why are you SUV's bad again? anything that runs on gas, bus, van, truck, car or SUV is bad for the environment if you're going to be such a twit get a bicycle or somethen. Now what the heck is a worm bin? heh
I'm a fencewalker, and I kind like bush, but I think lieberman is a good candidate.
why are you SUV's bad again? anything that runs on gas, bus, van, truck, car or SUV is bad for the environment if you're going to be such a twit get a bicycle or somethen.
You're missing the point. Yes, SUV's guzzel gas and have higher emissions (which results in higher lung cancer risk for the general population). My contention is SUVs are a dangerous menace on the road. SUV's are more dangeroues than mid-to-large sedans because of much higher rollover risk. Perhaps more serious is the fact is that SUV's are far more dangerous to others on the road. Low income groups are specially hard hit as they cannot afford large sedans.
SUV and light truck sales should severely be restricted such that unless you can prove that you regular go off road or haul stuff, you should not be permitted to purchase an SUV or light truck.
And according to this, Dean was exempted from military service in Vietnam due to an unfused vertebra. In other words, he had a weak backbone. Ahhh, irony, we meet again.
Another interesting tidbit is that Graham and Gephardt have the campaign song, Tina Turner's "The Best" (same song used by Al Gore in 2000).
The race towards the middle may earn you votes but it kills democracy.
How does that kill democracy?
The idea in a representative democracy is to end up will elected officials who are -- drum roll, please -- representative of their constituencies. In order to get the most votes, you have to appeal to the broadest array of voters. Shocking! Scandalous!
Of course, if a politician merely pretends to be centrist or moderate, but doesn't end up performing that way after being elected, that's a problem -- but it's not a problem with being centrist or moderate, it's a problem with being dishonest.
Do you think democracy would be better served by having shockingly stark contrasts between an array of non-centrist candidates, such that when you get down to final elections the remaining choices are even more unpalatable to the majority than what we get now?
In seriousness, the poll's wording is a bit wishful. "therefore not choosing our next President".
Seriously. Be honest. I have said many times before, if the economy improves, Bush will be nearly unbeatable. Actually, I should now say "if the economy continues to improve...". Go ahead, someone tell me you really disagree with that. It's not about what you want....it's about what WILL happen.
Who will get the nomination? Probably Kerry, perhaps Gephardt.
Who would have the best shot? Probably Lieberman due to his stance on national security issues.
Dean is too liberal to get the nom., and his anti-war views are not going to be a winner, whether you agree with him or not. Kerry will not translate too well outside of New England. Gephardt is probably the lowest common denominator and may have a very good chance to get the nomination.
Sabato said Graham is taking a tactic from the book of Democratic-primary rival Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor.
Dean, a vocal critic of Bush on the war, also has been a leader on gay-rights issues. He signed the first state law allowing civil unions for gay partners, which gives them state rights but not federal treatment equal to married partners.
All nine of the Democratic presidential candidates have proposed some form of gay-rights benefits, Sabato said. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., has made his lesbian daughter, Chrissy, a liaison to the gay community.
I still am very hesitant about Graham. He voted for the Patriot Act and that significantly diminishes my opinion of him.
As for the economy improving, think Japan.. Their bubble burst in 1989-1990, they still haven't recovered, and we're going through almost exactly what Japan did.
The second I read this Bob Graham quote in the newspaper I knew I would always remember it. Word for word.
"Old people don't need food stamps. They eat less."
Then I realized we were not talking about Phil Graham, my bad!
Maybe McCain should run as a Democrat? I recognize that his bill on soft money hurts Democrats more than Republicans, but there is something about McCain. He's just a good guy. You can not say that about Bush.
That is why I went with Dean. I'm from Vermont but I would have voted for him anyway. I'm a real leftie what else can I say? I haven't looked too closely at the candidates yet but I know Dean well and I like how we run things in Vermont. You don't hear about anything bad happening here.
RE: SUV. I did not know Dean drives an SUV. However, Existence, I don't know where you are but in Vermont you NEED an SUV depending on where you live. Yes I hate them. I want the Green Party to win. I'm majoring in Natural Resource Management. Howerver without 4-wheel drive you can not get up my driveway in the winter. So he might need an SUV. Come visit in winter, it's really nice if you ski.
We have the only state capital without a McDonald's! Hells yea!
I see Dean as a Dark horse and chance to rally the troops on the left. But Kerry also has a good chance. All the others are wasting time and distracting voters.
As for the economy improving, think Japan.. Their bubble burst in 1989-1990, they still haven't recovered, and we're going through almost exactly what Japan did.
Think Japan? Really, two words: Wishful thinking. It's almost as if you'd like this to happen.
One thing needs to be kept in mind. The United States economy is NOT Japan's economy. Japan has some serious cultural issues that affects its economy. Chief among these is that consumers in Japan save up to 40% of their incomes. In the US, many don't save at all (I'm sure there is a happy medium). The US economy is essentially 2/3 consumer spending. We have a consumer culture. What's changing is the consumer's habits (this is partly a scientific observation, and partly an anecdotal one). Discount retail stores such as Wal-Mart are having record years. Speciality/mall stores don't seem to be doing as well.
This being said, debt is major problem. This is partly the fault of credit card banks who give absurd lines of unsecured credit to consumers. Also a factor is the American lifestyle, which is increasingly less patient and more dependent on credit. However, I also blame a good deal of the problem with our economy on the fact that in some form (be it taxes, fees, licenses etc.) "government" takes 40-50% of our national incomes. For example, I offer the fact that my property taxes alone are 10% of my gross income....in a middle class neighborhood no less. Add income tax, social security tax, taxes on gas, booze, ciggarettes, travel, utilities, etc...and there is a very obvious reasons the consumer doesn't have any damn money.
IMO, tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the economy is eventually bring in more revenue. It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to government income. Though I support the President's tax cuts and think they will help over the next several years, they don't begin to go far enough. We must have, again IMO, massive and sweeping tax reform. First, we need a non-marginal progressive system with minimal percentages and limited deductions. This entire system should produce tax returns no longer than 1 page. We also need to reduce the size and scope of federal and state programs tremendously. The government has no business getting involved in medicine or retirement. These are socialist programs that we are compeltely addicted to. This is why I do not particularly like the prescription drug benefit that is about to pass. Our government should provide for our defense here and abroad, maintain the infastructure, support scientific research and the arts and enforce basic laws of civility. Perhaps most importantly, it should take care of only those who cannot provide for themselves due to mental and/or physical condition. It should not be what it is now, that is for sure.
To end my rant/ramble, I Ithink the link you posted is extradordinarily pessmistic. The economy is already on the mend.
"RE: SUV. I did not know Dean drives an SUV. However, Existence, I don't know where you are but in Vermont you NEED an SUV depending on where you live. Yes I hate them. I want the Green Party to win. I'm majoring in Natural Resource Management. Howerver without 4-wheel drive you can not get up my driveway in the winter. So he might need an SUV. Come visit in winter, it's really nice if you ski."
SUV's are becoming as fuel-efficient as say, the far more poltically correct minivans. There is also new debate about whether car emissions are truly damaging the environment. If you are coming at this from a natural-resource perspective, keep in mind that we are nowhere near "running out" or oil and/or gas (despite news stories to the contrary).
Am I advocating blatant disregard for efficiency? No. Fuel economy has been on the rise for years, and is only getting better. Private industry has solved many of the problems that the government has not. Comsumers are demanding more fuel-efficient cars...even SUV's. The market wins as usual.
But, the solution is not banning SUV's or even railing against them. It's not the concept of the SUV that is the problem, it is the engine and fuel it runs on. I am completely and totally for the development of fossil-fuel alternatives. The government should focus itself on this (by providing funding) rather than forcing manufacturers to stretch already "pushed" fuel standards. In other words, we need a short term, mid-term and long term energy solution. In the interim, though, the evidence is sketchy on how much SUV's damage the environment. They have gotten a bad political rap from the extreme Left, and that's about all. Meanwhile, liberal polticians often fly on private aircraft and use converted tour buses for campaining, all the while berating the American family for it's SUV use. Ridiculous.
Right pfflam. Seriously, if he gets impeached I'll bake you a cake and send it to you. No shit. I will.
The last point on the minivan thing is serious. When's the last time you heard someone bitch about the 200+ horsepower engines in a lot of them? It's become chic to beat up on the SUV. My contention is that they are really not a whole lot worse that a minivan, which is commonly accepted as good family transportation. Drive and SUV, and the Left goes crazy. In any case, I think that as Americans we should drive whatever we'd like to drive (from a freedom of choice perspective, not a "I'm an American and I'll use all the fossil fuels I want" one). As I said, what really burns me is when liberal politcians fly on charter aircraft while ripping the SUV. It's hypocritical.
Right pfflam. Seriously, if he gets impeached I'll bake you a cake and send it to you. No shit. I will.
The last point on the minivan thing is serious. When's the last time you heard someone bitch about the 200+ horsepower engines in a lot of them? It's become chic to beat up on the SUV. My contention is that they are really not a whole lot worse that a minivan, which is commonly accepted as good family transportation. Drive and SUV, and the Left goes crazy. In any case, I think that as Americans we should drive whatever we'd like to drive (from a freedom of choice perspective, not a "I'm an American and I'll use all the fossil fuels I want" one). As I said, what really burns me is when liberal politcians fly on charter aircraft while ripping the SUV. It's hypocritical.
He'd probably do the Nixon thing and step down before he would be impeached.
Comments
Looks like he isn't getting any votes in our little poll either.
Meanwhile, Dean says no to unfunded mandates.
John Edwards has an imposter in Baghdad stealing the spotlight. That's why he isn't getting any votes here!
The right-wing is getting nervous and insecure. Mad doctor?
I'm a fencewalker, and I kind like bush, but I think lieberman is a good candidate.
Originally posted by kraig911
why are you SUV's bad again? anything that runs on gas, bus, van, truck, car or SUV is bad for the environment if you're going to be such a twit get a bicycle or somethen.
You're missing the point. Yes, SUV's guzzel gas and have higher emissions (which results in higher lung cancer risk for the general population). My contention is SUVs are a dangerous menace on the road. SUV's are more dangeroues than mid-to-large sedans because of much higher rollover risk. Perhaps more serious is the fact is that SUV's are far more dangerous to others on the road. Low income groups are specially hard hit as they cannot afford large sedans.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...sh-tests_x.htm
SUV and light truck sales should severely be restricted such that unless you can prove that you regular go off road or haul stuff, you should not be permitted to purchase an SUV or light truck.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2979960.stm
And according to this, Dean was exempted from military service in Vietnam due to an unfused vertebra. In other words, he had a weak backbone. Ahhh, irony, we meet again.
Another interesting tidbit is that Graham and Gephardt have the campaign song, Tina Turner's "The Best" (same song used by Al Gore in 2000).
Originally posted by Anders
The race towards the middle may earn you votes but it kills democracy.
How does that kill democracy?
The idea in a representative democracy is to end up will elected officials who are -- drum roll, please -- representative of their constituencies. In order to get the most votes, you have to appeal to the broadest array of voters. Shocking! Scandalous!
Of course, if a politician merely pretends to be centrist or moderate, but doesn't end up performing that way after being elected, that's a problem -- but it's not a problem with being centrist or moderate, it's a problem with being dishonest.
Do you think democracy would be better served by having shockingly stark contrasts between an array of non-centrist candidates, such that when you get down to final elections the remaining choices are even more unpalatable to the majority than what we get now?
Howard Dean will air the first television ads of the 2004 campaign.
I will not support someone who drives an SUV (and makes silly excuses for that) and who doesn't know what a worm bin is.
Bravo! REALLY important issues!
Seriously. Be honest. I have said many times before, if the economy improves, Bush will be nearly unbeatable. Actually, I should now say "if the economy continues to improve...". Go ahead, someone tell me you really disagree with that. It's not about what you want....it's about what WILL happen.
Who will get the nomination? Probably Kerry, perhaps Gephardt.
Who would have the best shot? Probably Lieberman due to his stance on national security issues.
Dean is too liberal to get the nom., and his anti-war views are not going to be a winner, whether you agree with him or not. Kerry will not translate too well outside of New England. Gephardt is probably the lowest common denominator and may have a very good chance to get the nomination.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...news-headlines
Sabato said Graham is taking a tactic from the book of Democratic-primary rival Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor.
Dean, a vocal critic of Bush on the war, also has been a leader on gay-rights issues. He signed the first state law allowing civil unions for gay partners, which gives them state rights but not federal treatment equal to married partners.
All nine of the Democratic presidential candidates have proposed some form of gay-rights benefits, Sabato said. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., has made his lesbian daughter, Chrissy, a liaison to the gay community.
I still am very hesitant about Graham. He voted for the Patriot Act and that significantly diminishes my opinion of him.
As for the economy improving, think Japan.. Their bubble burst in 1989-1990, they still haven't recovered, and we're going through almost exactly what Japan did.
"Old people don't need food stamps. They eat less."
Then I realized we were not talking about Phil Graham, my bad!
Maybe McCain should run as a Democrat?
That is why I went with Dean. I'm from Vermont but I would have voted for him anyway. I'm a real leftie what else can I say? I haven't looked too closely at the candidates yet but I know Dean well and I like how we run things in Vermont. You don't hear about anything bad happening here.
RE: SUV. I did not know Dean drives an SUV. However, Existence, I don't know where you are but in Vermont you NEED an SUV depending on where you live. Yes I hate them. I want the Green Party to win. I'm majoring in Natural Resource Management. Howerver without 4-wheel drive you can not get up my driveway in the winter. So he might need an SUV. Come visit in winter, it's really nice if you ski.
We have the only state capital without a McDonald's! Hells yea!
I see Dean as a Dark horse and chance to rally the troops on the left. But Kerry also has a good chance. All the others are wasting time and distracting voters.
As for the economy improving, think Japan.. Their bubble burst in 1989-1990, they still haven't recovered, and we're going through almost exactly what Japan did.
Think Japan? Really, two words: Wishful thinking. It's almost as if you'd like this to happen.
One thing needs to be kept in mind. The United States economy is NOT Japan's economy. Japan has some serious cultural issues that affects its economy. Chief among these is that consumers in Japan save up to 40% of their incomes. In the US, many don't save at all (I'm sure there is a happy medium). The US economy is essentially 2/3 consumer spending. We have a consumer culture. What's changing is the consumer's habits (this is partly a scientific observation, and partly an anecdotal one). Discount retail stores such as Wal-Mart are having record years. Speciality/mall stores don't seem to be doing as well.
This being said, debt is major problem. This is partly the fault of credit card banks who give absurd lines of unsecured credit to consumers. Also a factor is the American lifestyle, which is increasingly less patient and more dependent on credit. However, I also blame a good deal of the problem with our economy on the fact that in some form (be it taxes, fees, licenses etc.) "government" takes 40-50% of our national incomes. For example, I offer the fact that my property taxes alone are 10% of my gross income....in a middle class neighborhood no less. Add income tax, social security tax, taxes on gas, booze, ciggarettes, travel, utilities, etc...and there is a very obvious reasons the consumer doesn't have any damn money.
IMO, tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the economy is eventually bring in more revenue. It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to government income. Though I support the President's tax cuts and think they will help over the next several years, they don't begin to go far enough. We must have, again IMO, massive and sweeping tax reform. First, we need a non-marginal progressive system with minimal percentages and limited deductions. This entire system should produce tax returns no longer than 1 page. We also need to reduce the size and scope of federal and state programs tremendously. The government has no business getting involved in medicine or retirement. These are socialist programs that we are compeltely addicted to. This is why I do not particularly like the prescription drug benefit that is about to pass. Our government should provide for our defense here and abroad, maintain the infastructure, support scientific research and the arts and enforce basic laws of civility. Perhaps most importantly, it should take care of only those who cannot provide for themselves due to mental and/or physical condition. It should not be what it is now, that is for sure.
To end my rant/ramble, I Ithink the link you posted is extradordinarily pessmistic. The economy is already on the mend.
SUV's are becoming as fuel-efficient as say, the far more poltically correct minivans. There is also new debate about whether car emissions are truly damaging the environment. If you are coming at this from a natural-resource perspective, keep in mind that we are nowhere near "running out" or oil and/or gas (despite news stories to the contrary).
Am I advocating blatant disregard for efficiency? No. Fuel economy has been on the rise for years, and is only getting better. Private industry has solved many of the problems that the government has not. Comsumers are demanding more fuel-efficient cars...even SUV's. The market wins as usual.
But, the solution is not banning SUV's or even railing against them. It's not the concept of the SUV that is the problem, it is the engine and fuel it runs on. I am completely and totally for the development of fossil-fuel alternatives. The government should focus itself on this (by providing funding) rather than forcing manufacturers to stretch already "pushed" fuel standards. In other words, we need a short term, mid-term and long term energy solution. In the interim, though, the evidence is sketchy on how much SUV's damage the environment. They have gotten a bad political rap from the extreme Left, and that's about all. Meanwhile, liberal polticians often fly on private aircraft and use converted tour buses for campaining, all the while berating the American family for it's SUV use. Ridiculous.
Rant #2 is now over.
Originally posted by SDW2001
... Bush will be nearly unbeatable. . . .
Yeah . . . especially after the impeachment
oh, now even MINI vans are Politically Correct?!
Kerry for '04!
Originally posted by Existence
Now there's NO WAY I'm voting for Dean in the primary. That has Bush-lite written all over it!
Kerry for '04!
linky doesn't work
by the way, Dean for me too
Originally posted by pfflam
Yeah . . . especially after the impeachment
oh, now even MINI vans are Politically Correct?!
The last point on the minivan thing is serious. When's the last time you heard someone bitch about the 200+ horsepower engines in a lot of them? It's become chic to beat up on the SUV. My contention is that they are really not a whole lot worse that a minivan, which is commonly accepted as good family transportation. Drive and SUV, and the Left goes crazy. In any case, I think that as Americans we should drive whatever we'd like to drive (from a freedom of choice perspective, not a "I'm an American and I'll use all the fossil fuels I want" one). As I said, what really burns me is when liberal politcians fly on charter aircraft while ripping the SUV. It's hypocritical.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The last point on the minivan thing is serious. When's the last time you heard someone bitch about the 200+ horsepower engines in a lot of them? It's become chic to beat up on the SUV. My contention is that they are really not a whole lot worse that a minivan, which is commonly accepted as good family transportation. Drive and SUV, and the Left goes crazy. In any case, I think that as Americans we should drive whatever we'd like to drive (from a freedom of choice perspective, not a "I'm an American and I'll use all the fossil fuels I want" one). As I said, what really burns me is when liberal politcians fly on charter aircraft while ripping the SUV. It's hypocritical.
He'd probably do the Nixon thing and step down before he would be impeached.