Do you actually believe that Democrats are that virtuous? I’m not saying that all politicians are bad, or are in bed with big business, but many of them in both parties are. If it is not big business it is special interest. In the end it is the same, the pocketbook sways their votes.
You're absolutely right, and had he at last conceded that the Democrats weren't the tool of big business that would have been my next point: that each party has its corruption of choice, and the Democrats tend to go with special interest groups over corporations. I'm in no way implying that all Democrats are that virtuous, but some of them are, and the rest will try so hard to fake it in order to stay in power that they're still going to spend a lot of time acting in the interests of their supporters, and in that way their motives become somewhat of a moot point. Not entirely, because corruption is still corruption, but somewhat. But this topic is tangential at best, and not worth pursuing much further in this thread. The topic was and is the accusation that the Democrats a) brought the war to fruition themselves only to later blame Republicans and b) are in the pocket of big business every bit as much as Republicans. I won't deny that many of them are in someone's pocket, but that's a different can of worms.
Originally posted by WantsumBier Do you actually believe that Democrats are that virtuous? I’m not saying that all politicians are bad, or are in bed with big business, but many of them in both parties are. If it is not big business it is special interest. In the end it is the same, the pocketbook sways their votes.
You're absolutely right, and had he at last conceded that the Democrats weren't the tool of big business that would have been my next point: that each party has its corruption of choice, and the Democrats tend to go with special interest groups over corporations. I'm in no way implying that all Democrats are that virtuous, but some of them are, and the rest will try so hard to fake it in order to stay in power that they're still going to spend a lot of time acting in the interests of their supporters, and in that way their motives become somewhat of a moot point. Not entirely, because corruption is still corruption, but somewhat. But this topic is tangential at best, and not worth pursuing much further in this thread. The topic was and is the accusation that the Democrats a) brought the war to fruition themselves only to later blame Republicans and b) are in the pocket of big business every bit as much as Republicans. I won't deny that many of them are in someone's pocket, but that's a different can of worms.
/Agreed
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
I wasn't saying condescension is somehow not allowed. It makes for a nice little luxury when you clearly know what you're talking about.
So you're saying that you do? Do you hold a public office? Have you held one for over a year? What do you have a degree in?
I won't attempt to lecture you about the role of GRE scores in getting into Grad School; you won't believe me until you do it.
Oh, but I have: Have you ever taken a look at the average scores of admitted students in the top universities? You're saying that they would accept some f***tard that doesn't even possess the rudiments of geometric and algebraic reasoning? I doubt it; unless he were to bribe himself in... perhaps you did the same?
No Democrat that loudly decried the war supported it with his vote. With the media breathing down everyone's neck, no one would dare. If anyone wavered under public opinion, it was the Republicans, because again, you're about the only one that actually thinks the Democrats were the ones to initially favor it more. Democrats will tell you they didn't because they like to tell everyone they're the good guys, and Republicans will tell you so because they (largely) think the Democrats were and are a bunch of pussy liberals. Both parties signed on to the war, but the Republicans, both in Washington and around the country, have had a lot more converts.
ROFL! Actually many of the democrats that had SIGNED opposed it later. How stupid can they be? They all have at least four year degrees and should have been given some projections of the possible outcomes; isn't it somewhat obvious that they had already conceived of them and merely opposed it later to gain public favor? Yes, the Democrats did INITIALLY favor it more (not more than Republicans, obviously). Go google the f**king document already approving it, or are you too stupid to research?
Who on Earth do you think gets any politician into office? And who keeps them there? Do you think any company will pay you because they like you? They pay you because you're in a position of power, and unless you stay there, the cash flow has to end sometime. Even if every Democrat were somehow in bed with big business (an idea most educated people will laugh at), it would be laregely irrelevant, because they'd still be doing exactly what they were elected to do. But that's not the case. The Democrats have a reputation as the friend of the middle class and the enemy of big business, and not just because they talk the talk. Whether or not you or I agree with that, it's true. If you're honestly implying that the aim of any and every politician, regardless of party, is to swindle his/her way into office and extort as much money as possible from every lobbyist in the area until the jig is up, then this debate is over, and was before it started.
Really, so you're saying every constituent gets a bank statement from every senator? How the hell can people tell what senators are getting paid by lobbyists? Even if they are kept in office, it is done under the pretense of public image. They would be doing exactly what they were elected to do? Orly? Yes, they are responsible for legislation, but there never is a guarantee that it is being done in public interest.
The way the elections run now, it's all about who has the capital to market him/her self. Do you think that it is mere coincidence that most people are moderates and that the two parties have dominated the house for decades?
Most people have not even heard about independent candidates, because they were not able to afford commercials on prime time TV; the two parties have inductively become a massive oligopoly that uses it's accrued wealth to create the marketing barriers to entry that smaller candidates face.
Democrats obviously pander to the poor majority with social reform, but it is an emerging trend that the two parties are starting to converge on most issues...
If the Democrats really are trying to combat big business, then they're doing one hell of a shi**y job: Most of the wealth of America is concentrated within 10% of the population....
Considering that they have one hell of a representation in the senate, what is their excuse?
Why are companies getting away with canceled pensions and pathetic healthcare benefits for their workers?
Democrats and Republicans ARE all talk.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Originally posted by Dabble Americans are happy because we are a nation of anti-intellectuals. We like simple answers to complex questions. The Iraq debate? Either you 'stay the course' or 'cut and run.' You are either with the terrorists or you are with US. The great achievement of the Conservative movement has been to discredit any sort of critical thought. Thinking too much is bad for your health. That is why George Dubya appeals to so many of us. He is one of US!! He is a good ole boy (even though he comes from an east coast elite society). What helped Clinton get elected was his good ole boy accent, which helped to mask his great intellect (he was a Rhodes Scholar, rember). The truth is, Democrats will never win any significant office ever again in this country until they can dumb down their postions with simple language (that is assuming that they actually have a position).
This age-old liberal wife's tale is utterly rediculous. You might as well come out and say, if you don't agree with us, you are too stupid to fully understand the complexity of our argument. Liberal intellectuals have been passing this urban legend through institutions of higher learning for ages now and it really is getting old.
Let me fill you in on something. One reason the liberals fail miserably now days is because of the above thoughts about society. People don't like it when someone is condescending to them. People are much smarter than liberals give them credit for, it has become like the liberal acadamian's achilles heel. They feel their reasoning is invincible, yet they keep losing the fight. The liberal's base is supposed to be the masses, of which a large section is lacking anything higher than a high school diploma, if even that. So, the funny part is, why are liberals saying only uneducated people would be against them, when it is uneducated people liberals are supposed to be "for."
And by the way, the reason Clinton won an election against the most popular President ever going into an election year, was because people thought GHW Bush was a liar. "Read my lips, no new taxes" was not just an SNL skit, it was a battlecry against GHW Bush.
Originally posted by //\//\oo Democrats obviously pander to the poor majority with social reform, but it is an emerging trend that the two parties are starting to converge on most issues...
With that said....the poor rarely vote too. If they did, I think that the Democrats would give the Republicans a run for their money, but I dont see that happening anytime soon.
Most people want to be safe here in America. The right comes across as a strong party that would defend America at all costs. Where as the Left would basically would try to negotiate the issues.
republicins asked their friends the oil cartels to lower the prices for now to try an improve the mood of people.
the oil industry really controls america now. thats why we went to war in iraq, remember what bush said? the oil will pay for the war. also the first reports if you remember were that the oil fields were safe.... thats when bush declared victory.
Originally posted by SmurfMagic republicins asked their friends the oil cartels to lower the prices for now to try an improve the mood of people.
the oil industry really controls america now. thats why we went to war in iraq, remember what bush said? the oil will pay for the war. also the first reports if you remember were that the oil fields were safe.... thats when bush declared victory.
So your prices are dropping... but over here in the UK (one of your few allies in the war) the prices are still rising on fuel.
Originally posted by Tamalan So your prices are dropping... but over here in the UK (one of your few allies in the war) the prices are still rising on fuel.
You think your getting screwed? look again
What are you guys paying over there now? I am in Florida and gas is now around $2.30 USD per gallon.
It was as high as $2.95 a gallon a few months ago.
Originally posted by outfctrl Originally posted by Tamalan So your prices are dropping... but over here in the UK (one of your few allies in the war) the prices are still rising on fuel.
You think your getting screwed? look again
What are you guys paying over there now? I am in Florida and gas is now around $2.30 USD per gallon.
It was as high as $2.95 a gallon a few months ago.
UK Petrol Prices for Thursday 28th Sep 2006 Avg. Min. Max. Unleaded: 87.9p 84.8p 100.0p Diesel: 93.2p 88.9p 105.0p LRP: 95.6p 87.9p 99.9p Super: 94.4p 87.9p 107.9p LPG: 45.5p 38.9p 49.9p
This is pence per litre
1 US Gallon = 3.8 litres £1 = $1.8
a quick guesstimate would mean that we are paying roughly $6-7 per gallon
I wish i knew, strange though isnt it, US 'frees' Iraq and its oilfields and gets cheaper fuel. We as a country are one of the few that supported and assisted but we are still getting the shaft over fuel :P
Our punishment for helping in the war? :P
Maybe we are getting lower prices but our government isnt passing the saving on and creaming off the profit?
I wish i knew the answer, whatver it is, we are getting royally screwed.
Europe has much better mass transit systems than the US. The governments there spent a lot of money to build them, and they want people to use them. High gas taxes discourage private automobile driving.
The US has terrible mass transit. It spent enormous amounts of money building a superhighway system. They do not want to discourage people from using the highways, so they keep gas taxes low.
Originally posted by Tamalan Originally posted by outfctrl Originally posted by Tamalan So your prices are dropping... but over here in the UK (one of your few allies in the war) the prices are still rising on fuel.
You think your getting screwed? look again
What are you guys paying over there now? I am in Florida and gas is now around $2.30 USD per gallon.
It was as high as $2.95 a gallon a few months ago.
UK Petrol Prices for Thursday 28th Sep 2006 Avg. Min. Max. Unleaded: 87.9p 84.8p 100.0p Diesel: 93.2p 88.9p 105.0p LRP: 95.6p 87.9p 99.9p Super: 94.4p 87.9p 107.9p LPG: 45.5p 38.9p 49.9p
This is pence per litre
1 US Gallon = 3.8 litres £1 = $1.8
a quick guesstimate would mean that we are paying roughly $6-7 per gallon
Well, I am not overseas every month, but I do get to Europe pretty often and as far as I can tell, gas prices have remained pretty steady for about 3 years. For the past 3 years, I have averaged approximately 6 USD per gallon. Bear in mind that my figures include liter to gallon conversion along with Euro or Pound conversions. Bottom line is that locals have seen fluctuations, but when compaired to the dollar, they have remained fairly consistant.
I am not saying that Europeans get a good deal. Just it has been consistant.
it's all about taxes on the different gas prices. One can see this in the United States alone. In general, states like California have much higher gas prices than say Ohio or something. Rather than make it political, i'll let you make up your own reason as to why that is.
All i know is i'm very happy that my price of gas when from 3.03 a gallon to 2.20 per gallon like it is now.... took about 3 weeks i think heh.
Comments
/Agreed
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
I wasn't saying condescension is somehow not allowed. It makes for a nice little luxury when you clearly know what you're talking about.
So you're saying that you do? Do you hold a public office? Have you held one for over a year? What do you have a degree in?
I won't attempt to lecture you about the role of GRE scores in getting into Grad School; you won't believe me until you do it.
Oh, but I have: Have you ever taken a look at the average scores of admitted students in the top universities? You're saying that they would accept some f***tard that doesn't even possess the rudiments of geometric and algebraic reasoning? I doubt it; unless he were to bribe himself in... perhaps you did the same?
No Democrat that loudly decried the war supported it with his vote. With the media breathing down everyone's neck, no one would dare. If anyone wavered under public opinion, it was the Republicans, because again, you're about the only one that actually thinks the Democrats were the ones to initially favor it more. Democrats will tell you they didn't because they like to tell everyone they're the good guys, and Republicans will tell you so because they (largely) think the Democrats were and are a bunch of pussy liberals. Both parties signed on to the war, but the Republicans, both in Washington and around the country, have had a lot more converts.
ROFL! Actually many of the democrats that had SIGNED opposed it later. How stupid can they be? They all have at least four year degrees and should have been given some projections of the possible outcomes; isn't it somewhat obvious that they had already conceived of them and merely opposed it later to gain public favor? Yes, the Democrats did INITIALLY favor it more (not more than Republicans, obviously). Go google the f**king document already approving it, or are you too stupid to research?
Who on Earth do you think gets any politician into office? And who keeps them there? Do you think any company will pay you because they like you? They pay you because you're in a position of power, and unless you stay there, the cash flow has to end sometime. Even if every Democrat were somehow in bed with big business (an idea most educated people will laugh at), it would be laregely irrelevant, because they'd still be doing exactly what they were elected to do. But that's not the case. The Democrats have a reputation as the friend of the middle class and the enemy of big business, and not just because they talk the talk. Whether or not you or I agree with that, it's true. If you're honestly implying that the aim of any and every politician, regardless of party, is to swindle his/her way into office and extort as much money as possible from every lobbyist in the area until the jig is up, then this debate is over, and was before it started.
Really, so you're saying every constituent gets a bank statement from every senator? How the hell can people tell what senators are getting paid by lobbyists? Even if they are kept in office, it is done under the pretense of public image. They would be doing exactly what they were elected to do? Orly? Yes, they are responsible for legislation, but there never is a guarantee that it is being done in public interest.
The way the elections run now, it's all about who has the capital to market him/her self. Do you think that it is mere coincidence that most people are moderates and that the two parties have dominated the house for decades?
Most people have not even heard about independent candidates, because they were not able to afford commercials on prime time TV; the two parties have inductively become a massive oligopoly that uses it's accrued wealth to create the marketing barriers to entry that smaller candidates face.
Democrats obviously pander to the poor majority with social reform, but it is an emerging trend that the two parties are starting to converge on most issues...
If the Democrats really are trying to combat big business, then they're doing one hell of a shi**y job: Most of the wealth of America is concentrated within 10% of the population....
Considering that they have one hell of a representation in the senate, what is their excuse?
Why are companies getting away with canceled pensions and pathetic healthcare benefits for their workers?
Democrats and Republicans ARE all talk.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Let me fill you in on something. One reason the liberals fail miserably now days is because of the above thoughts about society. People don't like it when someone is condescending to them. People are much smarter than liberals give them credit for, it has become like the liberal acadamian's achilles heel. They feel their reasoning is invincible, yet they keep losing the fight. The liberal's base is supposed to be the masses, of which a large section is lacking anything higher than a high school diploma, if even that. So, the funny part is, why are liberals saying only uneducated people would be against them, when it is uneducated people liberals are supposed to be "for."
And by the way, the reason Clinton won an election against the most popular President ever going into an election year, was because people thought GHW Bush was a liar. "Read my lips, no new taxes" was not just an SNL skit, it was a battlecry against GHW Bush.
With that said....the poor rarely vote too. If they did, I think that the Democrats would give the Republicans a run for their money, but I dont see that happening anytime soon.
Most people want to be safe here in America. The right comes across as a strong party that would defend America at all costs. Where as the Left would basically would try to negotiate the issues.
the oil industry really controls america now.
thats why we went to war in iraq, remember what bush said? the oil will pay for the war.
also the first reports if you remember were that the oil fields were safe.... thats when bush declared victory.
You think your getting screwed? look again
What are you guys paying over there now? I am in Florida and gas is now around $2.30 USD per gallon.
It was as high as $2.95 a gallon a few months ago.
What are you guys paying over there now? I am in Florida and gas is now around $2.30 USD per gallon.
It was as high as $2.95 a gallon a few months ago.
UK Petrol Prices for
Thursday 28th Sep 2006
Avg. Min. Max.
Unleaded: 87.9p 84.8p 100.0p
Diesel: 93.2p 88.9p 105.0p
LRP: 95.6p 87.9p 99.9p
Super: 94.4p 87.9p 107.9p
LPG: 45.5p 38.9p 49.9p
This is pence per litre
1 US Gallon = 3.8 litres
£1 = $1.8
a quick guesstimate would mean that we are paying roughly $6-7 per gallon
OMG
Why in the hell is gas so expensive there? No wonder everyone drives a small car and rides scooters.
That is insane
I wish i knew, strange though isnt it, US 'frees' Iraq and its oilfields and gets cheaper fuel. We as a country are one of the few that supported and assisted but we are still getting the shaft over fuel :P
Our punishment for helping in the war? :P
Maybe we are getting lower prices but our government isnt passing the saving on and creaming off the profit?
I wish i knew the answer, whatver it is, we are getting royally screwed.
Still, nothing new there!
The US has terrible mass transit. It spent enormous amounts of money building a superhighway system. They do not want to discourage people from using the highways, so they keep gas taxes low.
What are you guys paying over there now? I am in Florida and gas is now around $2.30 USD per gallon.
It was as high as $2.95 a gallon a few months ago.
UK Petrol Prices for
Thursday 28th Sep 2006
Avg. Min. Max.
Unleaded: 87.9p 84.8p 100.0p
Diesel: 93.2p 88.9p 105.0p
LRP: 95.6p 87.9p 99.9p
Super: 94.4p 87.9p 107.9p
LPG: 45.5p 38.9p 49.9p
This is pence per litre
1 US Gallon = 3.8 litres
£1 = $1.8
a quick guesstimate would mean that we are paying roughly $6-7 per gallon
Well, I am not overseas every month, but I do get to Europe pretty often and as far as I can tell, gas prices have remained pretty steady for about 3 years. For the past 3 years, I have averaged approximately 6 USD per gallon. Bear in mind that my figures include liter to gallon conversion along with Euro or Pound conversions. Bottom line is that locals have seen fluctuations, but when compaired to the dollar, they have remained fairly consistant.
I am not saying that Europeans get a good deal. Just it has been consistant.
it's all about taxes on the different gas prices. One can see this in the United States alone. In general, states like California have much higher gas prices than say Ohio or something. Rather than make it political, i'll let you make up your own reason as to why that is.
All i know is i'm very happy that my price of gas when from 3.03 a gallon to 2.20 per gallon like it is now.... took about 3 weeks i think heh.