, more interested in waging endless, costly, and unwinnable wars against third world countries and making us pay for it, while cutting funds for education and important programs here at home. When he loses the elections next year, I for one will be happy in knowing I helped in his downfall. I will dance on the grave of his political career and sing a happy little tune.

[Yoda]

Well, I am the guy who bashed on "President" Bush, and I will continue to do so. He is a terrible president, more interested in waging endless, costly, and unwinnable wars against third world countries and making us pay for it, while cutting funds for education and important programs here at home. When he loses the elections next year, I for one will be happy in knowing I helped in his downfall. I will dance on the grave of his political career and sing a happy little tune.
Out of curiousity, do you believe Bush's alleged failures to be ones of ideology, or execution? That is, do you think you and him want the same things (peace, justice, economic prosperity), and he has unintentionally failed to provide them, or do you dislike him because you believe that, whether he succeeds or not, his goals are poor ones?

If it is the former, how and why do you think he has failed to achieve the things you both want? If it is the latter, what things do you believe he wants for our country, and how do they differ from what you want for it?

[Henry The Kid]

Well, I am the guy who bashed on "President" Bush, and I will continue to do so. He is a terrible president, more interested in waging endless, costly, and unwinnable wars against third world countries and making us pay for it, while cutting funds for education and important programs here at home. When he loses the elections next year, I for one will be happy in knowing I helped in his downfall. I will dance on the grave of his political career and sing a happy little tune.


Not that I am a fan of Bush by any means, but the dems don't exactly have candidates that are leagues better. I'll vote them if they can find a candidate who would really make a huge difference from Bush, otherwise I'm "throwing my vote away" to a third party.

[Monkeypunch]

Out of curiousity, do you believe Bush's alleged failures to be ones of ideology, or execution? That is, do you think you and him want the same things (peace, justice, economic prosperity), and he has unintentionally failed to provide them, or do you dislike him because you believe that, whether he succeeds or not, his goals are poor ones?

If it is the former, how and why do you think he has failed to achieve the things you both want? If it is the latter, what things do you believe he wants for our country, and how do they differ from what you want for it?

Honestly, I don't think Bush wants at all the same things I do. Bush has constantly done things that I've just been disgusted by, such as his mishandling of the capture of Osama Bin Laden. If he had rightfully treated that as an international police matter instead of a war against afganistan, who as far as I know, is NOT ruled by bin laden, we probably would have had justice for those who died. if the whole world is looking for somebody, he's gonna be found. Bush gave him a chance to get away. I'm not even going to get into Bin Laden's past as a CIA operative under Reagan/Bush back in the 80's....

Second, Bush's tax cuts were disgraceful, they did not help out those who needed it most, and they cut the amount of money coming into the Government that is supposed to be helping the people. Now, Bush is spending more money than we will ever take in on a war with Iraq, who really posed no concrete threat to us. People are always talking about dems spending a lot of cash, but at least that went to helping this country. We're in a bad financial state, and Bush wants to spend 87+ million dollars on a country that doesn't want us there and doesn't want our help. And where's that cash coming from? Education. Homeland Security (which is appallingly underfunded as is. Did you know that if we were to ever have another terrorist attack, most states wouldn't have enough police, firemen, or money to mobilize any sort of recue effort?). The Leave No Child Behind Act (Which is a mockery, really. also appallingly underfunded). a whole list of other programs that will help out AMERICANS. And of course theres the fat contracts to the Defense contractors that you and I are paying for, the fact that the first thing we made sure was protected in both Iraq and Afganistan was the oil supply, which both contracts went to Halliburton, who's former CEO was Dick Cheney, who still recieves a subsidary from them to this day....hmmm? oh, and the fact that the whole Administration was in bed with Enron, and let them write the country's energy policy.....

But, mostly, I think Bush is not even remotely qualified for his job. Just being the son of a mediocre president does not make one a statesman. He's not stupid, but Bush has a complete lack of interest in the domestic side of politics, he creates all sorts of impressive sounding policies, but then abandons them and spends the funding elsewhere, I.E. wars against Iraq, and coming soon Iran, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Cuba...He's hard at work creating future enemies who WILL come back to bite us on the ass, mark my words.

So I have to say that my goals of a stable, prosperous, peaceful america have not been met by our current "President." and his failure has been on an Ideological level as well as in execution.

[Yoda]

Honestly, I don't think Bush wants at all the same things I do. Bush has constantly done things that I've just been disgusted by, such as his mishandling of the capture of Osama Bin Laden. If he had rightfully treated that as an international police matter instead of a war against afganistan, who as far as I know, is NOT ruled by bin laden, we probably would have had justice for those who died. if the whole world is looking for somebody, he's gonna be found. Bush gave him a chance to get away. I'm not even going to get into Bin Laden's past as a CIA operative under Reagan/Bush back in the 80's....
It is my understanding that Afghanistan, at least in part, was harboring terrorists. And, as you surely know by now, this Administration doesn't look kindly on that act; nor should it.

As for this "CIA operative" claim: if you mean that they gave him some assistance back when they had a common enemy, you're right. How that has anything at all to do with Dubya is beyond me, though.


Second, Bush's tax cuts were disgraceful, they did not help out those who needed it most, and they cut the amount of money coming into the Government that is supposed to be helping the people.
If I could demonstrate to you that the Bush tax cuts caused (and are causing) significant economic growth, would your opinion of them change?

Also, I feel the need to note that the money is not "supposed" to be doing anything. While you, personally, may believe that we should extract large amounts of money from businesses as a form of coerced charity, there's no law which states that it's "supposed" to be doing that.


Now, Bush is spending more money than we will ever take in on a war with Iraq, who really posed no concrete threat to us. People are always talking about dems spending a lot of cash, but at least that went to helping this country.
Or national GDP is over $1 trillion, and you're telling me that $87 billion is "more than we'll ever take in"?


We're in a bad financial state, and Bush wants to spend 87+ million dollars on a country that doesn't want us there and doesn't want our help.
Under which measure are we in a bad financial state? And how have you have determined that Iraq doesn't want us there, or want our help? Surely, there are some there who hate us. Surely there are still radicals about. But is there any compelling reason to believe that the populace as a whole detests our presence? I don't know about you, but I hear both good and bad each day.


And where's that cash coming from? Education. Homeland Security (which is appallingly underfunded as is. Did you know that if we were to ever have another terrorist attack, most states wouldn't have enough police, firemen, or money to mobilize any sort of recue effort?). The Leave No Child Behind Act (Which is a mockery, really. also appallingly underfunded). a whole list of other programs that will help out AMERICANS.
You ask where the cash is coming from, but I ask where it's going. It's going back to the people who earned it. Tax cuts have been empirically proven to stimulate economic growth, and when the economy grows, it cures a hell of a lot of what ails us.


And of course theres the fat contracts to the Defense contractors that you and I are paying for, the fact that the first thing we made sure was protected in both Iraq and Afganistan was the oil supply, which both contracts went to Halliburton, who's former CEO was Dick Cheney, who still recieves a subsidary from them to this day....hmmm?
Yep, Cheney has ties to Halliburton, and they won the contract. Since you so clearly oppose this event, who do you propose should've gotten it, instead?


oh, and the fact that the whole Administration was in bed with Enron, and let them write the country's energy policy.....
How was the "whole Administration" in bed with them? And if they "let them write the country's energy policy," what part of that policy was written to exclusively benefit them?


But, mostly, I think Bush is not even remotely qualified for his job. Just being the son of a mediocre president does not make one a statesman. He's not stupid, but Bush has a complete lack of interest in the domestic side of politics, he creates all sorts of impressive sounding policies, but then abandons them and spends the funding elsewhere, I.E. wars against Iraq, and coming soon Iran, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Cuba...He's hard at work creating future enemies who WILL come back to bite us on the ass, mark my words.
Whether you like his policies or not, he's hardly abandoned them, in my view. He's stuck by his original policies concerning terrorism and tax cuts -- arguably the two biggest issues in America today.


So I have to say that my goals of a stable, prosperous, peaceful america have not been met by our current "President." and his failure has been on an Ideological level as well as in execution.
I dig. Just trying to find out why you feel the way you do. I doubt I'll ever change your mind on the issue of the war (which is a subjective, moral sort of issue), but I think I might be able to convince you in regards to the economy, which is more quantifiable.

[LordSlaytan]

Chris. I'm just curious, not looking to argue, mind you. Is there anything about the current administration that you don't like? Forgive me if I wrong, but it seems that you defend everything that's brought to the table about them.

[LordSlaytan]

Not that I am a fan of Bush by any means, but the dems don't exactly have candidates that are leagues better.

I agree with you there, brudda. If that racist pig Gephart ever becomes President, I'll kill myself.

[Yoda]

Chris. I'm just curious, not looking to argue, mind you. Is there anything about the current administration that you don't like? Forgive me if I wrong, but it seems that you defend everything that's brought to the table about them.I don't like the Steel tarrifs. I think they fly in the face of a lot of the other things the Administration is trying to do, economically. I also think Bush did a piss-poor job in stating the reasons for the war, and probably relied on some faulty intelligence. How much he can be blamed for the latter, I'm not yet sure.

If I seem to defend them at every turn, it's probably because a stunningly large number of Bush-haters are so enraged that they'll buy into any complaint of the man without question. Paul Krugman says something, and everyone looking for reasons to hate Bush latches onto it. My disagreement with them is proportionate to how often they voice calm, substantiated complaints.

[LordSlaytan]

There are a number of reasons I don’t want President Bush to be re-elected. Foremost is that I don’t trust him. Not at all. Not even remotely on any subject, agenda, or any speech that he addresses to the nation. Once trust is lost, it is almost impossible to gain it back. Here are a few of the things I have been unhappy about. BTW, I will be quoting other articles within this post, so don’t be offended if some of what you read are found somewhere else.

I believe the President was unfairly elected because Katherine Harris, Florida's Republican Secretary of State, wiped out thousands of legitimate black voters from the polls. He got another unfair advantage, because Clarence Thomas cast the deciding vote in the U.S. Supreme Court. Hon. Thomas should have stepped aside because Pres. George Bush Sr. appointed him to the court, and his wife worked for George W. Bush's transition team. Doesn’t that seem like a conflict of interest at the very least?

I also like what Al Franken says in his new book, ’Lies: and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them’. He states, “…after 9/11, George W. Bush squandered a unique moment of national unity. That instead of rallying the country around a program of mutual purpose and sacrifice, Bush cynically used the tragedy to solidify his political power and pursue an agenda that panders to his base and serves the interests of his corporate backers.” How fair that is coming from someone, who admittedly hates the President with a passion, is undoubtedly arguable. However, it is something that bears some consideration.

The Bush policies on the environment are simply horrendous. One of the more ironic aspects of the EPA report slighting global warming is how the White House insists that the evidence for global warming be rock solid before we can act. Would only they require as much concrete evidence before deciding to preemptively start a war against Iraq. I am also very unhappy with the Bush administration for the attempted destruction of the international treaty that limits the use of chemicals that are destroying the ozone. The Bush administration suspended the arsenic-in-tap-water standard and right-to-know requirements as well. There are many environmental policies that our current President has overturned that make me very unhappy. The Bush administration's clean air rollback, like the smokestack emissions it will permit, really stinks. But it is music to the ears of utility companies, which stand to save hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars from the rule change. I think that we're all aware of how bad Bush's views on the environment are. His upbringing as an oil and gas man certainly is partially responsible, but let's not forget his religious point of view as well. Many conservative Republicans oppose any type of ecological conservation because they think the Earth is infinitely renewable and that God gave the planet to us to do as we please. Besides, the Rapture's coming soon, so why bother? Sen. James Inhofe, probably the worst anti-environment member of the Senate, is a die-hard advocate of this point of view. I am not partial to this particular view.

What I do like, however, is what democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kery of Massachusetts said in a speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston. That the United States must reduce its dependence on foreign oil so it cannot be held hostage by leaders like President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. "Every day our servicemen and women put their lives on the line so that oil can flow from around the world to America's gas stations, but let there be no doubt, we pay a heavy price. We, the United States cannot drill its way to self-sufficiency along the lines favored by Bush in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Instead, I urge development of technology to make homes, businesses and transportation more efficient while creating a national market for biofuels from crops, wood and waste. We must forge a new path to create a stronger America, an America where the use of military might is not clouded by our need for oil." Though that may not fill present needs, it is more of a look into the future, which our current administration seems all set to ignore.

I don’t hate the President, and I don’t believe outright dissention will solve anything. Yet, in one year, we the American people will have a chance to end this reign. I urge all that read this post, and have the capacity to vote, to use that vote for someone who has the best interests of all humanity at heart. Not big business. Not the Church. And especially, not one’s own ego.

[nebbit]

Very interesting LordSaytan thanks :yup:

[Piddzilla]

That's good stuff, Slay.

[Yoda]

You say you don't trust President Bush. Would it be fair to say, also, that you felt the same way about his predecessor, President Clinton? If you apply the same standards to Willie as you have to Dubya, wouldn't you have to conclude that he, too, was unworthy of your trust?He got another unfair advantage, because Clarence Thomas cast the deciding vote in the U.S. Supreme Court.This isn't quite true. The U.S. Supreme Court did not decide the outcome of the election; what they did decide, however, was that the Constitution states that each state is to handle such matters. In this case, ratification of an election. The law in Florida states that the election must be ratified 5 days after it is completed, and when Harris decided to do just that, the Supreme Court did nothing more than deny objections and appeals to this, stating that it was a ball in Florida's court, and not their own.The Bush policies on the environment are simply horrendous. One of the more ironic aspects of the EPA report slighting global warming is how the White House insists that the evidence for global warming be rock solid before we can act.Is this really so ridiculous? I'm not sure exactly how solid the evidence should be, but I'm assuming the bulk of environmental programs will eat up billions of dollars without breaking a sweat.

What's particularly grating is that (and I'm not saying this applies to you), many Dems voice objection to this sort of thing, yet have no problem labeling the SDI program as an outrageous waste of money with no future.The Bush administration suspended the arsenic-in-tap-water standard and right-to-know requirements as well.Everything I've read about the arsenic standard says that there's nothing at all dangerous about the change. If I've been misinformed, please feel free to elaborate.Many conservative Republicans oppose any type of ecological conservation because they think the Earth is infinitely renewable and that God gave the planet to us to do as we please. Besides, the Rapture's coming soon, so why bother?I can't think of any religious friend, offhand, who thinks this way. And given Bush's repeated commitment to Hydrogen-powered cars and the like (assuming you believe he's not lying through his teeth on the matter), I don't think that reflects his thought process in regards to the environment.What I do like, however, is what democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kery of Massachusetts said in a speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston. That the United States must reduce its dependence on foreign oil so it cannot be held hostage by leaders like President Saddam Hussein of Iraq."This dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security. To put it bluntly, sometimes we rely upon energy sources from countries that don't particularly like us."

"It is good news for our environment and it's good news for American consumers who are not only worried about the environment, but understand the ramifications of dependency on foreign sources of crude oil."

You may not trust Bush, but he's saying the same sorts of things as Kerry in regards to our dependence on foreign oil. It should also be noted that Bush has never intended for the Alaskan drilling to be anything more than a temporary fix while better solutions can be put into action; it is not the energy crutch Kerry seems to be making it out to be.I urge all that read this post, and have the capacity to vote, to use that vote for someone who has the best interests of all humanity at heart. Not big business. Not the Church. And especially, not one’s own ego.In response, I feel compelled to urge that everyone who reads this post vote on the validity of policy. While it's possible that Bush may make this decision in part because of his religion, or that one because of his ties to various businesses, it remains primarily speculation. It is the results, not the motivations, which should garner the most attention.

[Golgot]

The law in Florida states that the election must be ratified 5 days after it is completed, and when Harris decided to do just that, the Supreme Court did nothing more than deny objections and appeals to this, stating that it was a ball in Florida's court, and not their own.

Above board enough. But why didn't they pick Harris up on her changing of the law concerning post-dated votes? And i think one point of contention with the Supreme Court is the number of conflicts of interests that fall in Republican's favour. I'm too far removed to judge - but it seems that Thomas is just one of many (unless i'm mixing up the national and florida SC's)

And given Bush's repeated commitment to Hydrogen-powered cars and the like (assuming you believe he's not lying through his teeth on the matter), I don't think that reflects his thought process in regards to the environment...

....It should also be noted that Bush has never intended for the Alaskan drilling to be anything more than a temporary fix while better solutions can be put into action;

I'm a bit perturbed by his plans for hydrogen energy storage. Altho it looks good on the surface, he's lining up all his oil-buddies for the contracts, and the whole process is equally damaging to the environment in terms of greenhouse gases, so it makes no odds that, if it works, the system will be storing energy generated by green-sources etc. Energy consumption in the US NEEDS to be addressed - and he's not doing that. A consumer society may just eat itself whole. (and take some big bites out of those around it too ;))

While it's possible that Bush may make this decision in part because of his religion, or that one because of his ties to various businesses, it remains primarily speculation. It is the results, not the motivations, which should garner the most attention.

Indeed. Tho again, in situations where we CAN point out undue industry influence in policy making we should (which is notoriously difficult - as politicians/industry try not to advertise this stuff - outside of barefaced bribary, sorry, lobbying, to all sides. I know how you feel about this Yods, but i see it as industry controlling politics in an unjustifiable way)

Is this the right moment for me to post my letters-between-Lay-and-Bush? Just let me know :) They show Lay pushing for the deregulation which screwed up your whole energy system. And don't forget Enron have supported Bush throughout all of his political life. That's a strong reason to suspect Bush would listen to this biased advice and act on it [yet again going against the open-playing-field economics he espouses - as he did with Halliburton etc etc. Why you can't see a problem with this stuff is beyond me :p - and incidently, hasn't deregulation done so many wonderful things in the hands of economic-thinkers like Bush :rolleyes: Well, it's reduced quality of service where-ever it's reared it's head in national service areas as far as i know. And tax-cuts look likely to acheive the same - i.e. a reduction in services - industry fills the gap, and does so with a lesser standard of service - risking lives in many spheres. Not good. We just had a train accident in Britland directly attributable to the ineptness of private companies governing safety proceedures on our rail-networks. And remember that the Brit government has a "third-way" policy - i.e. only privatising some aspects of social services. Bush is all out industry-and-competition-should-define society. That's a path to social-chaos if you ask me. Not that you would ;) )

So, bad results, linked to bad policy, and bad business/political practice, means we should look at the REASONS for the bad RESULTS. Don't you think?

Hmm, that was more like 2-dollars-worth wasn't it ;)

But on your is-Bush-worse-than-the-others standpoint - i'd say, marginally, yes. But those margins are important. The Dems have a touch more concern for social integrity IMO. (and blow jobs. I vote for blow jobs. It keeps them relaxed. Where's the prob? ;) I'd rather lies about bj's than lies about war. And they did lie. They's still lying now by asserting there are reasons to believe Saddam has connections to al Qaeda. British intelligence says this is categorically not the case. They know that. The Niger Uranium info was forged, and not from Brit sources - they knew that b4 they announced it as fact. The wife of the guy who established that got outed as an operative - is that bad practice? Hell yes. Tantamount to reducing national security to advance political aims? Hell yes. Similar to telling the CIA to lay off Bin Laden while Bush n Cheney negotiated with the Taliban and the Bin Ladens over the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline? [a claim put forward by a French intelligence officer and jorno Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, in their book ''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''. They claim that the FBI's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction. They claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. Oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. etc etc etc]. Hell, it doesn't even come close. Is that reason enough to get rid of a president and his incumbents? Hell yes - if it's true. And it fits the facts.)

EDIT: Damn, ignoring terrorist threats was something Clinton did too according to our investigative Frenchies:

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/print.html

Heigh ho, time to get rid of all the blow-hards ;) - or at least, in the US case, put some pressure on them to put some measures in place to reduce your oil dependancy i.e. address CONSUMPTION - and all the dirty politics and warmongering that has grown up around it. Where should the attention really be focused? On industry baby - and the nature of society. Part of it's people's fault - when we don't pay attention to what all of these power-brokers get up. Well, some facts have been coming in for a while - time to wipe off their photo-opportunity smiles and address their manipulative wiles.

[LordSlaytan]

You say you don't trust President Bush. Would it be fair to say, also, that you felt the same way about his predecessor, President Clinton? If you apply the same standards to Willie as you have to Dubya, wouldn't you have to conclude that he, too, was unworthy of your trust?
No. I don’t trust the current President on a different level. I’m not naïve enough to believe that there is such a thing as a political official to be brimming with honesty. For every bit of information presented to the American public, there are a dozen pieces of information that are excluded. Of course I have no proof that such a thing exists, but it’s just something that we all know. That I know. President Clinton did not have a multi-million enterprise to return to after his term as president is over. The current President does. There are things within his environmental policies that seem to be there for his and his business allies best interests at heart. Of course I have no way to prove these things, because information found, no matter what the recourse, is always subjective to bias and manipulation. I cannot say for sure whether what I feel is entirely accurate, but regardless of that, it is what I feel. And, my friend, my feelings are not up to your interpretation or argument. Dig?

This isn't quite true. The U.S. Supreme Court did not decide the outcome of the election; what they did decide, however, was that the Constitution states that each state is to handle such matters. In this case, ratification of an election. The law in Florida states that the election must be ratified 5 days after it is completed, and when Harris decided to do just that, the Supreme Court did nothing more than deny objections and appeals to this, stating that it was a ball in Florida's court, and not their own.
I never said that the Honorable Clarence Thomas had the deciding vote whether Bush was the winner. I just said that it was an unfair advantage to have him voting for anything that regarded the validity of Bush being claimed the victor. If it were a criminal case, Thomas would have been excluded. His vote was the deciding vote to have “the ball go back to Florida’s court”. Any decision, regardless of the decision, should not have been made by this man. Just my opinion.

Is this really so ridiculous? I'm not sure exactly how solid the evidence should be, but I'm assuming the bulk of environmental programs will eat up billions of dollars without breaking a sweat.

What's particularly grating is that (and I'm not saying this applies to you), many Dems voice objection to this sort of thing, yet have no problem labeling the SDI program as an outrageous waste of money with no future.
Yes. It really is ridiculous. My whole point with that statement, which you replied to out of context, was that Bush’s administration could, and did, use that argument when it was the environment at stake. But they never thought to bring this up when it came to matters of war. What I find grating are people (and I’m not saying this applies to you) who ignore the fact that the war cost, and will cost, billions of dollars. The same dollars that they want to save by waiting for concrete proof before they take any action to save our children from disease and hardship later on in life, because we put the buck before them.

Everything I've read about the arsenic standard says that there's nothing at all dangerous about the change. If I've been misinformed, please feel free to elaborate.
How can I elaborate? How can you? It is what we read, not what we as scientists uncover for ourselves. It’s what you read, Chris. Your information can be biased, as well as mine. All I do know is that there were standards which needed to be met, which were already in place, and were later turned back a step. Any step backwards when the environment is concerned, is a wrong step as far as I’m concerned.

I can't think of any religious friend, offhand, who thinks this way. And given Bush's repeated commitment to Hydrogen-powered cars and the like (assuming you believe he's not lying through his teeth on the matter), I don't think that reflects his thought process in regards to the environment.
His thought processes on the environment are not for you or I to interpret. It is only by his actions that can prove what he thinks. Do you know exactly what he’s done towards his ‘commitment’ to Hydrogen-powered cars? Besides what he says they are. Show me irrefutable proof of money spent and who he has working on these issues. How many man-hours have been spent? How much money has been used, not set aside, but actually used for this policy of his. His actions of constantly overturning standards already put in place are enough action for me to have an opinion on what his dedication to the environment really is. Squat.

"This dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security. To put it bluntly, sometimes we rely upon energy sources from countries that don't particularly like us."

"It is good news for our environment and it's good news for American consumers who are not only worried about the environment, but understand the ramifications of dependency on foreign sources of crude oil."

You may not trust Bush, but he's saying the same sorts of things as Kerry in regards to our dependence on foreign oil. It should also be noted that Bush has never intended for the Alaskan drilling to be anything more than a temporary fix while better solutions can be put into action; it is not the energy crutch Kerry seems to be making it out to be.
Bush never said that, his speechwriter did. They write what the American public wants to hear, as well as Kerry’s writer. I don’t really like Kerry; I just liked what he said. never intended my liking that statement to be a statement of allegiance to the Senator.

In response, I feel compelled to urge that everyone who reads this post vote on the validity of policy. While it's possible that Bush may make this decision in part because of his religion, or that one because of his ties to various businesses, it remains primarily speculation. It is the results, not the motivations, which should garner the most attention.
What are Bush’s results, which you speak of? He’s pro-life, not pro-choice, that’s mainly a conservative religious point of view. We are in a recession. We have gone to war twice in three years. We have digressed in personal freedoms because of fear and handed our rights back to the government. We have allowed a man like John Ashcroft to rise in power. Bush is a Christian. A die-hard Christian and I don’t believe that there is a true separation of his policy making and belief.

Listen Chris. Last night when we were chatting, we agreed that what I wrote was just my opinion and not really an argument. But you went ahead and treated it as such, changing it into a Bush is not bad, you’re just misinformed or wrong post. You and the President cannot be always right, and I know you don’t say you always are. But you defended him down to the very sentence of my post. All your information that you use in your arguments can be spun information not necessarily the truth, just as much as all my information may be. I go by my gut. I don’t trust Bush. I don’t like Bush. And I don’t want him to be President any longer. Most of all…I DON’T WANT A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT TO BE IN CHARGE!!!!!

[Yoda]

I shall get to Gol shortly. :)

No. I don’t trust the current President on a different level. I’m not naïve enough to believe that there is such a thing as a political official to be brimming with honesty. For every bit of information presented to the American public, there are a dozen pieces of information that are excluded. Of course I have no proof that such a thing exists, but it’s just something that we all know. That I know. President Clinton did not have a multi-million enterprise to return to after his term as president is over. The current President does. There are things within his environmental policies that seem to be there for his and his business allies best interests at heart. Of course I have no way to prove these things, because information found, no matter what the recourse, is always subjective to bias and manipulation. I cannot say for sure whether what I feel is entirely accurate, but regardless of that, it is what I feel. And, my friend, my feelings are not up to your interpretation or argument. Dig?
Depends on what you mean. If you mean that you have no interest in anyone interpreting them or arguing with them, that's your prerogative. But if you mean that it's not something that can be interpreted or argued with, I'd have to respectfully disagree.


I never said that the Honorable Clarence Thomas had the deciding vote whether Bush was the winner. I just said that it was an unfair advantage to have him voting for anything that regarded the validity of Bush being claimed the victor. If it were a criminal case, Thomas would have been excluded. His vote was the deciding vote to have “the ball go back to Florida’s court”. Any decision, regardless of the decision, should not have been made by this man. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the clarification. It's a fine point, and I mostly agree, though I think we would also agree that far more important than whether or not he should have made the choice, is whether or not he made the right one. In my mind, there's no question that he could have made any other decision without it flying in the face of the way our country has worked since its inception.


Yes. It really is ridiculous. My whole point with that statement, which you replied to out of context, was that Bush’s administration could, and did, use that argument when it was the environment at stake. But they never thought to bring this up when it came to matters of war. What I find grating are people (and I’m not saying this applies to you) who ignore the fact that the war cost, and will cost, billions of dollars. The same dollars that they want to save by waiting for concrete proof before they take any action to save our children from disease and hardship later on in life, because we put the buck before them.
You're right, there is a bit of a parallel with the war; but doesn't that parallel work both ways? If it's inexcusable to put today's money before tomorrow's citizens, isn't it just as inexcusable (if not moreso) to put today's money before tomorrow's Iraqi citizens? They're people, to, of course, and even the staunchest opponents of this war generally admit that the citizens of Iraq are, or are slowly becoming, better off. Saddam's cruelty and the terror so many Iraqis lived under is a rare point of consensus among both proponents and opponents of the war.


How can I elaborate? How can you? It is what we read, not what we as scientists uncover for ourselves. It’s what you read, Chris. Your information can be biased, as well as mine. All I do know is that there were standards which needed to be met, which were already in place, and were later turned back a step. Any step backwards when the environment is concerned, is a wrong step as far as I’m concerned.
I guess what I'm asking is, what do you mean when you say they "needed" to be met? What consequence is now suffered because of this rollback of sorts.


His thought processes on the environment are not for you or I to interpret.
With all due respect, isn't this exactly what you're doing when you accuse him of letting his religious motivations unduly effect his decision making?


It is only by his actions that can prove what he thinks. Do you know exactly what he’s done towards his ‘commitment’ to Hydrogen-powered cars? Besides what he says they are. Show me irrefutable proof of money spent and who he has working on these issues. How many man-hours have been spent? How much money has been used, not set aside, but actually used for this policy of his.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, their 2004 budget has $1.5 billion dedicated to fund FreedomFuel and FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) over the next five years. According to the OMB's site, this amount will be "doubling DOE’s spending on hydrogen research and development in 2004 alone." The stated goal is to develop "viable hydrogen fuel-cell technology for cars by 2015."

You and I are free to speculate as to whether or not this program will be all that successful, but I think it's fair to say that he's putting his (our) money where his mouth is on this particular issue.


His actions of constantly overturning standards already put in place are enough action for me to have an opinion on what his dedication to the environment really is. Squat.
That's a fair way to measure how concerned he actually is with the environment...but isn't this statement assuming that the standards he overturned were worth keeping? Do we really know if they were?


Bush never said that, his speechwriter did. They write what the American public wants to hear, as well as Kerry’s writer. I don’t really like Kerry; I just liked what he said. never intended my liking that statement to be a statement of allegiance to the Senator.
Well, if we cannot give Bush credit for what he says, if written by a speechwriter, then by extension we cannot criticize him them, either. This would render us unable to praise or criticize the bulk of things he's said.

I think, therefore, we have to treat what he says as his own words. It's not unlike one poster saying "I totally agree with what USER X said." Adopting someone else's statement binds you to it in much the same way saying it yourself would have, and should generally be treated as the same basic thing. As such, either Bush is outright lying, or else you like what he stands for in regards to foreign oil. Not that agreeing with him as one issue constitutes an endorsement, of course.


What are Bush’s results, which you speak of? He’s pro-life, not pro-choice, that’s mainly a conservative religious point of view.
Yes, but the fact that it's mainly held by conservative and/or religious folks does not mean the belief is at all contingent on either viewpoint. One can make a compelling argument against the pro-choice stance without invoking God at all, for example.


We are in a recession.
I don't want to directly contradict you, but we are most definitely not, by virtually any standard you use. I check the basic economic indicators myself on a fairly regular basis, and the doom and gloom the media is trying to feed all us is completely inconsistent with what the data says.


We have gone to war twice in three years. We have digressed in personal freedoms because of fear and handed our rights back to the government. We have allowed a man like John Ashcroft to rise in power. Bush is a Christian. A die-hard Christian and I don’t believe that there is a true separation of his policy making and belief.
I don't believe there necessarily needs to be. For one, it's virtually impossible for a man to hold core beliefs such as those without them having any impact on his ability to make decisions. So long as he doesn't abuse his power to his own ends, I don't see a problem.


Listen Chris. Last night when we were chatting, we agreed that what I wrote was just my opinion and not really an argument. But you went ahead and treated it as such, changing it into a Bush is not bad, you’re just misinformed or wrong post.
Not at all. There are a number of things I did not argue with. And a fair number of the things I did "argue" with were not actually arguments, but questions. Perhaps I come off as hostile unintentionally. I can tell you honestly that this is how I often learn about things: by asking questions, either of myself, or of others. It's not always meant to be in a challenging sort of way.

Anyway, yes, some of what you wrote was just opinion (and you'll notice that, in regards to the war, I acknowledged that and cited it as the reason I didn't plan to contest that point), but some of the things you said would, I'd say, definitely constitute arguments; or claims, if you'd rather.


You and the President cannot be always right, and I know you don’t say you always are. But you defended him down to the very sentence of my post. All your information that you use in your arguments can be spun information not necessarily the truth, just as much as all my information may be. I go by my gut. I don’t trust Bush. I don’t like Bush. And I don’t want him to be President any longer. Most of all…I DON’T WANT A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT TO BE IN CHARGE!!!!!
Neither do I. I despise Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and others like them. You are entitled to your opinion, but in mine, Bush does not qualify as a religious zealot. Secular arguments can be made in defense of most (if not all) of his policies.

[LordSlaytan]

First I want to apologize to Chris for my seeming hostility with my previous post. I was unaware as I was typing that it would sound that way. I only have the greatest respect for our beloved Yoda and his dedication for knowledge and truth. I, by no means, have any desire to vilify his opinions, religious belief, or understanding of truth. With that said, I’ll try my best to answer all of his questions and respond to his statements.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean that you have no interest in anyone interpreting them or arguing with them, that's your prerogative. But if you mean that it's not something that can be interpreted or argued with, I'd have to respectfully disagree.
I guess I did mean that I didn’t really have any interest with debating my viewpoint. Maybe that comes from laziness or closed mindedness. In the end though, I still have a nagging belief that ones own feelings are unarguable unlike that of a persons actions. For example, the way I presented my point of view can be debated, because I may have been erroneous in it’s form. However, when I say that, in my gut, I don’t trust the guy. That is not up for debate. Not because I don’t want it to be, but because you can’t prove my gut wrong. Show me all the facts you like, if I feel a certain way, not think but feel, it is set.

Thanks for the clarification. It's a fine point, and I mostly agree, though I think we would also agree that far more important than whether or not he should have made the choice, is whether or not he made the right one. In my mind, there's no question that he could have made any other decision without it flying in the face of the way our country has worked since its inception.
You have a point as well. Well said.

You're right, there is a bit of a parallel with the war; but doesn't that parallel work both ways? If it's inexcusable to put today's money before tomorrow's citizens, isn't it just as inexcusable (if not moreso) to put today's money before tomorrow's Iraqi citizens? They're people, to, of course, and even the staunchest opponents of this war generally admit that the citizens of Iraq are, or are slowly becoming, better off. Saddam's cruelty and the terror so many Iraqis lived under is a rare point of consensus among both proponents and opponents of the war.
I personally backed the war for the very reasons that you cite. That was not my argument. I just feel that if the current administration can use an argument of not using our tax dollars to prevent an extremely important issue, because the facts don’t suit their current needs, then they should have to use the same argument for a situation that does.

I guess what I'm asking is, what do you mean when you say they "needed" to be met? What consequence is now suffered because of this rollback of sorts.
Not all consequences are seen until time has expired. During Clinton’s reign, his scientific advisor’s felt that these initiatives were important for the American citizens. There was no advantage to be given to any corporation, which I know of, by initiating it. Why is it that when Bush comes into office, these policies already set in place are deemed so unnecessary? Why did it need to be changed? It was put in place to protect drinking water for the American public and I don’t understand what motivation was behind the rollback.

With all due respect, isn't this exactly what you're doing when you accuse him of letting his religious motivations unduly effect his decision making?
Mayhap I am. However, I see religion behind policies being made more often than the welfare of the environment.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, their 2004 budget has $1.5 billion dedicated to fund FreedomFuel and FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) over the next five years. According to the OMB's site, this amount will be "doubling DOE’s spending on hydrogen research and development in 2004 alone." The stated goal is to develop "viable hydrogen fuel-cell technology for cars by 2015."
You and I are free to speculate as to whether or not this program will be all that successful, but I think it's fair to say that he's putting his (our) money where his mouth is on this particular issue.
This was what I was asking. Show me money spent, not put aside. How often has money been supposedly put aside for something, just to have it used for something else later on? It happens not only at the capital, but in local jurisdictions as well. Just because money has been elected to be used for something, doesn’t mean it will be. In other words, it sounds to good to be true. And often when that’s the case…it is.

That's a fair way to measure how concerned he actually is with the environment...but isn't this statement assuming that the standards he overturned were worth keeping? Do we really know if they were?
No, do we really know if they weren’t? It’s a stalemate of ancient proportions.

Well, if we cannot give Bush credit for what he says, if written by a speechwriter, then by extension we cannot criticize him them, either. This would render us unable to praise or criticize the bulk of things he's said.
I think, therefore, we have to treat what he says as his own words. It's not unlike one poster saying "I totally agree with what USER X said." Adopting someone else's statement binds you to it in much the same way saying it yourself would have, and should generally be treated as the same basic thing. As such, either Bush is outright lying, or else you like what he stands for in regards to foreign oil. Not that agreeing with him as one issue constitutes an endorsement, of course.
I agree with you. I should have thought more about my response here before I posted it. However, I would really like to see Bush in more press conferences where there is no question unable to be answered. If I can see what he thinks without aid more often, then perhaps my trust would grow.

Yes, but the fact that it's mainly held by conservative and/or religious folks does not mean the belief is at all contingent on either viewpoint. One can make a compelling argument against the pro-choice stance without invoking God at all, for example.
True. But often is the case where the President does invoke God into his reasoning. I hated how he handled 9/11 and focusing it on religious symbolism. As well as the term, “Axis of Evil”, and asking all Americans to pray during that time. I believe there should be a seperation of church and state at all levels, and our current President does not always do that. It is a turn off for someone like me.

I don't want to directly contradict you, but we are most definitely not, by virtually any standard you use. I check the basic economic indicators myself on a fairly regular basis, and the doom and gloom the media is trying to feed all us is completely inconsistent with what the data says.
True again. I didn’t quite mean what I said, and in hindsight, wish I hadn’t said it. This President has proven too not to be an economical President. Not all are. But in the last 50 years, name a President that has created fewer jobs, and has created a larger deficit in this short of time.

I don't believe there necessarily needs to be. For one, it's virtually impossible for a man to hold core beliefs such as those without them having any impact on his ability to make decisions. So long as he doesn't abuse his power to his own ends, I don't see a problem.
I disagree with you completely here. Because Bush has shown more than once that there is a blurred line between his policy making and his belief structure. Clinton was a believer as well, but he didn’t try to trample individual rights, even though he disagreed with what those rights represented. If there isn’t that blurred line, then I would agree with you more.

Not at all. There are a number of things I did not argue with. And a fair number of the things I did "argue" with were not actually arguments, but questions. Perhaps I come off as hostile unintentionally. I can tell you honestly that this is how I often learn about things: by asking questions, either of myself, or of others. It's not always meant to be in a challenging sort of way.
Anyway, yes, some of what you wrote was just opinion (and you'll notice that, in regards to the war, I acknowledged that and cited it as the reason I didn't plan to contest that point), but some of the things you said would, I'd say, definitely constitute arguments; or claims, if you'd rather.
Don’t argue with me and always respect your elders. Namely me.

Neither do I. I despise Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and others like them. You are entitled to your opinion, but in mine, Bush does not qualify as a religious zealot. Secular arguments can be made in defense of most (if not all) of his policies.
Don’t say, if not all. I respect you more than that and you know it isn’t completely true. If he had his way, women would lose their right to choose. It is solely because of his religious beliefs. I really don’t want to debate about pro-life vs. pro-choice, we’ve done that, and are on different sides of the fence. You have said that religion doesn’t need to be presented when arguing pro-life, but in your case personally, belief seems to really be the deciding factor. And it seems that is the case behind all the, “it’s not my religion that makes me feel this way” arguments.

[Golgot]

doh, now i'll never get to join in the fun and lock horns over some anti-fawning ;) Are the end of Bush's days dawning? The economy's turning but now the people are gurning at all the chances for real peace Bushy's been spurning.

Still, i won't interrupt too much - just save up my points til me and yods get in a clutch ;) (i really wanna comment on all this stuff - but it'd all get too much :rolleyes: )

[Yoda]

First I want to apologize to Chris for my seeming hostility with my previous post. I was unaware as I was typing that it would sound that way. I only have the greatest respect for our beloved Yoda and his dedication for knowledge and truth. I, by no means, have any desire to vilify his opinions, religious belief, or understanding of truth. With that said, I’ll try my best to answer all of his questions and respond to his statements.It's no problem at all. I think we both often sound more hostile than we are, and, knowing you, it certainly wasn't intentional. All's well in MoFo paradise. :)I guess I did mean that I didn’t really have any interest with debating my viewpoint. Maybe that comes from laziness or closed mindedness. In the end though, I still have a nagging belief that ones own feelings are unarguable unlike that of a persons actions. For example, the way I presented my point of view can be debated, because I may have been erroneous in it’s form. However, when I say that, in my gut, I don’t trust the guy. That is not up for debate. Not because I don’t want it to be, but because you can’t prove my gut wrong. Show me all the facts you like, if I feel a certain way, not think but feel, it is set.Understood. In that case, I'll try to clarify a few points I think important, but I'll leave you to sort out your own instincts uninfringed upon.I personally backed the war for the very reasons that you cite. That was not my argument. I just feel that if the current administration can use an argument of not using our tax dollars to prevent an extremely important issue, because the facts don’t suit their current needs, then they should have to use the same argument for a situation that does.I see what you're saying, and I think it may be true, depending on how valid their skepticism is. IE: there was no plausible doubt that people were suffering in Iraq, but apparently there IS some plausible doubt about how dangerous this environmental problem is. So, I'd say whether or not they're being hypocritical would depend on whether or not their doubt is a reasonable one, which I admittedly don't know offhand.Not all consequences are seen until time has expired. During Clinton’s reign, his scientific advisor’s felt that these initiatives were important for the American citizens. There was no advantage to be given to any corporation, which I know of, by initiating it. Why is it that when Bush comes into office, these policies already set in place are deemed so unnecessary? Why did it need to be changed? It was put in place to protect drinking water for the American public and I don’t understand what motivation was behind the rollback.I imagine the motivation was reducing the burden various companies were under. Which is a great idea, assuming the standards were unnecessarily strict. Again, though, I don't know for certain if they were. I do feel quite comfortable assuming that they were, however, seeing as how no President, no matter how incompetent, would knowingly allow potential harmful amounts of any chemical or poison in a public water supply. As much as you might distrust Bush, the last thing he wants is people dropping dead after chasing their pills.Mayhap I am. However, I see religion behind policies being made more often than the welfare of the environment.No argument there. Religion is, by definition, a profound matter which has far-reaching ideological implications.This was what I was asking. Show me money spent, not put aside. How often has money been supposedly put aside for something, just to have it used for something else later on? It happens not only at the capital, but in local jurisdictions as well. Just because money has been elected to be used for something, doesn’t mean it will be. In other words, it sounds to good to be true. And often when that’s the case…it is.Well, in that case, I can't help you, because all Bush can really do is allocate money for the next year's budget, which he has done. I'm fairly sure, however, that once it's laid out in the federal budget (especially as explicitly as in the 2004 budget), that you can rely on it. That's just my opinion, though.

If you want to get really critical, the only way you'll know if they've spent the money or not is if you start driving one of these things in a couple of decades.No, do we really know if they weren’t? It’s a stalemate of ancient proportions.No, I don't know for sure. See above, though, for reasons I've taken the side I have.I agree with you. I should have thought more about my response here before I posted it. However, I would really like to see Bush in more press conferences where there is no question unable to be answered. If I can see what he thinks without aid more often, then perhaps my trust would grow.I relucantly concede that Bush could do a lot more to inspire trust in the populace. I think he inspires trust in a lot of people with his very nature, which casts him as an amiable southerner, of course; something that's very hard not to like. Still, I think he often does a less-than-ideal job of answering his critics, even though there are often plenty of decent (but not always definitive) counterarguments.True. But often is the case where the President does invoke God into his reasoning. I hated how he handled 9/11 and focusing it on religious symbolism. As well as the term, “Axis of Evil”, and asking all Americans to pray during that time. I believe there should be a seperation of church and state at all levels, and our current President does not always do that. It is a turn off for someone like me.I'm not sure I understand: are you suggesting that Bush's personal faith has somehow violated this seperation? If so, I would very strongly disagree. Everyone has a belief structure, and no matter what the President's philosophical persuasion, he can't mirror everybody's way of thinking, and therefore has no choice but to enact policies based around what he has concluded is best.True again. I didn’t quite mean what I said, and in hindsight, wish I hadn’t said it. This President has proven too not to be an economical President. Not all are.This may shock you, but I completely disagree. I think he's a very economical President, and history will bear him out as such when the data is presented sans spin. The numbers are becoming downright definitive, especially when one considers that he inherited an economy that had just been punched in the gut, AND two fairly significant military actions (whether he is the sole cause of the second is up for debate, but doesn't speak to his effectiveness economically).

You don't have to take my word for it, of course. Feel free to check yourself. GDP, if I'm not mistaken, has been rising every quarter since Bush began to enact his tax policis. The chart below demonstrates this (the red arrow points to the date, approximately, on which Bush signed his first tax cut.

http://www.movieforums.com/gdp_taxcut.png

It only goes up to the first quarter of 2003 (I graphed this thing online months ago, originally), but the second quarter rate of growth was 3.3%, which is pretty decent, historically, and continues the trend shown above. The predicted rate of growth for next quarter ranges between 5 and 7 percent...the former is damned good, and the latter is fanf**kingtastic.

But in the last 50 years, name a President that has created fewer jobs, and has created a larger deficit in this short of time.I'll answer the second question first: FDR. Those who claim that Dubya's deficit is record breaking aren't accounting for inflation, which is positively necessary when comparing dollar amounts across time. When that's done, FDR's 1943 deficits approached half a trillion dollars. Runner-up: Truman (in 1945).

MOST importantly, though, is how each deficit stacks up as a percentage of GDP. Debt itself is not the problem, and it is not inherently evil. If it were, there'd be no sense in you or I ever buying anything we didn't have enough for in cold, hard cash. The problem is having debt you can't pay down.

There's an economist who uses a profound analogy to dispel the myth that deficits are inherently harmful: imagine two people. Person A skips college and works at a convenience store instead. Person B is accepted into Harvard, and takes on massive student loans in order to pay for it. After four years, Person A hasn't managed to save much money, but doesn't really owe any, either. Person B owes plenty to Harvard, but has a law degree. Person B has a deficit, but Person A has a "balanced budget." Who's better off?

The moral of the story is, in short, that debt can be good if you use it well, and Bush is using this debt for two things: a) the war, and b) his tax cuts. The latter is already beginning to prove very beneficial to economic growth, and if that holds steady, I think one must conclude that it is a striking example of using debt wisely.

There's more to go into, if you remain unconvinced, but this discussion isn't really about the deficit anyway, so I've probably said too much already. Sorry about that...economics is a growing interest of mine.I disagree with you completely here. Because Bush has shown more than once that there is a blurred line between his policy making and his belief structure. Clinton was a believer as well, but he didn’t try to trample individual rights, even though he disagreed with what those rights represented. If there isn’t that blurred line, then I would agree with you more.There's some debate, I believe, as to whether or not Clinton really believed. Keep in mind virtually every President attends worship services; good luck getting elected to those who don't. That said, I honestly cannot recall Bush making significant decisions that were clearly based on nothing more than this religious beliefs. If you're thinking of anything specific, please, do tell.Don’t argue with me and always respect your elders. Namely me.:DDon’t say, if not all. I respect you more than that and you know it isn’t completely true. If he had his way, women would lose their right to choose. It is solely because of his religious beliefs. I really don’t want to debate about pro-life vs. pro-choice, we’ve done that, and are on different sides of the fence. You have said that religion doesn’t need to be presented when arguing pro-life, but in your case personally, belief seems to really be the deciding factor. And it seems that is the case behind all the, “it’s not my religion that makes me feel this way” arguments.I'm not particularly in the mood to get into the abortion issue again, either, but I'm being dead serious when I say belief in God is not necessary for the pro-life view (unless you mean to trace all morality back to Theism, in which case, it could be argued that all laws are also based on religion). In fact, there are entire organizations specifically for Atheists who oppose legalized abortion.

You're welcome to disbelieve this, of course, but you've left me with no way to make my point without violating your wishes to avoid an argument about abortion.

[LordSlaytan]

I'm tired now man, tomorrow. BTW, we're getting too touchy, feely now. I need to fix that.. JERK!!! *whew* Now I feel better. :)

[Yoda]

I'm tired now man, tomorrow. BTW, we're getting too touchy, feely now. I need to fix that.. JERK!!! *whew* Now I feel better. :)
Yeah, I think we all know it's time to take a break when someone starts bustin' out line graphs.

No rush.

[Pappa Bear]

so geting back to AUHNULD...anyone upset that he is going to spend more time in politics than in film.

[LordSlaytan]

so geting back to AUHNULD...anyone upset that he is going to spend more time in politics than in film.

Who said we're going back to Arnold?

[Piddzilla]

http://www.movieforums.com/gdp_taxcut.png

It only goes up to the first quarter of 2003 (I graphed this thing online months ago, originally), but the second quarter rate of growth was 3.3%, which is pretty decent, historically, and continues the trend shown above. The predicted rate of growth for next quarter ranges between 5 and 7 percent...the former is damned good, and the latter is fanf**kingtastic.

You swore... :D


The technical definition of recession is that the gross domestic product has to go back two quarters in a row, and as the table shows, it goes up and down the whole time. So recession is the wrong definition perhaps but the american economy is indeed unstable.

The investments in the private sector might be increasing, but the household consumption is going down. This is because ordinary people have less money which is a result of the unemployment which the biggest in ten years, if I am correctly informed. Another sign of a weak american economy is that the dollar is weakened against the euro and also the swedish krona (which is not the strongest currency in the world, I tell you).

Gross domestic product can go up even if a country has problems with the economy. In USA's case it is probably because it is the biggest economy in the world and the investors have a lot of faith in it. There's nothing wrong with being optimistic but one has to be realistic at the same time.

[Yoda]

You swore... :DDamn right I did. :)The technical definition of recession is that the gross domestic product has to go back two quarters in a row, and as the table shows, it goes up and down the whole time. So recession is the wrong definition perhaps but the american economy is indeed unstable.Perhaps a tad, but not half as unstable as the chart indicates; you'll notice it covers less than 2 percentage points. So it's not as if it's been ups and downs, so much as bigger ups, and then smaller ups. Case in point: the GDP over the last several quarters: 1.3, 4.0, 1.4, 1.4, 3.3.The investments in the private sector might be increasing, but the household consumption is going down. This is because ordinary people have less money which is a result of the unemployment which the biggest in ten years, if I am correctly informed. Another sign of a weak american economy is that the dollar is weakened against the euro and also the swedish krona (which is not the strongest currency in the world, I tell you).That's more or less correct. It's the highest in around 9 years. That, however, is primarily because Clinton's unemployment rates were strikingly low. The current rate of 6.1 percent is right at the 30-year average, so any panic you hear about the job market lacks historical perspective.

As for the dollar and euro; unless I've misunderstood you, that wouldn't be a sign of a weak economy at all. Remember, we had a period of deflation not long ago; a bit of temporary, intentional inflation is to be expected. Admittedly, it could go too far, but a lower exchange rate is not inherently bad news.Gross domestic product can go up even if a country has problems with the economy. In USA's case it is probably because it is the biggest economy in the world and the investors have a lot of faith in it. There's nothing wrong with being optimistic but one has to be realistic at the same time.Sure, a rising GDP does not mean there's absolutely nothing to worry about, but I'd say it's probably the single best economic indicator to use when measuring economic growth. If growth continues, jobs inevitably follow.

Unfortunately, unemployment is a lagging indicator, so I've got to wait for the numbers to bear me out. There is, however, already reason to believe that the tide is turning (aside from the massive expected GDP growth): employment numbers. Unemployment is a bit up, but so is employment. My old man did a little research on this, and the difference can be reconciled by the fact that the two statistics are compiled in different ways; it appears that, when these two statistics diverge, it signals an increase in small businesses. We shall see.

[Golgot]

Don't worry - one can assume the dollar will strengthen again - one has only to ensure the petrodollars from the second biggest national source of oil starts rolling back in one assumes. One simply can't wait for that Iraqi oil to get back to trading levels ;)

Yes indeed, Yoda has some stats on his side. My limited economic reading and understanding informs me that the US economy is indeed on an up-turn all round

(tho certain criteria - like rises in service employment but not manufacturing suggest to this layman that there's a possible superficiality to it all. Plus...
-With consumer spending dropping according to piddz, a major bolsterer of the economy is dropping away too
-add to that that i believe that american products are not exporting/competing that well in lots of spheres, including farming with the GM debacle, and it's difficult to see any significant support for the economy on that side.
-The tax cuts may produce more private service-industry jobs - but will they be less well paid in an attempt to make maximum profit? i.e. will the downturn in consumer spending continue? Just a supposition [and for now i'll stay away from the: effect-of-poor-services-on-society/How-GDP-isn't-the-best-sign-of-national-"health" arguments :)]
-Overall the stats do seem to suggest instability rather than a rosey promised land arriving. Remember, as you said, a lot has been risked on this policy in terms of debt paying for it. I understand the argument for debt/profit cycles, as Britland has entered a debting time now, after years of prudence (and we are now facing the type of prob bush likes to ignore i.e. maintain standards in public services and raise taxes - or privatise/reduce quality - [the two are synonymous IMO - not that i think state control is best per se - just that privatisation seems to be disastrous in certain spheres and under current implementation practices - and just a generator of society-unfriendly monopolies in others :rolleyes: ])

Yods - what do you think are the prime causes of this current upturn in economic pointers? Personally, i think industry and economics influence policy-making and political practice so frequently that they fully deserve a place in this discussion. (tho of course, most of the theory is gobbldigook to me. ****, that means i should really understand it ;))

EDIT: Oh wait, i've got an answer pending haven't i. Oh well, u can ignore my impatient impishness if you like, or just rattle out some answering tattle to one or t'other. I'd be interested in the economics bit for now. We can have a cow over the broader one after :) There, aren't i nice, i give u options ;)