Texsox Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:00 AM) It does seem worse with Bush, because his speeches are usually made up of shorter sentences, smaller words and more succinct dialogue (not inherently bad, just the way his speeches are written and delivered). This makes for more pauses. He isn't as polished as Reagan or Clinton, but I do enjoy listening to him, but prefered his speeches before becoming Presidential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) He isn't as polished as Reagan or Clinton, but I do enjoy listening to him, but prefered his speeches before becoming Presidential. On the one hand, his tone bothers me. He seems to spend much of his speeches chiding someone - feel like a child being lectured after I missed curfew. On the other hand, Bush doesn't project that used car salesman feeling that Clinton was dripping with. Bush seems more genuine to me (though somewhat misguided). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) On the one hand, his tone bothers me. He seems to spend much of his speeches chiding someone - feel like a child being lectured after I missed curfew. On the other hand, Bush doesn't project that used car salesman feeling that Clinton was dripping with. Bush seems more genuine to me (though somewhat misguided). I didn't pick up a used car salesman feeling from Clinton until the middle of his second term. I think he was under so much stress that he wasn't able to relax and be himself. Same thing with Bush. I know if I had a weekend to spend backpacking with Bush or Clinton, I'd take Bush in a heartbeat. I think he is a much better conversationalist than he is a platform speaker. As a platform speaker give me Reagan, if it was a weekend retreat of a spiritual matter, send in Carter, if I just needed a big blow out party, send me the Bush daughters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:48 PM) This is why his speech was good. And because he took a look at real-life solutions that states are doing. Where the Dems have more strength is in state government. A lot of the problems that individual states have are smaller versions of the same problems that the Feds have. Sometimes, they're caused by recent legislation by the Federal government. Often times when states have faced challenges, the solutions they've found have been adopted by the federal government. For example, a lot of the welfare reform programs were taken from Wisconsin's pilot programs put to task in the early 1990s. And their voucher program, which is working, will be stopped because the Dems are horrors to the unions. God fordid kide actually learn from non-union teachers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) I didn't pick up a used car salesman feeling from Clinton until the middle of his second term. I think he was under so much stress that he wasn't able to relax and be himself. Same thing with Bush. I know if I had a weekend to spend backpacking with Bush or Clinton, I'd take Bush in a heartbeat. I think he is a much better conversationalist than he is a platform speaker. As a platform speaker give me Reagan, if it was a weekend retreat of a spiritual matter, send in Carter, if I just needed a big blow out party, send me the Bush daughters Bush would be better on the trail, I agree. As long as politics didn't come up, ironically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:54 PM) Based on the size of the budgets, I assume you are discussing percentages, we spend a lot of money on the biggest of socialist programs, our military. Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security>Defense Spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 send me the Bush daughters At least we can agree that at least one of the bush daughters is a hell of a lot hotter than Chelsea ever was. Some of the daugthers of the presidents over the years are barkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) This just in from my buddy Howard The first three sentences of this post are false. The 16 words were actually very accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security>Defense Spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Medicare Medicaid Social Security Why would you link those together? Different programs, different administrations. Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:13 PM) Sam, not to pick on you, I appologize after reading this, but this is what our government has conditioned us to. Notice not a mention that spending needs to be lowered. The government needs to go into debt and give me more money. The Republicans will borrow money and give it to me. Talk about socialist programs. By lowering taxes, the gov't is not giving you money. It is already your money, you just keep more of it. That is the fundemental problem right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) Oh, ignorance, how I don't miss you so. You do know that the amount of oil in ANWR is roughly 14 billion barrels of oil. You do know that the this amount of oil is totally miniscule in comparison to what we consume yearly and what we import. You do know that there is a guaranteed amount of roughly 180 billion barrels of oil shale in canada. You do know that a conservative amount of oil shale in Canada is about two trillion barrels. Now please, argue that we need to drill in ANWR again, please. Where is the independence of oil in your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security>Defense Spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well luckily Bush is shooting for permanent tax cuts. Apparently all these programs are free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:30 AM) By lowering taxes, the gov't is not giving you money. It is already your money, you just keep more of it. That is the fundemental problem right there. True. And then instead of US citizens paying to run our government this year, we will borrow money from foreign banks. The fundemental problem is we have stopped linking the cost of running our government from the income. Another fundemental problem is people do not feel like they have a responsibility to actually pay for their government. It's your money, yes, but it has been predetermined that you will pay some of that to live in this country. So it is also the government's money. We did not make paying taxes voluntary. Who cares about the income, we'll just borrow more. Who cares about expenses, we'll just borrow more. Our tax bill should have a direct correlation to our expenses. So tell me, if we continue to cut taxes from those people with the most resources, who is going to pay to run the government? Will we just borrow more money every year? Or will the middle class pay the debt plus interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) Where is the independence of oil in your post? A few hundred miles north, that's where it is. Current technology really limits us in what we can do with our energy needs, and hydrogen cars are too cumbersome and are not the answer. If Bush really wants to utilize hydrogen power to its full potential, he'd be preaching the opportunitites of hydrogen power plants. The technology is there for hydrogen to replace natural gas, it's just a matter of people realizing this and then accepting. It's probably safer than nuclear power (which is pretty damn safe unless you have idiots running the core), and would be very instrumental with the US to stop leaning on oil and the middle east. Oil is simply not going to disappear, but I'm willing to bet it'll be used pretty heavily into the next generation. Of course there are fears of the rising economies of China and India needin that oil, but to argue peak oil and oil dependence is a bit silly when Canada is sitting on a gold mine. And I don't think we're on THAT bad of terms with them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Oil is simply not going to disappear How is that? Eventually it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) How is that? Eventually it will. Of course it will, but not nearly in the sense that a lot of people believe in. With the amount of oil left buried all over the planet, numerous generations could live with the same oil demand if they put up with a moderate increase in prices. Edited February 1, 2006 by Cerbaho-WG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) Well...in that case...it's also interesting to note that some studies suggest that without job creation due to government growth, we would still be at a lower total number of jobs than we were in Jan 2001. Link. At least according to that source's data...increased government spending has accounted for more than 100% of the jobs created since Bush took office. I love the source. Anyone not affiliated with a union on the Board. Unbiased. Nice!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 08:52 AM) Actually, if you look at the BLS statistics the biggest growth areas are in professional services ( read health care and financial services ), transportation and in construction. All of which are high paying jobs. Then I'd love for you to explain how the median wage of America has fallen over the past five years. The CATO/supply side/libertarian argument that wage rates are cyclical in job loss is a complete joke. What we're seeing is that even if new jobs are created, they pay less and take time, usually around several years, to obtain them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Of course it will, but not nearly in the sense that a lot of people believe in. With the amount of oil left buried all over the planet, numerous generations could live with the same oil demand if they put up with a moderate increase in prices. I just think it's ridiculous that we are still relying on some old ass technology from 1906 (or whenever the combustible engine was developed...too lazy to google) to transport people around. So apparently we're supposed to dig up the entire earth looking for more oil, polluting our air and water which contribute to poor health. And don’t forget dealing with wacko nations who like to kill Americans. We need to wean ourselves off this form of energy. The sooner the better. There has to be a better way. Edited February 1, 2006 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) Medicare Medicaid Social Security Why would you link those together? Different programs, different administrations. Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is the f***ing CIA FBI and U.S Marshals Service a social program? Thought So. Stick to topic. Sarcasm is unbecoming of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) God fordid kide actually learn from non-union teachers. Did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) True. And then instead of US citizens paying to run our government this year, we will borrow money from foreign banks. The fundemental problem is we have stopped linking the cost of running our government from the income. Another fundemental problem is people do not feel like they have a responsibility to actually pay for their government. It's your money, yes, but it has been predetermined that you will pay some of that to live in this country. So it is also the government's money. We did not make paying taxes voluntary. Who cares about the income, we'll just borrow more. Who cares about expenses, we'll just borrow more. Our tax bill should have a direct correlation to our expenses. So tell me, if we continue to cut taxes from those people with the most resources, who is going to pay to run the government? Will we just borrow more money every year? Or will the middle class pay the debt plus interest? Cut some social programs. Let me keep my contributions to SS. I will worry about my own retirement. Leave the Gov't out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:04 PM) Did you? No actually Catholic all the way. It must be nice to be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I believe you can opt out of SS benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 01:06 PM) No actually Catholic all the way. It must be nice to be perfect. Your Catholic school had a union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts