[Cody Dawg]

What a lame duck president in this regard.

He obviously doesn't care a bit about dealing with the oil and/or gas problem. He never discusses it. He ignores it and along with ignoring the problem is also ignoring all American citizens who are struggling to make ends meet.

He is going to leave the oval office with this country in economic shambles and will be long despised for it.

Yes, I support his foreign policies (to a certain extent I do - I think Rumsfeld is a has-been who is out of touch and I despise him), but where domestic policies go, there are none and his concern for our health care system and economic issues is nothing short of an embarrassment.

Honestly, I think the democrats will take the presidency the next time around due to Bush's lack of concern for honest hard-working Americans - and they deserve to with this kind of domestic track record.

[Saad]

I don't think that there are any nationally known Democrats who are popular enough with the base to win, but that'll change as we get closer to the election.

There is something seriously wrong in the administration that we don't know about. Maybe Bush is distracted or depressed. Maybe there are power struggles after Andy Card left. The President has never been such a bad politician. During his press conferences, he's combative. He says things that don't jive with reality in Iraq. He takes long vacations (even if they're working vacations) when there is a war in the middle east.

[Sky Captain]

Republican-Democrat, they're all the same.

[Saad]

McCain is strong, and Gingrich has a lot of publicity.

[Sky Captain]

If only Zell MIller would run.

[Cody Dawg]

Saad

There is something seriously wrong in the administration that we don't know about.

Great post.



Given the number of supposed resignations (some were obviously firings) and people who bolted from the admin, I think that you are absolutely correct. Maybe the administration is more corrupt from within, you know? I mean, maybe the people that left felt forced to leave due to ethical concerns that may never be disclosed.

But, you're right. Something is very wrong with this White House. About the only person I like in the White House right now is Laura Bush.

[BRussell]

I'm glad he's ignoring domestic issues. Look what's happened since he started paying attention to foreign policy issues.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm glad he's ignoring domestic issues. Look what's happened since he started paying attention to foreign policy issues.

[Millennium]

What do you mean, "he ignores it"? He's discussed the issue many times. His reactions may not be to your liking, but that does not mean he is ignoring things.

[Cody Dawg]

What is he DOING about ANY of the problems? Health care? Insurance? Oil price checks? No transparency with ANY of it.

Please enlighten us all.

Thank you.

[Dakar]

What do you expect him to do about the oil problem? He can't control OPEC or the market value of crude.

[RAILhead]

Ugh.

[Doofy]

Sometimes the best way to manage is to sit back and let things run for a while - particularly if you're not a progressive who likes to meddle with everything (*cough*TonyBliar*cough*).

Cherish it. Pretty much every Monday morning here in the UK brings news about some hair-brained scheme dreamt up by the government to tax or oppress us even more than we already are. This week it's sending inspectors around to everyone's house to see if they're using energy-saving light-bulbs or not (no, I'm not joking).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

What is he DOING about ANY of the problems? Health care? Insurance? Oil price checks? No transparency with ANY of it.

Please enlighten us all.

Thank you.

Cody, I agree...

Add to your list:


- Education

- Science

- The environment


There are a few other issues that I know will spring to mind the moment I post this. I'm not sure where several others are at either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar

What do you expect him to do about the oil problem? He can't control OPEC or the market value of crude.

But he can look into the record profits the refineries are making. Before people react by pointing to the increased costs of crude to explain their record profits, they do have to pay for the crude oil too you know, this is a cost of doing business. Certainly these additional profits have to be coming from somewhere.

[Cody Dawg]

besson3c is exactly correct.

Just sitting around and "watching" things go bad is not good enough.

Too many Americans are on the verge of bankruptcy or losing their homes. When people have to go to a pawn shop and pawn things that they own just to pay for gasoline then there is something very wrong.

Wait until people run their gas credit cards to the hilt and can't pay them - there is a lot of that already.

Something is very wrong with this administration. We are losing lives in the Middle East in a country that is on the verge of a civil war and meanwhile, Bush ignores what the people really want. It's just not acceptable. He should take a cue from Katie Couric and go on a "listening tour."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Just sitting around and "watching" things go bad is not good enough.

Too many Americans are on the verge of bankruptcy or losing their homes. When people have to go to a pawn shop and pawn things that they own just to pay for gasoline then there is something very wrong.

Wait until people run their gas credit cards to the hilt and can't pay them - there is a lot of that already.

Cody, it seems like your only concern is gas prices. This is just the natural balancing of pricing in the western world - nothing that your government can do about it. Nothing.

We pay $6+ per gallon. Get used to it, because that's what you're going to end up paying.

As I've said before, I was expecting the US economy to go belly-up big style in around '98 or '99. The fact that it hasn't is testament to the current administration's policy skills. If the Dems had got in in 2000, I'm not sure that you wouldn't already be living in cardboard city.

We're in a worse condition over here, trust me on that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

- The environment

Fact: In terms of environmental friendliness, the US has actually outperformed most Kyoto signatories over the last few years.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

What is he DOING about ANY of the problems? Health care? Insurance? Oil price checks? No transparency with ANY of it.

Please enlighten us all.

Why don't you ask yourself what you're doing about these problems...

Health care: Bush has spurred the largest medical information transition ever. He's also presented plans to Congress to help make health care more affordable. Re: Small businesses pooling to get the same benefits and prices as the large corporations, tort reform to decrease doctor liability insurance, health savings accounts...

Insurance: Not sure what insurance you're referring to. If health insurance, see above.

Oil price checks: Geez, lady, the man is leading us in a world war. What do you want him to do, build yet another government bureaucracy? If you think gas is too expensive, try another gas station. Other than that, how about supporting domestic oil exploration so that we can have a bit more supply in the future.

No transparency with what? We don't need to know everything. That's why we elect officials as representatives. They deal with the situations and data, and they make their decisions. If every god-darn decision needs to be presented in full to all, nothing will get done. We'd collapse.

Bush has proposed solutions. Try helping get those solutions into action instead of naively accusing him of neglecting those issues. You have representatives. Contact them instead of whining here.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

But he can look into the record profits the refineries are making. Before people react by pointing to the increased costs of crude to explain their record profits, they do have to pay for the crude oil too you know, this is a cost of doing business. Certainly these additional profits have to be coming from somewhere.

You can't be this mathematically challenged...

1999: $1000 (cost) x 150% (markup) = $1500 = $500 (profit)

2006: $2000 (cost) x 150% (markup) = $3000 = $1000 (profit)


The increase in profit dollars is due to the increase in cost, even though the profit margin remains the same.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Add to your list:


- Education

- Science

- The environment

Education: No Child Left Behind is producing results, and it's still evolving. School voucher plan is necessary, and Bush has proposed it numerous times.

Science/Environment: Just because Bush doesn't fall for junk science regarding American-made global warming and embrionic stem cells research doesn't mean he's not addressing these fronts.


Why don't you tell us what you would do on these fronts?

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

You can't be this mathematically challenged...

1999: $1000 (cost) x 150% (markup) = $1500 = $500 (profit)

2006: $2000 (cost) x 150% (markup) = $3000 = $1000 (profit)


The increase in profit dollars is due to the increase in cost, even though the profit margin remains the same.

Last I checked, the increase in profit was much higher than the increase in cost -- yes, percentage-wise, of course. But this was based on crude oil costs, and perhaps there are other costs (increased use of ethanol as an additive?) that I'm not aware of.

I don't begrudge oil companies their high profits. It's their job to maximize profits (although giving hundreds of millions of it away to retiring CEOs doesn't make sense). I do begrudge that our president's policies have been set up in order to maximize oil companies' profits, instead of helping the US economy as a whole. Don't believe me? Go see who wrote our national energy policy.

[Cody Dawg]

Health care is abyssmal.

Ever hear of the Medicare gap? Ask a senior about it and they'll tell you that they can either afford medicine or food but not both. That is the Bush administration's "fix" for health care - and it was only for senior citizens and not the rest of the population that he promised to help.

Physicians are leaving the practice of medicine in droves because of the cost of malpractice insurance and because the government will pay only about 25% of the care that they give to seniors and low-income. That 25% reimbursement is not enough for them to sustain their practices.

Hospitals going bankrupt.

Millions of Americans uninsured (a whopping 45 million back in 2005).

The health care issue has not been taken care of when people simply go to ERs and get medical care and then do not pay the bills - so the hospital is supporting society and in turn suffers.

The record-setting profits by gasoline companies just do not make sense when they keep saying that the reason prices are high is because of a refinery problem or cost-per-barrel from OPEC problem. Their profits would remain the same while the price of gasoline and heating oil rose.

This country is actually bankrupt - personally per middle class citizens and nationally.

This is from the UK Daily Telegraph:

A ballooning budget deficit and a pensions and welfare timebomb could send the economic superpower into insolvency, according to research by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve.

Prof Kotlikoff said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. "To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors," he asked.

According to his central analysis, "the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds''.

The budget deficit in the US is not massive. The Bush administration this week cut its forecasts for the fiscal shortfall this year by almost a third, saying it will come in at 2.3pc of gross domestic product. This is smaller than most European countries - including the UK - which have deficits north of 3pc of GDP.

Prof Kotlikoff, who teaches at Boston University, says: "The proper way to consider a country's solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.

"Does the United States fit this bill? No one knows for sure, but there are strong reasons to believe the United States may be going broke."

Experts have calculated that the country's long-term "fiscal gap" between all future government spending and all future receipts will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars. The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters.

The figure is massive because President George W Bush has made major tax cuts in recent years, and because the bill for Medicare, which provides health insurance for the elderly, and Medicaid, which does likewise for the poor, will increase greatly due to demographics.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "This figure is more than five times US GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one's head around $65.9trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143pc."

The scenario has serious implications for the dollar. If investors lose confidence in the US's future, and suspect the country may at some point allow inflation to erode away its debts, they may reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "The United States has experienced high rates of inflation in the past and appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century."

Paul Ashworth, of Capital Economics, was more sanguine about the coming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. "For a start, the expected deterioration in the Federal budget owes more to rising per capita spending on health care than to changing demographics," he said.

"This can be contained if the political will is there. Similarly, the expected increase in social security spending can be controlled by reducing the growth rate of benefits. Expecting a fix now is probably asking too much of short-sighted politicians who have no incentives to do so. But a fix, or at least a succession of patches, will come when the problem becomes more pressing."

The middle class is going broke and believe it or not, it's the middle class that pays the majority of taxes in this country (also not right or fair when the wealthiest people are able to evade paying taxes both legally and illegally).

If you are very poor then you are a burden on society and the government. If you are middle class (even with two incomes) you will shoulder more than your fair share to just survive - that includes paying more taxes just so that you can not only support yourself but also the poorest in the country.

You people who are saying, "Everything is fine in this country" need to personally assess how much credit you use to get by. Have credit cards? If you use credit to make purchases because you do not have enough liquid cash to simply pay for what you need then you, too, are in trouble. Do you have health insurance?

The fact is that some of you posting here defending the Bush administration do not live in this country so you truly do not know the reality that we all experience and discuss amongst ourselves.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

You can't be this mathematically challenged...

1999: $1000 (cost) x 150% (markup) = $1500 = $500 (profit)

2006: $2000 (cost) x 150% (markup) = $3000 = $1000 (profit)


The increase in profit dollars is due to the increase in cost, even though the profit margin remains the same.

This can be mathematically challenged. The markup is a percentage based on the company's overall cost in assembling the raw materials into the finished product, which takes into account the cost of crude. Why would you make the markup based on the cost of your raw materials? That makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever.

Your equation is bogus accounting, not sure where you got that from. Your equation should be more like this:

Profit =

+ cost of finished goods after markup
- $2000 (raw purchase price of crude)
- refining, storage, shipping, all other expenses (which should have remained relatively constant)


You simply adjust your final costs to balance out with your increased costs for your raw purchase price of crude.

This is from somebody who barely passed his entry level Financial Accounting courses

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Education: No Child Left Behind is producing results, and it's still evolving. School voucher plan is necessary, and Bush has proposed it numerous times.

You really need to talk to some teachers.

NCLB has been a complete and utter sham, that is despised among every teacher I've talked with in this very red state (I've talked to several) and with staunch Republican teachers who share the same basic goals of Bush. Finding teachers bitching about NCLB is the norm, not the exception.

Our science and math results have been really slipping compared to other countries. There is a culmination of factors (several not the fault of any government) that have resulted in a lot of apathy among the US student body (my personal observation). Trying to spark all of this with tests alone, that come at the expense of other valuable educational opportunites is not the answer. This is more of a cultural problem that is not going to be easily solved by hauling out the charts and graphs.

How many teachers have you talked to about NCLB?

It's crap, and believe me, I've heard enough bitching to say the same regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat was responsible for this bill.



Your blind optimism is sort of invigorating, but your knee-jerk reactionary defense of the adminstration does no one any good.

[Doofy]

So, what do you libs want Bushy to do about it all?

[Cody Dawg]

I'm not a lib, Doofy.

I'm a disgruntled conservative that smells a farce.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'm not a lib, Doofy.

Sorry hun - for a minute you were sounding like one. You know, blaming Bush for everything and forgetting that he's only a third of your government, etc., etc..

I'm sticking by my earlier assessment and maintaining that this situation is mostly due to economic factors way beyond US government control.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sorry hun - for a minute you were sounding like one. You know, blaming Bush for everything and forgetting that he's only a third of your government, etc., etc..

I'm sticking by my earlier assessment and maintaining that this situation is mostly due to economic factors way beyond US government control.

And you sound like a Conservative, lumping people into simplistic categories (probably just to irritate).

I understand that the executive branch is only a part of the government, and I understand that the Republicans are not soley responsible for all the problems in America today. I also understand that the Democrats need to get their act togther. Frankly, I'm not as interested in pointing fingers as I am solving the problems at hand, but when I refer to the government as a whole, I often use "Bush" as shorthand, since he represents the government as a whole. With Conservatives controlling the Whitehouse right now, they call the shots, it's their game to lose.

However, if it hurts the feelings of the Right in here, I'll start replacing "Bush" with "the US government as a whole, including Democrats", just so that some don't have to throw out their Bush jammies!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, what do you libs want Bushy to do about it all?

I'm not going to represent all of the Left, but if you want to know whether I specifically have what I think is a solution to a particular problem, just name the issue.



(That isn't to say that I think I single-handedly have solutions to all the problems in the country or world, just so it doesn't sound like my ego is out of control

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

What is he DOING about ANY of the problems? Health care? Insurance? Oil price checks?

What are YOU doing about it?

The president is not a petroleum scientist, a doctor, or an actuarial expert. Why don't you put some of your skills to good use and do something instead of just complaining? No democrat president has done more.

People give the President too much credit and too much blame.

Chris

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by chabig

What are YOU doing about it?

The president is not a petroleum scientist, a doctor, or an actuarial expert. Why don't you put some of your skills to good use and do something instead of just complaining? No democrat president has done more.

People give the President too much credit and too much blame.

Chris

We can't even be in the position to begin to discuss solutions if we can't even agree upon what the problems are.

[RAILhead]

Sounds like all of Cody whining is because she wants Big Brother to help. SOunds like a personal problem. When I'm 70 and have to decide between meds and food, the only person I can blame is ME. I won't be asking BB to help out in areas BB was never meant to help out.

[Monique]

Of course Bush is a lousy President, he was a lousy manager when he had companies that went bankrupt; he escapes the hell of Vietnam because he knew someone (total hypocrite about it, when you consider the fact that they put President Clinton through hell about his non-involvement), he is dumb and has no idea what to say when it comes to other issues than the war in Iraq, got involved in a war that has nothing to do with terrorism, lied to friends, hired a guy as vice-president that goes around and shoot his friends in the back; has a wife that only achievement in life was to read to children; did nothing useful in his life.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Sounds like all of Cody whining is because she wants Big Brother to help. SOunds like a personal problem. When I'm 70 and have to decide between meds and food, the only person I can blame is ME. I won't be asking BB to help out in areas BB was never meant to help out.

Railhead, it has been proven countless times in our history that a free market runs amuck when there is not regulation to protect the consumer. This is why we have things like common carriers.

No one is suggesting that absolutely everything needs this sort of regulation treatment, but many feel that gas is something that does need this sort of regulation, as it is our bread and butter. Hypothetically speaking, if the oil companies could decide tomorrow that they want to start selling for $5.00/gallon just because they think they can make more profit (i.e. their costs do not increase elsewhere), this might be great for them if people are still willing to buy at the same rate at this higher price, but it affects consumers and society in a negative way.

This sort of thing is at the heart of the issue. It's not as if we all expect free government hand outs like you seem to think, but rather price protections and mechanisms in place so that these companies can't increase their profit margins at the expense and detriment to society, simply because of their own greed.

We talk about the free market a lot, but I think that some people forget that it is actually a *regulated* free market, and we need those regulations. This is partially why we have the SEC.

[BlueSky]

My experience of our President Bush is that he's a very thoughtful and precise leader who can see the issues from many angles, and is always very willing to impart his guidance to the people who matter to him most: the American people. He has a firm grasp on the troubling issues facing most Americans and is always in the forefront when it comes to facing domestic issues such as the economy, illegal immigration, health care, and the War Against Steroids.

When I see him proudly stand at that podium and see that left eyebrow twitch, I know we're all in for a good dose of wisdom and wit that only President Bush can deliver, and I find myself feeling proud to be an American. There are leaders and there are leaders, but this guy is a Leader. With a capital L, which also stands for Liberty. That makes him the Liberty Leader, which is double-L's, just like Superman has Lana Lang, Lois Lane, Lori Lemaris, Lex Luthor and Jimmy Olsen. Coincidence? I think not.

If I see George during the Rapture as we're rising through the air, I'm going to give him a wink and a special thumbs-up, because I think he's keen.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

My experience of our President Bush is that he's a very thoughtful and precise leader who can see the issues from many angles, and is always very willing to impart his guidance to the people who matter to him most: the American people. He has a firm grasp on the troubling issues facing most Americans and is always in the forefront when it comes to facing domestic issues such as the economy, illegal immigration, health care, and the War Against Steroids.

When I see him proudly stand at that podium and see that left eyebrow twitch, I know we're all in for a good dose of wisdom and wit that only President Bush can deliver, and I find myself feeling proud to be an American. There are leaders and there are leaders, but this guy is a Leader. With a capital L, which also stands for Liberty. That makes him the Liberty Leader, which is double-L's, just like Superman has Lana Lang, Lois Lane, Lori Lemaris, Lex Luthor and Jimmy Olsen. Coincidence? I think not.

If I see George during the Rapture as we're rising through the air, I'm going to give him a wink and a special thumbs-up, because I think he's keen.

Great president, or the greatest president?

[Dork.]

Gas prices right now are a simple matter of supply and demand. There are many sources of energy, and each source has a cost associated with it. this includes "alternative" and "renewable" sources, by the way. If it costs more to obtain the oil than the barrel is worth, then that source does not get used. Demand is increasing, not just in the U.S., but all over the world as more countries become more modernized. As demand increases, the price goes up, and more sources turn on to satisfy demand.

While a hardship in the short term, these high gas prices are the best thing that can happen to cure us of our dependance on fossil fuels, because it makes alternative energy sources economically viable.

I'm trained to look at complex systems, examine how they interact, and find weak spots that need attention and cause the whole thing to fail. IMHO, the two systems that are most unstable in our country today are Health Care and Education.

Health Care because advances in technology are causing people to live longer, but these same life-saving technologies are getting more and more expensive. costs are spiraling beyond our ability and desire to pay. We pay anyway, of course, because we want to live longer, and we can always get our grandchildren to pay our debts off....

Education because it's a "fuzzy", labor-intensive process that can't be managed like making widgets, which I think is what NCLB attempts to do. If you implement a flawed widget-making plan and don't meet your targets, your company simply makes less money. If you implement a flawed education plan, a generation of kids will never reach their full potential. And when that generation grows up and becomes the leaders of the country, they will find that other countries who managed their education properly have the technological advantage.

[Sky Captain]

The sooner we accept and use alternative fuels the better.
Let China and India support the ME.
Let the oil speculators choke China and India.

We have bio-diesel school buses in Georgia now.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Great president, or the greatest president?

That statement has the ring of truthiness to it.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Railhead, it has been proven countless times in our history that a free market runs amuck when there is not regulation to protect the consumer. This is why we have things like common carriers.

True, one job of the government is to deal with externalities that the free market does not address. However, with the rising price of gas, the free market is remedying an externality that the government ignored for years: Americans do not pay the true social and economic cost of their driving habits. This is causing short term pain but in the long term it's probably A Good Thing™. I agree that, in terms of policy, the government should be doing more to promote less dependence on fossil fuels, but I don't know that windfall taxes and other onerous regulations will help one bit.

I agree with you regarding NCLB though, haven't found a teacher who has a good word to say about it. Though I am a Democrat I am increasingly convinced that teachers unions are one of the major problems with education in our country. Teachers should be hired, evaluated, and rewarded based on the same criteria as any other worker in this nation: performance. No amount of money is going to help the fact that when the wrong incentives are used, you end up with the wrong people doing the job.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm glad he's ignoring domestic issues. Look what's happened since he started paying attention to foreign policy issues.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

What is he DOING about ANY of the problems?

Are these problems? Even if they are, is it his place to "do" anything about them, or are they society's problems to solve, rather than the government's? Have you ever thought that his answers to these questions might not agree with yours, and that if they don't then it changes the entire nature of the discussion?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Are these problems? Even if they are, is it his place to "do" anything about them, or are they society's problems to solve, rather than the government's? Have you ever thought that his answers to these questions might not agree with yours, and that if they don't then it changes the entire nature of the discussion?

Well, let's talk about his answers.

How would you characterize them?

[Cody Dawg]

I don't think he will characterize him. Some people just do not.

Here's the thing: I am a conservative who sees BOTH sides of the issues unlike *some* "conservatives" here who are not - I repeat NOT - very objective.

I hate it when people are all the way ONLY to the left or all of the way ONLY to the right. Nothing in between.

Why is that?

I think it's a sign of diminished intellectual awareness. Another way to understand it is to realize that it's easy to see only one side of things and instantly defend one position all of the time.

That's one of the reasons I like and respect besson3c. I have disagreed violently with him in the past and I agree wholeheartedly with him in this thread. He's one of the few, the very few, that is actually objective - and makes a continual effort to continue to be so.

[itai195]

Did Cody just imply that she's objective?

[Cody Dawg]

I'm not as objective as I'd like to be but yes, I am, or at least try to be. (Some people don't even try.) I've even backtracked and said that I've changed my mind - and even (gasp!) apologized in certain instances.

[itai195]

Okay just making sure I understood correctly. Duly noted.

[Doofy]

Objectivity is relative. That's an absolute.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I don't think he will characterize him. Some people just do not.

Here's the thing: I am a conservative who sees BOTH sides of the issues unlike *some* "conservatives" here who are not - I repeat NOT - very objective.

I hate it when people are all the way ONLY to the left or all of the way ONLY to the right. Nothing in between.

Why is that?

I think it's a sign of diminished intellectual awareness. Another way to understand it is to realize that it's easy to see only one side of things and instantly defend one position all of the time.

That's one of the reasons I like and respect besson3c. I have disagreed violently with him in the past and I agree wholeheartedly with him in this thread. He's one of the few, the very few, that is actually objective - and makes a continual effort to continue to be so.

Summary: I kick ass, and Cody Dawg is pretty cool too, when she isn't a loose cannon

(just kidding about the cannon thing Cody Dawg, when you are a cannon you're a very tight cannon).

(wait, I haven't dug myself out of this one yet have I?)

....


Cody Dawg for president!