Sure he's got something behind it. But it's not much. Not much at all. The mans IQ is around 126. That's not saying much for the leader of the freeworld.
I hadn't heard that, but 126 is what is considered "gifted," I believe. Far from a moron. He also scored something like 1200 on his SATs -- which is very good compared to most.
A band-aid isn't going to do much for something that requires surgery! Drilling for oil in Alaska is mainly so that the American Public can pay lower prices for gas. Sure that is temporairly a good thing, but in the long term its a very bad thing. Giving in now and letting them take that .5% of the reserve will weaken the strength of the government to hold its ground on such issues in the future. It starts off at .5%, next time it will be 1%, then 5%, then 10%. You get the idea.
That's very debatable. It may increase, or it may not. I don't think it will, because I think the "surgery" will do a good job of fixing things. If it does, then I don't think that the problem will compound. I think that Bush needs to weigh long-term .VS. short-term...which is exactly what he's doing. A small sacrifice (very small. Very, very small, IMO) to tide things over for a better solution.
Ok that was an exaggeration, but my point remains valid. Much more powerful sources for eneregy do exist, but are only in experiemental stages. The reseaon they are still in these stages is because they have no funding. Nuclear Power is a good alternative, temporairly, but springing these things up all over the place is not a good idea. To the public this may seem like a safe alternative, but it is not.
What are you basing that on? I've heard a bit about nuclear power (my stepdad used to work in that field), and virtually all I hear says that it pollutes less than alternative sources, and is VERY safe overall. Things have changed quite a bit in the past 15 years or so.
I don't know about you, but I've never been in such a situation where I have found it necessary to fight off the evil ways of the American Government with a shotgun! I've never been opressed by the government. The government has never phyiscally manifested itself, rang my doorbell and punched me in the face. If the Government makes a law that does opress me, what do I do? Shoot the American flag??
See, that's the problem: everyone is thinking "well, I've never been oppressed by the government! So what's the problem?" The problem is that it still can happen...and probably would, if we were to get rid of guns. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen, unless something was done to prevent it.
No offense, but to say that you don't think it's a problem because you haven't had to worry about it so far is sort of naive. It's the opposite of the logic that supports taking care of the environment...or the type of logic that has California in darkness now and then.
Like I said earlier: I think the Founding Fathers had it right. Maybe you think they were wrong, but I don't. I think all governments, if given the chance, will become oppressive in some ways, over time. As for England: as Ryan said, we're different countries altogether, but from what I understand, England has less freedom than we do...and that includes economic freedom.
Everything would continue as normal, except there would be much less gun related deaths in the US. I agree that in todays world, guns are necessary to maintain peace on a global basis, but I see no reason for guns in house.
I suggest you get yourself a copy of "America's First Freedom," a pro-2nd ammendment magazine. Maybe after reading through some of the testimonials they publish every single issue, you'll realize that there are lots of people who's lives (or the lives of their family, or their property) have been preserved thanks to their ownership of a gun.
The reason there are more now that 16,000 years ago is because it takes time to perfect the reciepe for a rainforest. They don't appear out of no where. Who says more is a bad thing anyway? We have more people now than 16,000 years ago, doesn't justify genoicide.
I think you may have misunderstood me. More is NOT a bad thing. I'm trying to demonstrate that we're not tearing this planet apart...I don't think were capable of it. I think this planet will live through virtually everything we can throw at it.
You asked for a comparison. I compare him to Clinton. Clinton was a fine president. Exclude that, lets compare them as individuals. Clinton used proper grammar. Clinton was a good icon to represent America when being seen by other nations. Bush is not, in my opinion. Not only does Bush not appear to be a smart individual, as Clinton did, he truly isn't. I bring back the point of his IQ, 126. Clinton's was 186. That is 60 points higher than Bush's. He just isn't all too bright.
There's no way in bloody hell Clinton's IQ is over 180. I've heard from several places that those tests aren't even accurate above 150. I would also like to add that Clinton, despite his high IQ, did a lot of stupid things, and made more than his share of mistakes. I'll take a smart, honest man with a passion for his country over a sneaky, suspicious genius who lacks respect for all around him.
I thought 100 was average so if Bushy is 126, isnt that still higher than average? And if Clinton is 186, then Clinton is genius!
Yes, 126 makes him a smart, talented person (intellectually, that is). Not necessarily educated, but if that number is accurate, he has plenty of raw intelligence. And yes, 186 would make for a genius -- although a number that high can't be accurate. It's really ridiculous. I think even 140 or so is enough to be called a genius.