166 replies to this topic

[cjb]

Umm, good job almost serving your country?

k2skier, on Sep 4 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

I was a signature away from being enlisted myself, physical, test, paperwork was all done, I just had to sign and I was in, about 1982.

[cjb]

LuvPow, on Sep 4 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

As the conventioneers keep pushing Sarah Palin as a strong executive with a track record of fiscal conservatism, keep her actual record in mind.

“Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year. BP says about half its oil revenues now go to taxes, when royalty payments to the state are included. Earlier this week, Palin approved gas tax relief for Alaskans, and paid every resident $1,200 to help ease their fuel-price burden.”—Fortune, September 1, 2008

Of course, the oil companies aren’t going to pay those taxes. They’re going to pass them on to me and you. Thus, as Governor, Sarah Palin’s policies of increased resource taxes have had the net effect of placing an indirect tax on every American who purchases gas or petroleum products, in order to subsidize the residents of Alaska. This is despite the fact that, at $51,571 per year, Alaska has the forth highest median household income in the United States, the Alaska permanent fund is already $40 billion dollars in the black, Alaska’s annual general fund expenditures are somewhat less than $1.2 billion per year, and each Alaskan had already received their annual oil revenue payment for 2007 ($1654).

That’s right. As those of us down here in the lower 48 were paying $4+ per gallon at the pumps, Sarah Palin was busy giving every man, woman, and child in Alaska $2854 of our money.

In case you were wondering, there are around 674,000 people in Alaska, for a net outlay of $1,923,596,000 (nearly $2 billion).

No wonder Sarah Palin said no to the bridge to nowhere after she said yes to it. Sarah doesn’t need anything as cumbersome as the US Senate to rape the American tax payer.

Looks like she did excactly what she was hired to do, what is best for her state. I wish my governor did that, he does what is best for Mexico.

[k2skier]

cjb, on Sep 5 2008, 06:42 AM, said:

Umm, good job almost serving your country?

Point being, I'm for a strong military, I support the troops, but we need to take better care of our disabled vets. A boat racer friend had a son go to Iraq, I sent him 3 packages for his 1 year tour. I donate to the Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America and Disabled American Veterans, I support our troops! But the war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with WMD's, now it's about terrorism, which the USA created by going to Iraq. We need to invade Saudi Arabia to avenge 9-11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Callao]

k2skier, on Sep 5 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

Point being, I'm for a strong military, I support the troops, but we need to take better care of our disabled vets. A boat racer friend had a son go to Iraq, I sent him 3 packages for his 1 year tour. I donate to the Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America and Disabled American Veterans, I support our troops! But the war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with WMD's, now it's about terrorism, which the USA created by going to Iraq. We need to invade Saudi Arabia to avenge 9-11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you trying to be persuasive? Maybe it's just me, but I don't find emotional bitching very impressive. Or persuasive. Please spare us your inner drama. And your ranting.

[Callao]

Phew!
All this bull crap is exhausting. I don't know about you guys, but I think it's time for a little comic relief-- from the world's best marketing departments.

Blind
Big
Going
Banned

[Emax]

Callao, on Sep 5 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

Phew!
All this bull crap is exhausting. I don't know about you guys, but I think it's time for a little comic relief-- from the world's best marketing departments.

Blind
Big
Going
Banned

I could only open two of them, but they were great.

Try this one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpwMja2sSr4

[k2skier]

Callao, on Sep 5 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you trying to be persuasive? Maybe it's just me, but I don't find emotional bitching very impressive. Or persuasive. Please spare us your inner drama. And your ranting.

For some the truth is exhausting. Call it what you want but last statement is the truth not my opinion. Threre is no bitching, just stating facts.
We invaded the wrong country to avenge 9-11.

[Andoman]

Callao, on Sep 5 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

Phew!
All this bull crap is exhausting. I don't know about you guys, but I think it's time for a little comic relief-- from the world's best marketing departments.

Blind
Big
Going
Banned

Beer does that to me too. Really when you live in the upper peninsula of michigan for 5 years you need to down a few beers, squint your eyes, and hope for the best. (the ladies are ummmm "livin large" up there)

[Emax]

Andoman, on Sep 5 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

Beer does that to me too. Really when you live in the upper peninsula of michigan for 5 years you need to down a few beers, squint your eyes, and hope for the best. (the ladies are ummmm "livin large" up there)

So - does beer swilling (in an attempt to make the local fe-fare more appealing) and squinty vision label you as a Republican or a Democrat?
Does this deviant behavior make either the global or (local) political scene seem any more clear?
Tip: large ladies are fun!

[skierdude9450]

This is a lot to read for an evening, but in any case, it's better than my chemistry textbook...

skiersage, on Sep 4 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

I have to agree with you hoodoo. Every speech that a candidate performs is basically saying what they think the people of the U.S. want to hear. The thing is that people want (or at least I hope they want) to hear is what the candidate actually intends to do with his presidency. And this is what scares me about today's current politicians. If they can't say what they are actually going to do then their actual policy is against what the public will vote for......? I don't know but again this is what scares me.

My personal opinion is that no one in the general public knows what they are talking about as far as politics goes. Even the educated ones. I mean seriously, does anyone really know what exactly goes on in the oval office? Pretty much what it comes down to is that what we know is what the president tells us in his speeches. And who is to say how those correlate to what actually goes on. The way I see it we all have our heads in the sand. Involuntarily.

My opinion on John McCain:
The way I see it, there really isn't much to be said about John McCain. He ran for president back in 2000. He LOST to George W. Bush. If you think Bush was a bad president, wait until the guy who lost to him takes the throne.
I hope you have more of an opinion than that.

My opinion on Barack Obama:
My first impression of Barack was about two years ago. This was before anyone knew who he was and he was just a democrat party nominee hopeful that seemingly had a one in a million shot at being significant player in this election. NPR was playing a segment about Barack taking trips over to Europe. He was talking about how in the past the U.S. used to be a respected country among the world. And how now everyone hates us because of people like George Bush. Furthermore he made a point that if he were president he would like to bring respect for the U.S. back to foreign countries. Personally I think that for nothing else, he should be elected for this reason. In this day and age, the world is more globalized then it ever has been. Therefore it is important that we elect a president who looks good in the eyes of the whole world, not just for us. Furthermore I don't think that he would have made it as far as he has if he wasn't trying to be elected for the right reasons.

My opinion on politics as a whole:
My personal opinion on politics is that the election system of today is totally corrupt. It is like what was said above. We know what they are telling us but we have no idea of what actually goes down. You can even think of it like these forums. I am sure that all of the general members would like to know what goes down in the industry only side of the forums. But the truth is that you will only know what the industry members post is the general forums. (on a side note to the general members, you haven't been missing out on much lately)
Yeah, it's a bitch ain't it?

My opinion is that people vote for the political party rather than actual person who is running for office. Therefore, I believe that what needs to be done is we need to abandon the party system all together. We need to have an electoral system where individuals need to write a long paper about what they actually stand for and what they will actually do to improve the country over the term as presidency. After that the ones that have the best and most straight forward views will be given a predetermined amount of money by the government to campaign with. On top of that they all will be invited to the debates so that the public can learn what each of them thinks and stands for, etc. After that the public can vote for who they think is best and democracy will have worked. But this will never happen. Why? Because everyone is too happy with the way things are. Even though most of the truly smart people know that this system doesn't work but will never do anything because the system has them focused on making money. All I can do is hope that everything doesn't fall apart before I die.
That's a good thought Sage, but it'll never happen. And as I've heard so many times, "party trumps person." It's unfortunately true that it doesn't matter what a candidate says, they'll still do what their party wants them to do.

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it.
There's so many better things to be smoking.

Callao, on Sep 4 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

I have not advocated either side of this debate; I have only challenged what people say they know (nothing bothers me more than pretenders). k2skier and Skier both ask what point I was trying to make in the stats I provided--because you can't tell from the stats. That was the point. The truth is, I haven't officially picked a side yet, either for elections, or for the Iraqi War. I don't feel I know enough of the issues to decide, so I have researched, and have asked for hard facts, rather than your opinions, which proliferate on this site.

Instead of advocating either side of, say, the Iraqi War, the argument is what would have cost more: going to war, or not going to war. Monetary costs, and otherwise. Nobody addresses the issue of not going to war, so I bring it up as a consideration. Don't want to think about that new dimension? Then put your head back in the sand.
I don't see how you could argue that not going to war would cost us more money. This is all just speculation.

I have not advocated either side. I have only appealed for reason, and appealed for authority. And yet, I'm getting some attacks, mostly from the democratic side--what, does my cool logic sound too conservative for you? If you feel offended by my appeal to reason and my call for hard data, you'd better just deal with it. You are going to have to deal with reasonable people for the rest of you life.
Logic is never too conservative.

k2skier, on Sep 4 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

That's because they "see" and report what the Army tells them and lets them. It's a quagmire and were in financial ruins for making a few rich from illegal weapons sells and a money and power trip. The war isn't about doing what's right, it's about power, money and weapons, (oil is part of money and power). the middle east will never have a Democracy, the sooner we leave the sooner we can get the USA back into the black financially. Going to war in Iraq is a major reason why our economy is in the worst condition since the Great Depression, statistically speaking.
That's total bullshit and you know it!! I agree that a Middle-Eastern democracy is not very feasible. Don't go making up statements.

Do you think if congress wasn't spoon fed the "bad" intel about WMD's that all the congressmen would have voted to go to war? I doubt it. We were lied to and now were all paying dearly.
More speculation and conspiracy. That's only going to get this topic banned. And don't go on about Saudi Arabia, because what would that have helped? We don't need to avenge 9-11.

For my view, I'll try not to go too far with the war, but it is indeed an important topic for consideration. The war is costing us too much money. It is a major factor in the higher oil prices and the current state of our economy. I believe that a reduction or withdrawal in Iraq is necessary if for no other reason than to help stabilize the economy. Now McCain says that he will not leave Iraq until the war has been won. One problem: how do you win this conflict? (I won't call it a war since it really isn't.)

Also, let's be realistic here. Cutting taxes will not get us out of a $9 trillion deficit. Everyone's just going to have to suck it up and pay a little extra, or my generation's hell of a lot more. McCain mentions that he will cut pork-barrel spending, and while it's a noble cause, it really won't help the deficit much at all.

As far as oil, the first thing you must realize (and many of you hopefully already have) is that taxing so-called "big oil" will do nothing but send the price of gas skyrocketing. The people that think that oil companies are making record profits are full of $#1+.

So there's my opinion. Even though it's not worth a flying since I can't vote, I hope that all of you will make an informed decision.

skierdude9450 out.

This post has been edited by skierdude9450: 06 September 2008 - 01:23 PM

[k2skier]

That's because they "see" and report what the Army tells them and lets them. It's a quagmire and were in financial ruins for making a few rich from illegal weapons sells and a money and power trip. The war isn't about doing what's right, it's about power, money and weapons, (oil is part of money and power). the middle east will never have a Democracy, the sooner we leave the sooner we can get the USA back into the black financially. Going to war in Iraq is a major reason why our economy is in the worst condition since the Great Depression, statistically speaking.

That total bullshit and you know it!! I agree that a Middle-Eastern democracy is not very feasible. Don't go making up statements.

I feel sorry for your ignorance, you should educate yourself. You prove just one statement false that I made, I dare you.

All lies?
http://whatreallyhap...ES/WMDlies.html

WMD's?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

Manufactured intel?
http://www.gwu.edu/~...SAEBB/NSAEBB80/

As U.S. forces moved through Iraq, there were initial reports that chemical or biological weapons might have been uncovered, but closer examinations produced negative results. In May 2003, the Bush administration decided to establish a specialized group of about 1,500 individuals, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), to search the country for WMD - replacing the 75th Exploitation Task Force, which had originally been assigned the mission. Appointed to lead the Group, whose motto is "find, exploit, eliminate," was Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Operations. In June, David Kay, who served as a U.N. weapons inspector after Operation Desert Storm, was appointed special advisor and traveled to Iraq to lead the search. (Note 4)

By the time of the creation of the ISG, and continuing to the date of this publication, a controversy has existed over the performance of U.S. (and British) intelligence in collecting and evaluating information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs. The reliability of sources has been questioned. It has been suggested that some human intelligence may have been purposeful deception by the Iraqi intelligence and security services, while exiles and defectors may have provided other intelligence seeking to influence U.S. policy.

Two more.


http://www.cnn.com/2...raq.wmd.report/
http://www.gwu.edu/~...BB234/index.htm


Vote for McCain and you'll get more of this illegal war and more lies that may send the USA into a depression.[/color]

This post has been edited by k2skier: 05 September 2008 - 10:19 PM

[poloxskier]

k2skier, on Sep 5 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

That total bullshit and you know it!! I agree that a Middle-Eastern democracy is not very feasible. Don't go making up statements.
I feel sorry for your ignorance, you should educate yourself. You prove just one statement false that I made, I dare you.

One could quite easily say the same to you. Don't believe everything you read, there are plenty of sources for any point of view and plenty to contradict them. I would provide plenty of sources that are in complete opposition to what you are spouting off as fact but I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is unwilling to lend any credence to any view that differs from their own.

Also please watch it with the name calling, many of us like to have topics open where we can discuss things such as politics. It also doesn't lend strength to your argument when it degrades to that level.

[Andoman]

Emax, on Sep 5 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

So - does beer swilling (in an attempt to make the local fe-fare more appealing) and squinty vision label you as a Republican or a Democrat?
Does this deviant behavior make either the global or (local) political scene seem any more clear?
Tip: large ladies are fun!

I tend not to prescribe to either political party, I could just as easily have an debate with a right winger as a left winger, but if you use the squinty vision I guess I'd look like a Ron Pualish type person (i don't care for oversized government). As to my deviant behavior, large ladies are good, as the student population of Michigan Tech would say more jiggle per giggle factor. It's something you have to experiance a few times as a younger man before you understand.

[skiersage]

Quote

My opinion on John McCain:
The way I see it, there really isn't much to be said about John McCain. He ran for president back in 2000. He LOST to George W. Bush. If you think Bush was a bad president, wait until the guy who lost to him takes the throne.
I hope you have more of an opinion than that.

Yes I do. My all things considered opinion on John McCain is that he is a true conservative. And the concept of conservative basically is that a conservative tends to lead toward ideas that are"tried and true" where as liberals tend to lead to newer more future oriented ideas. For example, his promotion of offshore drilling. A very conservative idea because right now we should be concerned with coming up with alternative fuel sources instead of beating crude oil to death. His choice to continue "the war in Iraq" is yet another very conservative idea. The truth is that we can't continue on with a conservative leader. Our country is on the verge of change and we need someone in charge who is going to go along with those changes. I see John McCain as someone who is going to fight these changes and rather try and keep things going the way they have been. And while some people will agree with him I think most Americans believe the country is currently going in the wrong direction and it is time to change things up.

Andoman, on Sep 6 2008, 09:03 AM, said:

I tend not to prescribe to either political party, I could just as easily have an debate with a right winger as a left winger, but if you use the squinty vision I guess I'd look like a Ron Paulish type person (i don't care for oversized government).

I guess I should make my self clear. Even though in this topic I may be coming off as a democrat, I agree with Andoman. I am not on either side as far as my true political views go. And I also agree that the government should be downsized. The only reason I have been speaking favorably about Obama is because people seem to be conceded to either the democrats or the republicans. And therefore Obama and McCain are the only two candidates that have a legitimate chance of winning. And using my best judgment, it is my opinion that Obama is a better candidate for president of the two.

[hoodoo]

Andoman, on Sep 6 2008, 05:03 AM, said:

I tend not to prescribe to either political party, I could just as easily have an debate with a right winger as a left winger, but if you use the squinty vision I guess I'd look like a Ron Pualish type person (i don't care for oversized government). As to my deviant behavior, large ladies are good, as the student population of Michigan Tech would say more jiggle per giggle factor. It's something you have to experiance a few times as a younger man before you understand.

Wow, I really love how I can come to this forum and get educated on "Large Ladies"...

[Andoman]

hoodoo, on Sep 6 2008, 04:51 PM, said:

Wow, I really love how I can come to this forum and get educated on "Large Ladies"...

everything from lifts to politics to lovin large ladies you can learn at least one thing with each visit.

[tram mechanic]

While we're busy being distracted from the real issues:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3xMJ7l_Xa70

[k2skier]

poloxskier, on Sep 6 2008, 04:19 AM, said:

Also please watch it with the name calling, many of us like to have topics open where we can discuss things such as politics. It also doesn't lend strength to your argument when it degrades to that level.

Ignorance is not calling someone a name, it is used to show a lack of knowledge on the subject.
I do not speak in total bullshit.

ignorance
Noun
lack of knowledge or education
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

[liftmech]

I won't pretend I'm completely educated on the issues this year. I do know that the cost of just about everything has gone up lately, and much of that is due to increased transportation costs because of the price of fuel. I understand that. What I have a hard time believing is the mantra from the far right of 'drill, baby, drill!' Please. Unless you know for a fact that there's oil directly underneath you, and there's a refinery in your neighbour's yard, drilling is at best a placebo to gain votes. It takes several years of exploration (spending money and not making it, I might add) to find the oil. It then takes several more years to get approvals, permits, and the like. Assuming the aforementioned goes through, you then need to build drill platforms and the related infrastructure to actually get the oil out and transport it to the refinery. (Aren't most of our refineries in the Gulf region?) Finally, the finished product gets to market. All told, you're looking at five to ten years from the time you say,' Drill here now!' I don't care what side of the 'fence' you're on, we all know that oil will one day run out. I don't think it will be in my lifetime, but I think my generation will see the end of our oil-based lifestyle. I'd like to see a mantra of new energy instead. (I don't call it alternative energy because it will soon be mainstream.)

Off the soapbox.

[Emax]

My "fuel rant" has been moved to my blog. The argument doesn't belong in this thread.

It's not a bad read.

This post has been edited by Emax: 12 September 2008 - 09:50 AM