In a thread under the headlines catagory, there has been a lot of discussion over fuel efficancy and several people have expressed a great dislike for President Bush. This has made me curious about the type of people purchasing the Ridgeline and visiting this forum. I wonder if the slant is more liberal or conserative. I would tink that the owners of Hondas would be more liberal and owners of the big 3 would be more conservative but thats just a guess. Keep in mind, I'm not saying one is better, just curious is all.

Steve

Ya'know, one of the things I've enjoyed about this forum is it's non-political nature. We've got so much of that mess thrown in our face on a daily basis that the ROC has been a welcome respite. I have strong political opinions, but I'll not introduce them here. Each to his/her own pleasure.

Perhaps you should "re-phrase" the question as to "Do you consider yourself more liberal or more conservative?"

I do not consider myself either extreme, but I do have my opinions.

My primary is the root definition of "politics":
"poli" meaning "many and "tics" being blod-sucking parasites!!!

I generally thought the same thing. I sort of expected a mod or someone to step in on the other thread but that doesn't seem to be happening which is what prompted this post. I'm perfectly happy deleting it if that what everyone thinks is best.

I'm a Viet Nam veteran, Member of the American Legion and National Rifle Association. I oppose almost all forms of welfare. Shhhh! I'm a closet country music fan. That would make me a Conservative.

BUT...

I think W is a horses ass. I support a woman's right to an abortion. I oppose the big government which is stealing our civil liberties everyday in the name of 9/11. I think we should spend way more money on education of our youth and less on the reconstruction of Iraq. That would make me a Liberal.

Sorry, I can't vote in your poll. Add a box for Centrists. (is that a word?)

No offense Ruffles, but I totally agree with VaVet96. A truck forum should be about problems, solutions or how you're getting your hands dirty.

True. But you do have the option of ignoring this thread.

In a thread under the headlines catagory, there has been a lot of discussion over fuel efficancy and several people have expressed a great dislike for President Bush. This has made me curious about the type of people purchasing the Ridgeline and visiting this forum. I wonder if the slant is more liberal or conserative. I would tink that the owners of Hondas would be more liberal and owners of the big 3 would be more conservative but thats just a guess. Keep in mind, I'm not saying one is better, just curious is all.

Steve


Let em whine... their boy still lost! :)

Frankly, I think anyone who just follows the party line is really ignorant, or really scary, on either side. We all probably have views that fall on both sides.

Frankly, I think anyone who just follows the party line is really ignorant, or really scary, on either side. We all probably have views that fall on both sides.


Good point.

I don't have to like W...or Kerry...or anyone. I don't have to agree with some of the president's decisions. I do definitely respect the position of president. I think it's the hardest, most stressful job on earth. I believe we should have all people who are physically and mentally able to help themselves do so...give them the tools and knowledge to accomplish this...instead of paying others to take care of them. Does this make me a liberal or conservative? Who cares...I vote and thats what matters. :cool:

well said steveberger..............you mean you think for yourself. :) .............i voted for bush, he sold me out. but thats just my opinion. and remember, i voted for him. im for hard work, GOD in school, a woman's rights, civil liberties, justice for the poor, justice for the rich, building a stronger AMERICA rather than IRAQ. :cool:

I have no problem with threads of this nature as long as they stay civil and there are no personal attacks.

The Ridge section is designed just for topics that don't involve our trucks. It is designed for discussions about everything else but our vehicles.

Just a matter of personal opinion. I don't think that it is appropriate to insult the leaders of our country and engage in name-calling. It is fine if you disagree with their policies and even don't like them on other levels. But they are the leaders of our country and deserve some degree of respect. Okay, personal opinion over.

I just want to go on record saying,
I voted conservative ONLY because I wear turtlenecks. :D

I do not dictate or follow. I may lead if it's an issue someone needs me for and it's for the good of others.
I tend to march to my own beat which is usually way off but I get by.
We live in a country where Freedom of Speech is ours to cherish.
We are all entitled to our own opinions. Mine is this.

Now..say this statement with a smile in your heart and on your face.
"Do what you gotta do baby. If someone doesn't like it, it's ok, they don't have to."

( this statement is NOT directed toward anyone person, party or otherwise )

I just want to go on record saying,
I voted conservative ONLY because I wear turtlenecks. :D

I do not dictate or follow. I may lead if it's an issue someone needs me for and it's for the good of others.
I tend to march to my own beat which is usually way off but I get by.
We live in a country where Freedom of Speech is ours to cherish.
We are all entitled to our own opinions. Mine is this.

Now..say this statement with a smile in your heart and on your face.
"Do what you gotta do baby. If someone doesn't like it, it's ok, they don't have to."

( this statement is NOT directed toward anyone person, party or otherwise )

I repeated this over and over again like a mantra...has a very calming effect! Now everyone...UHMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm "do what'ya gotta do baby. If someone doesn't like it, it's ok, they don't have to..UHMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :)

I am not particularly happy with W. But then again we have to choose between the lesser of 2. Do I think he's great? not at all, was he a better choice than Al? Yes. I am for building America not Iraq, I am for smaller gov't. Being from a military family, Clinton F**ed up our military. We had the opportunity to eliminate Osama, Clinton turned it down. Everyone has to remember EVERY President suffers or benefits from the President before him. Do I think that we are going to get what we want, not until the American public demand it.
I am for women's rights to choose. They choose whether to have sex or not. Abortion is murder. If it has a heartbeat, its alive.


Question 1:

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.

Question 2:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three candidates.

Candidate A.

Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B.

He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C

He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first... no peeking, then scroll down for the response.

-------------------------------------------------------------











Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Candidate B is Winston Churchill.

Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.



And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question: If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.



Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone.

I just noticed the poll colors are backwards. Since when was liberal a red bar (state) and conservative blue?

--- And that's as close as I'm getting to this discussion.

And for those of you that realize that President is only a piece of the problem/solution.... Doesnt matter what the Prez does if these guys dont approve...

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse

* 7 have been arrested for fraud

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks

* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

* 3 have done time for assault

* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting

* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...

Can you guess which organization this is?







Give up yet?





It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group

that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

O---M---G RCU, where have you been!!!! I love your satire!!! more, more, more!!! :D

Quietly sitting in the back....

There is no reason whatsoever for a thread of this nature at this forum.

I appologize if I've upset some of you. I had no intention of doing that. It appeared to me from comments in other posts that politics are NOT off limits on this forum so I figured a general question in the "off topic" section about people's general political leanings would be OK. Once again Mods, if this is in-appropriate, please delete it.

Politics are not necessarily off-limits but these discussions never end well on any forum I've EVER participated on because everybody thinks they're right. Now, since I'm the admin who IS always right... let's either let this one die down or at least be respectful and courteous as we discuss our differing opinions. As for me, I'm staying out of this for obvious reasons.

Stay classy, ROC! ;)

That is a great post.Not what I expected to read here tonight but absolutly brilliant.

Rush Limbaugh is my favorite liberal. :D :rolleyes:

Good post, T Mac. Couldn't have said it better.

I'll add my perspective of US politics as a transplanted Brit...(I've been a Labour supporter all my life)

I've grown up with what I believe to be a healthy sceptism of any political leader and party. It's probably related to being immersed in a media that questions government, regardless of which side of centre they are, instead of just relaying soundbites and 'todays talking point'. Maybe there is a leader for and of the people out there, but I don't think US politics has had one for some time. I cannot and will not repect someone just because they got into office. For me, that's when they have to start earning respect or at least justifying the respect that some people hold for them. Your latest encumbent has done little or nothing to earn respect.

It started with the unwillingness to disclose the content of the talks that Cheney had with Enron and other energy business folk.
Then after the horror of September 11th he squandered a genuine opportunity to go after organized terrorism with the weight of world opinion on his side, by diverting attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq. Afghanistan has since resumed it's heroin output and the Taleban are once again on the rise. The reasons he used for going into Iraq (WMD's) turned out to by wrong, but he has not apologized. He actually rewarded Tenent (although I don't blame George T), and just changed the reasons to say that is was now a liberation. Lately it's been back to the fight against terrorism, but thats just because Iraq has been made ground zero for every terrorist in the region. Literally everything the American people were told about Iraq has been wrong, and most shameful of all was the implied relationship to 9/11. For me, this isn't a Democrat vs Republican issue, it's more fundamental than that. Right vs Wrong. Truth vs Deceipt. And the inability to own up to mistakes.

Now, let's get back to, and stay on, TRUCKS!!!

Now, let's get back to, and stay on, TRUCKS!!!

The best way to stay on your truck is wear your seat belt (sorry, I couldn't resist).

We are more than truck owners. We all have lives and opinions. This is appropriately posted in the off topic thread. If you don't want to get "off topic," stay in the truck threads.

Thanks for opening up this topic. It's interesting to hear other people's ideas about the state of nation. Some have even added humor to this obviously touchy topic.

I am a flaming liberal in the reddest state in the nation. It ain't easy, but I have a strong support system. Y'all can read into that whatever suits you.

I can't really say liberal or conservative. For instance I support a woman's right to choose in all aspects, however I think there must be extreme limits, like never more than one, never beyond the first trimester unless there is an extreme medical reason. Personally I would not support anyone in my family having one unless it is for medical reasons, it doesn't match my religious background, however I remove laws from religious morality. The US laws must support laws that do not bend toward a single religious bend. For this same reason I support same sex unions of some form, because I believe that government benefits shouldn't be limited to those that have taken some religious union. I support the troops but not the war we are currently waging because it happened for the wrong reasons. What it really comes down to is I believe in ethics and integrity over everything. If you are honest, up front and do what you say you would do, you will likely get my support. I supported Reagan, Bush senior (once), Clinton, and anyone but Bush junior, I don't believe in his integrity. This isn't to say he is bad, he certainly isn't, but he just isn't upfront. If you have to keep reinventing the reason you did something, then you didn't have a reason to begin with.

I don't vote party lines, I vote for the person who I believe will be the most effective in doing the job. Fact is, I agree when people say that Bush junior was the lesser of two evils when it came to Al Gore, but not with John Kerry. But we can agree to just disagree if we do, no biggy.

As to talking politics, I don't mind, but I will not get into a battle of wills, if we disagree we just do I don't convince or try to sway. Politics isn't religion, and I will not make it as such.

I agree with truckin and zero. this is appropriate place for off topic thread. i think its interesting to hear what others across this wonderful land think about our current leadership. tmac is right, it must be kep civil and i think it will be......................frankly, i liked bush sr, clinton and yes, ill say it, i like al gore. thought he was our best bet because he warned us about big oil, drugs, etc. he was green, pro environment, pro working class, etc........i like that in a president. cons would be too much u.n. (i wish we would pull out of the united nations, what a joke....world government? noooooooo thanks) i voted for jr his second time around and i really forgot how much he and his crew have kept us afraid and focused on the rich until this thread started. yes presidents are greatly affected by those before them. i am very concerned about what is going to be handed to our next president. one reason why clinton faired so well is because bush sr had the guts to raise taxes after reagans deficit spending. so if we arent fairing well now, im afraid of what its going to be like 3-5 yrs from now. We have no focus as a nation. we are confused and afraid...........thank you Mr. President.

...I wonder if the slant is more liberal or conserative. I would tink that the owners of Hondas would be more liberal and owners of the big 3 would be more conservative but thats just a guess...
Steve,

Getting back to your original question and maybe tying all this back to trucks... The poll indicates a 2/3rds majority of conservatives. The big 3 are losing their traditional audience to the Japanese.

Comments?

Liberal or conservative…we need both for a balance.

There has not been a president in this country that everyone is going to agree with. That will never change.

It’s real easy to sit back right now and second guess the decisions that have been made since 9/11. I can’t say that I fully understand, or agree with all the decisions that have been made, but then again, I don’t have all the information that the folks making these choices have either.

I served in the military and I know for a fact that some things are just not made public. National security, need to know, and not jeopardizing our sources are just some of the reasons for that. We all know that most media outlets have their own agenda, so I don’t put a lot of weight in everything that’s reported to us.

In the end, if we can agree to disagree on some issues, but still work together to keep our government in line, then let’s discuss all the politics we can! :)

What it really comes down to is I believe in ethics and integrity over everything. If you are honest, up front and do what you say you would do, you will likely get my support. I supported Reagan, Bush senior (once), Clinton, and anyone but Bush junior, I don't believe in his integrity. This isn't to say he is bad, he certainly isn't, but he just isn't upfront. If you have to keep reinventing the reason you did something, then you didn't have a reason to begin with.



With all due respect, placing Clinton in the same paragraph as "ethics", "integrity", "honest", and "upfront" is kind of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

...well I guess he did finally ADMIT to lying a few times, so I'll give you that. ;)

Although the "reinventing the reason you did something" sure fits well with why he lied about the affair... :rolleyes:

With all due respect, placing Clinton in the same paragraph as "ethics", "integrity", "honest", and "upfront" is kind of a stretch, wouldn't you say?




That depends on your definition of "is". :rolleyes:

With all due respect, placing Clinton in the same paragraph as "ethics", "integrity", "honest", and "upfront" is kind of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

...well I guess he did finally ADMIT to lying a few times, so I'll give you that. ;)

Although the "reinventing the reason you did something" sure fits well with why he lied about the affair... :rolleyes:
I do not include personal activities in with someone's business/work activities. The guy was a twit, but as far as honesty in his job he had that. I have known people who in their personal dealings are honest, ethical and all that but you go up against them in business and they are totally different. I also doubt that it was any of our business what was going on between three adults who should have been given the chance to deal with the issue themselves.

Again it is one thing to reinvent why you did something that affects 1 other person and reinventing why you did something that affects over 300 million.

I do not include personal activities in with someone's business/work activities. The guy was a twit, but as far as honesty in his job he had that. I have known people who in their personal dealings are honest, ethical and all that but you go up against them in business and they are totally different. I also doubt that it was any of our business what was going on between three adults who should have been given the chance to deal with the issue themselves.

Again it is one thing to reinvent why you did something that affects 1 other person and reinventing why you did something that affects over 300 million.

I’m going to have to disagree with you here. Although the affair itself was something quite personal, the law suit that was pending at the time made the affair more of an issue.

I’m of the belief that if you can’t be honest and true to your spouse, you’re going to have a heck of a time doing so with 300 million Americans. But that’s my opinion.

Hey, I lived in Arkansas when Clinton was governor. I’m pretty sure I even voted for him. I didn’t pay close attention to the issues at the time because I had just got out of the service and I had not kept up with all the local issues. But I remember hearing the negative ads from his opponents and I became tired of them, so I think I voted for Clinton. (I was pretty young at the time too.)

Anyway, after he was re-elected governor I started hearing why there were so many negative ads against him. His office was under investigation for fraud and misuse of state funds. He was a member of an all white country club, and made no bones about it. There were other issues, but they all became moot as he left the state anyway.

I’m not trying to offend you or anyone else here. I just don’t think that Clinton could be considered honest, ethical, or admirable in any way.

“Oral sex is not sex…” :rolleyes: Thanks for that one. I had a heck of a time explaining this to my 15 year old daughter...

I do not include personal activities in with someone's business/work activities. The guy was a twit, but as far as honesty in his job he had that. I have known people who in their personal dealings are honest, ethical and all that but you go up against them in business and they are totally different. I also doubt that it was any of our business what was going on between three adults who should have been given the chance to deal with the issue themselves.


Again it is one thing to reinvent why you did something that affects 1 other person and reinventing why you did something that affects over 300 million.

well said........well said. that is a proper perspective. no man is going to admit to cheating on his wife on t.v. or otherwise if he doesn't have to. the resources used to "catch" him says more about the opposition that it does the man. everyone knew bill couldn't keep it in his pants. but today we have a president i voted for who claims moral authority over slick willy and look where we are at, divided as a nation, deceived as a nation, desperate as a nation...........thanks for bringing us together W.

well said........well said. that is a proper perspective. no man is going to admit to cheating on his wife on t.v. or otherwise if he doesn't have to. the resources used to "catch" him says more about the opposition that it does the man. everyone knew bill couldn't keep it in his pants. but today we have a president i voted for who claims moral authority over slick willy and look where we are at, divided as a nation, deceived as a nation, desperate as a nation...........thanks for bringing us together W.


Based on your statement, W has done no worse than clinton about bringing us together... :)

I also like hearing other opinions about this stuff, especially if it's done in a responsible way. It's actually refreshing to have an intelligent conversation about such things that stir deep emotions in people, while keeping this in mind. We find out that there are more people out there with strong and thoughtful opinions on each individual issue on both sides, and fewer who agree with every party-line issue on one side. And I think a non-political forum like this might actually facilitate a more open discussion. So, thanks.

It gives me hope that there might still be open-minded, inquisitive, thoughtful people out there who are able to....let's just say, sort through all the bullsh...

Personally, I am subconsciously hopeful that things are done (at the top) for a good reason that might not be presently obvious, and there must be a positive side to everything. However, I don't blindly agree that the end justifies the means. I also don't like to be lied to and taken advantage of, made a fool of and, as someone else said, sold out.

Reagan's greatest strength was making Americans feel united and proud to be an American, to acknowledge that we all had "tough choices to make" and that we would get it done. It didn't seem to matter if you were Liberal or Conservative. Clinton also reiterated those tough choices and we recovered from the recession of the late '80's early '90's. GW, however, has done just the opposite in my opinion. "Divide and conquer" seems to be the current motto. Tell 'em anything, as long as the end result is what you want. And it's strange that we want to be so proactive about kicking someone's ass, but we'll wait until gas and energy prices bring down our own citizens before we try to do anything about it. (Sorry, getting carried away...)

but we'll wait until gas and energy prices bring down our own citizens before we try to do anything about it. (Sorry, getting carried away...)


I certainly respect your opinion, and you have some great points.

I would be curious to know what the government can do to lower gas prices in your view? I recall Al Gore and Clinton opening up our reserves before the 2000 election with no noticeable lasting affect on fuel prices. (Personally I think they did it solely for election purposes, but that's just me.) :confused:

Himmmm.............liberal or conservative? I'll just say I'm on the right side of every issue....... :D Generally, I vote conservative because they care about the issue that is nearest and dearest to my heart: My money. I like my money and I'd like to keep as much of it as close to me as possible. The republicans generally want to cut taxes (not always, but mostly). Liberals generally have alot of compassion for everybody and then send me the bill. I have enough bills.

Based on your statement, W has done no worse than clinton about bringing us together... :)

no, actually, bill did a good job of stewardship and people were better off. again, some of the credit belongs to bush sr.

I certainly respect your opinion, and you have some great points.

I would be curious to know what the government can do to lower gas prices in your view? I recall Al Gore and Clinton opening up our reserves before the 2000 election with no noticeable lasting affect on fuel prices. (Personally I think they did it solely for election purposes, but that's just me.) :confused:
yea, that looked political. it was a one time deal. or maybe it was a threat to big oil that reserves would be opened if refining didn't pick up. i think what you don't realize is that oil co.s do have a great impact on oil prices. limited refining capacities are a direct result of companys' goal of being able to control supply.....what can the govt do about that? plenty, starting with releasing reserves for public consumption and busting these oil companies for anti-trust violations, NO tax breaks for SUV buyers (unreal), MORE tax breaks for hybrid buyers, tax breaks for those who purchase energy efficient, low emmission products such as homes, cars, etc, pumping oil here at home, oh yea, did we forget, we have oil here in the states. my gawd, go to west texas and you can smell it in the air???all it would take to get my approval is AN HONEST EFFORT. but we aren't getting that from pres or congress. hmmm, i wonder what they all have in common?

I would be curious to know what the government can do to lower gas prices in your view? I recall Al Gore and Clinton opening up our reserves before the 2000 election with no noticeable lasting affect on fuel prices. (Personally I think they did it solely for election purposes, but that's just me.) :confused:

From what I'm hearing now, there's plenty of oil, but we don't have enough refineries to process it fast enough. And everytime there's a fire at a refinery, guess who gets to pay for it. Hmmmm...someone in the oil business should have realized this a long time ago. Another thing would have been to encourage the development of alternative fuels or alternative forms of transportation long ago. This, in my opinion, has been crawling at a snails pace and there has been an obvious lack of any serious encouragement. This also goes for alternative energy production. All I see are oil companies raking in record profits with no one to answer to.

As to what can a President do personally, well, all he usually does for any issue is create enough awareness and focus that maybe the country will listen and do something about it. You know, like he did about the war in Iraq. He tried to do this for Social Security, too, but that kinda waned out. He and his advisors can come up with plans and strategies, but so far they have only helped the oil companies get richer. Accountability to you and I seems almost non-existent. Or he can continue to perpetuate the feeling of helplessness, that nothing can be done, or that there's nothing he can do about it, and we can just sit back and watch all those tax breaks go right into his pockets!!!

no, actually, bill did a good job of stewardship and people were better off. again, some of the credit belongs to bush sr.

Don’t you think that the fact that he was impeached shows that we were divided during his tenure as well?

Generally, I vote conservative because they care about the issue that is nearest and dearest to my heart: My money. I like my money and I'd like to keep as much of it as close to me as possible. The republicans generally want to cut taxes (not always, but mostly). Liberals generally have alot of compassion for everybody and then send me the bill. I have enough bills.

Ridge is right. Most people do vote with their pocketbooks, and the Republican party knows this and exploits it almost perversely. In 2000, GW told Clinton that he had to get gas prices down. He also told us that he was going to put more $ in our pocket with tax breaks. These were two of his biggest strategies to get elected. Now, Republican voters are saying he can't do anything about gas prices and the majority of his tax cuts have helped the upper 5% the most.

It's great and responsible to try to improve ones financial freedom. But it's much more enriching to try to increase ones quality of life!!! We can't let ourselves become so engrossed in the size of our own back pockets while we suffocate from our own vomit!!!

yea, that looked political. it was a one time deal. or maybe it was a threat to big oil that reserves would be opened if refining didn't pick up. i think what you don't realize is that oil co.s do have a great impact on oil prices. limited refining capacities are a direct result of companys' goal of being able to control supply.....what can the govt do about that? plenty, starting with releasing reserves for public consumption and busting these oil companies for anti-trust violations, NO tax breaks for SUV buyers (unreal), MORE tax breaks for hybrid buyers, tax breaks for those who purchase energy efficient, low emmission products such as homes, cars, etc, pumping oil here at home, oh yea, did we forget, we have oil here in the states. my gawd, go to west texas and you can smell it in the air???all it would take to get my approval is AN HONEST EFFORT. but we aren't getting that from pres or congress. hmmm, i wonder what they all have in common?


My understanding is that the cost to get our oil out of the ground is cost prohibitive. Although with the prices going like they are, that should change.

We could build more refineries, but the liberals will not allow it. :rolleyes:

Tax breaks for SUV’s. Until recently, if you bought a Hummer, you got a HUGE tax break. (Setup during Clinton’s time.) W took that away.

Hybrid: Big problem now is that it costs so much more for them, and takes so long to recoup the extra money in gas savings. Blame the auto makers for that.

The oil companies are not really the problem. Did you see the last report on the 10 richest companies in the world? The oil companies dominated the list. (4 or 5 of the 10 were oil companies.) But the oil companies are not setting the price right now, shareholders are. Crude oil prices are going crazy because the investors are making a killing on it. Not W’s fault.

But the oil companies are not setting the price right now, shareholders are. Crude oil prices are going crazy because the investors are making a killing on it. Not W’s fault.
Not W's fault?!? Have you forgotten how the Bush's made thier money?
OIL!!!

As to what can a President do personally, well, all he usually does for any issue is create enough awareness and focus that maybe the country will listen and do something about it. You know, like he did about the war in Iraq. He tried to do this for Social Security, too, but that kinda waned out. He and his advisors can come up with plans and strategies, but so far they have only helped the oil companies get richer. Accountability to you and I seems almost non-existent. Or he can continue to perpetuate the feeling of helplessness, that nothing can be done, or that there's nothing he can do about it, and we can just sit back and watch all those tax breaks go right into his pockets!!!


You're right. He tried to fix Social Security. He asked for suggestions from both sides of the aisle. The conservatives gave some ideas, but all the liberals did was shot them down without giving us their ideas. Totally counter-productive.

At the time we were being told about why we should go into Iraq, a huge majority of the US was for it. We found out later that some of the reasons for going in were based on inaccurate information. But we ALL thought it was good information, including Congress, the White House, and even a good part of the liberal media. I don’t blame GW for this. He inherited the intelligence agencies from the previous administration.

You know, GW has tried to help out, short term, with the oil problem. He tried to get oil from the Gulf, and was told “No”. He’s trying to get oil out of Alaska, but is having great opposition there too. Can we build more refineries? No. Can he tell investors to stop jacking the price of crude oil? I don’t see how he can.

We all should just buy less oil so that there is less of a demand… ;)

Not W's fault?!? Have you forgotten how the Bush's made thier money?
OIL!!!


Perhaps you forgot... they didn't make it YESTERDAY!!!


You want to lower gas prices, build more refineries (As mentioned before). Of course that will never happen because the tree huggers have made that dang near impossible.

So, no, it isn't Bush's fault. Try looking in the other direction.

Not W's fault?!? Have you forgotten how the Bush's made thier money?
OIL!!!


And Clinton WAS a lawyer, and we all LOVE them, right?

Key word, "was". GW made some money from oil. He also had other sources of income as well. But it's not a major source of his "current" income.

We all should just buy less oil so that there is less of a demand… ;)


I don't think any of us here can really say genuinely that we agree with this statement, but we can hope everyone else buys a prius so we can maintain our membership here at ROC............ :D :D

I don't think any of us here can really say genuinely that we agree with this statement, but we can hope everyone else buys a prius so we can maintain our membership here at ROC............ :D :D

...um.

Amen. :o

My understanding is that the cost to get our oil out of the ground is cost prohibitive. Although with the prices going like they are, that should change.

- Cost prohibitive...We seem to have plenty of money for the war in Iraq, which is supposed to help our national security, which is being used as a reason to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, which is also being used as a reason to drill in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife REFUGE).


- Really? Are you sure about this? Which "liberals" are you talking about?

[QUOTE=Tax breaks for SUV’s. Until recently, if you bought a Hummer, you got a HUGE tax break. (Setup during Clinton’s time.) W took that away.
- Within the last couple years the tax write-off for large vehicles went from $25K to $100K. Doesn't sound like they're trying to discourage them.


- The US Govt. subsidizes corn and wheat production, why can't we do more for energy alternatives? There was a few bucks thrown that way in the latest energy bill, but too little, too late? (The Prez is not completely responsible, but don't you think there could be a little more working together to find a better solution? The current policy is "Take it, or leave it. And if you don't get it done, I'll just blame you for it.")

[/QUOTE=The oil companies are not really the problem. Did you see the last report on the 10 richest companies in the world? The oil companies dominated the list. (4 or 5 of the 10 were oil companies.) But the oil companies are not setting the price right now, shareholders are. Crude oil prices are going crazy because the investors are making a killing on it. Not W’s fault.
- I can't remember the last time I saw a shareholder in the finance dept. or CFO's office setting prices.
- And it's never W's fault. Have you noticed this?

Don’t you think that the fact that he was impeached shows that we were divided during his tenure as well?
no, because popular opinion was against it. congress voted down. for some reason newt and fellow party hardliners had it out for clinton because he stood up to them and shut down the govt to balance the budget. the republicans (im neither rep or dem although i have rep leanings) "contract with america" was a fluke and many rep were voted out. thats not division, thats direction. yes he fell victim to his own actions but they were not impeachable and basically only his opponents were screaming division.....the rest of the country was actually in pretty decent spirits and shape. just imagine what we could have done had he not been swatting flys all the time?

And Clinton WAS a lawyer, and we all LOVE them, right?

Key word, "was". GW made some money from oil. He also had other sources of income as well. But it's not a major source of his "current" income.
holy cow!!!! i can't believe you said that.........

- - And it's never W's fault. Have you noticed this?

Nope, but it is sure obvious that some people think EVERYTHING is W's fault.

One of the posts in this thread said "Who benefited from the tax breaks W made... the upper 5% of taxpayers". Well, who pays the majority of taxes?? The upper 5%. I got a tax break and it has helped me if it hasn't helped anyone else. :cool:

Nope, but it is sure obvious that some people think EVERYTHING is W's fault.

You're right. He's just the President of the United States. He should be cut some slack!

You're right. He's just the President of the United States. He should be cut some slack!

Worked for Clinton.

You're right. He's just the President of the United States. He should be cut some slack!
lol.........like they cut clinton slack :rolleyes: like they cut sr. slack by voting him out :rolleyes: like they cut carter slack by voting him out :rolleyes: ...........look, im not saying its JR'S fault....of course its not his FAULT. but i do expect the so-called most powerful person in the friggin free world to stop being so damn selfish and help his fellow countrymen. he DOES have the influence to help, please stop acting like he does not. and yes we all supported the pres because we were AFRAID iraq could hurt us. did you hear me? we were AFRAID. FEAR, FEAR, FEAR..........he has taken us from one level of fear to another after sept 11. and i think he lacks much class because of it. I VOTED FOR HIM . I DIDNT KNOW HE WAS GOING TO ALLOW ALL THIS AND THEN HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT.

One of the posts in this thread said "Who benefited from the tax breaks W made... the upper 5% of taxpayers". Well, who pays the majority of taxes?? The upper 5%. I got a tax break and it has helped me if it hasn't helped anyone else. :cool:


The whole "Tax breaks for the rich" line has never lived up to scrutiny, but people still believe it that the breaks are unfair. The reality is, those who pay the taxes get the breaks. Those who don't, logically, don't.

-
- I can't remember the last time I saw a shareholder in the finance dept. or CFO's office setting prices.
- And it's never W's fault. Have you noticed this?

Who do you think sets the prices? Have you ever heard about the "90% of the wealth is in 10% of the people's hands" comment?

And I've noticed it's "never W's fault" and little less than I've noticed "it's W jr's fault." :)

no, because popular opinion was against it. congress voted down. for some reason newt and fellow party hardliners had it out for clinton because he stood up to them and shut down the govt to balance the budget. the republicans (im neither rep or dem although i have rep leanings) "contract with america" was a fluke and many rep were voted out. thats not division, thats direction. yes he fell victim to his own actions but they were not impeachable and basically only his opponents were screaming division.....the rest of the country was actually in pretty decent spirits and shape. just imagine what we could have done had he not been swatting flys all the time?


If Clinton could control his “fly”, we would not have to have had to end up “swatting at flys”.

Excuse me, but Clinton was impeached in Congress; it just did not make it through the Senate, and I quote:

On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction.


Irregardless, it was division, not much like what W is now being accused of…

(Without the fly and impeachment thing.) :)

holy cow!!!! i can't believe you said that.........


Well, explain to me what you mean?

You're right. He's just the President of the United States. He should be cut some slack!

Only if it's Clinton... :)

Well, explain to me what you mean?
THEY ARE AN OIL FAMILY.........YES THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN PUBLIC SERVICE BUT THEY ARE OIL TO THE CORE. SR STILL TRAVELS TO SAUDI ARABIA AND IT AINT FOR SIGHT SEEING. BUSH FAMILY AND BIN LADIN FAMILY ARE IN BUSINESS TOGETHER. :eek:

If Clinton could control his “fly”, we would not have to have had to end up “swatting at flys”.

Excuse me, but Clinton was impeached in Congress; it just did not make it through the Senate, and I quote:

On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction.


Irregardless, it was division, not much like what W is now being accused of…

(Without the fly and impeachment thing.) :)

OH YES, NO DOUBT I AGREE.........it was division. POLITICAL DIVISION. im talking about the people. we werent as divided as many politicians tried to make us believe we were.

OH YES, NO DOUBT I AGREE.........it was division. POLITICAL DIVISION. im talking about the people. we werent as divided as many politicians tried to make us believe we were.


No, that didn't happen until the dems LOST the oval office and started spewing their blind hatred and conspiracy theories.

Only if it's Clinton... :)

The new All American response to Presidential criticism..."Clinton did it!"

Next breath..."We should support our President because he's the leader of our country."

Another good one..."Clinton benefited from Reagan's economic decisions." Next breath..."GW's economic policies got us out of the recession."

Or GW's accusations of "historical revisionists!"

Gotten out of hand...I'm going to see what the favorite beer is!

THEY ARE AN OIL FAMILY.........YES THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN PUBLIC SERVICE BUT THEY ARE OIL TO THE CORE. SR STILL TRAVELS TO SAUDI ARABIA AND IT AINT FOR SIGHT SEEING. BUSH FAMILY AND BIN LADIN FAMILY ARE IN BUSINESS TOGETHER. :eek:

Even if this were the case, where do we get the majority of our oil?

I'll give you a hint, not from the middle east.

Even if this were the case, where do we get the majority of our oil?

I'll give you a hint, not from the middle east.

I don't know the percentage so i won't pretend to. im sure you do or you wouldn't be asking ;) . but, thats just an example of them being oil family, of course i don't know where all they do business. MY POINT WAS THERE MONEY IS PRIMARILY OIL REVENUE.

No, that didn't happen until the dems LOST the oval office and started spewing their blind hatred and conspiracy theories.
oh please.........the biggest ploy to get votes that i have ever seen was by newt gingrich and company and there bogus "contract with america".....how lame. direct party politics, "vote for anyone as long as they are republican". i lost alot of respect for them that day. pure politics, no principle.

YOU GUYS BETTER PLAY NICE IN THE SAND BOX OR I'M GROUNDIN' ALL OF YA!! ;) :p

oh please.........the biggest ploy to get votes that i have ever seen was by newt gingrich and company and there bogus "contract with america".....how lame. direct party politics, "vote for anyone as long as they are republican". i lost alot of respect for them that day. pure politics, no principle.


Yeah, the contract with america can certainly be compared to comments like those Howard Dean makes. (You may have heard of him, he's the head of the Democratic Party now.)

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,"

"Because a lot of them (Republicans) have never made an honest living in their lives. "


And lets not even start on Michael Moore, or the other celebrity "geniuses" who threatened to leave the country if W got re-elected.

But yeah, OK, it is the republicans and the president who are dividing the country. Those poor abused dems are just misunderstood. :rolleyes:

But that's fine, I hope the dems keep spreading the hatred, it cost them the last election and hopefully will cost them the next one too!

The whole "Tax breaks for the rich" line has never lived up to scrutiny, but people still believe it that the breaks are unfair. The reality is, those who pay the taxes get the breaks. Those who don't, logically, don't.

Less tax revenue means more borrowing to pay for things such as National Security. More borrowing means greater deficits. Greater deficits means more debt imposed on future taxpayers. More debt means more revenue is needed to pay the interest. To make up for a lack of revenue, spending needs to be cut. Spending cuts hurt government programs, like education and crime prevention just to name a couple worthy causes. Lack of education and crime prevention funds effect everyone, however they effect the bottom 95% much, much more than the top 5%. Also taking a hit, highway projects, low income housing, VETERANS AFFAIRS, services for the disabled, natural disaster relief, etc, etc.

Yes, most of the tax breaks help the top 5% the most, and hurt the rest. And only the bottom 5% don't pay taxes.

Nice spirited discussion going on in this thread.

Let's just remember to keep it civil.

Nice spirited discussion going on in this thread.

Let's just remember to keep it civil.


Where's that lock icon when you really need it? :)

Less tax revenue means more borrowing to pay for things such as National Security. More borrowing means greater deficits. Greater deficits means more debt imposed on future taxpayers. More debt means more revenue is needed to pay the interest. To make up for a lack of revenue, spending needs to be cut. Spending cuts hurt government programs, like education and crime prevention just to name a couple worthy causes. Lack of education and crime prevention funds effect everyone, however they effect the bottom 95% much, much more than the top 5%. Also taking a hit, highway projects, low income housing, VETERANS AFFAIRS, services for the disabled, natural disaster relief, etc, etc.

Yes, most of the tax breaks help the top 5% the most, and hurt the rest. And only the bottom 5% don't pay taxes.

Yes, on paper that all sounds good... only thing is, it isn't real world. Under the Reagan tax cuts, revenues actually increased not decreased. I do not have the figures handy for the Bush cuts, but I can link to this article in Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWHbMYS3rEvY&refer=us) that shows tax revenues are up this year. Now, I am sure there are also studies that show that revenues decrease at times after tax cuts, the point being that you simply cannot make a blanket statement that cutting taxes decreases revenue. It simply is not a cut and dried fact. Which obviates the rest of your comments, but lets go ahead and look at them.

I find it interesting that you bring up the line about spending cuts effecting education, police, fire, veterans services (all caps even, nice touch) yet again you mention nothing about the pork projects that still get funding. Trotting out that tired arguement is (IMO) nothing more than standard liberal scare tactics.

As an example, the city of Indianapolis (democratic mayor) is facing a budget deficit (after raising taxes by the way) and the current mayor has trotted out the standard, "We will have to cut our police and firefighters, we are closing city parks and swimmng pools, and have to reduce the number of teachers in our public schools. Oh, but we can raise 900,000,000 to build a new stadium for the Colts."

So you will excuse me if I take the liberal "Will have to cut services to the poor due to those bad ol' conservatives" mantra with a HUGE grain of salt. It comes down to choices and priorities, the money is there, it is just being spent foolishly by members of both parties in congress.

Edit: All that being said, you are not going to change your mind based on my posting, nor am I based on yours. We should perhaps to agree to disagree and move on to what we DO agree on (like our RLs!). I yield the floor to you.

I enjoyed the lively debate with my fellow ROC members, and I certainly hope no one was offended.

It was fun…we got to do this again sometime. :)

YOU GUYS BETTER PLAY NICE IN THE SAND BOX OR I'M GROUNDIN' ALL OF YA!! ;) :p


You wouldn't take my shovel too...? ;)


Yes ma'am. I'll play nice. :o

I don't know the percentage so i won't pretend to. im sure you do or you wouldn't be asking ;) . but, thats just an example of them being oil family, of course i don't know where all they do business. MY POINT WAS THERE MONEY IS PRIMARILY OIL REVENUE.


We get most of our oil from South America. Our interest in the Middle East seems more in keeping the world market stable, than pure selfish reasons.

The last report I saw on GW's interest in oil was a small field in Texas that he bought into either when he was governor, or just before he became governor of Texas.

While I can understand your point of view, I do not feel that GW would allow oil prices to rise so that he and his father would become richer. We disagree on this point. No big deal... :)

I honestly feel that GW loves this country, and wants all of us to have good lives. We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. He cut taxes trying to give us all a chance to decide what to do with our money, instead of the government. These are a couple of examples...

To be fair:

I do not agree with the policy we have on our southern border. We should try and control that more.

I hope we get things finished up in Iraq soon, and start bringing our troop home.

A solution to Social Security should be found. One that at least most folks can agree on.


Take care.

You wouldn't take my shovel too...? ;)


Yes ma'am. I'll play nice. :o

No..you can keep your shovel Jax. You may need it to dig yourself out a hole!! :D

Nice response, Ladyridge. :D

Yes, on paper that all sounds good... only thing is, it isn't real world. Under the Reagan tax cuts, revenues actually increased not decreased. I do not have the figures handy for the Bush cuts, but I can link to this article in Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWHbMYS3rEvY&refer=us) that shows tax revenues are up this year. Now, I am sure there are also studies that show that revenues decrease at times after tax cuts, the point being that you simply cannot make a blanket statement that cutting taxes decreases revenue. It simply is not a cut and dried fact. Which obviates the rest of your comments, but lets go ahead and look at them.

I think you need to look at this a little closer, revenues are up over previous Bush era revenues, this doesn't bring them in line with revenues during the Clinton era or prior Bush era. Also it is important to note that while there is a decrease in the deficit, during the end of the Clinton period there was a balanced budget, which means we did not spend more than we brought in. But I do not blame Bush for a deficit completely, well I do and don't. During a war time we will always spend more than we have coming in. But the deficit should be no greater than the delta of the additional spending in military expenditures. The deficit is rather a bit greater than that delta. When means that revenues were lowered below existing spending.


I find it interesting that you bring up the line about spending cuts effecting education, police, fire, veterans services (all caps even, nice touch) yet again you mention nothing about the pork projects that still get funding. Trotting out that tired arguement is (IMO) nothing more than standard liberal scare tactics.

Spending in education has not kept pace with inflation, if you can show otherwise I welcome your feedback. Given this, there hasn't been space to improve education just to maintain it. Regardless of the cause of this, whether it is because of lower revenue or what not, it is still true and is a problem that needs to be addressed.


As an example, the city of Indianapolis (democratic mayor) is facing a budget deficit (after raising taxes by the way) and the current mayor has trotted out the standard, "We will have to cut our police and firefighters, we are closing city parks and swimmng pools, and have to reduce the number of teachers in our public schools. Oh, but we can raise 900,000,000 to build a new stadium for the Colts."

I agree that this is silly, although are you sure it was 900 Million? That would make it the most expensive park project I have ever heard of. Also what will be the impact on city revenues caused by this new stadium. I know in some cities that have invested in stadiums they have 10 year recovery periods and they build on 10 year bonds so they really spend no money on the project even though it seems as though they did. Some even make money on the tax revenues and the like caused by the improved infrastructure.


So you will excuse me if I take the liberal "Will have to cut services to the poor due to those bad ol' conservatives" mantra with a HUGE grain of salt. It comes down to choices and priorities, the money is there, it is just being spent foolishly by members of both parties in congress.

Edit: All that being said, you are not going to change your mind based on my posting, nor am I based on yours. We should perhaps to agree to disagree and move on to what we DO agree on (like our RLs!). I yield the floor to you.
Well since this wasn't directed to me originally I guess this isn't really something I can respond to, but I agree that we agree on the truck ;). Again I think that the problem with politics right now is that both side is right and wrong. Lowered revenues does hurt programs that help the lowest income people, but not to the extent that some would say, and lower taxes does help grow the economy but only if the people getting that tax money back are middle class, upper class people do not tend to spend their savings from taxes in a way that improve the economy. Large purchases of land and the like do not have a major impact on the economy and do not help with overall tax revenues at the federal level.

Thanks for the additional comments, Cap'n.

I just believe that eventually you have to pay the piper! Either that or start harvesting those money trees. I agree that lower taxes helps drive business ventures and hopefully, eventually jobs, and increase tax revenues from these ventures as the economy improves. But I have noticed that almost every state and local community has been adversely effected by the same tax cuts. Federal money does funnel to the states for services, and most states have cut those basic and essential services I mentioned before, which BTW are "divied" up amongst the "pork barrel" spending by the (Republican controlled) Congress and signed off by the (Republican) President.

Besides that, it's painfully obvious that there is a HUGE shortfall between revenues and spending, thus the extensive borrowing. This is the annual deficit. So to say that the tax cuts have improved the economy so much that tax revenues increased sufficiently to cover the bills is way off.

BTW, I'm a Democrat. A debt free Democrat, except for my house, which will be paid off in 4 years (in a part of the country where most Americans can't afford to buy a house now), while I'll be well under the age of 50. I don't receive any form of Govt. assistance, personally, and have omitted Social Security from my retirement plan. I'm not a hippy. I'm not a tree hugger. But I do care about the environment in which we all live, and in which our children will have to live. I'm an American and I believe this country is so great that it will survive, in spite of it's leaders, because of the will of the people, which is what makes it great. I give to charities, such as the Disabled American Veterans. My father served in the Navy, and those before him were immigrants. I oppose abortion, but I support a woman's right to take care of herself and make that decision with her doctor. I believe Govt. should not be involved in these types of personal decisions or in religion, except to administer the laws of the land, and in the perfect world we would all be self-sufficient. But I do believe we the people have a responsibility to take care of our society in a way which improves all of our quality of life. I'm a married, white, heterosexual male and I believe there are all types of people in this world and I'm in no position to judge anyone else. I have had friends and coworkers who are gay and they deserve all the rights of any other American citizen, and I believe prejudices against people who are different than I would be a major personal insecurity issue. I'm a Democrat, and you can call me whichever name makes you feel comfortable; Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. But most of all, I'm an American and cherish the freedoms we all take for granted.

Oh, and I love my truck because it's the best damn vehicle around!

Well put Ridgeowner3....I liked what you had to say, and it struck a chord in me which made me feel like a true patriot! Thanks. I think I'll be voting for the right candidate next time. :)

Well said RO3.

As I said before, we aren't going to change each others minds here, but I certainly respect your opinion and the eloquence with which you expressed it.

I mean, you are WRONG, but you do it well! :D :D ;) (Oh come on.. I had to!)


With that.... I think I am done with this thread.

Thanks for the civil discussion, you don't find that often in political debates these days.

And you are right! ;)

Thanks!

RO3 (well I like this version),

I also am registered a Dem, but I don't see much difference in the way the republican controlled senate is handling money then when the dems controlled the senate. Politics is a generally corrupted function within a representative government (we are not a democracy more a republic but hey who is counting) especially one with an economic system like ours. Money talks. People who may make a positive impact are either pushed out of the way or don't have the money to fund their own campaigns. It is interesting to note that a majority of our representation is done by the richest few in our society so they aren't going to truly understand what it is like to not have money. Oh sure a few of them grew out of poverty and thus remember, but not enough.

All that being said, the point I was trying to get across is it isn't black and white. It is all very gray. As long as politicians sit on one side or the other, there will be very little end benefit to the majority of the people, it will always benefit the core constituency of the group in power. Hey they know who is voting for them.

Be sure that you will never hear a politician say we don't have a democracy, just like you will often hear them say that communism is a government system when in reality it is a financial system, you can actually have a democratic communist society. No I am not necessarily for this, but you probably get my point.

Steveberger, I couldn't have said it any better...

I also am registered a Dem, but I don't see much difference in the way the republican controlled senate is handling money then when the dems controlled the senate. Politics is a generally corrupted function within a representative government (we are not a democracy more a republic but hey who is counting) especially one with an economic system like ours. Money talks. People who may make a positive impact are either pushed out of the way or don't have the money to fund their own campaigns. It is interesting to note that a majority of our representation is done by the richest few in our society so they aren't going to truly understand what it is like to not have money. Oh sure a few of them grew out of poverty and thus remember, but not enough.

All that being said, the point I was trying to get across is it isn't black and white. It is all very gray. As long as politicians sit on one side or the other, there will be very little end benefit to the majority of the people, it will always benefit the core constituency of the group in power. Hey they know who is voting for them.

Be sure that you will never hear a politician say we don't have a democracy, just like you will often hear them say that communism is a government system when in reality it is a financial system, you can actually have a democratic communist society. No I am not necessarily for this, but you probably get my point.

Yes, it is interesting who we have as "representatives" of the people.

I also would like to clarify that I grew up in a foster home; not necessarily under-privileged, but middle class, where my foster dad was a crane operator and mom took care of us kids. He was a Native American - Flathead from Montana. She was a good ol' country woman from the border of North Dakota and Montana. They would be about 90 yrs old now, but passed away at 80, and were 55 when they took us in. I also have my real parents and two sets of step-parents and my in-laws. So I feel fortunate to have had a kind of exposure to a variety of ideologies that not many people have. And I feel proud of my achievements, most of all because they are mine. My wife and I both paid our way through college, bought our house, cars and trucks, and built a nice little nest egg for our future. We're both very proud of what we have done.

I hope this helps to explain my passion for what I believe.

No..you can keep your shovel Jax. You may need it to dig yourself out a hole!! :D


Yes, I've dug myself out of many holes...so I'll need that shovel. :)

I'm not one of the fortunate ones who have (or just about have) his house paid off, his vehicles paid off, and a large nest egg to smile at. I’m still working to get there, which may explain my disdain for those who sit happily with their major accomplishments without thinking that not everyone has it so good.

But hey…that’s just me. ;)

Where's that lock icon when you really need it? :)

lol.......LOL.............good one methodtim.....................................zero , dont you dare!!! :)

I'm not one of the fortunate ones who have (or just about have) his house paid off, his vehicles paid off, and a large nest egg to smile at. I’m still working to get there, which may explain my disdain for those who sit happily with their major accomplishments without thinking that not everyone has it so good.

Funny a Conservative should say this. Fact is, we earned it ourselves and if we could do it, so could you. I thought this was the Conservative mantra, but I guess Conservatives believe the cash should just trickle down to them in some other way. But that's just me.

BTW, we're just over 40 and plan to work another 15 years, so what are you waiting for? It takes fiscal discipline and living within your means. Maybe the government should try this. (Oh yeah, they did it in the '90's, but I digress!)

Funny a Conservative should say this. Fact is, we earned it ourselves and if we could do it, so could you. I thought this was the Conservative mantra, but I guess Conservatives believe the cash should just trickle down to them in some other way. But that's just me.

BTW, we're just over 40 and plan to work another 15 years, so what are you waiting for? It takes fiscal discipline and living within your means. Maybe the government should try this. (Oh yeah, they did it in the '90's, but I digress!)

OOOPS, RO3, OOPS :) ..................Indeed, some folks believe the "lesser" economic class is suppose to contribute to there well fare. "trickle" down economics was always just another way of saying "piss on the poor". i likeD reagan in many ways but he opened the door to a new generation of minority tax releif. the rich are the minority but they benefit the most. ive always considered it backward economics..........the majority of tax payers should receive the majority of "breaks" in order to stimulate the economy. to me its only common sense but what do i know? but we still are told the trickle down method works........yea sure, after about,oh lets see, 5-8 years!!! unreal. :rolleyes:

"trickle" down economics was always just another way of saying "piss on the poor".

I always laughed when I heard about "Trickle down economics." Now it makes me think of NASCAR...isn't Dick Trickle a driver? LOL. If you believe in trickle down economics, then first of all you must be the rich one, and if not, you're probably still waiting in the soup line with an empty cup!

<yawn>



;)

<yawn>



;)
******:D******

<yawn>
At least it's not nasty.

At least it's not nasty.

And nasty will catch my interest! :)

Just kidding... you guys are doing a good job of keeping this civil. I need to go back to my TV now to catch more of Fox News. Carry on.

And nasty will catch my interest! :)

Just kidding... you guys are doing a good job of keeping this civil. I need to go back to my TV now to catch more of Fox News. Carry on.
That T-Mac dude is a real crazy, probably an independent, I mean look at that face, how can he not be? Radical political type, crazy I tell you crazy. I bet he voted for some radical liberal with conservative ideals ;).



Is that nasty enough to get your attention? I mean with an avatar like that you know you have to get picked on ;).

That T-Mac dude is a real crazy, probably an independent, I mean look at that face, how can he not be? Radical political type, crazy I tell you crazy. I bet he voted for some radical liberal with conservative ideals ;).



Is that nasty enough to get your attention? I mean with an avatar like that you know you have to get picked on ;).

fox news??? nope, conservative..............the anchorman likes his scotch and is as conservative looking as it gets...........scotch, scotch, scotch..... :) :D

Funny a Conservative should say this. Fact is, we earned it ourselves and if we could do it, so could you. I thought this was the Conservative mantra, but I guess Conservatives believe the cash should just trickle down to them in some other way. But that's just me.

BTW, we're just over 40 and plan to work another 15 years, so what are you waiting for? It takes fiscal discipline and living within your means. Maybe the government should try this. (Oh yeah, they did it in the '90's, but I digress!)

Stereotypes are such a bad thing.

“Conservatives believe the cash should just trickle down to them in some other way”. That was (and still is) a democratic term for something they can’t understand. In any event, apparently it worked pretty well for you.

Some folks are still trying to get where you are, but if certain folks in the government have their way, it will be more difficult in the coming years to achieve it.

It’s unreal how folks give credit of the mid to late 90’s boom in economics to an administration, when in fact the majority of the boom had absolutely nothing to do with them.

Investing in the internet was a major reason why there was such a boom in the 90’s. Now, unless Al Gore DID invent the internet, their office had nothing to do with the boom.

Hey, I have no problem with those who have made their goals. God bless them. All I ask is that the government stays out of the way so the rest of us can get there too.

OOOPS, RO3, OOPS :) ..................Indeed, some folks believe the "lesser" economic class is suppose to contribute to there well fare. "trickle" down economics was always just another way of saying "piss on the poor". i likeD reagan in many ways but he opened the door to a new generation of minority tax releif. the rich are the minority but they benefit the most. ive always considered it backward economics..........the majority of tax payers should receive the majority of "breaks" in order to stimulate the economy. to me its only common sense but what do i know? but we still are told the trickle down method works........yea sure, after about,oh lets see, 5-8 years!!! unreal. :rolleyes:

Let’s talk about Welfare for a moment. A great plan by…the democrats, that did what? It kept a class of people dependent on the government for support. Wow, what a great idea. It keeps that same class of people voting for the democrats, so it served its purpose well.

Then of course the government is going to need some help taking care of their “constituents”, so they say “Hey, you guys that have worked hard and made a good living, you guys should cough up some of that money and help out these folks that we’ve now made dependent on us.”. Brilliant!

Now, if people that have made a good living for themselves should take care of those who have not, then there are obviously a few folks here that need to open their wallets and help out the less fortunate. And by the way, they should let the government decide how much to give because otherwise it would not be democratic…

Reminds me of AL Gore during his run for president. To paraphrase: “We have this lady in the audience who does not have enough money to pay for her prescriptions, so she has to collect aluminum cans. She came all the way out here in HER SON’S Winnebago.”

Good lord man. He was in office for the last 8 years and one, didn’t think somehow he could have done something while he was in office to help people like her, and two, if her sons drives a 100K vehicle, MAKE HIM PAY.

But it’s always some else’s fault, or a “republican conspiracy”. Jeesh.

Stereotypes are such a bad thing.

“Conservatives believe the cash should just trickle down to them in some other way”. That was (and still is) a democratic term for something they can’t understand. In any event, apparently it worked pretty well for you.

Some folks are still trying to get where you are, but if certain folks in the government have their way, it will be more difficult in the coming years to achieve it.

It’s unreal how folks give credit of the mid to late 90’s boom in economics to an administration, when in fact the majority of the boom had absolutely nothing to do with them.

Investing in the internet was a major reason why there was such a boom in the 90’s. Now, unless Al Gore DID invent the internet, their office had nothing to do with the boom.

Hey, I have no problem with those who have made their goals. God bless them. All I ask is that the government stays out of the way so the rest of us can get there too.

I also think bush sr deserves some credit for the "boom". he HAD to raise taxes to offset reagans massive deficit spending...........clinton was able to sit back and watch a surplus grow because of it.................unfortunately, jr has us back in the red again by listening to his reaganites.

Let’s talk about Welfare for a moment. A great plan by…the democrats, that did what? It kept a class of people dependent on the government for support. Wow, what a great idea. It keeps that same class of people voting for the democrats, so it served its purpose well.

Then of course the government is going to need some help taking care of their “constituents”, so they say “Hey, you guys that have worked hard and made a good living, you guys should cough up some of that money and help out these folks that we’ve now made dependent on us.”. Brilliant!

Now, if people that have made a good living for themselves should take care of those who have not, then there are obviously a few folks here that need to open their wallets and help out the less fortunate. And by the way, they should let the government decide how much to give because otherwise it would not be democratic…

Reminds me of AL Gore during his run for president. To paraphrase: “We have this lady in the audience who does not have enough money to pay for her prescriptions, so she has to collect aluminum cans. She came all the way out here in HER SON’S Winnebago.”

Good lord man. He was in office for the last 8 years and one, didn’t think somehow he could have done something while he was in office to help people like her, and two, if her sons drives a 100K vehicle, MAKE HIM PAY.

But it’s always some else’s fault, or a “republican conspiracy”. Jeesh.

For sure, welfare programs are a crap shoot. for years minorities were mistreated, even enslaved in this country. i know its not pretty but unfortunately its just part of the history of this country. with discrimination etc,the govt had to figure out a way to keep many people from going hungry and being homeless. maybe two wrongs dont make a right. you make some good points in this area. but remember, welfare reform was headed up by clinton.

I also think bush sr deserves some credit for the "boom". he HAD to raise taxes to offset reagans massive deficit spending...........clinton was able to sit back and watch a surplus grow because of it.................unfortunately, jr has us back in the red again by listening to his reaganites.

I served in the military during President Reagan, so I have to admit I still love the man to this day, no matter what is said about him. Just about anyone who served under him will likely same the same, so I don't have much else to say about him. :)

Our current president had to do something drastic after 9/11 so that the folks that committed the atrocity could not achieve one of their stated goals: Hurt our economy.

For better or worse, our economy could be in a much worse state today.

I served in the military during President Reagan, so I have to admit I still love the man to this day, no matter what is said about him. Just about anyone who served under him will likely same the same, so I don't have much else to say about him. :)

Our current president had to do something drastic after 9/11 so that the folks that committed the atrocity could not achieve one of their stated goals: Hurt our economy.

For better or worse, our economy could be in a much worse state today.
don't get me wrong, reagan did things im proud of...........he made us feel proud again, he surpassed even kennedy by standing up to the "evil empire" which justified "some" of his spending....hey, no doubt, he helped americans find there pride again after years of crap. maybe no other president has done that better at the most needed time.

If more people drank (in moderation, of course) and watched classic films such as 'Anchorman', we wouldn't be having these discussions. We'd be talking about cologne and the origin of the name "San Diego". :D

(*If you haven't seen this movie, you need to see it NOW to understand the above. You can thank me later.)

Quote for the day:
"Some people are like slinkies - they seem useless but they still make you smile when you push them down a flight of stairs."

All for now... back to CNN.

don't get me wrong, reagan did things im proud of...........he made us feel proud again, he surpassed even kennedy by standing up to the "evil empire" which justified "some" of his spending....hey, no doubt, he helped americans find there pride again after years of crap. maybe no other president has done that better at the most needed time.


With this, my friend, we can completely agree. :)

When I first started in this thread I mentioned that I feel our country needs both liberal and conservatives to keep a balance. I feel our discussion here proves that.

In the end, I feel neither side is without sin. It's up to us to try and keep our elected officials in line.

The beauty of this discussion proves that in the end we can find common ground on some issues, but I think we can all agree that we live in one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen, in spite of our flaws.

I’ve found this thread to be enjoyable, and the fact that it never got out of hand is a testament to the quality of people that we have here.

I mean we’re obviously pretty sharp…we bought Ridgelines! :D

Take care.

With this, my friend, we can completely agree. :)

When I first started in this thread I mentioned that I feel our country needs both liberal and conservatives to keep a balance. I feel our discussion here proves that.

In the end, I feel neither side is without sin. It's up to us to try and keep our elected officials in line.

The beauty of this discussion proves that in the end we can find common ground on some issues, but I think we can all agree that we live in one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen, in spite of our flaws.

I’ve found this thread to be enjoyable, and the fact that it never got out of hand is a testament to the quality of people that we have here.

I mean we’re obviously pretty sharp…we bought Ridgelines! :D

Take care.

Nicely said Jax. Nicely said!!:p

I just don't know where to begin. Welfare is a good system gone bad. The concept is good the implementation is poor. Welfare should not be about distributing money, it should be about making programs and services available to those in need. We aren't going to say how hard a few people work to get their money, the richest 5% of people do very little work these days, unless you include their lobbying to make sure they keep more of their money. America is behind most other industrialized countries when it comes to providing health care (do not mistake this with us being better than most in the health care we are able to provide), we are behind when it comes to education, and we are behind in quality of life per person when it comes to time off. The only thing we are ahead in is the cost of living and the amount that the average person makes. We are an extremely expensive country to live in. Instead of giving people money, fix programs like health care, education (including adult education), and the food stamp system. Make it mandatory for anyone who is on welfare to attend education sessions to learn the skills necessary to get a job. And as radical as this seems, if you are on welfare and have another child, that child should be removed from your home. Most other industrialized nations of our level provide health care and basic programs for everyone. I am tired of paying hundreds of dollars each month to have insurance that I personally don't need but to which someone else could very much use. To go along with this you also must cap lawsuits so that you only recover what you lose. The $250k thing isn't viable, but making a real effort to find out what someone will have to pay to maintain a quality of life they have lost should be. If that is $1million then so be it, if it is $100k then so be it also.

Now who do I blame this on? The government as a whole. This isn't a problem that liberals or the conservatives created, it is one they created together. And as long as people continue to spout off one party line or the other, it isn't going to get fixed. Neither side is right all the time, in fact I will say that neither side is even right most of the time. They have fallen too far into the game to even realize they are affecting real people. We are all merely pawns in their maneuvering.

Anyway, I am done with this for now, I am going back out to look at my truck and think about making it shiny again (it really needs a wash).

And as radical as this seems, if you are on welfare and have another child, that child should be removed from your home.I agree that something should be done to prevent the enlargement of welfare families. I don't know if removing the child is the answer but something definitely needs to be done to discourage having babies on the taxpayer's dime. This is a pet peeve of mine and I don't know why we put up with it, no matter which political party/parties we support.

I called my wife at work and our conversation went like this: Hey its me.....I know that....I have a question......yes.....Am I a liberal or a conservative?.....Youre an Idiot.....thanks dear, bye.....bye.....

I called my wife at work and our conversation went like this: Hey its me.....I know that....I have a question......yes.....Am I a liberal or a conservative?.....Youre an Idiot.....thanks dear, bye.....bye.....

That means you're a liberal. ;)

I called my wife at work and our conversation went like this: Hey its me.....I know that....I have a question......yes.....Am I a liberal or a conservative?.....Youre an Idiot.....thanks dear, bye.....bye.....
ROTFLMAO. :D

That means you're a liberal. ;)


lol...lol..... :D here we go...........this thread is gonna heat back up!!!! :D :D

"As Mac computer user, I see that I'm now involved in two groups of people who are passionate about, and extremely loyal to, the companies that they choose to support. "

Nice signature from one Mac user to another. :D

I just don't know where to begin. Welfare is a good system gone bad. The concept is good the implementation is poor. Welfare should not be about distributing money, it should be about making programs and services available to those in need. We aren't going to say how hard a few people work to get their money, the richest 5% of people do very little work these days, unless you include their lobbying to make sure they keep more of their money. America is behind most other industrialized countries when it comes to providing health care (do not mistake this with us being better than most in the health care we are able to provide), we are behind when it comes to education, and we are behind in quality of life per person when it comes to time off. The only thing we are ahead in is the cost of living and the amount that the average person makes. We are an extremely expensive country to live in. Instead of giving people money, fix programs like health care, education (including adult education), and the food stamp system. Make it mandatory for anyone who is on welfare to attend education sessions to learn the skills necessary to get a job. And as radical as this seems, if you are on welfare and have another child, that child should be removed from your home. Most other industrialized nations of our level provide health care and basic programs for everyone. I am tired of paying hundreds of dollars each month to have insurance that I personally don't need but to which someone else could very much use. To go along with this you also must cap lawsuits so that you only recover what you lose. The $250k thing isn't viable, but making a real effort to find out what someone will have to pay to maintain a quality of life they have lost should be. If that is $1million then so be it, if it is $100k then so be it also.

Now who do I blame this on? The government as a whole. This isn't a problem that liberals or the conservatives created, it is one they created together. And as long as people continue to spout off one party line or the other, it isn't going to get fixed. Neither side is right all the time, in fact I will say that neither side is even right most of the time. They have fallen too far into the game to even realize they are affecting real people. We are all merely pawns in their maneuvering.

Anyway, I am done with this for now, I am going back out to look at my truck and think about making it shiny again (it really needs a wash).

How ironic. Where you an I disagreed on several issues, I can't really see much in your message that I don't agree with in some form or another.

And I really agree about getting my truck shiny again...but that darn storm is going to be around this weekend, so I'll probably have to wait. :(

Take care.

Nicely said Jax. Nicely said!!:p

Thank you, Ma'am. :o

I called my wife at work and our conversation went like this: Hey its me.....I know that....I have a question......yes.....Am I a liberal or a conservative?.....Youre an Idiot.....thanks dear, bye.....bye.....

That was great! :)

Thank you, Ma'am. :o
Your welcome sir!!:p

Nice signature from one Mac user to another. :D
Thanks! I'd like to get a new laptop but I may wait until the MacTels go into production.

I think I am going to do the same (wait for the MacTels to arrive before getting a new laptop). I will keep my 1st gen dual 2 GHz G5 for a while - maybe retire her to server duty.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Politics?????? :eek: Now where is the Religion thread? :D