My Beefs with Bush

[Ripper 0]

But aren't you being a little mean to the monkeys? I haven't seen a chimp strap himself with an explosive filled with sharp twigs and rocks, run into a baboon night club, and blow himself up...

No, but they throw poo when you make them angry.

-=Mike

Only when you enter their territory. They don't come to your hometown to do it.

*ducks monkey poo*

 

 

Sez you...

[Guest MikeSC]

But aren't you being a little mean to the monkeys? I haven't seen a chimp strap himself with an explosive filled with sharp twigs and rocks, run into a baboon night club, and blow himself up...

No, but they throw poo when you make them angry.

-=Mike

Only when you enter their territory. They don't come to your hometown to do it.

Not yet. Give them time and, eventually, we'll have armies of screaming, feces-hurtling simians marauding the streets.

Dumping on Kyoto is good. Drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve is not.

Thing is, odds of us being able to do ANY damage to the preserve is minimal. It's on a SHEET OF ICE. Even if an oil spill happens (and, just to alleviate some, oil companies work under STRICT protocols to avoid such stuff --- there is a reason the Valdez accident was a disaster and not "par for the course"), the odds of it being able to get near the water table are slim.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

But aren't you being a little mean to the monkeys? I haven't seen a chimp strap himself with an explosive filled with sharp twigs and rocks, run into a baboon night club, and blow himself up...

No, but they throw poo when you make them angry.

-=Mike

Only when you enter their territory. They don't come to your hometown to do it.

Not yet. Give them time and, eventually, we'll have armies of screaming, feces-hurtling simians marauding the streets.

Dumping on Kyoto is good. Drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve is not.

Thing is, odds of us being able to do ANY damage to the preserve is minimal. It's on a SHEET OF ICE. Even if an oil spill happens (and, just to alleviate some, oil companies work under STRICT protocols to avoid such stuff --- there is a reason the Valdez accident was a disaster and not "par for the course"), the odds of it being able to get near the water table are slim.

-=Mike

the problem with drilling in Alaska is that it doesn't address the issue that oil is not a renewable source of energy. It is just another attempt at a quick fix, which wouldn't really be a quick fix since the oil could not be used for something like 25 years anyway. It seems there are other options out there, especially with hybrid cars making a bit more of a splash then a couple of years ago. For whatever reason, our government doesn't seem to want to make an effort to go in any othr direction then, "more oil, please"

[C Dubya 04 0]

I'm actually more disgusted with things like his "alternative energy" incentives, which include spraying kerosene on coal as an alternative energy and the repeal of parts of the Clean Air & Water Act, particularly the ones that deal with Mercury levels.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Umm fellas, the DOE spends a good bit of money as well does the NSF on funding alternative fuel research.

 

Just because it isn't 10% of our budget doesn't mean its not there

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

First off, I nearly died when I saw the title of the thread, and then when I saw who posted it. Holy hell Mike, are you trying to kill me?

 

The best thing for Kerry to do now is to establish what his budget plans would be, instead of allowing the "Raise Taxes" ads keep painting him into a corner. Hell, even ESPN's Page 2 figured it out:

 

August 26 -- John Kerry pulls ahead in the polls by highlighting the fact that, when President Bush was an owner of the Rangers, he approved the trade of Sammy Sosa.

 

August 27 -- President Bush pulls back even in the polls by highlighting the fact that, as a fan of the Red Sox, John Kerry is a loser.

 

Sept. 20 -- On a campaign stop in his home state, John Kerry throws out the first pitch at a Red Sox game, but misses the strike zone well left of the catcher's glove.

 

Sept. 21 -- The Bush campaign immediately pounces on Kerry's errant throw and inserts the clip into Bush '04 commercials, saying it is further proof of Kerry's leftist leanings.

 

The FCC is on a damned rampage, and it needs to stop. Hell, now they cancelled the Victoria's Secret show all due to Janet's tit. God, it was on TV for a whopping HALF A SECOND. OH MY~! I'M BLINDED!~!~!!!!!

 

I'd have to say that the domestic spending, some aspects of foreign policy (I agree with preventive war, as long as there is enough evidence to support it), and the immigration policy are my biggest beefs. Hence my vote for Kerry come November.

[Guest MikeSC]

But aren't you being a little mean to the monkeys? I haven't seen a chimp strap himself with an explosive filled with sharp twigs and rocks, run into a baboon night club, and blow himself up...

No, but they throw poo when you make them angry.

-=Mike

Only when you enter their territory. They don't come to your hometown to do it.

Not yet. Give them time and, eventually, we'll have armies of screaming, feces-hurtling simians marauding the streets.

Dumping on Kyoto is good. Drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve is not.

Thing is, odds of us being able to do ANY damage to the preserve is minimal. It's on a SHEET OF ICE. Even if an oil spill happens (and, just to alleviate some, oil companies work under STRICT protocols to avoid such stuff --- there is a reason the Valdez accident was a disaster and not "par for the course"), the odds of it being able to get near the water table are slim.

-=Mike

the problem with drilling in Alaska is that it doesn't address the issue that oil is not a renewable source of energy. It is just another attempt at a quick fix, which wouldn't really be a quick fix since the oil could not be used for something like 25 years anyway. It seems there are other options out there, especially with hybrid cars making a bit more of a splash then a couple of years ago. For whatever reason, our government doesn't seem to want to make an effort to go in any othr direction then, "more oil, please"

Yes, it is a problem we have to address. Heck, I want us to get off oil simply so we CAN basically tell me the Middle East to kiss off and deal with their own problems without causing huge problems for the rest of the world.

 

We do need to invest in other technologies --- but we ARE doing that. Advances, though, are a very slow thing. Bush is a proponent of hydrogen cell technology, I thought.

 

I do agree, though, that we need to get off oil because while I do believe there is markedly more than we think --- I hate for us to have such a key part of our current civilization be so reliant on "assumptions".

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm actually more disgusted with things like his "alternative energy" incentives, which include spraying kerosene on coal as an alternative energy and the repeal of parts of the Clean Air & Water Act, particularly the ones that deal with Mercury levels.

The mercury levels is a complete red herring. What Bush repealed were new provisions Clinton signed right before he left office that would have cost states obscene levels of money for improvements of, to be generous, dubious value. It was a political move on his part to hurt the incoming administration.

 

Mercury levels were simply returned to the levels they were at for Clinton's administration. There is precious little evidence that further decreases in the permitted level of mercury in water will actually have ANY health benefits.

-=Mike

[Some Guy 0]

the problem with drilling in Alaska is that it doesn't address the issue that oil is not a renewable source of energy. It is just another attempt at a quick fix, which wouldn't really be a quick fix since the oil could not be used for something like 25 years anyway. It seems there are other options out there, especially with hybrid cars making a bit more of a splash then a couple of years ago. For whatever reason, our government doesn't seem to want to make an effort to go in any othr direction then, "more oil, please"

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.

[NoCalMike 0]

the problem with drilling in Alaska is that it doesn't address the issue that oil is not a renewable source of energy.  It is just another attempt at a quick fix, which wouldn't really be a quick fix since the oil could not be used for something like 25 years anyway.  It seems there are other options out there, especially with hybrid cars making a bit more of a splash then a couple of years ago.  For whatever reason, our government doesn't seem to want to make an effort to go in any othr direction then, "more oil, please"

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.

[Guest MikeSC]

the problem with drilling in Alaska is that it doesn't address the issue that oil is not a renewable source of energy.  It is just another attempt at a quick fix, which wouldn't really be a quick fix since the oil could not be used for something like 25 years anyway.  It seems there are other options out there, especially with hybrid cars making a bit more of a splash then a couple of years ago.  For whatever reason, our government doesn't seem to want to make an effort to go in any othr direction then, "more oil, please"

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.

I actually agree with that --- but that is the job of car manufacturers --- not the gov't.

 

Personally, I hate SUV's. I never liked them. I think they're ugly as sin and horrible to drive. I have no desire to own one myself. But, if somebody DOES want to own one (heck, there are SUV dealers who say that buyers will bitch about gas prices WHILE SIGNING THE CONTRACT TO BUY AN SUV), they should feel free.

-=Mike

[Some Guy 0]

the problem with drilling in Alaska is that it doesn't address the issue that oil is not a renewable source of energy.  It is just another attempt at a quick fix, which wouldn't really be a quick fix since the oil could not be used for something like 25 years anyway.  It seems there are other options out there, especially with hybrid cars making a bit more of a splash then a couple of years ago.  For whatever reason, our government doesn't seem to want to make an effort to go in any othr direction then, "more oil, please"

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.

[NoCalMike 0]

the problem with drilling in Alaska is that it doesn't address the issue that oil is not a renewable source of energy.  It is just another attempt at a quick fix, which wouldn't really be a quick fix since the oil could not be used for something like 25 years anyway.  It seems there are other options out there, especially with hybrid cars making a bit more of a splash then a couple of years ago.  For whatever reason, our government doesn't seem to want to make an effort to go in any othr direction then, "more oil, please"

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.

Well before the big car craze, was the "tiny as possible" sportscar craze, so I'd say it all goes in cycles. True it may not be the government's job to produce better quality cars, but it is their job to make sure that SUVs are not held to a lower standard in emissions and not let car companies get away with putting unsafe verhicles on our roadways for the purpose of profit margins. A lot of SUVs get a free pass on safety issues and emissions because they are in the same category as tractors that farmers use, which to me is pretty bullshit, and I for one, don't think this should be allowed to go on.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well before the big car craze, was the "tiny as possible" sportscar craze, so I'd say it all goes in cycles. True it may not be the government's job to produce better quality cars, but it is their job to make sure that SUVs are not held to a lower standard in emissions and not let car companies get away with putting unsafe verhicles on our roadways for the purpose of profit margins. A lot of SUVs get a free pass on safety issues and emissions because they are in the same category as tractors that farmers use, which to me is pretty bullshit, and I for one, don't think this should be allowed to go on.

I thought somebody already disproved that statement a few weeks back.

-=Mike

[Some Guy 0]

Well before the big car craze, was the "tiny as possible" sportscar craze, so I'd say it all goes in cycles. True it may not be the government's job to produce better quality cars, but it is their job to make sure that SUVs are not held to a lower standard in emissions and not let car companies get away with putting unsafe verhicles on our roadways for the purpose of profit margins. A lot of SUVs get a free pass on safety issues and emissions because they are in the same category as tractors that farmers use, which to me is pretty bullshit, and I for one, don't think this should be allowed to go on.

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.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well before the big car craze, was the "tiny as possible" sportscar craze, so I'd say it all goes in cycles.  True it may not be the government's job to produce better quality cars, but it is their job to make sure that SUVs are not held to a lower standard in emissions and not let car companies get away with putting unsafe verhicles on our roadways for the purpose of profit margins.  A lot of SUVs get a free pass on safety issues and emissions because they are in the same category as tractors that farmers use, which to me is pretty bullshit, and I for one, don't think this should be allowed to go on.

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.

Well, the explosion of SUV's can probably be correlated nicely to the explosion of Viagra being something "real men" (real men, of course, being impotent men) take.

-=Mike

...Still amazed that "manliness" is now considered to be taking a pill to get lead back in your pencil.

[Some Guy 0]

Well, the explosion of SUV's can probably be correlated nicely to the explosion of Viagra being something "real men" (real men, of course, being impotent men) take.

-=Mike

...Still amazed that "manliness" is now considered to be taking a pill to get lead back in your pencil.

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.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, the explosion of SUV's can probably be correlated nicely to the explosion of Viagra being something "real men" (real men, of course, being impotent men) take.

                                -=Mike

...Still amazed that "manliness" is now considered to be taking a pill to get lead back in your pencil.

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

[Some Guy 0]

Well, the explosion of SUV's can probably be correlated nicely to the explosion of Viagra being something "real men" (real men, of course, being impotent men) take.

                                 -=Mike

...Still amazed that "manliness" is now considered to be taking a pill to get lead back in your pencil.

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!

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, the explosion of SUV's can probably be correlated nicely to the explosion of Viagra being something "real men" (real men, of course, being impotent men) take.

                                 -=Mike

...Still amazed that "manliness" is now considered to be taking a pill to get lead back in your pencil.

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!

BTW, COMPLETELY on-topic, but is it wrong of me to note that I, a Bush supporter who is viewed as being a blind partisan, has listed more than a few disagreements --- while the more open-minded people who will vote for Kerry (and we know who they are) won't mention a single disagreement with him?

-=Mike

[Some Guy 0]

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.

[NoCalMike 0]

No, SUVS were not originally marketed to women. They were basically marketed to guys that were buying big trucks under the falsehood of now being some sort of "outdoorsman" for owning an SUV. Then the second wave of the SUV phenomenom was marketed towards women by claiming that SUVs were somehow more safe for them and the kids.

 

Oh and MikeSC, My SUV-Tractor comment was based on the 4 page article someone posted here approx a year ago or so. I am not sure if it can be dug up unless the person who posted it back then can retrieve it.

[NoCalMike 0]

EDIT: Double Post, damn you, classroom computer.

[Some Guy 0]

No, SUVS were not originally marketed to women. They were basically marketed to guys that were buying big trucks under the falsehood of now being some sort of "outdoorsman" for owning an SUV. Then the second wave of the SUV phenomenom was marketed towards women by claiming that SUVs were somehow more safe for them and the kids.

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.

[EricMM 0]

Mike no one debunked the SUV-Tractor/Truck comparison.

 

It's absolutely nutty that SUV's should fall in the same emissions catagory as Tractors and like Mac Trucks.

 

Not 18 wheelers but really big trucks like Ambulances and shit.

 

The fact is people DO NOT use them to haul shit in any reasonable capacity. The fact is the H2 has like ZERO cargo space, and the fact is, SUV's are made cheap to sell expensive to huge profits. They skimp on fuel efficency because they're allowed to. CAFE standards exist for a REASON, they can't just be bypassed to make money for certain companies. They're national fucking LAW and when someone can prove to me that people actually use SUV's as light trucks instead of CARS I will actually be very surprised.

 

And yes a Hybrid SUV, Pickup, and Van are coming. No, it doesn't HAVE to decrease power, they just have been to maximize the MPG as a selling point. Yes Oil is the most efficent power source, but not necessarily if you take into account the cost of pollution. And I for one am not advocating a switch to hydrocells or solar power today, it's not feasable. I'm advocating Bush getting on TV, and saying,

 

"Look: this is called insulation. If you pack your house with it, you will save energy every month in the summer and winter. See, these are insulated windows. These are efficent lightbulbs that provide the same lumens for 1/4 the power. I, the president, am subsidizing all these products and more with our tax dollars so that we as a country can use a fraction of the power we use today."

 

Efficency is already profitable, but the initial cost is turning some people away. If it cost less maybe people would actually properly insulate their homes. Maybe that would be as helpful in getting people more money every year, instead of tax breaks?

[Firestarter 0]

No, SUVS were not originally marketed to women

But Marlboros were.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No, SUVS were not originally marketed to women

But Marlboros were.

Interesting. What about Virginia Slims?

 

Oh, and Wildbomb, do you still have that PM I sent you a while back telling you what I didn't like about George W. HITLER?...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

No, SUVS were not originally marketed to women

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.

[Some Guy 0]

No, SUVS were not originally marketed to women

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~!

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Why indeed I do, kkk. You basically harped all over him for his medicare drug plan, but not much else. Although I think that's what our discussion was all about.