Ok, I think I've had it with Bush

where's woj?

hahaha... nice!!

Agreed, and that's why I was telling you what a nightmare it was. We found a way to change the quantum spin state of an electron, which has an amazing number of applications -- research grant not extended, because there was no "sexy" application for it. I wrote a rebuttal explaining that it was the key piece to time travel, teleportation, and instantaneous communication, and bam -- there's the money. It's a flawed system, for sure.

Although you just admitted you have "no idea what it's like in the US," it's interesting to know that the process is less onerous in your area. I'm glad to hear that.

Great point! I agree completely. I'll point out, though, that research for the sake of research doesn't mesh well in a free-market society. This plays better in Socialist- or Communist-trending economies like in China and Europe.

I believe SwordFish's response was aimed at the thread creator

Thanks! I used to go by the name of "enigma" in some places.

What makes my code so hard to crack for you?

Sweet hijack, eh? Next time, I'll wear a ski mask!

GWB is the best stand up comic ive seen

God, I only wish.

That'd be funny, though, if he stood up in 2008 and said, "Ha ha, y'all! The joke's been on you! President Rove has had his hand up my ass like a puppet this whole time! Now fuck 'ya, I'm going to the ranch!"

It may be mean, but in my experience, most who claim to be dems (and post on internet forums) are illiterate, prone to flying off the handle whenever they disagree with anything, save actually being slighted.. and refuse to state anything but their view when told that they've got their facts wrong, or are entirely full of shit.

The 'pubs, however, tend to be on the, shall I say 'insane' side? Either so militaristic that they seem to find it an excuse to blow holes in their wall with guns sticking from every oriface, or, well, just old money assholes.

You're not only eloquent, but I agree with you. You're actually taking an objective view.. on GFY.. where I just insulted someone's dumbass thread with a directly retarded counterpoint.

Hence, you are an enigma. I shall watch you with awe. ;)

I'm with you, 12clicks.... maybe for slightly different reasons, but I'm with you. And it's not even a Bush-bash... I just don't understand why, after all that's happened in our country and around the world during his administration, he finds funding of scientific research so objectionable that he's using his first veto to stop it. But, I guess it goes with the standard theme... Bush prefers faith over science, and I think that's irresponsible... more at this point in history than any other.

The truth sometimes hurts. Most of the Democrats on here are downright scary. As I said, it embarrasses me to share a party with people who have the SOLE objective of bashing a sitting President. Get a point that hasn't been fed to you by CNN, and I'll listen. (Not you, of course, I'm speaking out loud to deaf ears.)

Hence why I could never identify with the Republican party -- I think it's easier to be a well-spoken Democrat who isn't a Bush-basher (but *is* willing to point out when Bush is wrong) than it is to be a well-spoken Republican who can put away the "rootin' tootin' shootin'" for a bit and have a decent conversation.

That's kind of you to say, and I appreciate it. I try to have conversations of value, but what I usually end up with is people calling me "clueless" or making comments about various female relatives. I guess it sheds light on their character, debate skills, and relative worth.

Well, now you've cracked the code. I'm afraid there aren't very many layers to my "onion" -- what you see on the surface is pretty much me.

WTF are you talking about? I wasn't talking to you...

The part about it that disturbs me the most is this: if he *is* just pulling the party line ... why? He can't run for re-election, he's already served two terms. What political capital does he need now? He's got two years left, most of his contemporaries will see him as a lame duck in his second term already, and there's nothing he could possibly do to please his opposition in Congress. If he walked down from Heaven and began the Second Coming, I'm convinced the Bush-bashers would spit in his face on the way to Hell.

So what's the benefit in pandering? Is it to preserve the Republican base vote for the next candidate?

It can only mean one thing: He cares because it's going to be Jeb Bush running for the job.

Is there any other way to look at it?

I never claim an allegiance to either party. Just try to use common sense.
It makes no sense for example to not fund some things while other worthwhile things are not funded. Realistically, there will be no end to government funding, so thats the system we have to work within.
Oil gets billions, and wind power gets $100k here, $200k there, $0 there.. it's ridiculous. And it's 100% renewable obviously.
So why should "we" fund idiotic things that will never have any bearing on our actual lives while things like stem-cells are subject to election-time baloney? And yes thats what it's about, and some of us called it right here on GFY months ago.

Scroll up, read, calm down, and pull up a chair -- the world is passing you by.

Hmmm. Take away the specific references and you could be describing the behavior of a great many people.

About 60% of those entitled to vote in November 2004 actually did so, thus less than one-third of the voters put Bush in office. Should you blame them, some of whom at least are neither religious (at least not in the sense meant here) or sheep, or should you blame the larger number who didn't even pretend to take an interest in who governs the country?

How many of those who did vote are, as you said about Bush "pretty much clueless on everything thats going on around"? I suspect this board is a lot more typical of today's society than most people might like to admit, and it is apparent from the threads like those about Lebanon, that hardly anyone has even taken in such information as appears on TV, let alone knows more than that.

Come to that, how did we ever become so complacent about the gravy train that the whole political system has become? Perhaps because these days so many people associate ethical standards with naivete and save their admiration for displays of greed: again, look around this board. Do the same for examples of behavior far worse than anything GW is guilty of.

Clichés such as that which says people get the government they deserve, may be overused, but that doesn't mean they don't remain true.

Wow. All I gotta say.

In my opinion, government funding for "research for the sake of research" can work out extremely well, as long as the government doesn't try to get involved with the research itself.

Ideally, universities or funds would get funding based on past (but recent) performance (judged by discoveries or publications, not by applications), but would have complete freedom with regards to how they use that funding. That way, incompetent bureaucrats would be cut out of the process, while fundamental research could still take place.

Research for the sake of research and government-funded research are necessary for the growth of knowledge, though. Without these things, private companies would lack a foundation to build on.

Unfortunately, because we live in the reality of a two-party system, your only "real" voice is in a political party's primary. For example, I am a registered Democrat, so in Connecticut, I have a choice between Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman. A Republican isn't going to beat either one of them, so the "real" election is in the primary. Depending on your state, you can't participate in the primary without registering with a party. But, I respect your independence.

The problem is that wind power isn't able to supply a reasonable amound of energy without consuming enormous swaths of land. It isn't, unfortunately, a viable alternative to fossil fuels. But your underlying point, that oil is over-funded and alternatives is under-funded, is a valid one. President Bush introduced an alternative energy funding plan a couple of weeks ago, and this is a great step in the right direction. The issue is with Congress, unfortunately. As a candidate seeks election, they take on contributions from special interest groups. These groups then call in "favors" later on that result in the bilking of taxpayers. Eliminate the special interest contributions, and you eliminate a lot of waste.

What the government doesn't want you to know is that it is PERFECTLY capable of running on business taxes alone. Personal income tax for middle-income and below families is 100% unnecessary. The only reason it exists at all is to fund the programs that pay back special interests or minority groups (think welfare and immigrant programs).

We shouldn't. And it *is* election-time baloney. But the problem is -- Bush can't be re-elected. The only reason I can imagine for pandering on this issue would be to pave the way for Jeb, who will need the religious vote.

Yeah. I can understand that. I was a registered dem at one point. It just seemed 'the right way' - but the longer time went, the more skewed things became, and, well.. we all have our opinions.

Honestly, I'm a 'pub and I say that Bush is a dipshit. He lacks the charisma that Clinton had, the eloquence that any prior have had, and has the social graces of a bull in a China shop.

However, he's not smart enough to have a personal agenda for more than five minutes at a time.. like Ronnie in his later years.. and man, 80s chicks were hot. I'm hoping we get some of that action!

Sure, nice way of trying to cover up your stupidity, idiot. Next time, slow down during your frantic replies and realize that everyone in a thread isn't talking to you. In fact, few people probably are because you are a pissant. Next.

The problem is that the individual in question represents the U.S. as a whole. When we travel and people in other countries speak very slowly like we're retarded -- he's the reason.

What do you expect, though? It's a "me too" club of people who need the approval of others, in text form, on the Internet of all places. Your point is accurate to the point of painfulness.

I think it was when TV hit the market. The more distracted the cattle, the less likely they are to notice corruption. And even if they DO notice, they won't do anything about it -- they have to watch American Idol, so there's no time to be proactive. Might as well just bitch on a message board. Because THAT'S effective.

If you'd taken the time to READ my replies, you wouldn't have even posted this. Notice, in three sentences, you said: "stupidity, idiot, frantic, pissant." Quite a friendly fellow. I'm sure society is proud of what it has produced.

My dad is ultra christian and a Bush fan and he said nearly the same thing to me last night. Bad call.

I wouldn't be in too much of a rush to buy into that differentiation. Capitalism, socialism, communism and all the other isms are all collectivist systems at root. Capitalism sits better with most of us, because it allows us to retain more illusions, but even the core principle of private ownership is largely that, an illusion. The unvarying common factor is that people are treated primarily as economic units who exist to serve an elite.

Sure, keep coming off half-cocked by replying rudely to people who aren't even talking to you. It is amusing. You really aren't very good at this whole message board thing. Click.

In pre-capitalism times this was absolutely necessary, as it is still in many countries who haven't truly reached that form of goverment. Without it, we wouldn't have had the Industrial Revolution, much less the Renaissance. Leading up to this time, Kings made patrons out of artists and scientists. Of course, there wasn't much economic incentive to innovate back then.

Look at what government programs in non-capitalist countries have produced: we're typing on the results right now, as a matter of fact. Without CERN, would we have an Internet?

Good points all through your post, although I didn't quote the majority of it.

If you still aren't talking to me, I'll assume you're talking strictly to yourself, and ignore you, I suppose.

thanks to his brother the smarter bush ( jeb ) will never have a chance in hell at being president

wait until I announce my marriage to mojo

I personally am a Democrat because I believe in the general policies and objectives of the party over those of the Republican party. I generally HATE the leaders of my party, and wish we could get some real leadership. Unfortunately, it's the same hysteria and bullshit every term.

My general viewpoints, if you care, are:

* I believe in a woman?s right to choose. I do, in fact, feel that abortion is murder, and that a fetus is viable from conception. I don?t, however, disagree with the notion that it is a woman?s right to murder a child she has created. Until the actual birth process, I consider a child in the womb to be the "property" of the mother, to do with as she sees fit. This includes its destruction, if normal rearing of the fetus will endanger the life of the mother or significantly reduce the possibility for a functional life for the child. I do not believe in abortion for the purposes of birth control or vanity, and would recommend sterilization for the mother (except in very unusual circumstances) who undergoes more than three abortions or the father creates the necessity for more than three abortions.

* Creating a life burdens the parents with responsibilities. If a mother or father is unable to pay child support, yet continues to procreate, these individuals should be sterilized. This is a separate concept from parents who have children, but become unable to support them. The additional children after the indigent state provides the distinction.

* I am against the notion of a protracted death penalty and appeals process, but am definitely for a speedy execution. If you?re convicted of a crime qualifying you for the death penalty, and a jury of your peers with the concurrence of a judge sentences you to death, then you should die in a prompt manner, without further burden to the public. I don?t, however, think that our court system, in its current capacity, is capable of competently and consistently providing for a fair trial. Until that situation is remedied, I will be against putting "convicted" criminals to death.

* I believe that the government?s chief responsibility is the protection of its people. To that end, I am willing to give up a limited number of personal freedoms, under strictly controlled circumstances. Unfortunately, in this instance as well, I do not trust the current government to competently invade my privacy nor do I trust them fully to ensure my security. Thus, I feel the Patriot Act leaves the door open to abuse and with little trade off in the way of protection.

* Once a threat to the United States has been identified and confirmed, through a processes, as a citizen, I do not feel I need to be fully aware of, that threat should be neutralized or eliminated as expediently as possible. If this action creates an inconvenience or hardship on the surrounding community (a village in Pakistan, for example), the concept of proactively purging terrorists and criminals from one?s surroundings should be effectively communicated.

* I will never support nor engage in the public protest of a war undertaken by the United States. To do so would demonstrate a complete lack of regard for the lives of our soldiers and fellow citizens. To publicly protest during wartime is to futilely beat the drum of ignorance. Peaceful protests and demonstrations regarding other issues, however, I feel are justified and necessary under many circumstances. This includes boycotts and trade restrictions.

* I believe that anyone rooting for the deaths of American soldiers (this includes, of course, a few GFY posters) in order to further their own political agendas should be dealt with as we would deal with enemy combatants. An individual who secretly or openly calls for death to any American is an enemy of our country and its citizens. There are no exceptions, excuses, or distinctions.

* I will defend to the death the right to criticize the President of the United States, or any other leader, individual, company, idea, or practice. I will campaign against the Michael Moores, Al Frankens, and Bill O'Reillys of this world, or anyone else willing to fabricate information in order to further their political goals. Free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to make a fool of oneself are important concepts. These ideas and ideals built the America we enjoy today.

* Censorship is not a concept I can stomach. I feel strongly that parents should take an active role in the upbringing and continual education of their children. If a child becomes so unruly that a parent cannot control their viewing of "sensitive" materials, then the child either hasn?t been raised properly or has a mental defect that should be addressed. The public at large should not suffer for the failings of irresponsible parents. The exceptions to this rule are works which are not art or expression, but are exploitation. This includes hate speech, which has no constructive place in a civilized society, and child pornography.

* I feel that stopping or slowing nuclear proliferation is a worthy ideal in the abstract. In practice, the United States should not be dismantling functional nuclear weapons in the hopes that other countries will graciously do the same. Leaving ourselves open to attack without the surety of mutual annihilation is asking for serious issues.

Sure, but show me the guy who pulled himself out of poverty to unthinkable wealth under the Communist system.

So it's really you?

I disagree. Every Bush that has been in the White House has run against a poor excuse for a candidate. Kerry? Gore? Dukakis? The only election a Bush lost was against Clinton, in 1992. And Clinton got what -- 43% of the vote? Slim pickings to be elected by.

Who is going to oppose Jeb? Who is going to pull enough votes away? We need a REAL candidate.

yes it is baby.
the gay thing gave it away, eh?

BoyAlley?

It's late, and I'm going to sleep.

I'm impressed, though. We had an actual discussion about real issues, and with the exception of a few less enlightened individuals, very few insults were thrown around.

Bravo -- maybe this is the beginning of bridging the gap on here.

after me, he had to change his name to "Man'sAlley"

I said that same exact thing to 12clicks on icq earlier!

OH MY LORD HAS HELL FROZEN OVER??????!!!!!!! LOL

how is this Ron... GO CLINTON lolol :-P

Wow! I figured there would be a time when Bush would do something to sway your opinion. I'm sorry that it was this.

And I applaud you edgeprod, you are a one man show and have posted some of the most intelligent things that I have ever seen on this forum. Thank you, you have restored my faith in mankind...well maybe just GFY lol. It's refreshing to see someone speak as you do; without ridicule and condescension and of course the name calling. Have a fabulous day!

I must still be dreaming.

Polio has not been cured.

It was not Clintons "war on drugs". The war on drugs was created by Nixon in 1971 and was pushed further by Reagan with the creation of a Drug Czar and dumbass forfeiture laws which allowed govt agents to seize peoples property over a fucking pot seed.

nothing wrong with a little name calling.

hell, even throw in some hair pulling

I think the fact that you still believe Bush himself is the guy behind everything you mentioned is adorable.. Don't lose your innocence 12clicks

no, all the things YOU believe in are the facts. everyone knows that.

Going to Iraq was only right if they wanted to win the war... I hope they do, but right now I think they just want to spend more money into the military ;)

let me guess, your new hero is Robert Mugabe

ah gotta love the shitty presedent america picked.