Some Guy

There's a non-horrible corner of Indy? I have a fair amount of family out there, my dad was born in Terre Haute. Anyway, 22, 23 in June, from a suburb of Boston.

That's not a full quote. He said something along the lines of "I don't believe that." Just after and then went on to say that he had great hope for democracy in Iraq. I thought he came across pretty badly. This is not his strength and he should avoid wuestion and answer deals when possible. He has trouble articulating his thoughts in political talk. You could see him start to talk, then pause while he tried to turn what he wanted to say into political language. Bush needs to sell his policies and his beliefs, not be defensive about them or cow tow to the Dems rather than going over their heads to the people. Now if he'd just drop this religous right stuff....

Did you take the T today? I did. There was a chemical spill of some sort at Sullivan Square which caused Wellington, Sullivan, adn Community College (Yes the same one from Good Will Hunting) to be closed. Well, I drive in to Charlestown and get on Community College and go to State to get to the State House. So it took me 50 minutes to get there and 1 hour and 40 minutes to get home. Oh yeah it was fuckign raining today. I was very displeased, to say the very least. On topic, the conversations I overheard while waiting for the shuttle bus st Haymarket went like this: "If it's this bad from a chemical spill what's going to happen when the convention comes?" and "This town can't even handle its own comuters, how is it going to handles thousands of extra people?" Me thinks the DNC won't be too popular, even in this fucked up state.

Was this English? EDIT: The White Sox last won in 1917, the Cubs in 1908. Plus no one goes to see the Chi Sox play, ducking bullets isn't any fun. Wrigley is in a nicer part of Chicago and people love the atmosphere of the park. US Cellualr Field (I think that's what they call it now) is a really lame experience. There's no passion, no character, no charisimatic players. Just Frank Thomas beign an asshole and Magglio waiting to leave.

Don't forget the 10,000 + Iraqi's that have been killed..there again they don't count I guess. Before the situation in Iraq is resolved the coalition forces death toll is going ot be MUCH higher than 500. Uh, over a million Vietnamese died in the Vietnam War. I mean, seriously, there is no comparision for it. I mean, when we get into civi casualties, your case gets even worse because of the disparity in numbers. You do realize that the number of Vietnam casualties accounts for some 15 years of combat right? There is a difference between a year of occupation in Iraq and 15 in Vietnam. Its a really big difference too. This arguement of the similarities here is moot....15 and 1 are too far apart to consider total numbers. After dismissing this silly aruguement, you are left with the serious similarities/differences to discuss. Going the 10,000 Iraqis that have supposedly been killed (no one knows the true number) and the 500 or so Coalition soldiers who have died that brings us to approx. 10,500 total deaths in one year. Multiplied by 15, the number ofyears you claim we occupied Vietnam that brings us to 157,500 deaths if this was was to contnue for that long. A far cry from the million number that was thrown out for the Vietnam War. While we're at lets look at American deaths in Vietnam, it was about 56,000 or so over the 12 or so years we were there and fighting. Once again using 500 as the number of Coalition deaths in the first year of the Iraqi War we'll multiple 500 by 12 and get 6,000. There is a huge difference between Iraq and Vietnam. First of all we were fighting more people and there were about 2.6 million troops sent to Nam. Secondly we crippled the Iraqis ability to make war within a few months and never were able/allowed to do the same to the Vietnamese Communists. All the Iraqis are left with is a handful of reasonably decenlty armed terrorists and militia men. God, some times it seems like the baby boomers want to relive the righteous indignation they had in their youth and the youth of America is jealous becase they don't have their own Vietnam and want it really, really badly. You know that "big Lie" theory? If you say something enough times it eventualy becomes accepted as the truth. I think that must be the goal of some of these "the world is falling around us and only France can save us" nutcases.

I disagree with the government subsidizing this. Do we really need to raise the cost of beer anymore? A large portion of the price is already taxes, so called "sin" taxes. This would just potentially discourage people from drinking water, soda, beer or put a hell of a lot more money in the Gov't's pockets, which leads me to this.... How many people buy a drink, drink it in the same place they bought it, and return it there? Very, very, very few. I'll elaborate later in this post. If Denark told you to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge would you? The natural order of Some Guy's conservation goes like this: Drive 25 miles to New Hampshire where they have lower taxes (no sales tax) and no deposit law buy beer (a month's worth or so), drive 25 miles home drink said months worth of beer over the course of the month, then return the empties to the reemption center where I make 5 cents per can. I still recycle, but the way I look at it is that Massachusetts pays for my gas to drive to a state that has better sense then to tax the shit out their citizens and impose a dumbass deposit law. You know what, I'd recycle the cans without the law, but don't expect me or anyone to want to pay an extra dollar as incentive to do so. What if you loose the bottle? What if someone steals it from you? I'm being semi-serious. There are already trash pickers who go arounda dn dig bottles and cans out to make a nickel a piece. They might not steel for a nickel but for a dollar? Maybe. And you know what? It doesn't work. The return rate is very low. I'm pretty sure a bunch of people don't even realize that they can reclaim the extra $1.50 they spend for each 30 pack of Bud and most that do, just don't care. You're talking about increasing the cost of a 30 pack by $30! That's fucking insane. Actually I wish that Mass. would do that, it would mean that the state would start paying my car loan off when I return my NH purchased beer here. Another big problem with depsosit laws is that they really hurt businesses. The state taxes the deposits and bottles/cans are not always returned to where they were purchased (I've seen trashpickers return multiple garbage bags full of cans to Kappy's [a big liquor store in Medford]) and the state doesn't provide the machines or people to collect these bottles/cans. Oh yeah, cans and bottles always have something left in them and that spills on the floor of the store that is forcedby law to accept them and that causes a mess and insect problems. Incase you were wondering the state doesn't pick up the tab on that either. So basically because of this wonderful law, stores are not only taxed on the depsosits they collect and are expected to return (so they lose money out of the shoot), they are also forced to provide a means for theses bottles/cans to be returned and clean up the fucking mess. Good idea! EDIT: In fairness to MA this was voted on democratically by the people of the state, people just like you who see a good idea in theory, fail to think it out and then neglect the consquences of their actions on real people, all the while doing very little to help the environment that love so much.

I think I've figured out why we get no credit for disagreeing with the President. Just about all the tings we disagree with him on are thing on which he is being too liberal. In other words, Bush's domestic policy is not conservative enough. Domestically he's tried to play the center to take votes and issues away from the Dems. Why would a liberal who thinks Bush is the devil give someone credit for thinking Bush is too liberal?

But Marlboros were. When cigarettes first started coming out, any man who smoked cigarettes was thought to be gay. Real men smoked cigars and pipes. Cigarettes were for women. Not exactly true. When cigarettes first came out it was fine for men to smoke and actually considered unlady like for women to smoke. Then filtered cigarettes came out and if a man smoked those it was "gay" and it was perfectly acceptible for women to smoke them. You see it even now. Men tend to smoke "full flavor" cigarettes and women tend to lighter cigarettes. There are certainly exceptions (my friend's ex-girlfriend's mother (a 60+ year old) smokes unfiltered Paul Malls and my boss (a 70+ year old man smokes More White Light 120 Menthols). I think that Marboro started sending Marboro Reds out to the troops in Vietnam and that popularized filtered cigarettes among men. That and the Surgeon General stuff started coming out around that time and filtered cigarettes are to some degree more healthy/less deliterious to one's health. EDIT: my dad smokes a pipe and he's a REAL MAN~!

Well, the Herald does have a decent Sports section and the Inside Track~! I love reading about where Nomar ate lunch three days ago. To add to the laundry list of why having the Convetnion here (any national party convention) is that the courts are closed, the State House will close, and it will disrupt the entire city and everybody with half a brain will go on vacation to get away from this shit (I am). Boston just isn't designed properly to have several thousand people come in for a week. There isn't enough space, the roads suck, there is construction every where, and who the fuck wants even more liberals in Massachusetts? We have enough of our own, we don't need to import them.

True enough. But the point stands that the car manufacturers decided to feminize the SUV and saw a market there, which probably turned out to be far more than they expected (what I assume happened was that women started buying the "manly" SUVs and they thought that adding leather seats and and Eddie Bauer logo they'd seel more of them to a wider range of women). They apparently don't see a market in hybrid cars or you would see tons of advertisments for them,as opposed to the roughly zero that now populate the airwaves. Advertising execs, no matter what you or anybody else may think of their tactits tend to understand the markets and demographics. Until there is some demand, besides from left wing environmentalists, who probably can't afford the things, there will be no advertising.

I agree with the latter, but disagree with the former. Iraq is far from a mess. It is certainly messy at times but no one said this would be an in and out, quick fix job. The President said from the very begining of the War on Terrorism that this would be a long term battle fought on many fronts. NoCal, I'm not refering to to you sepcifically but the left wing remind me of some Red Sox fans. The team loses the first game of the season and Pedro doesn't hit 93 mph with his fastball and the world is about to end, the next day Schilling dominates and the Sox win but that is ignored by some in favor of talking about what they perceive to be Pedro's poor performance (6 ip and 2 earned runs). What we have in Iraq is a concentraion on the bad "innings" and ignoring the good things that are coming from it (Libia cowtowing on WMDs, Saddam being out of power, etc... It took us a month or so to elect our current president and while the dispute went on the stock market dropped and the ecomony took another hit, because of "uncertainty". Well, Iraq is that times roughly 60 million. People are frantic because they don't know what's going to happen next, that's an understandable human emotion. People are trying to grab power by force and terror, that is also to be expected. American soldiers are dying, to think that wouldn't happen is painfully naive and to think that we should leave because the inevitable happen is even moreso. We've hit some bumps in the road, largely because we didn't "nuke the place and pave it smoothly into a parking lot" as some of the less rational of us had thought we would.

Noted. ALthough in fairness a few have said they'll vote for Kerry because they hate Bush so much. But in general they have a weak candidate and pointing out any weaknesses he might have would not only hurt his chances but might make them realize that we're right about Kerry. It is also odd that "staunch conservatives" like Rush and O'Reilly also critisize the President about certain things but the left starts a radio station to "bash Bush", rather than enage in intelectual debate or any kind.

Well, that's actually a tried and true way to change society. Make something up and repeat it as many times as possible. For years a "real man" was the Marlboro man type guy, now a guy like that is a neanderthal and a sensitive, girlyman is a "real man". If impotentcy is what it take to be a "real man" these days, I'll pass and be happy to be able to perform without that little blue pill. I can now see modern-day bar fights: "You think YOU'RE bad?!? My cock is shriveled up like a scared turtle! It looks like it's ALWAYS in cold water!!" "OH YEAH! Well mine won't get erect with the entire cast of Victoria's Secret models blowing me! BEAT THAT, WEANIE!" -=Mike Shouldn't "WEANIE" be a postive thing. I mean calling a guy a "small dick" would mean calling him a real man!

not true "some guy" while "mike" views seem to be lifted form "fox news", I read a variety of information from varies resources, I am not easily led, like the current american population, What makes you think Mike or I are easily led? Do you thik we were tax and spend Democrats during the Clinton administration? And we suddenly covertd to conservatism with the election of Bush? I don't think we are being led anywhere that we wouldn't be going with or without a Republican president. Fair enough. But others agree with you. You better watch out, you just might be being led. As, do many others. You're wrong, but others beleive that as well. Not exactly an original idea. Face it, every idea has already been expoused by some leading party or another. If you were in my shoes you'd be accusing yourself of following left wing dogma. BTW, where do you live? And have you even seen Fox News?

How exactly do you eliminate a group that has no homeland, By seeking them out and killing them. Ummm... No. Who here has said that all Muslims are terrorists? WHo in the US gov't said that? The goal if you recall is and has been to "rout 'em out", not blow up all Muslims. We've tried very hard to blow up as few non-terrosists as humanly possible. If this makes any sense it is beyond me. I dont aggree with anyone, I have the ability to form my own opinion, something that you clearly are unable to do, So, when someone has an opinion differing from your's, they are unable to form their own opinion, but when you have one that just so happens to agree with the prevailing left wing dogma it is an original opinion. Is this accurate? Seems to be. You see, I know it's hard for you to wrap your arogant, narrow little mind around this concept, but there are people other than you, who form opinions in the same way you claim to, and some of them *GASP* disagree with you. Imagine that!

Well, that's actually a tried and true way to change society. Make something up and repeat it as many times as possible. For years a "real man" was the Marlboro man type guy, now a guy like that is a neanderthal and a sensitive, girlyman is a "real man". If impotentcy is what it take to be a "real man" these days, I'll pass and be happy to be able to perform without that little blue pill.

If you're in a union, that is pretty much the case. Unions always give heavily to Democrats. You CAN get it so your money doesn't do that (it is a federal law that they have to allow you to opt out of political spending of your money) --- but I have no clue HOW you do it. You could ask the union leadership --- but I doubt they'll be terribly helpful. -=Mike It might even hurt your standing in the union. They don't much care for dissent. They know what's good for you, better than you do in fact.

I don't think so. I think there is probably a similar percentage (maybe a little less)of tiny sports cars on the road today and any other time (since they've existed). Tiny sports cars were and still are marketed towards a specific group: "sophisticated" middle aged men. SUVs are markerted towards "soccer moms" and "rugged" middle aged men (the Marlboro man) and have been since there inception. Mini-Vans to "soccer moms", station wagons to women with kids, Caddys, Crown Victorias, Buicks, Oldsmobile and other cars of that size to old people. In other words the tiny sports car demographic is and always have been smaller than the big car/truck demo.

I understand why some people think that hybrid cars are a good idea and all, but they are not big enough (unless something has changed recently) to fit many people's needs/desires as far as automobiles go and because they're are so few of them they are very expensive. The one's I;ve seen they're all really small and underpowered. It's hard to cart around a family in a compact car, and makes less sense then buying a family sized car for less money. What do you propese the President do to encourage this, end every speech with "buy a hybrid car, you're destroying the environment with your gas guzzling SUVs!"? I suppose he could encourage people to use less oil and what not but every President does that and nothing happens. Oil is still the most cost effcient (sp?) and reliable source of energy for running a car or heating a house. Until private companyies can make alternative sources of energy way better and cheaper than oil very few people will switch over. In the long run people's wallets count more to them than the environment. Until that happens the President and everyone else can hoot and holler but nothign will change. People will think he's nuts if he starts telling people they should switch to more expensive and poorer performing sources of energy. And furthermore, since we are stuck with oil for the foreseable future we might as well try to capitalize the oil that we already have access to. Producing more oil would force down the world price. It's supply and demand. Popick is a economics major, I think he'll bakc me up on this one. Actually I think a few hybrid SUVs are set to hit the market this year, and I don't think Hybrid cars are any more expensive then most brand new cars. If someone wants to look it up to set me straight, then be my guest. Also, hybrid cars will sell just fine eventually, it is all in the advertising. I mean shit, who in their right mind would think common everyday people would want to waste their time on a Hummer to drive around on a daily basis, yet millions of dollars in advertising is helping convince yer average joe schmo that he needs one. It is all in the advertising. OK, as MikeSC said that isn't the gov't's job. But, car manufactureres will only advertise what they think will sell and big automobiles are what sells and what is most profitable for them. Big cars are as American as apple pie, to use an old cliche. That's what people want. Before SUVs, there were mini-vans, before that big station wagons, etc... Hummers are perhaps the most nutty form for this craze (as they are of no reasonable use to the average person) but they are legal and people do buy them. I drive a 2002 Grand Am (about 22 mile per gallon) and before that a 98 Ford Contour (about 25 mile per gallon). My decisions were made because of affordability, both in car cost and upkeep (gas, duribility, etc...), not because I see cars as a status symbol or an extension of my dick or whatever. I can't stand SUVs. They tend to be driven by idiots who think they own the road because they're in huge truck and you can't see around or through them, so you have to place total faith in your reaction ability and the person driving in front of you. You have to trust them to brake on time, not over brake, etc... as it is impossible to see what is going on in front of them to prepare yourself. Plus, it just bothers me to see some woman, driving an Expediton while talking on her cell phone and with no one else in the truck. Unless you're name is Evander Holyfield you don't have to have a fucking truck that big to hold your family.

What's "full of shit" about it? I heard the interview, I heard John Kerry say those words. He said it, what's the problem with Mike bringing it up? Kerry is a tool, who rally doesn't know how ot run for public office. He's only been opposed by a quasi-legitimate contender twice for his seat in the Senate. It's really no wonder that he's starting to fuck up and spout off this ultra-PC nonsense that will turn off all but the most radical left wingers in his base. The guy can't make a decision for himself. He tries to follow the trends and polls. He's just like Clinton only Kerry lacks any and all personality. He's a drone and doesn't conect to most people. Last I heard the guy was already behind Bush in the polls after months of Bush bashing and before Bush has fired a true shot across his brow. You talk about Mike having a "GOP can do no worng" attitude, maybe you you try being just a little introspective and realize that you are the pot and you've just called the kettle black. Its called the quote being taken out of context and being blown up for something that it really isnt... its called using an ultra right wing news source that is never going to report ANYTHING objectively as a source Kerry doesnt know how to run for public office?? Damn! So THATS the reason he is a multi term senator! I've said time and time again that I dont like Kerry... I'll probably vote for him because I hate Bush with a passion, but Kerry is not someone I can FULLY get behind... I've bashed him many times on this board and I've sided with some conservative agendas, so perhaps you should read some more of my posts before calling me a hypocrite Oh, and thats funny... Kerry falling behind in the polls? Last I heard he's just a few points behind Bush, so it's not like he went from 43% to 20% And a *gasp* politician... following trends... and polls?! Oh my God what a concept!! Yes, Clinton did follow trends... in my opinion, a booming economy is a WONDERFUL trend to follow... but like all trends, it went out of style with this president... har har har Given that you're talking about context, I find it amusing that you make snide comments about things that he ADDRESSED. (ie: multi-term senator) I was thinking the same thing. For further clarification, Republicans in Ma are not competitive in just about any political race. Teh State Senate is 34-6 in favor of the Dems, the Attorney General (an elected position), House and Senate leaders are all Dems. Our two national Senators are Dems and have been in office for years. It's so bad that the Governor (a liberal Republican) has to literally beg people to run on the GOP ticket, because no one wants to waste time running a losing campaign. Kerry's last "opponent" was a Libertarian candidate (Tim Brown, I think), no GOP opposition (Well, maybe Jack E. Robinson [who falsely claimed to be related to Jackie Robinson, the first black major leaguer ], but he is such an idiot that the fledgling GOP in MA disowned him). Kerry never has a real opponent, he never has to campaign, he never has to watch what he says, because they're is no one around to call him on it. He's now learning the hard way that he does have very tough competition and he needs to mince his words very carefully. To use a baseball metaphor Kerry has just jumped for Single A (as far as competiton goes) to MLB.

The Plaque could read... "Roger Clemens, the great Asstro...well, not really but he successfully managed to alienate the fans of the three teams he actually achieved success on.." It's funny. Toronto is really the only team that has a legitimate right to be angry with the guy. He signed with them out of spite because he was mad at the Sox GM and then demanded a trade to the Yankees. He left Boston because he was upset at how Duquette treated him and left New York because he decided he'd rather retire than play there anymore. When Houston offered him a contract he decided to take it. Clemens did file for free agency after he "retired", George could have offered him a contract to stay. If he did it obviously wasn't enough to keep the guy. AS, stop cryingin your cornflakes. Clemens and Pettite did to New York what New York has done to other teams. When "your guys" leave it isn't fun. Welcome to everybody else's world. You still have a pretty good team down there, last I heard.

I understand why some people think that hybrid cars are a good idea and all, but they are not big enough (unless something has changed recently) to fit many people's needs/desires as far as automobiles go and because they're are so few of them they are very expensive. The one's I;ve seen they're all really small and underpowered. It's hard to cart around a family in a compact car, and makes less sense then buying a family sized car for less money. What do you propese the President do to encourage this, end every speech with "buy a hybrid car, you're destroying the environment with your gas guzzling SUVs!"? I suppose he could encourage people to use less oil and what not but every President does that and nothing happens. Oil is still the most cost effcient (sp?) and reliable source of energy for running a car or heating a house. Until private companyies can make alternative sources of energy way better and cheaper than oil very few people will switch over. In the long run people's wallets count more to them than the environment. Until that happens the President and everyone else can hoot and holler but nothign will change. People will think he's nuts if he starts telling people they should switch to more expensive and poorer performing sources of energy. And furthermore, since we are stuck with oil for the foreseable future we might as well try to capitalize the oil that we already have access to. Producing more oil would force down the world price. It's supply and demand. Popick is a economics major, I think he'll bakc me up on this one.

Well in fairness to Roger, he did retire and Houstan offered him a contract. Georgie could haev done the same thing. If he put the right dollar amount on it Roger would be in the bronx right now, not crying with a senile old man on the phone from halfway across the country.

Wait.... I thought you were a Bush lackey who never questions anything the GOP does and were but a lamb being led to the slaughter by George W. Hitler. I agree with you on just about everythign, especially campaign finance reform. The bill is horseshit and is unconstitutional. But, why the fuck would one sign a bill that is clearly against the laws of the land? The fact that he signed with the thought that it would be stuck down speaks poorly of him. Why woud someone sign a bill that he knew or thought would be declared unconstitutional? It makes the Pres look bad for signing a shitty bill. If he just articulated why it was a horrible idea when he veteod it then we wouldn't have had to deal with a bullshit bill that violates that whole freedom of speech thing that I've heard is mentioned somewhere in the constitution.

The fact that the GOP hasn't made a stink about this speaks volumes. The Democratic race baiters had a field day playing the race card with Lott, but I see no outrage from them overthis and it is the same fuckign thing. ACcording to what the Dems portray themselves as they should be the ones outraged to haev a former Klansman in their midst. They should be the ones running Dodd out of office. Hypocracy, liberlism is thy name.