Time for some political discussion...

Lieberman - who?

I think you are right about the image of Dean's self-induced pep rally moment last night. It could have been "campaign managed" so much better. A confirmation of your point is how often the so called liberal media is playing it this morning. Even NPR had the whole rant, which is a tad unnecessary given it's radio.

 

Dean's tyrade yesterday was so inspirational, it even got ESPN thinking. They used it to intro the Top 10 tonight at 6, featuring the Top 10 Podium antics by the likes of Bobby Knight and others. Pretty funny stuff!

And what I find so funny today is that Dean's celebration could have been easily edited to not have his girlie scream at the end, but NPR, CNN, and even ESPN left it in! The first I heard of it was on NPR this morning, and it put a little smile on my face as I got ready for work.

Tim

 

It is interesting how they are tearing each other up, but when it is the real election time they will all support one or the other even though just a few months earlier they were bad mouthing each other. I don't think any of them have a clue as to the big picture.

On a side note, I used to live in Iowa, and the first thing I learned was to never trust what polls say as Iowa people may gossip and say one thing, but when it comes down to the vote they always seem to go a different way.

As far as VP goes, I don't think it will be one of the other canidates, but will more than likely be Hillary Clinton. If they can pull it off to where the main man running for presidency is a middle of the road type and they add Hillary for the major left side, I think that they would only lose the election by 10-20%.

In the end I don't see anyone who can beat Bush. Of course, I am just an ignorant person who loves the Prius and the future that it is making a reality. I'm sure someone who really understands what is going on will enlighten me to where I am going wrong. Flame on!!!

Atoyot

 

Atoyot, Hillary would be very unlikely to accept a VP nomination. She wants the big office for herself in 08.

The problem with the democrats is that all they seem capable in doing is complaining about Bush. Once they are done with their versions of the same complaints, they offer literally nothing in what they would do to "fix" what they are complaining about. Of course, IMO, there is pretty much nothing that either "party" is offering beyond consuming 2.7 Trillion dollars of our money, and lining their pockets with it.

I'd love to see the Libertarians get a serious shot at the office.

 

Yep and one of their primary complaints is the lack of new jobs. If the economy continues to gather steam and the employment numbers get increasingly better, I can't imagine anyone beating Dubya in November.

 

Hillary may view the VP as a stepping stone. It makes sense to get the American people used to a female VP before jumping for the next step up. I don't have anything against a female for higher office, just view it as a logical step. I was really dissapointed when Bush didn't pick Mrs. Dole as his running mate. I think that the Republicans would have won the election easier and that would have been a great team. I for one and ready to see a female as president, or VP.

I must admit that I am a little behind on what all the Libertarians stand for, so I guess I need to do some research. The only problem I see with voting for a party other than the Republicans is that it is reality a proxy vote for the Democrates. I'm stoked that the Green party is around because it bleeds some votes from the Democrates. I'm just sick and tired of the entitlement mentality. Everyone needs to wake up and understand that my money isn't yours, and that health care isn't a right, but a privledge that I work very hard to have. You want it, then make it a priority and budget for it. I have to live without other things so that I can have it. That is just one example, but the list goes on and on.

I just found out that the budget passed, so I guess I won't be getting overtime anymore. I'm fine with that, and hope it stops some of the stupid lawsuits. I am going to miss the money, but I have always viewed it as extra money, so I am prepared.

Atoyot

 

I get about three or four credit card offers a month, based on my excellent credit rating. I could take those cards and really "look prosperous" by maxing them out. Unfortunately, at some point in the future, those creditors will want their money.
George Bush has done the same thing with the national debt. Fortunately for him, unfortunately for our kids, by the time the creditors come calling, he will be retired on his ranch and our kids will be paying for his boondogle in Iraq, his quasi missile defense system, his tax cuts for corporate honchos, and his environmentally catastrophic policies.
Seems this country is terribly short sighted; the "jobs" that Bush is creating pay a fraction of the jobs that are being exported to foreign countries without a protest from Washington. We are becoming a nation of overweight fast food clerks and broom pushers.
About short sightedness as an American trait: compare the planning, design and long term vision embodied by Toyota in the Prius, with the whining, footdraging resistance to change embodied by the Big Three with their ossified and environmentally irresponsible offerings.
Bob

 

Whle you will find no sypmathy for me on his spending policies that should have never seen the light of day after his tax cuts were passed, nor his environmental record. I will not take the claims of the environmentalist groups at face value either.

While has made some poor decisions on backing off EPA regs on coal plants, much of what clinton did through XO's right before leaving for the inaguration ceremonies, was either done with no basis for benefit, and no though on their reprocussions economically. The vast majority of those XO's were made for no reason other than to make the environmentalists happy, and done at a time where he would never have to bear the consequences of them.

 

Wolfman,

Clinton did a late 2000 signing off on OSHA's Ergonomics Standard, which Bush promptly rescinded at the beckoning of his handlers. The Republican Congress then went further, immediately outlawing all reconsideration of any future Ergonomic Standard based on any of the previously submitted technical research, representing the best and most direct compilation of scientific data from the previous 10 years. Nevermind that this data had undergone extensive public and private interest scrutiny, coupled with 100's of public hearings throughout the regulatory development process.

So, faced with science they couldn't attack, the Bush Republicans took the easy route to protect their business friends - they outlawed it. That is the reality of our current Administration. Science and facts have little merit compared to corporate interests.

Back to the EPA, Christie Whitman took the Admin. post after seven years as NJ Governor. When a Democratic Administration took over a year after she left, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection wrote more regulatory violations in the following year than during the entire seven years under Christie. Nothing new, just enforcement of regulations that were ignored for so long.

Would it be a surprise if we should find a similar Federal situation post-Bushco?

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all. As I stated, I still will not give Bush high marks for environmental policy, despite his turning over numerous rediculous XO's, and overturning the first ban on access to our National Parks.

 

OK, time for me to chime in

I'm mostly a lurker of these boards--and even I'm surprised that my first post is going to be in a political thread--but I just *HAVE* to comment since I've been following the politcos like crazy every since I heard Bush's State of the Union Address.

SpartanPrius stated: "So, faced with science they couldn't attack, the Bush Republicans took the easy route to protect their business friends - they outlawed it. That is the reality of our current Administration. Science and facts have little merit compared to corporate interests."

While the above is true, Bush has just recently really started his campaign for re-election. That means he needs to appeal to more people than just big corporate interests. To do this, he's sinking even lower: He's pulled the religion card.

Bush is trying to alienate the democrats by pushing for changes in law that represent his (read: the majority of the south) religious views. By saying that gays shouldn't be married, abstinance should be taught in schools, and pushing for anti-abortion legistlation his message is clear: He wants very religious people to think of him as a comrade with the power to "make things right". I'm positive we'll see messages of this nature heavily in his political advertisements. The last thing he wants is for people to think about his economic, environmental, and scientific track record.

What's right and good is not the point. I doubt if Bush would've brought up those highly controversial issues if the south wasn't so entwined in religion. Just take a drive across Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc. and you'll see that there are churches EVERYWHERE. Predominiantly Baptist churches.

This is the reason why, despite Kerry winning Iowa and New Hampshire's primaries, people are saying that John Edwards is going to reign supreme in the end as the democratic contender... He's a southern Baptist country boy and the latest polls suggest he is quite favorable in the south. This is why people complain that Kerry isn't as electable as Edwards--since Bush won't be able to play his usual anti-democratic games with him.

Up until this point I've tried to stay as unbiased as possible, but now it's time for my personal opinion:

It's time to weigh the evil: Who's heaver? Bush or Kerry? Bush or Edwards? Bush or (sigh) Dean? The truth is, it's going to come down to one of those three.

The way I see it, Bush is a nightmare political leader for our country. He took one of the best economies in history and turned it into one of the worst (though, this is arguable whether it's his fault or not, but he certainly could've done a better job than trickle-down economic tax-cuts). In his State of the Union Bush stated that the economy is recovering nicely. However, while the economy may be recovering, it certainly isn't creating new jobs. This is where *ANY* democrat will do better than Bush. Bush's economic plan is antiquated and has been proven not to work: It's called supply-side economics and it was Reagan's shtick in the 80s. It didn't work then, and it won't work now (click here for a good rundown of supply-side economics).

Another reason I hate Bush is he is a military madman. I won't argue about our invasion of Afghanistan (since that was really his only option at the time to satisfy the public at large), however, why did he invade Iraq? Let's look at this for a moment... Since day 1 of his administration he's wanted to invade Iraq. He was constantly looking for reasons. After 9/11, he finally had a buzzword to pull a fast one on the public: Terrorist.

If you add up the amount of times Bush says the phrase "September 11th" or the word "terrorist" whenever he speaks about Iraq, it becomes very disturbing. You see, he used the terrorist card as an excuse to invade Iraq. Sure, Saddam Hussein is a world-wide jerk who kills his own people, but there are lots of dictators like that. Why him? Oil.

The world didn't believe him when he said there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our country was torn apart about the issue. Al Qaeda wasn't there, and neither was Osama, so why should we invade? At least, that was the question on *MY* mind. President Bush didn't even check to see what the public wanted--which was his biggest fault.

The truth is, now that we've invaded, the steady flow of Oil from Iraq is just beginning to flow. So why is Bush talking about invading Syriia or North Korea? That is what scares me most about the man.

My prediction is that in the spring, he'll order the army to perform some sort of mass military attack against a supposed Al Qaeda base in Afghanistan, declare them defeated, and a very short time before election day, will reveal that he's captured Osama Bin Laden. Declaring himself a major victor. All a very carefully planned and executed campaign to get himself re-elected at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of troops.

If he gets re-elected, he'll pull the troops out of Afghanistan, move some into Iraq, petition the U.N. to help us clean up over there, then invade North Korea (or possibly Syria) because of the "terrorists" or even worse, some more "weapons of mass destruction".

To shorten this post a bit, I'll sum up the rest of my opnion as thus:

• I'm pro-choice: I think Bush has no right to say what a woman can and can't do with her body.
• Abstanence-only education has been proven not to work and actually increases teenage pregnancies, STDs, and sex in general amongst teenagers. We need to teach our kids how to properly use contraceptives and the science of sex, not tell them to "just ignore" their raging hormones.
• Gays are currently discriminated under the law of the nation. This needs to be CORRECTED, not reinforced with an anti-gay constitutional amendment!
• Mandatory drug testing: Didn't we conclude that this was a horrible idea in the 80s? Labelling children as drug users hurts more than it helps. Worst of all, it invades their privacy and puts their fate in the hands of the school system which is already doing the Wrong Thing™ with zero-tolerance policeis.
  • 
    
    ...and I'll finish up with a very disturbing fact: President George W. Bush doesn't believe in Evolution.
    
    <edit: forgot to attach sig>

 

Welcome to Priuschat, riskable. Once upon a time there was separation of church and state. Bush walks a very fine line. (Fine as in small, not as in good.) Thanks for your perspective.
By the way, do you have a Prius, or are you interested in getting one? I'm hoping to take delivery of a package #7 Millenium Silver sometime within the next two weeks, and I can hardly wait!

 

Separation of Church and State is too important to ignore

Bush already walked over that line and its pissing off a lot of America, yet at the same time it is invigorating people... It's a scary thought. I may be biased, but I truly believe that those who like Bush's plans to put religion into the government are completely ignorant and represent a growing population of poorly educated Americans.

Unrelated to that, I am getting a Prius. I ordered a Black BC w/Ivory interior in November and was expecting delivery this month. Unfortunately I missed January's allotment by 2 waiting list slots. My dealer promises me I'll be able to pick up my car in February.

I can't wait! I plan to really soup-up my Prius with the XM installation (and the multimedia stuff when it's out) along with tinted windows, new wheels/tires and various other gadgetry. I'm thinking about installing a computer in the car as a means to play mp3s and allow passengers to surf the net via my bluetooth phone (Nokia 3650).

Some of that may be delayed though since I'm unemployed at the moment (I wasn't when I ordered the car). I have more than enough savings to buy the car outright (after my trade-in). But I'd still like to keep some of that money in case I really need it.

<edit: sig problem again>

 

Welcome to the boards, riskable. I think the political discussion area is going to become a hot spot. Myself, I'm a Kerry supporter...always have been. I am pro choice, believeing that government has no business in our personal lives. Don't feel one way or the other about gay marriages, again, not a government issue in my opinion. The American people , as well as Congress, were lied to about Iraq by Mr. Bush and cronies. I am puzzled why Pres. Clinton was almost impeached by lies about having kinky sex with a floozie in the White House (he certainly wasn't the first, nor the last) but Mr. Bush pulls the BIG lie and not a mention is made of any investigation or impeachment proceeding. His lie cost us over 500 U.S. boys and billions of dollars so far, Clinton's - a box of presumably expensive (but not billions) cigars. Mr. Bush will be gone in November, just like his Daddy, because the people will wise up and admit they were duped.

 

Wow...cool thread. Interesting discussion, and it's great when a lurker jumps out of the shadows and onto the soap box.

Blaming Bush for the economy is wrong. The so called great economy that Clinton enjoyed in his last term was built on a lie. Enron and MCI all did thier dirty deeds under Clinton's watch. The new E-economy was a Clinton dreamed up idea that didn't work, and flushed billions of dollars away on goods and services that didn't amount to anything but lots of people losing their jobs.

Calling people ignorant is not a way to prove your point, or opinion, but rather a way to anger people. Facts would be better. I guess that the people who founded this government were uneducated and ignorant. Hmmmm......wonder why they used Bibles in schools. Believing in evolution is a believe system, not scientific fact. The fact is that neither side can prove one way or the other, and the it all comes down to a belief. It is very scary for the educated to face something as simple as belief, but I guess you can't learn everything in school or college. Your seperation of Church and State was due to what the founders saw happening in other countries, not a plan to eradicate God from government. I guess the revisionist history they teach in liberal universities is swallowed with out thinking about it.

Atoyot

 

Interesting! A month ago I put in an order for a Prius and found this chat group. Now I'm wondering what political chat in the escaladechat.com group or the hummerchat.com group would be like -- or are such groups too embarrassed about themselves to have any chat groups at all?
Seems obvious that on the whole Prius owners and Prius wannabes are socially aware by choosing environmentally benign transportation -- better than horses which fart and add to global warming. Less obvious is that this group cannot be devotees of instant gratification (i.e. run up huge deficits today and figure the answer tomorrow) because it's just become obvious to me that placing an order for a Prius does NOT bring instant gratification. And I bet you don't have to wait for an Escalade.

 

riskable wrote:

I would like to see the source of these quotes.

In George Washington's Farewell Address one reads this paragraph.

Public education probably does not have Washington's Farewell Address as required reading because of this paragraph and especially the last sentence.

Pastor Dr. D James Kennedy mentions in his sermon called George Washington, the Christian (Part 2) http://216.247.64.85/ram/TTT/TTT030224.ram that George Washington was a preacher (member of the clergy). If we are to believe Dr. D James Kennedy's statement then the paragraph above on Washington's Farewell Address makes sense.

David Barton on his speech Founding Fathers Part II http://216.247.64.85/ram/TTT/TTT020628.ram he refers to the 12 warnings of George Washington's Farewell Address which includes the paragraph above.

These two speeches can be found at http://www.truthsthattransform.org/ using the search function under TTT Topics.