Election 2004

[Mad Mardigan]

A good reason for the economic decline, not to blame politics, but science.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1159776,00.html

[drz]

This is true. Automated machines are eliminating the need for humans. The day we have machines repairing the production machines, humans will be all but useless.

 

Honestly, as things become fully automated, I don't see how capitalism will be able to work. The only people who will prosper will be those who had the capital to invest in the automated technology. Any who do not, will have to rely on retail jobs, cooking, grave digging, and general construction labor.

 

Since everyone will be unemployed when companies reach full automation, these markets will be flooded as well. Almost everyone will be unemployed and broke, aside from the wealthiest.

 

Supply and demand is great, but it doesn't matter how much demand there is for something if the people demanding it can't afford to buy it. I believe full automation will cause a crash, if we can manage to make it there before we run out of oil that is.

[budullewraagh]

A good reason for the economic decline, not to blame politics, but science.

but not the reason for our record defecits suddenly coming from our record surplus

[Thales]

I am not American and I won't vote but I will say this;

 

If Bush is re-elected it will not reflect well on the American public(as the rest of the world see's it) and we will be in for the most dangerous four years in the worlds recent history.

 

Not to mention heading towards global meltdown at an ever increasing rate.

 

Bush is a moron, and if you can't see that, then you maybe one too...

[Phi for All]

I am not American and I won't vote but I will say this;

 

If Bush is re-elected it will not reflect well on the American public(as the rest of the world see's it) and we will be in for the most dangerous four years in the worlds recent history.

 

Not to mention heading towards global meltdown at an ever increasing rate.

 

Bush is a moron' date=' and if you can't see that, then you maybe one too...[/quote']Thanks for the wake-up call, Thales. You bring up a good point that I hadn't even considered, I'm embarassed to say. You see, we Americans tend to think of ourselves as the good guys in the white hats and sometimes we really do think we know best for everybody and we can't understand when other countries think we are being pushy and agressive and obnoxious. That can't be us!

 

But it's one thing to elect a president and be saddled with him for four years after he turns out to be much less than advertised. To elect him again....

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well then let's become isolationist again.

Clinton had affairs and never really did anything about terrorism (oh, he threw a few cruise missiles) and so, since he didn't do anything, people liked him. Then he had his affair.

Whoop-de-doo.

[MolecularMan14]

lol, thats true

[-Demosthenes-]

 

Next' date=' Dream Lord, my oldest brother served 1 year and 1 month in Iraq, but I do not blame Bush for war. 2nd, I would like to have Kerrys actuall medical records from Vietnam. My dad fought in Vietnam for 8 months the was wounded twice by a mortor round. At least Bush did serve in an armed force unlike the draft dodging hero of the democrats Clinton who cause are economic troubles back in 1999 when it actually started to fall. Clinton success was Reagonomics. And if being a UN puppet makes the world happy, then count me out.[/quote']

 

See there is a comment from a sound minded reasonable person.

Not like other people in this thread who blaim all their troubles on the president, and assume that somehow that War with Terrorism is some ploy to get oil, based only on the fact that he's from Texas. Don't elect a president from Idaho, he'll try to horde the world's supply of potatoes. It's laughable, why do we take these people seriously?

 

if you think the christian way is to vote bush because he is a crusader, anti-abortion and anti-homosexual rights, you're wrong; they're not christian values.

 

???? What are you talking about?

[Mad Mardigan]

Well then let's become isolationist again.

Clinton had affairs and never really did anything about terrorism (oh' date=' he threw a few cruise missiles) and so, since he didn't do anything, people liked him. Then he had his affair.

Whoop-de-doo.[/quote']

 

Just think what Reagon would have done if he was in office. Who was it, Galdophie, or something like that, who drew a line in the desert and said not to cross it, and he had his front yard blown up. I still believe Reagon was the best president of my time.

[Sayonara]

If you're going to talk about the things someone did you should probably try to get most of the correct letters in their name.

[Phi for All]

If you're going to talk about the things someone did you should probably try to get most of the correct letters in their name.

Who is more recognizable to teenagers:

Ronald Reagan or Ronald McDonald?

Moammar Gadhafi or Gandalf the Wizard?

 

Not like other people in this thread who blaim all their troubles on the president, and assume that somehow that War with Terrorism is some ploy to get oil, based only on the fact that he's from Texas[/u'].

I hope I'm not being offensive, D, but are you repeating something you heard someone else say? Because I've combed the entire thread and I can't find anyone who used that as their sole basis for mistrusting Bush.

 

Go back in history, oil is power, oil is big money. Warren Harding was from Ohio, not Idaho or Texas, and his Sec of the Interior was pulling slick oil deals without competitive bidding just like Haliburton and the Bush administration.

[Sayonara]

Who is more recognizable to teenagers:

Ronald Reagan or Ronald McDonald?

Moammar Gadhafi or Gandalf the Wizard?

I could go on about the willingness of a leader to bombard sovereign soil being no basis for relection, but my guess is that would be futile.

[atinymonkey]

Well then let's become isolationist again.

Clinton had affairs and never really did anything about terrorism .

 

That's another positive thing to come out of 9/11 and the war on terror. The White House no longer has supporters for the IRA and Bush came out on the side of the peace process. At long last' date=' the lid on the violence seems to be on tight as the funding ran dry for militants.

 

Not like other people in this thread who blaim all their troubles on the president, and assume that somehow that War with Terrorism is some ploy to get oil, based only on the fact that he's from Texas. ?

 

Well, if the president owned his own Multinational Billion Dollar Potato Company, and was put into power by his father who also owned a Billion Dollar Potato Company. If both father and son had instigated a war on the country with the highest yield of Potatoes, and made public efforts to secure the transfer of Potatoes out of the country they attacked; then yes I might see something suspicious going on in Idaho.

 

I don't blame Bush for my troubles, he doesn't impact me. I live in the UK. You can't expect people to drop reasoned opinons just by inferring that they are somehow not seeing the 'whole picture'.

[Phi for All]

I could go on about the willingness of a leader to bombard sovereign soil being no basis for relection, but my guess is that would be futile.

Save your breath. We are warmongers once again who equate foreigners with computer game targets because we really couldn't ever actually have that peace thing those tree-huggers are always on about, could we? I mean, why get along with the rest of the world when we can just bomb them into submission? And if a few die, well, that just means fewer people who aren't like us. Big whoop.

 

We are America, Right or... Else.

[LucidDreamer]

 

Next' date=' Dream Lord, my oldest brother served 1 year and 1 month in Iraq, but I do not blame Bush for war. 2nd, I would like to have Kerrys actuall medical records from Vietnam. My dad fought in Vietnam for 8 months the was wounded twice by a mortor round. At least Bush did serve in an armed force unlike the draft dodging hero of the democrats Clinton who cause are economic troubles back in 1999 when it actually started to fall. Clinton success was Reagonomics. And if being a UN puppet makes the world happy, then count me out.[/quote']

 

If I was of draftable age during the Vietnam War I would have dogged it as well. Not because I'm a coward but because I believe shooting oriental villagers in rice patties to stick it to the communist is not the most admirable way to spend my time.

 

I would vote for Clinton right now if I could. Give the man a whole harem of interns if he wants it. But he has the diplomatic tact and intelligence to pull us out of the mess that we are in. That's alot more than you can say for Bush.

 

I don't blame Bush for the war on terror, but I do blame him for the war in Iraq. No one forced him to invade Iraq. It was his administration's decision to go in. Most of the rest of the western world thought it was a bad idea. They were right. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We are likely to be stuck in a bloody war for some time. There was no clear purpose in going in. It was not a blow against terrorism. In fact it has only increased the ranks and the resolve of the terrorist. The Iraqi people don't want us there. We have screwed up their country worse than it was.

 

Clinton success was Reagonomics.

 

How in the world can you believe this? Basically what you are saying is that what Reagan did somehow skipped his term and Bush’s term and showed its effects during Clinton's era. Clinton's success in office was a result of his policies. The reason the Republican really hated Clinton was because he was the epitome of what a successful Democrat can do for the country. They knew that if they didn't get him out of the office and somehow distract the country from seeing the effects of his policies there was going to be a very long reign of Democratic power.

 

For those of you who don't know what Raeganomics is, it is basically the economic policy of giving lots of tax breaks and benefits to the very rich and the owners of big business. This money then is somehow supposed to trickle down to the rest of the country. So by making the rich richer we are all suppose to benefit. It's really a way to pay back all of the rich men who got you in office and try to disguise it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you think we went to Iraq to get cheap oil, then look at gas prices. Obviously it failed.

[Phi for All]

If you think we went to Iraq to get cheap oil, then look at gas prices. Obviously it failed.

If you think they're going to sell gas to you cheaply when you'll pay these prices then you understand nothing about a market economy where prices are controlled by a few immense corporations. Capitalism works best with competition. When a few own everything including the media (news and entertainment) and the politicians, they dictate what people are allowed to pay for goods and services.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So the oil companies don't work on supply and demand, do they then?

Besides, the oil companies don't directly control oil prices. The owners of the gas stations can change the price there as they please.

[Sayonara]

Oil and its petrochemical derivatives are very much sold in a sellers market.

 

I don't think the owners of gas stations are likely to omit their mark-up Refsmmat, never mind sell fuel for less than they had to pay for it.

[Skye]

So the oil companies don't work on supply and demand' date=' do they then?

Besides, the oil companies don't directly control oil prices. The owners of the gas stations can change the price there as they please.[/quote']

The supply is controlled, largely, by OPEC. It's definately a sellers market, but OPEC realises that driving your customers to economic ruin benefits no one, so they try to keep prices down. Doesn't always work, especially with wars going on.

[budullewraagh]

reaganomics BLOW. how many people here had stock in enron?

[Dave]

The supply is controlled, largely, by OPEC. It's definately a sellers market, but OPEC realises that driving your customers to economic ruin benefits no one, so they try to keep prices down. Doesn't always work, especially with wars going on.

 

And CEOs of Russian oil companies being arrested.

[SolarFlare]

things are heating up because of election time, also there is much talk about what should be done right and what has been going wrong. The cost of Iraq, the falling job market, Halliburton corruption in Iraq, the drop of the dollar and rising debts...

 

There were some very good points made during the Bush Vs Kerry debate. Now we will see the final push for election. So who won that debate

 

Here is a small video clip from the Bush V Kerry debate

 

http://www.pleasurecaptains.com/favor/howsmall.html

[Phi for All]

I think there is no question that Kerry won the debates. It has helped him greatly in the polls. After four years of Bush's poor quality speaking, some people feel that speaking well means you are insincere or just telling the voters what they want to hear.

 

I don't think Kerry is quite the leader I would like him to be. I know Bush is NOT the leader I want at all. I hope that Kerry will be like Clinton in surrounding himself with knowledgeable people and acting on their advice. I know Bush will not do this based on past performance.

[Pangloss]

I think there is no question that Kerry won the debates. It has helped him greatly in the polls. After four years of Bush's poor quality speaking, some people feel that speaking well means you are insincere or just telling the voters what they want to hear.

 

And yet Bush is climbing in the polls again, jumping ahead in Gallup, Newsweek and ABC News polls.

 

Bush leads 52-44 percent among likely voters in a Gallup Poll taken for CNN and USA Today from Thursday through Saturday, up from 49-46 after the second debate.

 

Bush leads 50-44 among likely voters in a Newsweek Poll conducted Thursday and Friday.

 

Bush leads 50-46 in a tracking poll of likely voters taken Wednesday through Saturday for ABC News, up from 48-48 in the Tuesday-Friday period.

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6273430/

 

So I think your analysis a little off the mark.