Well American seems to have the dumbest President, G.W Bush Jnr, in History.
www.trumpfiresbush.com
www.gwjokes.com
But Surprisingly he can speak better Spanish than English.
Dubba, Dubba, Dubya B.
Moderators: Rebuild/OT Moderators, Board Staff
- Timesplitter 01
- Nerv Scientist
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
- Location: In the deepest pits of he
Dubba, Dubba, Dubya B.
Last edited by Timesplitter 01 on Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have too much anime, yet it's not enough. Anime Addict, if it were a drug; I'd be dead.
:shock:
Well atleast I didn't vote for him... :P
Well atleast I didn't vote for him... :P
"I say Evamonkey did it himself. After seeing that Titus had more Eva images than him, he was driven into a fit of jealousy that led him to set this up in the hope of infecting everyone with a trojan that automatically rooted through their harddrives and sending him any images he didnt already have." - Space Penis
"some of the most intelligent people I know are complete fuck ups, and some of the less intelligent ones are incredibly interesting and promising." - The Eva Monkey
"Titus I love you!" - Zugzwang
"TITUS + ADSL = Disaster" - Timesplitter 01
"some of the most intelligent people I know are complete fuck ups, and some of the less intelligent ones are incredibly interesting and promising." - The Eva Monkey
"Titus I love you!" - Zugzwang
"TITUS + ADSL = Disaster" - Timesplitter 01
- Timesplitter 01
- Nerv Scientist
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
- Location: In the deepest pits of he
- akda1ndaonly1
- Adam
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Aug 19, 2005
- Location: A small city in Californi
Lol, my point exactly, bush is not my problem. I no amercan!
"I say Evamonkey did it himself. After seeing that Titus had more Eva images than him, he was driven into a fit of jealousy that led him to set this up in the hope of infecting everyone with a trojan that automatically rooted through their harddrives and sending him any images he didnt already have." - Space Penis
"some of the most intelligent people I know are complete fuck ups, and some of the less intelligent ones are incredibly interesting and promising." - The Eva Monkey
"Titus I love you!" - Zugzwang
"TITUS + ADSL = Disaster" - Timesplitter 01
"some of the most intelligent people I know are complete fuck ups, and some of the less intelligent ones are incredibly interesting and promising." - The Eva Monkey
"Titus I love you!" - Zugzwang
"TITUS + ADSL = Disaster" - Timesplitter 01
- Timesplitter 01
- Nerv Scientist
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
- Location: In the deepest pits of he
Timesplitter 01 wrote:We he is a problem. He is spreading his stupidity all over the planet.
D: Try being American.
It hurts to watch him on TV.
~Shnooks~
http://profile.xfire.com/shnooks
http://profile.xfire.com/shnooks
Hexon.Arq wrote:I like persons, but did I ever mention that I hate people?
I can so agree with that statement.
The annuals of time will probably list him as one of the worst presidents in American history. He took a booming economy and ran it into the ground (except for his precious oil industry and Haliburton). He started a war over false pretences. And he is an absolute failure at foriegn policy. Sadly it took a second term for a lot of Americans to figure this out. The only comfort I have is that neither I or my state voted for him both times he ran.But he will be remembered more so than many presidents before him.
EVANGERIONANIME is stupid
Come Join the Sakaki Fan Club!
Remember you're on Evageeks, where preset personal delusions outweigh reality.
Come Join the Sakaki Fan Club!
Remember you're on Evageeks, where preset personal delusions outweigh reality.
- Timesplitter 01
- Nerv Scientist
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
- Location: In the deepest pits of he
I voted for Bush, twice. Then I became a Libertarian after I realized none of the Republican rhetoric about conservatism and limited government would come true. The Democrats have always been worse, though, especially after Clinton destroyed any ideological coherency they might have had in favor of opinion polls.
Repeat after me.
The US executive branch does not affect or effect major economic trends.
What affects the economy is the end of a major stock valuation bubble: the "dot-com" era, perhaps you've heard of it?
If you're referring to the fact that gas prices have risen in this country, that's what's called a free market. At these price levels, the oil companies are finally starting to invest in infrastructure repairs and expansions that they should have decades ago, so that they can actually meet demand.
Want to make gas prices go down? Drive less.
As for Halliburton, corruption goes much farther than the Bush administration or the Republicans. Basically, the government has decided that most actions should be sent to private contractors wherever possible, but the problem is that private industry and the free market aren't really built for the kind of logistical nightmares like feeding an entire army (Halliburton's job in Iraq, for instance). So you end up with the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us about, and both major parties are heavily invested in its continuance.
My only comfort is that the Iraq war ended a decade of sanctions that did infinitely more damage to the people of that country than anything we've done.
As for foreign policy, there's a lot more going on than what you see in the news, for instance, the North Korea disarmament talks. Unfortunately the news on this country depends on simple dramas of confrontation to sell airtime and ads. That's also part of why serious third-party candidates, like the Libertarian bid for president, get no airtime.
And so, in conclusion:
Vote the party of principle -- Vote Libertarian [url]http://www.lp.org/[/url]
Hunter21 wrote:The annals of time will probably list him as one of the worst presidents in American history. He took a booming economy and ran it into the ground
Repeat after me.
The US executive branch does not affect or effect major economic trends.
What affects the economy is the end of a major stock valuation bubble: the "dot-com" era, perhaps you've heard of it?
(except for his precious oil industry and Haliburton)
If you're referring to the fact that gas prices have risen in this country, that's what's called a free market. At these price levels, the oil companies are finally starting to invest in infrastructure repairs and expansions that they should have decades ago, so that they can actually meet demand.
Want to make gas prices go down? Drive less.
As for Halliburton, corruption goes much farther than the Bush administration or the Republicans. Basically, the government has decided that most actions should be sent to private contractors wherever possible, but the problem is that private industry and the free market aren't really built for the kind of logistical nightmares like feeding an entire army (Halliburton's job in Iraq, for instance). So you end up with the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us about, and both major parties are heavily invested in its continuance.
He started a war over false pretences. And he is an absolute failure at foriegn policy. Sadly it took a second term for a lot of Americans to figure this out. The only comfort I have is that neither I or my state voted for him both times he ran.
My only comfort is that the Iraq war ended a decade of sanctions that did infinitely more damage to the people of that country than anything we've done.
As for foreign policy, there's a lot more going on than what you see in the news, for instance, the North Korea disarmament talks. Unfortunately the news on this country depends on simple dramas of confrontation to sell airtime and ads. That's also part of why serious third-party candidates, like the Libertarian bid for president, get no airtime.
And so, in conclusion:
Vote the party of principle -- Vote Libertarian [url]http://www.lp.org/[/url]
Repeat after me.
The US executive branch does not affect or effect major economic trends.
What affects the economy is the end of a major stock valuation bubble: the "dot-com" era, perhaps you've heard of it?
You sound like a republican economics teacher I had in college. I didn't believe that hogwash then and I don't believe it now. Look at the history of our country and notice that a change in the presidency often resulted in a change in our economy.
If you're referring to the fact that gas prices have risen in this country, that's what's called a free market. At these price levels, the oil companies are finally starting to invest in infrastructure repairs and expansions that they should have decades ago, so that they can actually meet demand.
I wasn't referring to gas prices, I was refering to how the oil industry has posted record quarterly gains over the last four quarters while at the same time saying they are not profiting on this either.
Kind of slighty the other five nations involved in this, aren't you? America was not alone in this and China had more to do with getting Kim Jong-il to the table than America did. Then again the reason this story doesn't get much air time on the news may be from past history. Kim Jong-il has a history of signing treaties and then reneging on them as he pleases. The media is most likely adopting a "We will believe it when we see it" stance on this.As for foreign policy, there's a lot more going on than what you see in the news, for instance, the North Korea disarmament talks
And as for the media, everyone knows it is controlled by marketing and politics. What you said is no surprise to anyone. But thanks to this little thing called the Internet you can now get many different view points. World news is best gotten from the world, not from just one countries stance on it.
And so, in conclusion:
Vote the party of principle -- Vote Libertarian
Trading one evil for another. (This has nothing to do with your party. I say this about all political parties)
I have always believed in the One Vote, One Voice theory. By siding with a party you give up your voice and let its leader speak for you. I prefer to speak for myself and choose who I want to vote for, not who I am told to. I have not voted a straight party ticket in my life and I have even written in names instead of the choices I was given. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Indepents, Grassroots, Green, Libertarian, and Reform parties to date. People belonging to Parties say I am throwing away my vote by not siding with them but I would rather throw away my vote than to not have my voice heard. And the truth of all parties is the value of it leaders are what matters, the followers mean nothing
EVANGERIONANIME is stupid
Come Join the Sakaki Fan Club!
Remember you're on Evageeks, where preset personal delusions outweigh reality.
Come Join the Sakaki Fan Club!
Remember you're on Evageeks, where preset personal delusions outweigh reality.
- Mr. Tines
- Administrator
- Age: 66
- Posts: 21376
- Joined: Nov 23, 2004
- Location: This sceptered isle.
- Gender: Male
- Contact:
Shall we move the politics elsewhere? Somewhere where it's rather more on topic, perhaps, such as David Brin's (yes, the SF writer) blog, where he's dealing with just this topic.
Reminder: Play nicely <<>> My vanity publishing:- NGE|blog|Photos|retro-blog|Fanfics &c.|MAL|𝕏|🐸|🦣
Avatar: art deco Asuka
Avatar: art deco Asuka
- Timesplitter 01
- Nerv Scientist
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
- Location: In the deepest pits of he
drinian wrote:Want to make gas prices go down? Drive less.
Yes it will make it go down but when everyone starts to see that the price is going down they will just fuel up with more gas ( petrol) and the prices will go up again
As much I want gas (petrol) prices to go down, they won’t. They will go down but not to the same levels as we are used to. In today’s world we just have to face that we are going to have to pay more for fuel than we have in the past decade or so. Look it at this way, at least this is not exactly like the 1970's were fuel prices jumped dramatically (and I do mean dramatically).
The reason for the gas (petrol) prices not going down to the same levels as before is because the amount of oil that is left in the planet is decreasing at a rapid rate. The amount of oil that was pumped (barrels per day) out of the earth reached its peak in 2003 and it has dropped ever since then.
President Bush just added fuel to the proverbial fire so to speak. He just speed up the price increase for his and the other oil companies benefit, as we all know most of the congressmen/woman and senators have business interests before the interests of the citizens of America, but the increase was going to come sooner rather than later.
Future generations will have to use other fuel to power there economies because as we all know all the fossil fuels (eg coal, oil , etc) are a limited resource. And don’t expect the price of coal to come down either because it is a close substitute of oil and is also in high demand.
The human race will have to turn to other fuels like sunlight, hydrogen, etc to run our economies because in the long run we will probably never see the price per barrel of oil drop below US$55 ever again.
If you want to save money you could drive less and catch public transport but in the long run you might want to see if you can covert your car to another source of fuel or the government will most likely allow the gas (petrol) companies to increase their ethanol content in the cars to lower the price. However this will only save you a small amount of money.
The major problem with cars in America and probably all over the world is that they are not fuel efficient. Why does a normal person living in the city need a 4WD? Its just fucking stupid.
Statistics have shown that 4WD's are not only the fuel guzzlers but also are involved in more fatal accidents. I mean this one time I saw a bus reverse into a 4WD ( I was there in person) and guess you got the only damage? It was the bus and it had a big dent on it, where as the 4WD had a few minor scratches on it. Households in the city shouldn’t have access to 4WD and they should be considering fuel efficient alternatives. Plus if you get hit by a 4WD you might as well say bye-bye to your life as illustrated above.
I did a quick observational study, while I was walking home one day last year, and I saw 30 4WD pass me in the space of 15 mins (and yes this is in a suburban area). Of those 30 4WD's, 27 of the drivers were females and only 3 were male.
America you want a way to save money on fuel?
Then find a cheaper fuel alternate (which are available in today’s' world), and dump your 4WD and SUV's and pick up a fuel efficient car today.
IF your holding you breath for the fuel prices to go back the normal price from a couple years back then you are going to be dead because it all likely hood it will never go down to that price unless the government subsidies it heavily or the government pulls some oil out of their ass.
At the fuel price peak the Australian government was racking in AUS 55cents per litre of petrol (and the price was $1.30-$1.35). That’s because we have a "tax on a tax", yes that’s right two taxes on petrol, on petrol.
In my eyes most of the western governments are responsible for the high prices especially G.W Bush.
Unfortunately as I said earlier the prices rises that we are seen now were going to happen sooner rather than later because oil is a scarce resource and we were going to have to start living without oil sooner rather than later.
Thats a fact
I have too much anime, yet it's not enough. Anime Addict, if it were a drug; I'd be dead.
I guess I'll get back into this, I'd rather not see misperceptions out there. *sigh* Luckily, there's not too much wrong, since in the end we're nearly saying the same thing...
By the way, you can say gas or petrol. We're literate enough here to know both.
See: free market and the rise of sales of fuel-efficient cars in America these past few months.
Peak oil may or may not be an accurate concept, but this simply isn't true. Now that the cost per barrel has gone up, a lot of new, more expensive ways of obtaining oil have gained new interest. For instance, there are vast tar fields in Canada that have been too expensive to use at $20 or $30 a barrel that are seeing a lot of investment now.
How can you say this? What role does the government have in setting fuel prices, other than the taxes they add on top of it and manipulating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? (And manipulating the SPR can only make prices temporarily go down...)
Coal is actually incredibly cheap in America because we hold much of the world's proven reserves. We're actually known as the "Saudi Arabia of coal."
Truth be told, we need to see the revival of nuclear fission in America. Barring some sort of technological quantum leap, it's the only way to power the so-called "hydrogen economy."
Ethanol as a fuel additive to gasoline is subsidized heavily by the federal government in the US. This is because it is not cheaper or more efficient to produce at all -- in fact, the major reason for its existence is basically to legally bribe corn farmers in the Midwest states for votes. So, not only does it not make filling up your tank cheaper, it actually raises taxes as well.
I'm going to ignore your rant about SUVs because it should be common sense to anyone by now that SUVs are useless for most people.
The only one I can think of off of the top of my head is diesel, or possibly biodiesel in the future. What were you thinking of?
You still haven't given me one good reason why, so I'll throw a few out there:
1) The government could set higher miles-per-gallon (fuel mileage) standards. Maybe not a bad idea.
2) The government could remove fuel taxes. Of course, then all of the roads would have to be paid for in some other way, so this is probably a bad idea.
3) The government could subsidize fuel prices. This makes even less sense, since you're still paying for it through taxes and you're adding in a new level of bureacracy that will cost more money.
4) The government (and private companies) could invest in research towards technology that will move the debate away from oil entirely. This is happening.
So what exactly are you getting at?
By the way, you can say gas or petrol. We're literate enough here to know both.
Timesplitter 01 wrote:Yes it will make it go down but when everyone starts to see that the price is going down they will just fuel up with more gas ( petrol) and the prices will go up again
See: free market and the rise of sales of fuel-efficient cars in America these past few months.
The amount of oil that was pumped (barrels per day) out of the earth reached its peak in 2003 and it has dropped ever since then.
Peak oil may or may not be an accurate concept, but this simply isn't true. Now that the cost per barrel has gone up, a lot of new, more expensive ways of obtaining oil have gained new interest. For instance, there are vast tar fields in Canada that have been too expensive to use at $20 or $30 a barrel that are seeing a lot of investment now.
President Bush just added fuel to the proverbial fire so to speak. He just speed up the price increase for his and the other oil companies benefit...
How can you say this? What role does the government have in setting fuel prices, other than the taxes they add on top of it and manipulating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? (And manipulating the SPR can only make prices temporarily go down...)
And don’t expect the price of coal to come down either because it is a close substitute of oil and is also in high demand.
Coal is actually incredibly cheap in America because we hold much of the world's proven reserves. We're actually known as the "Saudi Arabia of coal."
The human race will have to turn to other fuels like sunlight, hydrogen, etc to run our economies because in the long run we will probably never see the price per barrel of oil drop below US$55 ever again.
Truth be told, we need to see the revival of nuclear fission in America. Barring some sort of technological quantum leap, it's the only way to power the so-called "hydrogen economy."
(petrol) companies to increase their ethanol content in the cars to lower the price. However this will only save you a small amount of money.
Ethanol as a fuel additive to gasoline is subsidized heavily by the federal government in the US. This is because it is not cheaper or more efficient to produce at all -- in fact, the major reason for its existence is basically to legally bribe corn farmers in the Midwest states for votes. So, not only does it not make filling up your tank cheaper, it actually raises taxes as well.
I'm going to ignore your rant about SUVs because it should be common sense to anyone by now that SUVs are useless for most people.
Then find a cheaper fuel alternate (which are available in today’s' world)
The only one I can think of off of the top of my head is diesel, or possibly biodiesel in the future. What were you thinking of?
In my eyes most of the western governments are responsible for the high prices especially G.W Bush.
You still haven't given me one good reason why, so I'll throw a few out there:
1) The government could set higher miles-per-gallon (fuel mileage) standards. Maybe not a bad idea.
2) The government could remove fuel taxes. Of course, then all of the roads would have to be paid for in some other way, so this is probably a bad idea.
3) The government could subsidize fuel prices. This makes even less sense, since you're still paying for it through taxes and you're adding in a new level of bureacracy that will cost more money.
4) The government (and private companies) could invest in research towards technology that will move the debate away from oil entirely. This is happening.
So what exactly are you getting at?
- Timesplitter 01
- Nerv Scientist
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
- Location: In the deepest pits of he
In order of of your reply
1) No real comment on this, seen as I dont have access to the reports your talking about
2) I am not talking about huge drops :roll:
3) What I mean by this statement
Is that by going to war in Iraq he has added the pressure on the fuel resources and hence prices.
His family is or was invloved in the oil industry were they not and they would benefit from a rise in price. I will get back with a quote outlining some facts
4) Probably in america it is cheap, but look outside
5) I think I pointed this out a number of times :roll:
6)Actually in Australia it is illegal to add ethanol to the fuel, I will find that piece of legilsation for you when I have the time. But the government is trying to convince use to change our minds, we will if some scientific tests are carried out in th long term.
7) why do you ask the same question twice?
8 ) I will comment on this one when I have the time later
1) No real comment on this, seen as I dont have access to the reports your talking about
2) I am not talking about huge drops :roll:
3) What I mean by this statement
President Bush just added fuel to the proverbial fire so to speak.
Is that by going to war in Iraq he has added the pressure on the fuel resources and hence prices.
He just speed up the price increase for his and the other oil companies benefit...
His family is or was invloved in the oil industry were they not and they would benefit from a rise in price. I will get back with a quote outlining some facts
4) Probably in america it is cheap, but look outside
5) I think I pointed this out a number of times :roll:
6)Actually in Australia it is illegal to add ethanol to the fuel, I will find that piece of legilsation for you when I have the time. But the government is trying to convince use to change our minds, we will if some scientific tests are carried out in th long term.
7) why do you ask the same question twice?
8 ) I will comment on this one when I have the time later
I have too much anime, yet it's not enough. Anime Addict, if it were a drug; I'd be dead.
Yay, politics!
First off, the Americans shouldn't complain about high fuel prices. In Sweden we pay around 11 SEK (US$ 1.6 ) per litre of gas right now, which is a good example of how US politics have an direct impact on our lives.
Secondly, Mr. Bush Jr. is stupid. I've seen the argument "How can he be stupid, he went to Yale University!" countless of times, and I'm quite sick of it now. It is commonly believed (in Sweden at least) that the average IQ of the americans is quite low. W and the people that (almost) elected him hasn't really made us change our minds about that.
I'll be sure to post more in this thread later.
First off, the Americans shouldn't complain about high fuel prices. In Sweden we pay around 11 SEK (US$ 1.6 ) per litre of gas right now, which is a good example of how US politics have an direct impact on our lives.
Secondly, Mr. Bush Jr. is stupid. I've seen the argument "How can he be stupid, he went to Yale University!" countless of times, and I'm quite sick of it now. It is commonly believed (in Sweden at least) that the average IQ of the americans is quite low. W and the people that (almost) elected him hasn't really made us change our minds about that.
I'll be sure to post more in this thread later.
Asuka > Rei
- Eternal Yamcha
- Ramiel
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Jul 28, 2005
- Location: Beertown (Portland), Oreg
- Contact:
Alright, just to start this off... By all records, I am a Left Wing... In other words, a liberal. I have taken a couple political alignment tests, all have been liberal, one said that I was almost a radical liberal.
I feel the need to respond to this. Are you just saying that because Clinton had sexual affairs with a woman other than his wife? Please tell me you're not saying that. This part isn't directed at you, rather, I need to vent some pent up rage towards this...
One of the biggest attacks that Republicans, or Conservatives, have against Democrats is that Clinton had relations with a woman other than his wife. Yes yes, I know this is bad, I know that it doesn't reflect well on America and the sanctity of marriage. Let me just say this... Marriage isn't nearly as sacred as it use to be. Face the facts. I HATE IT when right wings bitch about Clinton and they constantly throw the fact that he had relations with another woman other than his wife. It's old. It's tried. Get something new. Also, I'm sure America's high divorce rates really reflect well on us.
I don't know you, but I have a strong feeling that our principles are different. So how is your party the party of principle? Just vote for whoever you want.
Alright, I didn't want to go through hours upon hours of research looking up economical trends of the US in the last 200+ years. So, I just took a look at the trusty Stock Market, Dow Jones industrical averages, during Clinton and G.W. Bush's terms. I also took a look at past indexes since 1895 as well.
Here is the 1990-1999 timeline of the Dow Jones index.
1990-199
And here is the 2000-2003 (2004 not updated yet?) timeline of the Dow Jones Index.
2000-2003
I'd like to point out a few interesting things that affected the market though. During the 90's we did have the "Dot-Com Bubble" basically, the internet was a new company that people could invest in. Unfortunately, I don't know much about other attributing factors to a rise in both the economy and stock market during that period. It probably helped that war wasn't really an issue during Clinton's time.
Note that during the 2000 elections, the stock market became shakey. That's more than likely due to the fact we had no idea who would win. Then Bush was declared the winner, though he was the winner, things stayed highly voliatile though. He had erratic jumps and falls all the time, unlike the stability of the Clinton administration.
Then 9/11 happened and ruined the stock market for a while. The next big drop, I think, was the burst of the dot-com bubble. Then we had a period of growth towards the end of 2003 and it seems to have stayed there ever since. Since it seems like we're at the same spot we were around the end of 2003.
It'd be easy to point out G.W. Bush's relation with the drop of the economy in the US. I personally believe he is at some fault there... But the stock market and the economy are very psychologically ran. Whenever war seemed to loom on the horizon (yes, even WWII) the stock market suffered. The Cuban Missile crisis also added for a level of insecurity that was caused by the fear of war.
I also noted that, atleast, the stock market never really seemed to grow or drop during a change in the presidency, since the trends were set in place long before that happened.
I found this interesting. I was in a discussion with a friend about alt. energy resources we have. If I remember correctly, he said that to use hydrogen as a alt. energy resource, we'd still need to consume oil to mine the necessary components to use hydrogen. No, it's not as simple as filling your car tank with water.
How come I doubt this? Or am I misinformed in believing that 4WDs and Hummers (Not H2s, the original Hummers) are different? The standard SUV and 4WD, in America atleast, would not suffer little scratches from being hit by a bus, while the bus suffered a dent. Then again, I guess it does depend on how the bus backed into it and other factors, but it doesn't seem believable that a 4WD can take a hit from a bus. Now, to be specific, a Hummer might... Those things are real beasts.
I heard something about vegetable oil. I hear restaurants want to get rid of huge quantities of the stuff for free, or they will pay you. All you need to do is get a modification to your engine, which people can do, to make it run off of vegetable oil as well. This modification costs $1000 USD, but considering the fact that you will not be buying normal gasoline for a while (if you're smart) and that you COULD get paid to take care of the vegetable oil, definately makes it worthwhile. Not to mention, I hear that driving behind a vegetable oil vehicle is wonderful, since it smells like someone is cooking something... Apparently.
I think Peak Oil is a pretty accurate concept. I believe that if it hasn't happened, it will in the next couple years. Also, if we drill Canada and Alaska, I will be beyond pissed. We don't need to, we need to start shifting towards a different energy source... Now.
The US government can do very little aside from what you mentioned. The other thing we could do is try to pressure the oil companies to lower prices... But we all know how effective that probably would be.
Intelligence and common sense are different things... Besides, America has some of, if not, the best colleges and universities in the world. We have a lot of people pursuing a post-high school education. I could go on and on but I am running on empty. Needless to say, that statement sounds sort of arrogant.
Bush wasn't almost re-elected, he was re-elected. I still hold amnosity towards Southern Ohio for that.
I'm done, I'll say more when it is needed.[/url]
drinian - The Democrats have always been worse, though, especially after Clinton destroyed any ideological coherency they might have had in favor of opinion polls.
I feel the need to respond to this. Are you just saying that because Clinton had sexual affairs with a woman other than his wife? Please tell me you're not saying that. This part isn't directed at you, rather, I need to vent some pent up rage towards this...
One of the biggest attacks that Republicans, or Conservatives, have against Democrats is that Clinton had relations with a woman other than his wife. Yes yes, I know this is bad, I know that it doesn't reflect well on America and the sanctity of marriage. Let me just say this... Marriage isn't nearly as sacred as it use to be. Face the facts. I HATE IT when right wings bitch about Clinton and they constantly throw the fact that he had relations with another woman other than his wife. It's old. It's tried. Get something new. Also, I'm sure America's high divorce rates really reflect well on us.
And so, in conclusion:
Vote the party of principle -- Vote Libertarian http://www.lp.org/
I don't know you, but I have a strong feeling that our principles are different. So how is your party the party of principle? Just vote for whoever you want.
Hunter21 - You sound like a republican economics teacher I had in college. I didn't believe that hogwash then and I don't believe it now. Look at the history of our country and notice that a change in the presidency often resulted in a change in our economy.
Alright, I didn't want to go through hours upon hours of research looking up economical trends of the US in the last 200+ years. So, I just took a look at the trusty Stock Market, Dow Jones industrical averages, during Clinton and G.W. Bush's terms. I also took a look at past indexes since 1895 as well.
Here is the 1990-1999 timeline of the Dow Jones index.
1990-199
And here is the 2000-2003 (2004 not updated yet?) timeline of the Dow Jones Index.
2000-2003
I'd like to point out a few interesting things that affected the market though. During the 90's we did have the "Dot-Com Bubble" basically, the internet was a new company that people could invest in. Unfortunately, I don't know much about other attributing factors to a rise in both the economy and stock market during that period. It probably helped that war wasn't really an issue during Clinton's time.
Note that during the 2000 elections, the stock market became shakey. That's more than likely due to the fact we had no idea who would win. Then Bush was declared the winner, though he was the winner, things stayed highly voliatile though. He had erratic jumps and falls all the time, unlike the stability of the Clinton administration.
Then 9/11 happened and ruined the stock market for a while. The next big drop, I think, was the burst of the dot-com bubble. Then we had a period of growth towards the end of 2003 and it seems to have stayed there ever since. Since it seems like we're at the same spot we were around the end of 2003.
It'd be easy to point out G.W. Bush's relation with the drop of the economy in the US. I personally believe he is at some fault there... But the stock market and the economy are very psychologically ran. Whenever war seemed to loom on the horizon (yes, even WWII) the stock market suffered. The Cuban Missile crisis also added for a level of insecurity that was caused by the fear of war.
I also noted that, atleast, the stock market never really seemed to grow or drop during a change in the presidency, since the trends were set in place long before that happened.
The human race will have to turn to other fuels like sunlight, hydrogen, etc
I found this interesting. I was in a discussion with a friend about alt. energy resources we have. If I remember correctly, he said that to use hydrogen as a alt. energy resource, we'd still need to consume oil to mine the necessary components to use hydrogen. No, it's not as simple as filling your car tank with water.
I mean this one time I saw a bus reverse into a 4WD ( I was there in person) and guess you got the only damage? It was the bus and it had a big dent on it, where as the 4WD had a few minor scratches on it.
How come I doubt this? Or am I misinformed in believing that 4WDs and Hummers (Not H2s, the original Hummers) are different? The standard SUV and 4WD, in America atleast, would not suffer little scratches from being hit by a bus, while the bus suffered a dent. Then again, I guess it does depend on how the bus backed into it and other factors, but it doesn't seem believable that a 4WD can take a hit from a bus. Now, to be specific, a Hummer might... Those things are real beasts.
Quote:
Then find a cheaper fuel alternate (which are available in today’s' world)
The only one I can think of off of the top of my head is diesel, or possibly biodiesel in the future. What were you thinking of?
I heard something about vegetable oil. I hear restaurants want to get rid of huge quantities of the stuff for free, or they will pay you. All you need to do is get a modification to your engine, which people can do, to make it run off of vegetable oil as well. This modification costs $1000 USD, but considering the fact that you will not be buying normal gasoline for a while (if you're smart) and that you COULD get paid to take care of the vegetable oil, definately makes it worthwhile. Not to mention, I hear that driving behind a vegetable oil vehicle is wonderful, since it smells like someone is cooking something... Apparently.
Peak oil may or may not be an accurate concept, but this simply isn't true. Now that the cost per barrel has gone up, a lot of new, more expensive ways of obtaining oil have gained new interest. For instance, there are vast tar fields in Canada that have been too expensive to use at $20 or $30 a barrel that are seeing a lot of investment now.
I think Peak Oil is a pretty accurate concept. I believe that if it hasn't happened, it will in the next couple years. Also, if we drill Canada and Alaska, I will be beyond pissed. We don't need to, we need to start shifting towards a different energy source... Now.
What role does the government have in setting fuel prices, other than the taxes they add on top of it and manipulating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? (And manipulating the SPR can only make prices temporarily go down...)
The US government can do very little aside from what you mentioned. The other thing we could do is try to pressure the oil companies to lower prices... But we all know how effective that probably would be.
It is commonly believed (in Sweden at least) that the average IQ of the americans is quite low.
Intelligence and common sense are different things... Besides, America has some of, if not, the best colleges and universities in the world. We have a lot of people pursuing a post-high school education. I could go on and on but I am running on empty. Needless to say, that statement sounds sort of arrogant.
W and the people that (almost) elected him hasn't really made us change our minds about that.
Bush wasn't almost re-elected, he was re-elected. I still hold amnosity towards Southern Ohio for that.
I'm done, I'll say more when it is needed.[/url]
drinian wrote:Repeat after me.
The US executive branch does not affect or effect major economic trends.
Effect is a noun. Affect is a verb.
The arguments put forth here are entertaining. But, for those of you, both foreign and domestic, looking at the state of American politics today and either agreeing or disagreeing with policy and procedure, and advocating political parties and voting and whatnot, I have this to say:
The United State of America is not a democracy. The sooner people wake up to this fact, the more they can either stop bickering over pettiness (as we see here), or perhaps (and this won't happen, but is nice to ponder) do something about it.
What wins elections is the amount of votes your particular state contributes to the electoral college. If you are a certain political party living in a state that has a majority of the other party controlling the state, your vote will not count, no matter how badly you want it to. Most states in the union have a majority already established. It is the swing states that can contribute to the oscillation of what party is in control. And this is not just the executive branch, but legislative branch as well. So, if you really do want your vote to do something, move to a swing state. However, there are only about 4-7 swing states, so get thee hence to Ohio or Missouri immediately.
Also, ensure that everyone around you has an education and stays informed of the world around them without getting too much bias from the popular media. That way, they can contribute an educated, well-researched vote when elections roll around. This has about as much of a chance happening as snow on the equator. Americans are far more interested in the next episode of Desperate Housewives or any other such drivel that the media pumps into our collective stupification. Become informed? Pay attention? That's too much trouble...
Oh, and then make doubly sure that big business and corporations stay well out of the poltical process, with their lobbying and special interests and funding. That way, the power will go back into the hands of the citizens, and not the economic, capitalist oligarchy that currently dictates our energy and foreign policies.
Last edited by Vulkurt on Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Done. Guarding.
Return to “Completely and Utterly Off-Topic”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests