# OT: PDX Kerry Rally



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I am going to be working during the rally today, I was just wondering if any of you will be attending?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thylo</b>!
> I am going to be working during the rally today, I was just wondering if any of you will be attending?


I wanted to go, but it's later than I thought.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I will be at the anti-Kerry rally across the street.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

> I will be at the anti-Kerry rally across the street.


Enjoy yourself, but I sure hope the Kerry supporters far outnumber you and yours. the last time bush was here I went to the anti-bush rally and will do so again.

You just got love the freedoms we have in America to voice our opinions.




Kerry for Pres


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

kerry reminds me of jimmy carter


loser


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

would not attend either rally. the difference is at the Bush rally you have the radical scum that damage property and make a mockery of the political scene and at the Kerry rally you will have people that protest but in a professional and non-violent way. just some small differnces.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

Did they hand out ketchup packets?

I am with Talkhard on this one.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Vote "HOWIE" :2fing:

:usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa:

As your President I promise out of control spending and higher taxes! I promise nothing and expect alot in return. I promise a basketball in every home!!! I am for and against human rights!!! I don't need to bring my War Record into this election, I was in Canada fighting 3rd graders over the monkey bars and really, who lets monkeys into bars anyways? My stand on the school systems............ah who am I kidding, I don't have a stand so once again, I ain't promising nuthin!

A vote for HOWIE is a vote for........ah heck I don't even have anything witty to say in that spot either.

:2fing::2fing::2fing:HOWIE in 04!!!! :2fing::2fing::2fing:

Thank you for your time, now :frenchy:


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Wonder if HOWIE will get more votes in '04 than Bill the Cat got in '84?


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

It's always scary to see a large congregation of Portland's extremely liberal. Could there be a more boring candidate for political office? Just looking at him makes me tired.

4 More Years for W!


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Sorry, but to support President Bush at this point is a character flaw.


Foreign Relations
Domestic Policies
National Economy
My FREEDOMS
The record breaking surplus


All of these things have been damanged by the Bush administration. Things such as special interest over Iraq, oil, and other issues allowed our country to become "big and badass, as in we do what we want". 

This is total BS. 

I'm not the largest supporter of Kerry for who Kerry is...

but, when forced to think of the alternative:

someone who is tell women what they can do with their bodies &
that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed basic civil rights associated with marriages should not be allowed to President.

This is a sign of total incompitence or sheer ignorance. 



With all that said....


LET'S NOT ELECT HIM AGAIN.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Perfection,

Please explain to us what you think your freedoms would be if we hadn't taken a stand and fought in WWII.

Your 18 year old opinion is just that, but I'd love to hear your opinion of abortion after you have personally seen a ultrasound and have gone through the birth of your first child.

There are laws and rules for a reason...we need them. Freedom is a blessing and a curse. Too much of it is definitely a curse.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> 
> Please explain to us what you think your freedoms would be if we hadn't taken a stand and fought in WWII.


What would your freedoms be like if we became a fascist state? We can sit here and throw out irrelevant questions all day. The invasion of Iraq doesn't even have the barest relevance to World War II.



> but I'd love to hear your opinion of abortion after you have personally seen a ultrasound and have gone through the birth of your first child.


Emotional appeal can be a worthwhile thing, but it's rarely the basis for the most sound laws.

Ad hominem attacks (like highlighting the fact that he's 18, as if to disqualify his opinion in some way) aren't the way to show you're right. Experience isn't necessarily a prerequisite to have a reasonable opinion on something--chances are you have no experience with murder, but I'll bet you have a strong opinion on whether it should be legal.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

If I even decide to vote, the name of this website alone pretty much sums up my stance:

http://www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com

I don't like Bush, and I don't really like Kerry.

Maybe I'll cast a vote for my self instead. It's my right damn it!


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TP3</b>!
> Perfection,
> 
> Please explain to us what you think your freedoms would be if we hadn't taken a stand and fought in WWII.
> ...




1.) Iraq is totally different from WWII. Yes, I will agree that there are definately some comparisons. However, we did not have the influenced (Haliburton-style) motives going into WWII that we did when going into Iraq. Furthermore, we went in WWII with a global coalition. There is a reason that it's called WWII, and that is because it was fought by the WORLD. In contrast, with Iraq we pretty much said **** you to our long time allies and went in commando style. Now our nation is holding the entire cost of this unjustified war. 
Funny how Iraq was at first the search for WMD; when that didn't pan out it suddenly became liberating Iraq's people (which we really don't a reason doing) and then after the people of Iraq still opposed us we decided to change the theme of the war to making us "more free". And I'm not even going into detail. 

2.) What difference does it make that I am 18. I am a very intelligent person who is a critical thinker. I wouldn't be on a full academic scholarship if this weren't the case. I have taken courses in "complex systems and critical thinking", where we actually look at how individual actions affects the grand scheme of things. It is extremely narrow minded to consider someone who is of a younger age to be less wise or knowledgable about the world. I pay close attention to what is going on and use sound logic and judgement. 

Oh, and as for abortion, about a year ago I took my best friend's girlfriend to get tested at the clinic. She was pregnant and I was the first person who knew about it. I immediately recommended that she get an abortion, although I obviously did not try to pressure her according to my opinion on the subject. She decided to keep the baby, and although the now family of three is "happy", I personally know that neither of the parents are where they wanted to be at this point in life and will always have regrets about becoming such young parents. 

3.) True, too much freedom can be a bad thing. I think that that is a pretty obvious statement. However, so can too much security. The provisions that laws such as the Patriot Act provide allow for, in my opinion, too much of an invasion of my privacy. I have nothing to hide, but at the same time I am not a proponent of Big Brother looking after my every move. There needs to be a balance. 

Furthermore, do some of these "security enhancements" even work. I'm not really sure considering that last year during spring break my brother left a pair of 8 inch scissors in his school backpack. He then proceeded to take this bag as his carry-on and made it thorugh PDX and onto the plane will the scissors. Incidentally, these scissors were discovered on the way back (my brother didn't know that it was in the bag). 

This is after all of the airport security reforms that make us more secure. Yet, despite this great effort a "dangerous weapon" made it onto the plane easily. 


--------------------------

It's easy to be a bandwagon rider. I consider myself an independent, as I will vote how I feel regardless of party affiliation. However, I recently joined the Democratic party because I seem to agree with their view a large majority of the time. I am a liberal...which I swear is not a curse word. Go over to dictionary.com and look up the definitions of liberal and conservative and see which is better: the person who adapts to the changing environment that is our world, or the person who does things based more on tradition. 

Anyways, again I'm sorry to rant on and on. It's just a very passionate topic for me, as I am sick of Big W in the office. I'll try to stay more OT from now on. 

But realize, Bush Jr. is the worst president of my life (by far) and it is easy to see it if you take an objective snapshot of our world compared with the year 2000. If you support President Bush then you are either arrogant, ignorant, or have something to gain from him being president (tax breaks).


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

How are we supposed to know where Kerry stands on key issues?? He changes his stance almost daily.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Kerry will do or say whatever it takes to get elected. He always checks to see which way the wind is blowing before he acts. 

For example, today he is blaming President Bush for high gas prices, and ignoring the needs of average Americans. But if you look at Kerry's voting record in the Senate, he voted to raise gasoline prices 11 times.

Some great concern for the average Schmo, eh?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I've read that if Kerry had it his way (by looking at his voting record), we'd be paying $0.50 more per gallon then we are today.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> someone who is tell women what they can do with their bodies &
> that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed basic civil rights associated with marriages should not be allowed to President.


Pro abortion is pro-murder in my book. (I am a woman)

However, he is also against gay marriage-he is for civil unions-same as Bush.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Anti abortion is pro-murder in my book. (I am a woman)


Huh? Please explain.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> If you support President Bush then you are either arrogant, ignorant, or have something to gain from him being president (tax breaks).


There are a lot of arrogant and ignorant people who support Bush. No question. Same can be said of Kerry.

But considering just about everyone in the U.S. who made money last year got tax breaks, your first two (meanspirited) adjectives aren't very relevant to whom supports which candidate.

All the namecalling in the world isn't going to change that, IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "If you support President Bush then you are either arrogant, ignorant, or have something to gain from him being president (tax breaks)."


Tax breaks are a great reason to vote for someone. The less money the government takes from me, the more I have to invest, start a business, donate to charity, or spend on my family. And the more money I have, the more freedom I have. That's what it's all about. 

The only people who didn't get tax breaks last year were people who weren't working--and hence not making money. Or else they were making so little money that they didn't have to pay a tax in the first place. 

By calling Bush supporters "arrogant" and "ignorant," you have insulted at least half of the country. That's about 140 million people who hold down jobs, raise families, go to college, volunteer in their communities, and take an active interest in their country. You've also insulted most of the young people in our armed forces who are fighting to defend our interests in Aghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world.

You might be interested to know that Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11 in New York, is an avid Bush supporter. So is former Mayor Ed Koch, who's a Democrat. No dummies, either of them. Democrat Sen. Zell Miller supports Bush so strongly that he has started a "Democrats for Bush" movement.

Next time, try thinking before posting. It can work wonders.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain.


sorry-messed up...
I meant PRO-abortion=PRO murder


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I meant PRO-abortion=PRO murder"


Right. This is the elephant in the room that pro-abortion folk don't want to talk about. That's why abortion is all fancied up with a term like "woman's choice," which is supposed to make it sound like something lofty and noble.

It amazes me to hear liberals wail and knash their teeth about American soldiers dying in Iraq, while at the same time (almost without exception) they support the murder of an innocent child in the womb. 

I guess that means you can't kill terrorists and Bathists who supported a savage dictaor and tyrant, but you can kill an innocent baby who never did anything to anybody.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

The biggest thing that drives me crazy about anti-Bush supporters is that they always seem to complain about what he does, and say how wrong he is.......however, I never hear them coming up with solutions to the problems. 

yes, americans have the right to voice their opinions, but its pretty weak and very easy, IMO, to complain about every issue, saying how wrong everybody else is, but never have a solution to the problem. 

such as all these people who thought it was wrong for Bush to invade Afgahnistan after 9/11. For those who complain about it, what was a better solution? I would be happy to listen. Should we just have ignored it, and let it happen over and over again? 

yes, we lost some of our military in the attacks....but maybe we should have just stayed home and passed abortion to allow killing of our babies.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> such as all these people who thought it was wrong for Bush to invade Afgahnistan after 9/11. For those who complain about it, what was a better solution? I would be happy to listen.


Even though I live 8 months a year in one of the liberal hotbeds of America, I haven't heard that much in the way of complaints about invading Afgahnistan. It was understood by most everyone that thats where the people that were responsible 9/11 resided, and most people wanted the Gov't to directly respond to that travesty. 

Iraq on the other hand (here we go again)...



> yes, we lost some of our military in the attacks....but maybe we should have just stayed home and passed abortion to allow killing of our babies.




STOMP


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Even though I live 8 months a year in one of the liberal hotbeds of America, I haven't heard that much in the way of complaints about invading Afgahnistan. It was understood by most everyone that thats where the people that were responsible 9/11 resided, and most people wanted the Gov't to directly respond to that travesty.
> ...



lol.....that roll of the eyes with respect to a hot issue is exactly what my entire post was about and proved it nicely.....thank you very much


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> 
> lol.....that roll of the eyes with respect to a hot issue is exactly what my entire post was about and proved it nicely.....thank you very much


Proved what? that you are out of touch with how a vast majority of Americans feel (and vote) on your "hot issue"? I don't really care to discuss it, because I doubt there will be any budging on anyone's stance/views and it will probably just end up being an insultathon like so many of the other political threads. Why bother collectively slamming our heads against the same old walls and exchanging 1 star ratings?

Btw, abortion is legal in the US and most all of the lawmaking regarding it is being done by a minority to make it illegal. I rolled my eyes because you created zero logical flow between invading Afganistan and passing pro-abortion laws. Claiming that I proved your point  whatever dude...

STOMP


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

its interesting that I'm in the same vicinity as you (Palo Alto), yet you don't see/hear the opposition to the issue, and I see it all over the place.....interesting indeed. 

and you're inability/lack of desire to discuss the issue is exactly what i was talking about when i said people always want to complain, yet never have a valid alternative solution.

so....like i said before.....thank you for proving my point. :grinning:


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Uggg... I'm so tired of these political ranting and bickering on this board.

What ever happened to talking about Blazers Basketball?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "What ever happened to talking about Blazers Basketball?"


Not a lot to talk about at the moment.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Not a lot to talk about at the moment.


True, but I'd still rather rehash "SAR for Ray Allen!" trades then all this political bantering.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I'd still rather rehash "SAR for Ray Allen!" trades then all this political bantering."


That's where we differ. I'm sick of the SAR for Ray Allen (or anybody)" trade scenarios. I'd much rather talk politics.

The next interesting thing to happen in Blazerland will be the NBA lottery, but that's still 8 days away.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> But realize, Bush Jr. is the worst president of my life (by far) and it is easy to see it if you take an objective snapshot of our world compared with the year 2000. If you support President Bush then you are either arrogant, ignorant, or have something to gain from him being president (tax breaks).


All the worlds problems lay at the feet of the President of the United States? IMO the US is better off now than it was in the year 2000.

Of course anyone that would disagree with you is ignorant, arrogant or have something to gain because,



> Originally posted by <b>perfection</b>!
> 
> 2.) What difference does it make that I am 18. I am a very intelligent person who is a critical thinker. I wouldn't be on a full academic scholarship if this weren't the case. I have taken courses in "complex systems and critical thinking", where we actually look at how individual actions affects the grand scheme of things. It is extremely narrow minded to consider someone who is of a younger age to be less wise or knowledgable about the world. I pay close attention to what is going on and use sound logic and judgement.


you are ignorant by your lack of time on this world, arrogant beyond belief by your own admission and you are filled with hatred for the people that may benefit more than you when President Bush wins. 

If you were really a critical thinker you would actually do a little research about John Kerry, the Winter Soldiers, and VVaW before you form an opinion about him. But then, you don't have need for a opinion about John Kerry do you? The one you have for Bush is all you need. 

I'd rather see Dennis or Ralph beat Bush than Kerry. At least they stick to their ideals unpopular or not. 

BTW: Where is the outrage now? I thought we had decided the PDX board was better off without the politics. I could always start posting topics that justify my beliefs again. Oh...yeah I forgot. It's the anti-Bush people that can post whatever whenever. Or is it my imagination again?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HearToTemptYou</b>!
> What ever happened to talking about Blazers Basketball?


Portland missed the playoffs, I hate this political bleep too, but sometimes the nonsense of it all provokes a reaction out of me. I appologize but...



> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> and you're inability/lack of desire to discuss the issue is exactly what i was talking about when i said people always want to complain, yet never have a valid alternative solution.


All I've complained about is you*r* post not making logical sense. Feel free to point out where I complained about anything else from Bush to abortion to our middle east dealings. Good job reinforcing this first impression and resorting to insults when no one (me included) took you up on on the various unrelated issues you listed. I find it sort of hilarious that I purposely didn't weigh in with my views because I wanted to avoid an insultathon, and yet you still insulted me siting my inability to make an arguement! Ha!

How can you fail to draw the distinction to the respective reactions Americans had to invading Iraq and Afganistan? Most everyone I've spoken to and everything I saw, read, and heard supported going after Osama. Feelings were (and are) much more divided on what exactly our purpose was (and is) in Iraq. Those are two separate countries, invations, and issues... right? 

STOMP


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Wow...I'd love to reply to everything, but I don't think that that is realisitically possible. 

First, for the people who were talking about gas taxes. It's nice to see that one of you learned the thing about "Kerry voting to increase gas taxes 11 times" off of a Bush campaign ad. Also, if the person who talked about the possible 50 cent gas hike had done their research, they would know that Bush's economic advisors recommended that he support that bill as well. 



Secondly, I do believe that my country was much better off in the year 2000. Hey, Clinton may have commited a sin, but at least he is intelligent and can make smart decisions.


I just don't see the logic in saying the world is better off today. I mean we are involved in an unjustified war, hurt our foreign relations, created a huge deficit, have a terrible economy, and have a religion-pushing president. 


And this is coming off of a time where we had things such as an extremely large surplus, a strong economy, and good foreign relations (by which I mean getting along with the many nations in NATO....aka no "Freedom Fries"). 

And if you dare to say that Clinton left this mess, I ask why Bush couldn't have cleaned it up in four years. Atrocities such as the war in Iraq are entirely on Bush's shoulders. 

But I guess books by Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward don't exist.


Oh and BTW, I am not a huge Kerry fanatic. I personally don't particularly care for the guy. I'm an Anybody But Bush person. It just happens that Kerry is the only realistic person who can win an election over him. I personally wanted Wes Clark to win the Democratic nomination, as I liked what he had to say. Anyways, I guess since I don't agree with people I deserve to get flamed. I mean, I only have an IQ of 170 and had SAT scores of 1430, not to mention coming into college as a first-year junior. 


But hey, I'm 18, so what the hell can I possibly know. 

Forget it, I won't talk about this stuff anymore becuase I know lots of people will continue to flame and such, and that isn't good. If I want to see all of my terrible, anti-American (what a joke), liberal ideas totally thrashed, why I'll just watch Mr. Magnificent Bill O'Reilly on Fox "Fair and Balanced" News. 



---------------------------------------------------
And sorry to whatever moderator I may have pissed off by possibly being responsible for getting this flame war started.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Real simple for me...My company that I own is in business and the doors are open due entirely to the tax breaks the republicans implimented when Bush took office. I fear that a vote for Kerry will kill my business and I lose my home and most of everything I have worked my butt off to have.

I am not thrilled with Bush, the democratis though in my eyes will destroy the last 8 years of work I have put forth. It's nice to owe more taxes than what you profit...wonderful feeling. Wow we turned a 20K profit this year...but we owe 35K in taxes...Guess we'll just tap into the kids college fund again.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Real simple for me...My company that I own is in business and the doors are open due entirely to the tax breaks the republicans implimented when Bush took office. I fear that a vote for Kerry will kill my business and I lose my home and most of everything I have worked my butt off to have.
> 
> I am not thrilled with Bush, the democratis though in my eyes will destroy the last 8 years of work I have put forth. It's nice to owe more taxes than what you profit...wonderful feeling. Wow we turned a 20K profit this year...but we owe 35K in taxes...Guess we'll just tap into the kids college fund again.




Hey now, that's a nice reason to support Bush...I guess.

I guess maybe I said something confusing before (most likely), but I actually am not a hater of small Business tax breaks. I am more against large corporation tax breaks as well as for people in income brackets above the 200 grand a year, who often run large companies of that nature. 


However, you say that you have worked with this company for eight years....was it operating in the red for the first four or something?


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> I ask why Bush couldn't have cleaned it up in four years. Atrocities such as the war in Iraq are entirely on Bush's shoulders.



Try Osama.

Yes-Clinton does have his responsibility in this. He had the opportunity to take out Osama and didn't. He also released men who later ended up piloting the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The current state of affairs is not the fault of one man, nor is it one man's responsibility to "clean it up".


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Tax increases kill economy. Something people rarely take into consideration.

Look at it like this. In my business if taxes go up I will need to raise the price of my products so I can maintain my operating budget. So I raise my prices along with many many other companies, and now stuff costs, more so employees need raises as the cost of living has risen, so guess what we need to rais prices again. 

Now I know that it is slightly exaggerated, but honestly, when has raisng taxes ever stimulated economic growth? 

Another thing to consider in the economic standpoint. My business reduced by about 40% as of September 12th 2001. My company was not alone, many companies were driven completely under by 9/11/01. People became uncertain scared and stopped spending money. That was not Gerge W's fault that was the fallout of the most horrific terrorist attack ever to strike the lower 48, and likely most of the most costly from a $$$ worth of damage aspect. The state the current economy which has made a very strong resurgence to be near where it was on 09/10/01 is a testament to our current government.

On Iraq, in my mind the action was justified, but not by what the Government used as their justification, yet. Sadaam should have been dealt with a long time ago. I seem to remember many years of Sadaam threatening that he had anthrax and wasn't afraid to use it. In fact he used chemical warfare on his own freaking people. What about The mass graves they have uncovered? I find it interesting that those who support more and more social programs to benefit the less fortunate are not willing to help those who are slaughtered for the sake of one man retaining power. 

Was it justified? Maybe not properly, but IMO it was justified, but the action took place too late. The media will tell you it is unjustified, but ask the soldiers who have returned, ask them if they feel they were there for illegitimet reasons. Ask them how they we greeted ask them how many asked them to leave. You might be shocked to find out that most Iraqis are extremely thankflu for what the US has done for them. Unfortunately what we hear about is the radical Sadaam supporters who are fighting for the fact that they lost the power of control they once had. In addition throw in the groups of terrorists who found the Iraqi situation as an ideal machine for propaganda and to try to rally a Jihad. We are talking about a regime that invaded another country for crying out loud!! In addition the UN weopons inpsectors met resistence after resistence to inspcet, they were prevented by the Iraqi military fro doint the job tha the UN had decreed they do. Why should they not be viewed as a threat?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I am more against large corporation tax breaks as well as for people in income brackets above the 200 grand a year, who often run large companies of that nature.


So large corporations don't ever deserve tax breaks? Have you ever stopped to consider how many Americans depend on large corporations for their jobs? Or that an excessive tax penalty on a corporation could cause it to move outside the country and thus deprive thousands of people of work? What if a large corporation is investing in cancer research, or gene therapy, or new engineering techniques, or some other valuable service to society? Might it make sense for the government to encourage that kind of activity by providing a tax break? 

And who says people making over $200,000 a year don't deserve a tax break? Are you aware that 95% of the personal income tax collected in this country comes from about 5% of the people? In other words, the "big earners" are carrying the load for a LOT of other people. You seem to automatically think big is bad, and high income people are somehow evil or corrupt, or getting away with something unethical. You don't even seem to allow for the possibility that high income people have worked harder than most to get where they are, and that overtaxing them would be a kind of penalty for getting ahead.

In short, you are not as smart as you think you are. You may have jumped ahead in school, but you still have a lot to learn about the real world.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> However, you say that you have worked with this company for eight years....was it operating in the red for the first four or something?


Worked with? I own the company along with 2 others. What many people don't realize is the startup cost comes from somewhere...outa our pockets in this case. As a business grows, more capital is needed to keep up with growth. Basically the company would break even, then we would have to pump our personal moeny into it to pay the taxes so we could continue to stay in business. Somehting like 80% of business' fail in the first 3 years and statistically it is the taxes that sink them in the end. Most companies start to show profit at about the 5 year point.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Its amazing to me to read the support for Anti-Bush.......you all seem so quick to point out what he has done wrong......all this instead of making logical arguments for why Kerry would be a better president. 

But, its consistent with my other posts about how people love to complain about Bush's decisions, but never have any solutions of their own. 

its like sitting on the sidelines saying what a terrible coach Cheeks is and bringing up all the terrible coaching he does, all while never making any logical suggestions or solutions to the problem. 

Would somebody that is so completely against Bush please explain to me what the U.S. SHOULD have done with Saddam and Iraq??


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Sadaam should have been dealt with a long time ago. I seem to remember many years of Sadaam threatening that he had anthrax and wasn't afraid to use it. In fact he used chemical warfare on his own freaking people. What about The mass graves they have uncovered? I find it interesting that those who support more and more social programs to benefit the less fortunate are not willing to help those who are slaughtered for the sake of one man retaining power.


Well put, Schilly! I might add that John Freaking Kerry himself said that Iraq possessed WMD and posed a grave threat to the world. Now he wants to sit back and criticize Bush because Bush had the balls to do something about Saddam when no one else would.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Perfection...Just out of curriosity what is your major and what is it that you are working towards a career in?

I read an article several years ago about college student and their opinions about politics. The basic summary of it was that their opinions about politics are skewedbecause they exist in a world that isn't real by means of adulthood. Their level of freddom is extremely high. Most are not paying for their education, most do not work and most have sensationalized views. Ironically most of these students political views change once they graduate and get well paying jobs, then they buy a home and have a family and every penny coutns in one way or another. 

Not saying this is you Perfection, but it is a lot of college students. These are the people who benefit most form the freedoms Americans are blessed with but the fail to see beyond their own campus.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> BTW: Where is the outrage now? I thought we had decided the PDX board was better off without the politics. I could always start posting topics that justify my beliefs again. Oh...yeah I forgot. It's the anti-Bush people that can post whatever whenever. Or is it my imagination again?



I know this wasn't posted exactly after you posted it..but you might have noticed that this isn't an exlusively "anti-bush" and "pro-kerry" post.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

BBoy...

Defending Coach Cheeks hurts your argument a lot, in my view...

Are you saying that Bush is also over his head?

I think someone taking an issue with the war in Iraq could offer you a pretty good alternate solution to the problem, ie, don't do it. 

Or if it had to be done, come up with a justifiable reason for doing it FIRST and then getting others to go along with it. We were able to do that last time, why not this time?

Someone might also offer a pretty solid alternative to making legislation based on the cravings of religious extremists... don't do it.

Tax breaks? That's pretty cool and all, but it would have been much better if it had been combined with good fiscal policy. How long do you think those breaks are going to last when the deficit is once again out of control? We'll probably see a lot of inflation and ultimately higher taxes no matter who ends up in office fairly soon.

Picking a fight with the environment? How about don't do it...

I dunno, obviously this isn't a complete treatment, but most of us have more pressing concerns...


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

The worst thing I have heard in the whole debate of Bush and Kerry (not just on this board) is im going to vote for Kerry cause I dont like Bush.

Please before you JUST vote for someone please take into consideration what they believe in and what they voted for etc. Some are saying that Bush is pushing religion, well if anyone watched the Kerry rally all he was pushin was god and how he saved someone in Nam. 

Just please do research, dont just vote for some one cause you dont like the other guy, If anything dont vote at all.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>:
> Tax increases kill economy. Something people rarely take into consideration.


I never realized it was that simple. Thanks for setting us straight! I better tell Paul Krugman (Princeton economist and tireless opponent of the Bush tax cuts).



> Look at it like this. In my business if taxes go up I will need to raise the price of my products so I can maintain my operating budget. So I raise my prices along with many many other companies, and now stuff costs, more so employees need raises as the cost of living has risen, so guess what we need to rais prices again.


You know, if those taxes went on things like health care, maybe you wouldn't need to spend money on insuring your employees, and they wouldn't need to be paid so much. But then we'd have Communism and pretty soon we'd all be sent to the Gulag. 



> Now I know that it is slightly exaggerated, but honestly, when has raisng taxes ever stimulated economic growth?


Oh I don't know, that period in the '90s when America experienced the longest uninterrupted non-wartime growth in history? That period in the '80s after Reagan raised taxes? 

Let's have your examples of when tax cuts have stimulated the economy.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Guess it depends on how much you don't like someone, eh?

I've seen so very few candidates that I actually liked - always seems to be a choice of who do you hate the least.

Last time around I made the mistake of not voting because I thought both candidates sucked, thinking that it wouldn't make much difference who won. I regret that decision now and don't want to make it again...

Cheers


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yeah, the national economy is complicated, that's for sure...

I took one semester of marcoeconomics back in my undergrad days so I know just enough about it to get myself into a world of trouble.

Probably the most important thing I took from that though was that the way the economy reacts can be very counterintuitive.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

I'd like to hear people say they voted for Kerry than against Bush but I haven't heard anyone with enough guts to say they actually support Kerry. Ask your coworkers and people you know if they know anyone that is voting FOR Kerry and NOT against Bush. Damn scary.

Know your candidate before you vote.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

That's advice that I bet a lot of Bush voters wish they would have had 4 years ago...


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> That's advice that I bet a lot of Bush voters wish they would have had 4 years ago...


oh because he took us to war, he is horrible....im sorry but Bush has done alot for this country from tax breaks to making the economy better to capturing saddam. 

Kerry has done nothing but change his mind, and go against what he voted for. Bush is not perfect but he is leading us to a brighter future. 

Like it or not the war had to be done after Clinton was a puss for 8 years. Especially after finding out the allegations that are UN was hiding stuff so he could profit from saddam and keep us from war.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

You're right, Bush is not perfect. That he's leading us to a "brighter tomorrow" is pure opinion and speculation.

I'm personally not up for a neverending war, trashing the environment, and making laws based on fundamentalist ideals.

He gets credit for making the economy better? Sweet, do I get credit for cleaning up the glass shards from that window that I broke?


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Ringbearer,

I realize that an alternative "solution" to the war in Iraq was to "not do it", and many people hate Bush for it. And these people are definately entitled to their opinion. IMO, the problem arises when these are the same people who don't want innocent people suffering, and that less fortunate people should be helped by those with more. Millions of people were being killed and suffering much more than anybody in the U.S. could have imagined. Although we may have not solved the problem over there, IMO we definately helped millions and millions of people. Does Bush get any credit for this?


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> 
> 
> oh because he took us to war, he is horrible....im sorry but Bush has done alot for this country from tax breaks to making the economy better to capturing saddam.
> ...





Let me just repeat a part of that. 




> to making the economy better


Bush actually made the economy better? Can you define the word better, because that isn't how it is supposed to be used according to its definition at dictionary.com. Usually better indicates an improvement. 

Now there are a lot of things you can argue about bush vs kerry/clinton; However, I think it is pretty damn obvious that the economy was just about as good as it has ever been while the Prez was gettin the Monica treatment.....I mean...Wow. Its just a really brave, unbaised claim.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> Ringbearer,
> 
> I realize that an alternative "solution" to the war in Iraq was to "not do it", and many people hate Bush for it. And these people are definately entitled to their opinion. IMO, the problem arises when these are the same people who don't want innocent people suffering, and that less fortunate people should be helped by those with more. Millions of people were being killed and suffering much more than anybody in the U.S. could have imagined. Although we may have not solved the problem over there, IMO we definately helped millions and millions of people. Does Bush get any credit for this?



NO.

You have to realize, what has become out of the Iraq war was not its intent. I belive Bush went into Iraq citing the eminent presence of WMD. Hmm, we haven't seen any of that. Next it became about liberating the suffering souls under Sadam's regime. 

Now, if that second motive had been the primary reason we went into Iraq, then I would have to give him credit. However, I believe that if that was a valid reason for an invasion, more countries then just Britain would be for supporting us. 

Oh, and we American's aren't exactly loved in that part of the world. One of the main reasons that we are hated over there is due to our support of Israel (which is NOT right...for a number of reasons such as isolationism and the wall Israel built). If we didn't support them, then perhaps they wouldn't hate us as much. Additionally, look at what is going on with issues such as prisoner abuse in Iraq. No wonder they must think we are terrible people. 

Perhaps we are setting them free. However, at the same time we are forcing our government, system and beliefs onto their culture. We are in essence attempting to try and westernize Iraq, which will have problems due to the attitude towards the US over there as well as customs and other issues....etc. 


Finally, I think I'll just restate something from that quote:



> we may have not solved the problem over there


I think that kind of sums it up doesn't it?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Bboy...

That's great that we helped all those people. I mean, if they're happy about our invasion (debateable), then I'm happy for them.

It's quite possible that if Bush and his colleagues had travelled around the world and lobbied other leaders to help end the suffering of the Iraqi people, that he may have garnered some support. Who knows? 

Turns out though, that this became the justification of the invasion post mortem. I mean, where was our concern for all of these people pre-911? Bush didn't seem to care then... 

So we acted like jerks and pissed off a lot of allies and ended up with an occupation that there is no real end in sight for... and it's costing the American people big time in dollars and lives.

Hey, I don't care if you got a tax cut last year, those are still your billions of dollars being spent over there and you'll have to pay for it in one way or another. Every one of us holds a share of that national debt. We might pay for it in more taxes later on or through inflation, but we'll pay for it.

I think the administration's motives were questionable at best and it really frustrates me as an American the way that we flexed our muscles and flipped the old bird to the rest of the free world. It is also really frustrating to me that we gave yet another reason for people to hate the US, which can't help the "War on Terror".

I dunno, it's all very frustrating, I think we as the American people have been very poorly represented to the rest of the world when it just didn't have to be that way at all.

Anyway, I respect all of your opinions on this stuff - nobody is going to change anybody's mind here but thanks for letting me rant a little...

Cheers


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

"I think that kind of sums it up doesn't it?"

Actually, NO, it doesn't. I said we may not have SOLVED the problem, but we definately helped. 

As a suggestion, you should look into reading the book, "Sadam's Bomb Maker". It is an autobiography of the man that Saddam forced to be in charge of his nuclear division (they were trying to make nuclear bombs). it would probably give you a new perspective on how things were over there under Saddam, and the kind of weapons that he really did have.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Perfection...Just out of curriosity what is your major and what is it that you are working towards a career in?
> 
> I read an article several years ago about college student and their opinions about politics. The basic summary of it was that their opinions about politics are skewedbecause they exist in a world that isn't real by means of adulthood. Their level of freddom is extremely high. Most are not paying for their education, most do not work and most have sensationalized views. Ironically most of these students political views change once they graduate and get well paying jobs, then they buy a home and have a family and every penny coutns in one way or another.
> ...


Hmm, well once I graudate with a degree in Honors Computer Science I plan to pursue a dual Masters of Business Administration and Masters of Information Technology & Security. 

Let me make it clear. I am not your typical college student that is part of the data they used to make that report...years ago. I am an outlier if you will. An aware, concerned, progressive & critically thinking citizen of my country. I want what is best for it. Furthermore, I come from a fairly wealthy family that benefits from Bush's tax cuts. Also of interest, my father is a retired Lt. Col. in the Military who was also a Green Beret and served in Vietnam, so I am all for supporting the troops (by not sending them to war). 

Also, if what you say is true, then most young college age people would support one party [ie Democratic] and when they get older would decide to switch to the other party [elephants]. If you look at the reality of things, the split in political party affiliation is pretty similar regardless of age. 

I do however, understand that perhaps when I am older and have to support a family I might be for more tax cuts and the sort of things that will help me out financially. However, I'm aware of the implications of supporting these ideas. The are all around bad. If you look at other governments, such as Sweeden (where taxes are high but there are things such as national health care and a working social security program) you will see that it is an excellent place with not much crime...etc. 

Ok, so Sweeden, being more socialist in nature, is not the "American dream". Well, America is a changing place. With all the issues that it faces such as povery and such, we need to look after and help each other out. This gives everyone a chance. And just to let you know, that is a pretty bold statement coming from me. I am a highly successful person that works harder then most people that you will meet. I am all for me getting my rewards; after all, I earned it. However, by giving some back, it provides a better living environment and a better culture, and I think that that takes precidence in my mind. 


Oh, and a last note:

For all the people who are pro-abortion, here is a thought to tackle. What do you think will happen if abortion is made illegal. Will women and their "conspirators" be thrown in jail for having an illegal abortion. If not, then what is the penalty. Furthermore, what is to prevent women from going to Canada or Mexico or a state that is allowing abortions to be carried out (only bible belt states will outlaw abortion). I guess you can read this attached article if you want to see why we must keep abortion legal, from a logical standpoint, despite any moral objections to the topic:


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> "I think that kind of sums it up doesn't it?"
> 
> Actually, NO, it doesn't. I said we may not have SOLVED the problem, but we definately helped.
> ...



1.) 

Then where are all the weapons now?



----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.)



> Hey, I don't care if you got a tax cut last year, those are still your billions of dollars being spent over there and you'll have to pay for it in one way or another. Every one of us holds a share of that national debt. We might pay for it in more taxes later on or through inflation, but we'll pay for it.


Such an excellent, true point. Thank you Blazer Ringbearer for showing very logically how my generation will be paying for this for years and years to come. I mean, unless we seize oil fields in Iraq for compensation....but wait, we wouldn't go to Iraq for oil now would we.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

> Hmm, well once I graudate with a degree in Honors Computer Science I plan to pursue a dual Masters of Business Administration and Masters of Information Technology & Security.
> 
> Let me make it clear. I am not your typical college student that is part of the data they used to make that report...years ago. I am an outlier if you will.


This is where I stopped reading.....right after you come off as being arrogant. IMO, you have really no reason to be.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Perfection,

I think you make some good points, but there are plenty of smart folks on this board of all ages. You don't need to flash around your IQ, SAT scores, or degree aspirations to get respect. It tends to put people off...

Just let your thoughts speak for themselves, my man.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Perfection,
> 
> I think you make some good points, but there are plenty of smart folks on this board of all ages. You don't need to flash around your IQ, SAT scores, or degree aspirations to get respect. It tends to put people off...
> ...


He was asked what he was studying. He was also slammed for "only" being 18. It's not like he randomly decided to state his situation to impress everyone.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


um considering where we were on 9/11 from then we have got better! Yes i said it BETTER!!!!! People are spending, people are flying again, etc etc.. You know why? because ALOT of people do feel safer now that Saddam is locked up, and they feel better cause Bush is tryin to take care of these terriosts.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

It's my opinion that our liberal democratic party would prefer our society to trend towards disaccountability. It seems to me that our culture is being built around satisfying our hedonistic urges. Advertising, marketing and guidance from attactive authority is aimed directly at selfish gratification. 

An example is how the religious is portrayed as unenlightened and close minded by a large majority of the young adults today. At least among the liberal minded posters here and at other boards I read. 

Is it because religion would ask us to control our appetites and regulate ourselves through self discipline? 

Most if not all 'old age' religions would ask you to put others before yourself and forgive others that inflict themselves upon you. It's a proactive approach to morality. 

The religions that are considered more enlightened or 'New Age', ie: Scientology, Gaia, Wicca, Modern Catholicism, Unitarian, Liberal Methodists etc. remind us that morality is objective and no one, including society, should place boundries, or have expectations of fellow humans. 

It's the free spirit approach that is especially prevalant among those that experience freedom from their parents for the first time.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> Sorry, but to support President Bush at this point is a character flaw.
> 
> 
> ...



its late now, but I'll come back tomorrow and rip virtually everything you wrote into shreds, have you sucking your thumb crying to your momma for mercy and headed to the voter registry soon after to change your affiliation from "immature brainwashed liberal" to "informed voter".


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Worked with? I own the company along with 2 others. What many people don't realize is the startup cost comes from somewhere...outa our pockets in this case. As a business grows, more capital is needed to keep up with growth. Basically the company would break even, then we would have to pump our personal moeny into it to pay the taxes so we could continue to stay in business. Somehting like 80% of business' fail in the first 3 years and statistically it is the taxes that sink them in the end. Most companies start to show profit at about the 5 year point.


What kind of taxes are you paying, Schilly? What sort of business are you in? I'm asking seriously. Corporate income taxes, generally speaking, are zero if you aren't profitable. So your statement that most businesses fail in 3 years due to taxes, and show profit at the 5 year point, seems a little odd to me. 

Now, I realize there are various fees, business licenses, and the like. But I've never noticed them being cripplingly large. 

Could you provide a little reference for your claim about taxes causing business failures? I could be wrong, but it sounds like propaganda, not statistics.

barfo


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> 
> 
> This is where I stopped reading.....right after you come off as being arrogant. IMO, you have really no reason to be.



Well you know, when I get discredited for my age and being in college, I find that a little discouraging. I mean, if I hadn't put my age in the box then would I become that much more credible?

I'm not meaning to come off arrogant or conceided or anything. I am just trying to say that I am most likely not going to be like the average college student....especially one from some random poll taken who knows where and how long ago. 

But, if you couldn't figure that out.....oh well. 

And as for ripping me apart.....welll have fun with that. I could rip apart those arguements too by listening to Fox News for about 1/2 an hour because president bush is our savior. I mean, he led us on a, and this is a quote, "crusade" to the middle east. 


Just tell me how can you argue that our foreign relations, not to mention economy, are better off right now. And remember that there is this war that still needs to be paid off by YOU. 

But that's ok, cause I must be a brain-washed, immature liberal. 

That means I'm misinformed about our country because of my age or something. Well, then explain why our country is pretty much 50/50 then as far as the parties that people are regardless of age. 

Regardless, I think the idea of "ripping someone" and all of their statements, particularly the ones I made, apart is pretty immature itself. 

I mean...was it really necessary to bring my mom into this?

Whatever....its a good thing I don't really care about how I'm going to be thrashed. 

So no, I won't go crying to my mom or whatever. However, I will be scared. Scared that someone who has the same amount of voting power as I can honestly believe such ludicrous ideas.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

I see that it says you are in Corvallis......I think you would be a much better fit in Eugene.   j/k


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> He was asked what he was studying. He was also slammed for "only" being 18. It's not like he randomly decided to state his situation to impress everyone.


Good point, but nobody asked him his IQ or SAT scores. That's what I thought was a bit over the top, but oh well. There are tons of really smart people on this board who don't go tossing such information around to help prove a point.

Target,

Maybe you would have some backing for your claim if you could provide some link between our current cultural trends and the democratic party. There really isn't one as far as I can see... I see "liberals" and "conservatives" alike acting and thinking in the way you describe. I also can't think of a time in our history that Americans or human beings were not selfish - this sounds almost like a "in my day" rant, and not one based on facts.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>blazerboy30</b>!
> I see that it says you are in Corvallis......I think you would be a much better fit in Eugene.   j/k



Maybe, but I don't smoke weed so I think that I wouldn't have anything to do with a large portion of the community.....jk.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> 
> Good point, but nobody asked him his IQ or SAT scores. That's what I thought was a bit over the top, but oh well. There are tons of really smart people on this board who don't go tossing such information around to help prove a point.
> ...


Yes, but as I've said, it was to help differentiate myself from the ideas of me being just a typical college student. Don't worry, I don't have a superiority complex and I don't feel I need to show off....especially on a Blazer webboard of all places. 

I just thought maybe that info may help to show that I am an intelligent and aware individual, as I know many of my peers are in fact ignorant due to their age and unawareness.

Sorry if it came off snobbish or something...as that wasn't the purpose.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> What kind of taxes are you paying, Schilly? What sort of business are you in? I'm asking seriously. Corporate income taxes, generally speaking, are zero if you aren't profitable. So your statement that most businesses fail in 3 years due to taxes, and show profit at the 5 year point, seems a little odd to me.
> 
> ...


I am in a business that does some light manufacturing and mostly wholesale supplying. The tax issue is legit. What our company was encountering was a regular pattern of about 45% growth from year to year, which is a fairly steep level of growth. THe problem we faced was this. As our sales increased we needed to use the "profit" generated to increase our inventory to meet the growing demand. In addition facilityies needed to be upgraded to meet the product flow. Material handling equipment was needed, additional employees were needed. ALl of that is fine excep the inventory aspect. This is why.

THe federal government looks at the value of your inventory at the start of the year. At the end of the year if that valkue is higher, they consider the difference to be profit. Basically what was happening is as a company we were breaking even, but our inventory would jump by 45-50%. So say for example we started with 100K in inventory and closed the year at 150K. The government considers that 50K difference as profit though that 50K is not available as capital. So essentially you have no profit $ wise yet you owe taxes on 50K worth of inventory, which is taxed just like good old cash, heavy. 

AS far as the reference's that is information that I have read in numerous small business magazines, in addition, my father, who is a business consultant, has repeatedly told me thus and has cited business conferences and 35 years of expierience as his basis of info.

I can't provide links for those stats and what not. All I can do is tell you what I know. Most startup businesses fail in the 1st 3 years. In a lot of cases it is a poor business idea. In others poor planning and in others they just flat out fail

I did exaggerate earlier, increased taxes will not burry my company now as our growth has plateued and Inventory has stabilized. I am sensitive, because of what I expierienced as a startup company, sorry I ahve no link to prove my companies history in that regard I guess you'll have to take my word on it. I did as did the other owners of my company, have to take my personal money, that I earned and paid taxes on, and use that to pay my companies taxes.

Perfection, thank you for your answer, I wasn't trying to put you specifically on the spot by questioning your motives, but I did feel if I knew your ambitions that I might gain a better appreciation of your opinion. BTW it's Sweden not Sweeden. I think the US could learn alot form many of the European countries (Bigger is not necessarily better) and I think that there is something valid to the lifestyles there. But I don't think you can impliment those socialist concepts with out a magor overhaul on the spending. One thing to consider. Sweden has a population of 8.9 million people the US has approximately 293 million people. That is completely and utterly relevant when trying to overhaul a system, the smaller it is the easier it is to deal with. Sweden is qeografically about the same size as california, but has less than a third the population of Cali. It's largest city is Stokholm which has a population similar to Portland. Overall size of project makes a big difference.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> 
> I am in a business that does some light manufacturing and mostly wholesale supplying. The tax issue is legit. What our company was encountering was a regular pattern of about 45% growth from year to year, which is a fairly steep level of growth. THe problem we faced was this. As our sales increased we needed to use the "profit" generated to increase our inventory to meet the growing demand. In addition facilityies needed to be upgraded to meet the product flow. Material handling equipment was needed, additional employees were needed. ALl of that is fine excep the inventory aspect. This is why.
> ...


Because it *is* profit, isn't it? I mean, you chose to reinvest it into your business, to grow it, but that doesn't mean the profit no longer exists.

If the government *didn't* tax that, that would be an enormous loophole. It would mean that as long as you kept reinvesting profit into your business, your net value would keep growing but you'd never pay taxes.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Because it *is* profit, isn't it? I mean, you chose to reinvest it into your business, to grow it, but that doesn't mean the profit no longer exists.
> ...


Actually you are right on, I thought I had mentioned that I understand why they do that, apparently I hadn't. I realize that it prevents companies from just dumping all their products into equitable inventory at the end of the year so they can avoid taxes. I am not complaining about that aspect, but I am saying that the tax break we received once Bush weas in office was extrememly benificial, and IMO is a big reason why as owners we didn't just bag it. It was the difference between breaking even after taxes and chipping in our own cash to pay taxes.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It's recognized but not realized profit. The government, understandably, needs to get a cut of that at some point, but by providing incentives for reinvestment through reduction in taxes for businesses that do it, businesses like Schilly's are able to expand and become more productive (and should end up paying more taxes in the long run because of it... which is good for everyone).

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> It's recognized but not realized profit. The government, understandably, needs to get a cut of that at some point, but by providing incentives for reinvestment through reduction in taxes for businesses that do it, businesses like Schilly's are able to expand and become more productive


I'm not sure why there's a need to incentivize it, with tax breaks. If it's a more profitable thing to do to grow your business, and it generally is if you can, business owners will do so anyway.

I mean, we *can* provide tax incentives...but we can do so for so many things. I think it's inefficient to incentivize something that will likely happen anyway.

I'd rather provide more tax breaks, say, for education. Better educated Americans will also grow the productivity of the country, lead to less wellfare and that's something that may *not* happen without incentives or support.

I can also see tax breaks to small business owners, maybe during that "three year danger period"...but generally providing tax breaks, in a blanket fashion, to *all* businesses who reinvest...I don't think that's wise.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

Well, here goes. There's so much to choose from, I'm not sure where to start, but lets get it going with several of your most belligerent and condescending phrases (regardless of your age and education, you seem to love hyperbole)



> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> Sorry, but to support President Bush at this point is a character flaw.
> This is total BS.
> This is a sign of total incompitence or sheer ignorance.
> ...


most people would consider that type of writing to be inflammatory. Not only are you completely in love with yourself and your own opinions, if anyone takes an opposing view, they are ignorant, incompetent, narrow minded, arrogant or stupid (implied). Maybe a course in social skills would be good for you.
Also, its highly ironic that you misspelled "incompetence". Who's incompetent again? LOL.

but lets not stop there, lets examine your actual opinions





> Foreign Relations
> Domestic Policies
> National Economy
> My FREEDOMS
> ...


you have mastered the art of casting a wide ranging, vague statements with very little substance or specifics to back it up. That's nice. You mention "special interests" over Iraq, oil. Here's a clue, there's special interests on virtually every topic our gov't considers ever day. They're called lobbyists. Every politician has special interests. Going back through the last 4 or 5 wars the US has had since WWII, 4 democrat Presidents presided over them (FDR, Truman, JFK and Lyndon Johnson). I guess they didn't have special interests though  because in your world only big bad Bush is evil. Instead of regurgitating what your liberal teachers and professors tell you every day in school, start doing your own research, and don't just read the daily liberal talking points off places like Buzzflash and Democratic Underground. You'd be surprised how much non-partisan factual historical information is out there.

but I will address your vague points nonetheless: Foreign Relations = other countries on the UN Food For Oil gravy train complaining about US invading Iraq, thereby eliminating their free billions of slush money proof proof2 proof3 
so, worrying about what other, dirty countries think is not much of a concern, don't you think? If you think that the United States should ask permission of corrupt international governments to perform its own military actions, then I don't know what to tell you other than I don't think that's very realistic.

domestic policies = once again very vague, but suffice to say that whatever domestic policies you disagree with today will be changed again tomorrow. In my lifetime there have been 8 different presidents of wide ranging abilities and ideologies as well as thousands of different senators and representatives that have enacted and repealed legislation continuously depending on the moral flavor of the moment. Things change, be patient. One thing I guarantee is what you don't like today will be different tomorrow. That's the beauty of our government, it flows back and forth from conservative to liberal and back again, and again and again. 

national economy = your view of it is completely wrong, this is a special area of focus I will adress in depth later in this post.

your freedoms= vague as possible, as per usual. please expand on the vast number of your personal freedoms that have been impugned since 2000. Then I will address them.

the record breaking surplus = the surplus was already diminishing when Bush took office (due to a correction in overinflated stock market called the "dot.com burst", among many factors), nonetheless you didn't even mention 9/11 as a factor in deflating our economy even further. How you could gloss over that reality is beyond incomprehensible. In reality, our country is lucky we didn't dip into a 5 year depression after that. Inherent in your logic is the obvious lack of knowledge about how markets work. Economies do not go up for 8 years, then continue to go up for another 8 years, and another 8 years, even in peacetime. Economies ebb and flow, and the 1990's economy had run its course no matter who was president. 

but lets turn to some of your more specific opinions:



> someone who is tell women what they can do with their bodies &
> that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed basic civil rights associated with marriages should not be allowed to President.


i agree that abortion should be legal, but I don't agree with abortion, I consider it murder. I have two beautiful daughters, one of which was just born last Wednesday and so to think that those two could have been "eliminated" by a medical procedure makes me ill. However, I do think if people want to kill their own offspring and suffer the consequences of that action, they should be allowed to do so safely and think it should stay legal. As for gay marriage, I really don't care if its legal or not. Its a non issue that for some reason the press is playing up like its some major Martin Luther King type of moment. If gay people want to marry, let them, big deal.
However, just because a person feels differently than you doesn't, and should never disqualify them as presidential material. If everyone was forced to think like you we wouldn't have a democratic republic, we'd have an authoritarian dictatorship. Is that what you really want? If so, you aren't just liberal, you're radical. Evidently the freedom you so cherish (freedom of thought for example) and whine about losing above is only good for you, but not for a person that thinks differently than you. That's truly pathetic actually.



> In contrast, with Iraq we pretty much said **** you to our long time allies and went in commando style. Now our nation is holding the entire cost of this unjustified war.


That is just false. We had a coalition of over 50 nations. We ignored a few nations (most notably France, Germany, Russia and China). It is ironic don't you think that all of those countries have been implicated in the corrupt oil for food program the UN sponsored, and furthermore had weapons and infrastructure contracts with Saddam Hussein. Beyond that, our nation is not holding the entire cost of the war. The UN is taking over on June 30, in case you didn't know, and even though the US is spending by far the most money, other countries such as Britain, Italy, Poland, Australia, Canada and many many others have sent money and/or troops in support of the war.



> But realize, Bush Jr. is the worst president of my life (by far) and it is easy to see it if you take an objective snapshot of our world compared with the year 2000.


you're 18, meaning you were born in 1986 (ish), therefore there have been exactly 4 presidents in your short lifetime (reagan, bush1, clinton and bush2). I'm not sure you're even qualified to make such a statement. You probably didn't even understand what a president is until you were 10 yrs old, meaning most of your current perception of "PRESIDENT" is limited to Bill Clinton vs George Bush. why don't you get back to us in about 30 more years when your depth of understanding and experience is more fully developed.




> I am more against large corporation tax breaks as well as for people in income brackets above the 200 grand a year, who often run large companies of that nature.


large corporations provide large amounts of jobs. I'm not gung ho about big tax freebies for big companies, but some discounting doesn't bother me either. These companies keep our people working and our economy running. As for large income folks, there are not many loopholes for high income earners to use to pay less than their share of taxes. I am in the highest bracket, the only way I can lower my tax burden is sheltering income in my 401K, using deferred compensation, buying real estate, investing in other businesses, taking losses on assets or depreciating infrastructure, offshore banking schemes (which are illegal), ponzi schemes (which are illegal) or various other illegal activities. Most high wage earners don't break the law to pay less taxes, in case you didn't know. I have my house, wife, children as write offs, then I pay way more than my fair share of taxes. However, in this country if you make less than about 20K per year, you don't pay any taxes and if you are a family earning less than 35K per year, you not only don't pay taxes, you get free money back from the government. The top 10% of the country pays 90% of the taxes, so its not like poor people are getting screwed.



> I personally wanted Wes Clark to win the Democratic nomination, as I liked what he had to say.


did you like him when he said before Congress (two weeks prior to them passing the Iraq war resolution), quote:

*"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
"And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this." 

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat." 
*

that doesn't exactly jibe with the rhetoric you've posted already, so I'm not sure you ever did any homework on your boy Clark. Given that fact, I highly doubt you know much about Bush or Kerry either, other than what others have told you or your daily sound bites on the news. 



> You have to realize, what has become out of the Iraq war was not its intent. I belive Bush went into Iraq citing the eminent presence of WMD. Hmm, we haven't seen any of that. Next it became about liberating the suffering souls under Sadam's regime.
> 
> Now, if that second motive had been the primary reason we went into Iraq, then I would have to give him credit. However, I believe that if that was a valid reason for an invasion, more countries then just Britain would be for supporting us.


actually, you have to realize this is why we went to war:
national security strategy of the United States, published in Sep 2002. 

its long and boring, so here's a very non partisan synopsis of what it says: as told by Yale professor on the PBS news show Frontline 

this post is getting so long, I'm going to stop now and continue later, because there's a lot more to cover, and I told you I'd really expand on the economy to refute your claims, which I promise I will.

later


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

[ mental note: ]

never disagree with Tommyboy

[ / mental note: ]


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> I can also see tax breaks to small business owners, maybe during that "three year danger period"...but generally providing tax breaks, in a blanket fashion, to *all* businesses who reinvest...I don't think that's wise.


I understand your perspective... I don't necessarily support reinvestment by all businesses, either. 

I also don't support people having lots of kids nor homebuying by all Americans, but both of those things are subsidized by the government.

Whether business owners would reinvest in their businesses at the same rate irrespective of tax breaks is something I just don't know. I DO know that it's an activity by businesses that I support and I don't mind providing incentives for.

Ed O.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>:
> 
> Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11 in New York, is an avid Bush supporter. So is former Mayor Ed Koch, who's a Democrat. No dummies, either of them. Democrat Sen. Zell Miller supports Bush so strongly that he has started a "Democrats for Bush" movement.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tommyboy - 

I may not always be on the same side of the fence as you, but great post... 

I really respect the way that you search for proof to back up your opinions.

Cheers


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Tommyboy -
> 
> I may not always be on the same side of the fence as you, but great post...
> ...


Darn, you beat me to the punch. 

Actually I agree. In fact, despite the entire post was revolved around "ripping me", the fact that it is so in-depth and coherent makes me respect you.

I also, obviously, am not on the same side of the political fence as you. I could definately refute some of the claims you made, although at this point I really need to study for a quiz tomorrow. Regardless, it was an excellent post nonetheless


....because of which you, TommyBoy, get a happy 5-stars. 

{I mean who knew ripping on someone might get you five stars as opposed to one}. 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh...and as for my "incompetence", I'm sorry if I don't check my posts with a spell checker, but I have more important things to do then proofread them and such. But how well...I mean no one's perfect.

.....and please get the joke with that last line.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

Dear Perfection, 

I'm going to expand on the economy now, to completely refute these claims of yours:



> *by Perfection*
> I just don't see the logic in saying the world is better off today. I mean we...have a terrible economy (edited)
> 
> Bush actually made the economy better? Can you define the word better, because that isn't how it is supposed to be used according to its definition at dictionary.com. Usually better indicates an improvement.
> ...



well, a quick couple of searches on Google would have taught you this:



> Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
> located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 4.2 percent in the first quarter of 2004,
> according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real
> GDP increased 4.1 percent.


link 



> The leading index turned up again in March after pausing in February. The leading index has now increased by 4.4 percent from its most recent low in March 2003, although growth has slowed somewhat in recent months.
> The coincident index continued on its steady upward trend in March. The coincident index has now increased at a 2.2 percent annual rate from its most recent low in April 2003. The growth rate of the coincident index has strengthened in recent months, and this strength has been widespread.
> The upturn in the leading index since March 2003 signaled stronger economic growth, and correspondingly, real GDP growth picked up to a 6.2 percent annual rate in the second half of 2003. The current growth rate of the leading index is signaling a continuation of relatively strong economic growth in the near term.


link 



> Treasury prices tumbled and the dollar soared Friday as an unexpectedly stronger payroll report raised the possibility that the Federal Reserve would lift interest rates by June.
> 
> Payrolls grew by 288,000 jobs in April, the Labor Department reported, well above the 173,000 economists had forecast, according to a survey by Reuters. The number even topped the highest forecast of about 250,000.
> 
> March's payroll gain was revised up to 337,000 from an initial 308,000, giving the economy an average monthly gain of 217,000 a month so far this year, even with weaker-than-expected growth in January and February. Analysts had looked for an increase of about 173,000 jobs for March.


link 




> Surging US economy leads global recovery
> 
> Mark Tran and agencies
> Friday February 6, 2004
> ...


link 



> Pre-owned home sales hit second-highest pace on record
> 
> U.S. sales of pre-owned homes were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.48 million units in March, up 5.7% from the February pace, according to the National Association of Realtors. Last month's sales activity was 12.7% higher than the year-ago level and the second-highest pace on record, trailing only the 6.68 million units sold in September 2003. The national median existing-home price was $174,100 in March, up 7.4% from March 2003. Housing inventory levels at the end of March rose 4.8% from February to 2.39 million pre-owned homes for sale, representing a 4.4-month supply at the current sales pace. - 4/27/2004


link 



> March new home sales hit all-time record
> 
> New home sales in the U.S. were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.228 million units in March, up 8.9% from February and the highest on record, according to the Census Bureau. The March rate was 21.8% higher than the March 2003 pace. The median sales price in March was $201,400; the average sales price was $260,800. At the current sales pace, a 3.7-month supply of unsold homes was on the market, near a record low. - 4/26/2004


link 



> The National Association of Realtors expects economic growth to remain above historic averages during the next two years, stimulating job growth and sustaining home sales despite higher interest rates. "With mortgage rates bottoming out in March, we've had a big rush of home buyers this year," said David Lereah, NAR's chief economist. "Home sales should hold close to record territory for a couple months, then ease in the second half of the year but remain at historically strong levels." - 5/10/2004





> Remodeling shows no sign of slowing -- NAHB
> 
> Residential remodelers remain bullish in their outlook for business prospects for the balance of 2004, according to the National Association of Home Builders. NAHB's Remodeling Market Index rose to a record level of 59 in the first quarter, signaling positive impressions of current market conditions as well as expectations for the near future among professionals in the $176 billion remodeling industry. - 5/13/2004





> U.S. housing starts were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.97 million units in April, off 2.1% from the revised March estimate but 20.3% higher than the April 2003 rate,


i could go on and on, just remember back in 2001 after 9/11 (which you forgot to ever mention) the stock market was down below 8,000 for a while. It is now back in the high 9,000's - low 10,000's range. Not that that's a primary indicator, but it is just one other thing to consider about the allegedly "worse" health of our economy.

I remember a conversation I had with an investment guy I know about 1 1/2 yrs ago, we were talking world economies, the strong dollar vs weak foreign currencies affecting our exports and the historically low interest rates in the US. He mentioned at that time that "deflation" was big concern of the Fed. Here we are now, and I'm once again hearing all about "inflation" being a big concern. I just saw a big front page article in the Oregonian about inflation. 

furthermore, there is a serious freight problem in this country right now, both for cargo freight on seagoing vessels, rail traffic and truck traffic. There's a serious shortage of capacity. Quite simply, there's an extraordinary high volume of goods being moved all over, and in and out of this country right now. That situation is completely reverse of where we were just a few years ago.


the reality is, our economy is pretty well heated up right now. You don't see 13,000 on the Dow, but big deal. The dow is not a leading indicator of economic health, it is a trailer. Housing starts are a leading indicator though, and with them hovering at 2Million ( a level that is just slightly below the all time high of 2.2 million in this country), that's pretty damn good. Then you have your following indicators like job growth, wage growth, inflation and non-essential business expenses such as marketing and advertising expenditures. I expect to see good growth in those sectors as the year progresses.


i appreciate your kindness, so I'm done "ripping" on you. And I got your joke, lol.

when i left OSU in 91', I voted for Bill Clinton, and I thought very much like you do now. 8 years later after paying taxes and living in the real world, I realized I wasn't a liberal at all. College will completely surround you in liberal ideology for several years like a coccoon. I suggest you take the time to seek non-college influenced opinions while you're at OSU, or any college. Otherwise you'll be completely brainwashed.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yeah, I'm glad that the economy is on the up and up...

I'm just a bit impatient for the job market to get back to where it was a few years ago. I mean, it was nice to be able to go into limbo for a couple years to get my Masters, let it all blow over...

But I'm starting to run out of time.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Politics are teh sux, I would rather be watching basketball.:grinning:


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> the reality is, our economy is pretty well heated up right now. You don't see 13,000 on the Dow, but big deal. The dow is not a leading indicator of economic health, it is a trailer. Housing starts are a leading indicator though, and with them hovering at 2Million ( a level that is just slightly below the all time high of 2.2 million in this country), that's pretty damn good. Then you have your following indicators like job growth, wage growth, inflation and non-essential business expenses such as marketing and advertising expenditures. I expect to see good growth in those sectors as the year progresses.



Ok, one thing. I never said the economy wasn't going up. I can obviously see that the economy is improving at the current moment...and it is better then it was a few months ago. 

I just think that the economy is worse off then when Bush took office, and obviously 9/11 played a huge part in that. However, for me, the real reason I do not like Bush's plans are due to his economic policies and strategy. I personally do not agree with the idea of "supply side economics" and such. It is from that perspective that I expect the economy, in a long term status under these policies that Bush promotes, to not do as well as it could from which I say that Bush's Economy will tank.

Besides, after 9/11, in many ways, it is hard to see how it couldn't go up. If it didn't then something would be seriously ******* up. 


Additionally, I assure you that I have not been brainwashed in college. In fact, in high school I felt the same way that I do now...yeah I know it makes no differnece. However, in high school I did have an AP teacher in US American History who was an extremely strong, 40-year member of the Republican Party. 

Overall, I may change my views...just as I recently changed my college major. However, I sort of doubt that I will. 

As for Bush Vs. Clinton...

I happen to like Clinton much more. I have actually met both of them at the White House and talked to them for each for a few minutes (I have a relative high-up connection in the white house). I am throughly more impressed with Clinton then I was with Bush. 

Regardless, I understand that obviously people don't agree with me, and I don't expect them to change their view either. 

But hey, at least we agree about the Blazers...

6 Days till the lottery...W00t!


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> the reality is, our economy is pretty well heated up right now. You don't see 13,000 on the Dow, but big deal. The dow is not a leading indicator of economic health, it is a trailer. Housing starts are a leading indicator though, and with them hovering at 2Million ( a level that is just slightly below the all time high of 2.2 million in this country), that's pretty damn good. Then you have your following indicators like job growth, wage growth, inflation and non-essential business expenses such as marketing and advertising expenditures. I expect to see good growth in those sectors as the year progresses.



Ok, one thing. I never said the economy wasn't going up. I can obviously see that the economy is improving at the current moment...and it is better then it was a few months ago. 

I just think that the economy is worse off then when Bush took office, and obviously 9/11 played a huge part in that. However, for me, the real reason I do not like Bush's plans are due to his economic policies and strategy. I personally do not agree with the idea of "supply side economics" and such. It is from that perspective that I expect the economy, in a long term status under these policies that Bush promotes, to not do as well as it could from which I say that Bush's Economy will tank.

Besides, after 9/11, in many ways, it is hard to see how it couldn't go up. If it didn't then something would be seriously ******* up. 


Additionally, I assure you that I have not been brainwashed in college. In fact, in high school I felt the same way that I do now...yeah I know it makes no differnece. However, in high school I did have an AP teacher in US American History who was an extremely strong, 40-year member of the Republican Party. 

Overall, I may change my views...just as I recently changed my college major. However, I sort of doubt that I will. 

As for Bush Vs. Clinton...

I happen to like Clinton much more. I have actually met both of them at the White House and talked to them for each for a few minutes (I have a relative high-up connection in the white house). I am throughly more impressed with Clinton then I was with Bush. 

Regardless, I understand that obviously people don't agree with me, and I don't expect them to change their view either. 

But hey, at least we agree about the Blazers...

6 Days till the lottery...W00t!


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I'll suggest that some moderator close this topic soon, as I think it's about done...

And thank you to whoever gave me the one star rating for talking about my opinions. At least this proves that I said something credible enough to piss you off. 
------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> And thank you to whoever gave me the one star rating for talking about my opinions. At least this proves that I said something credible enough to piss you off.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------


Haha, that is how it is around here. If you express your opinion,even presenting it throughly, you'll upset someone and they give you a messed up rating. I wouldn't worry about it too much though.


Anyone....Chris Tucker for Prez?:grinning:


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Oh I knew it would happen. But I'll take it as a compliment anyways. No use letting the person trying to piss me off "win". 

At least now it makes the irony of my username even more relevant. 

Also, Chris Tucker? Naw, I'll take Chris Rock tho, as he was in "Head of State"....cause "That Ain't Right".




Besides MAS, where's your 5-star vote for me. I mean, I thought friends helped each other out.....jk.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yeah, don't sweat ratings, they don't mean jack...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Tommyboy, I have to say, your two posts were a slam dunk. It cheers me immensely when common sense and irrefutable facts win the day around here. I get so sick of the same liberal nonsense being spouted as if it is gospel. You exposed the lying propaganda for what it is.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Oh come on, let's not get carried away here...

It's not like all liberals are liars and cheats while all conservatives are bastions of morality and honesty.

Both parties take tons of money from strange sources, lie and do all sorts of shady things.

To paint it as some black and white, right and wrong ordeal is a bit over the top...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Oh come on, let's not get carried away here...
> 
> It's not like all liberals are liars and cheats while all conservatives are bastions of morality and honesty.
> 
> ...


You completely misrepresented my point. I'm referring to the liberal attacks on Bush and the war, and their false claims about his motives and the results of combat in Iraq. Nothing more. I made no sweeping generalizations about either party, as you are suggesting.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Wow...so it's myself and other people critical of Bush who are "bad" for this country. That I attack him without any proof or credibility. Hmm.....I really don't think that that is the case, but if you want to live in your own fantasy world then go ahead. 

Well then what about all of the attacks on Kerry? Cause, I mean it isn't like that ever happens...oh, but then I guess those actions have justifiable reasons. 

FYI, I wouldn't say TommyBoy "slam-dunked" me. I do feel that his posts were very good, and I could reply to many of the things said if I weren't busy actually having a life. 

Besides.....how do you know what Bush's motives are. Does Bush confide his ideas to you.....or are you in his cabinent. The fact is, you don't know Bush either. All you get are the facts that you hear by listening to the conservative media through the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, and more. 

Please don't pretend that you know what is going on. Have you ever cracked open the books by Bob Woodward or Richard Clark. I mean Clark was only a civil servant for decades and was heavily involved in national security operations....maybe he actually knows what he is talking about. BUT, since he is critical of Bush, Cheney and the administration he must be a lying member of the liberal media. 

Oh and what are "common sense and irrefutable facts". I personally don't have much trust in our current President, as many of the decisions he makes (yes, lets drill Alaska, cut down forests, and invade Iraq) do not make sense, especially when viewed in the context of complex systems. 

I have studied complex systems in-depth for quite some time now, and one of its main proponents is that individual actions and behaviors, which may seem logical at the simplistic, low-level, may in fact be detrimental to the system as a whole. Complex patterns that follow this description are extremely numerous, and without thinking in complex systems, you fail to see all of the logic of behaviors and actions. 

I'm sorry if you feel that you need others to support and confirm your beliefs to prove a point about someone else.

But then again...I guess all I am is an 18 year old liberal propaganda lying machine....I guess I'mthe second incarnation of Karl Rove.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> But then again...I guess all I am is an 18 year old liberal propaganda lying machine....I guess I'mthe second incarnation of Karl Rove.


not really a lying machine, but from what I've seen of your comments you don't fully understand a lot of the things you think you do. Your opinions are really simplistic, which leads me to believe you haven't done a lot of homework on the "other side" of the issues,

for example:



> Besides.....how do you know what Bush's motives are. Does Bush confide his ideas to you.....or are you in his cabinent. The fact is, you don't know Bush either. All you get are the facts that you hear by listening to the conservative media through the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, and more.


first off, there is a conservative media with Fox, a few newspapers and a lot of talk radio personalities. However there is most definitely a liberal media in most major metropolitan newspapers, most cable news stations and all of the major broadcast network news shows, including PBS and NPR. Its not like there isn't some balance to be found if you look for it. To characterize "the media" as conservative is really a simplistic and one sided position. there is both.




> Please don't pretend that you know what is going on. Have you ever cracked open the books by Bob Woodward or Richard Clark. I mean Clark was only a civil servant for decades and was heavily involved in national security operations....maybe he actually knows what he is talking about. BUT, since he is critical of Bush, Cheney and the administration he must be a lying member of the liberal media.


Clarke was critical of the Clinton administration too:



> “Clarke’s attacks on the Bush administration for not doing enough to stop terrorism mark a striking shift for a man who was only recently attacking the Clinton administration for the same thing. In an interview for the book, 'Losing Bin Laden,’ by Richard Miniter, Clarke says he urged an attack on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. He says that Defense Secretary Cohen said there wasn’t enough provocation, that Janet Reno fretted it might violate international law, CIA Director George Tenet said he wanted to investigate first, and that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was against it for diplomatic reasons. Mr. Clinton was against it, too. Clarke says in the book that one of his colleagues remarked after the meeting, quote, 'What’s it going to take to get them to hit both al-Qaeda and Afghanistan? Does al-Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?’”


furthermore, in recent Newsweek story about Clarke...



> Reporter Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas relayed Clarke’s attacks on Bush, but they also gave space, unlike the networks, to questions about Clinton’s performance:
> “For Kerry and the Democrats, the catch is that Bill Clinton did no better to tame the terrorist threat during his last years in office. As Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll recently showed in his book Ghost Wars, those in the national security bureaucracy under Clinton spent more time wringing their hands and squabbling with each other than going after Osama bin Laden. And Clinton never stepped in and ordered his troops to stop dickering and do the job.
> “The White House counter-terror chief during the late '90s and through 9/11 was Dick Clarke. A career civil servant, Clarke was known for pounding the table to urge his counterparts at the CIA, FBI and Pentagon to do more about Al Qaeda. But he did not have much luck, in part because in both the Clinton and early Bush administrations, the top leadership did not back up Clarke and demand results.


link 

as for Bob Woodward, you'd probably be surprised to learn he actually praised Bush:



> On Monday’s Nightline, ABC’s Terry Moran related how the White House likes Bob Woodward’s new book since “it portrays a President who’s deeply engaged, who is challenging his subordinates, who is very concerned about Iraqi civilians and most importantly politically for the administration, a President who did not distort the pre-war intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, but who was given this intelligence from the CIA.”
> 
> But those aren’t the parts of the book which interested the networks earlier in the day as all led with the supposedly controversial and “explosive” revelations in Plan of Attack, from how Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador allegedly promised lower oil prices to benefit Bush’s re-election to how Bush “diverted” funds from Afghanistan to Iraq war planning. Indeed, Chris Bury opened the very Nightline on which Moran spoke by touting how the program would focus on, as it did, “the secret path to war: oil, politics and faith.”


or that Woodwards book is on George W Bush's "recommended reading" list on his campaign website SEE FOR YOURSELF 

then you go to say:



> Oh and what are "common sense and irrefutable facts". I personally don't have much trust in our current President, as many of the decisions he makes (yes, lets drill Alaska, cut down forests, and invade Iraq) do not make sense, especially when viewed in the context of complex systems.


just off the top of my head, one possible reason we might consider drilling in Alaska would be to lessen our dependence on oil out of the Middle East. As for cutting down forests, how else are you going to build a home, steel?



> While trees are renewable, each ton of iron ore, coal and limestone used is gone forever.
> Wood is more environmentally sensitive building material than steel. When comparing wood and steel buildings, from the raw material source to the construction site.
> Steel building materials consume 3 times as much energy as wood and 16 times as much clean water.
> Steel use produces 3 and one-half times as much carbon dioxide (a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect) as wood use.
> Emissions of sulfur dioxide (acid rain) are 5 times greater for steel than wood.


also, as for cutting down forests...



> The timberlands of the U.S. now contain 28% more standing timber volume than in 1952. ...
> 
> There are 82% more hardwoods today than 40 years ago....
> 
> ...


as for invading Iraq, that's an entirely different thread.

finally, you write:





> I have studied complex systems in-depth for quite some time now, and one of its main proponents is that individual actions and behaviors, which may seem logical at the simplistic, low-level, may in fact be detrimental to the system as a whole. Complex patterns that follow this description are extremely numerous, and without thinking in complex systems, you fail to see all of the logic of behaviors and actions.


who cares what you studied? Maybe you should study more about the topics you have such passionate opinions about instead. You seem to have a very one-sided and simplistic view on very complex matters.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

1.) I never said that there weren't liberal media...I was just listing some of the conservative media. However, I do feel that sources such as CNN and MSNBC do try to be a little bit more objective then Fox....which if you ever watch will notice how fast O'Reilly/Hannity cuts off any Democrat that makes a relevant argument and dismisses it as "not true", when in fact he is not correct.

2.) If you had actually read Clarke's book as opposed to just reading some synopsis, then you would realize that although Clarke was somewhat critical of Clinton, he was much more so of Bush. It's sort of a "lesser of the two evils" thing. 

3.) Hmm. Ok, I can buy that a reviewer would say that about the book. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Bush isn't a person who cares about Iraq's people...and additionally I can accept the idea that Bush was subject to misinformation concerning WMD. However, at the same time, the book does show many concerns about the war and how it was planned and processed. Here is a quote from Amazon.com's review:



> The 2003 American invasion of Iraq was contentious, not just in the arena of global public opinion, but within the tight-lipped world of the George W. Bush White House. As Bob Woodward reveals in Plan of Attack, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were part of a group leading the charge to war while Secretary of State Colin Powell, General Tommy Franks, and others actively questioned the plan to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks while war in Afghanistan was still being waged. Woodward gained extensive access to dozens of key figures and enjoyed hours of direct contact with the President himself (more time, seemingly, than former Bush administration officials Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill claim to have had). As a result, he's able to cite the kind of gossip you won't find in a White House press release: Franks calls Pentagon official Douglas Feith "the f*cking stupidest guy on the face of the earth," Powell shares his alarm over how the cautious Cheney of the first Bush administration had transformed into a zealot, and Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar seems to enjoy significantly more entrée and influence than most anyone would have thought. Bush is shown as a man intent on toppling Saddam Hussein in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and never really wavering in his decision despite offering hints that non-military solutions could be achieved. Light is also shed on CIA director George Tenet, who insists that the evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk" only to later admit that his intelligence was flawed when months of post-war searches turned up nothing. But the book's most interesting character is Powell. A former soldier himself, who finds himself increasingly at odds with the agenda of the administration, Powell rejects evidence on WMDs that he sees as spurious but ultimately endorses the invasion effort, apparently out of duty. Upon its publication, the Bush administration roundly denied many of the accounts in the book that demonstrated conflict within their circles, poor judgment, or lousy planning, but the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign nonetheless listed Plan of Attack as recommended reading. And it is. It shows alarming problems in the way the war was conceived and planned, but it also demonstrates the tremendous conviction and dedication of the people who decided to carry it out


 . 

So, from that last sentance alone seems to sum up the idea of the book: it shows Bush is a concerned leader, but also the problems with the war. 

For me it isn't a matter if Bush is a dedicated, caring leader. It is more of a question of his competance in the job as president and the choices that he and his administration makes. Furthermore, I am also opposed to many of the more "republican" ideas that they support...although I would probably be opposed to any Republican leader in that sense. However, I'd much rather see Colin Powell as president over Bush. Regardless of all of this, we see that both books are critical of Bush and his actions. 


3.) The problem with drilling in Alaska is that it can lead to severe enviornmental impacts. Additionally, it uses one of our limited number of oil reserves. If you understand the importance of oil, you would realize that it is essential for plastic products...which are used to make things such as medical supplies. Plastic is a miracle material, and when oil is gone, so is the ability to make plastic (it takes millions of years for the carbon to build-up into oil reserves). Rather, I'd like to see us work towards alternate energy sources such as solar, electric and hydrogen powered solutions. This would be both excellent for the environement and decrease the power that the Middle East has through their control of much of the world's oil . 

4.) Furthermoe, obviously you have to cut down trees in order to build houses. However, some of the problems I have with the Bush administration is their sheer willingness to cut down trees in nationally protected forests and parks. Additionally, he is a large proponent of cutting down trees to prevent forest fires; I cannot fight against this, as I agree that cutting down some trees will decrease the number of forest fires. However, the problem rises when dealing with the timber industry. The timber industry cannot make nearly as much money from trees that have a small diameter. Rather, they want to cut down the trees that are thickest. This is a problem as those trees are often the oldest and strongest and tallest of the forest. In fact, it has been shown that cutting down the smaller trees is a more effective way of combatting "ladder fuels". The problem is that Bush is too willing to cooperate with the timber industry, and thus supports them cutting down the best trees. It is somewhat of a problem, because if good trees aren't offered then the job can't get contracted out (the timber companies don't make enough money off the job). Thus, perhaps just provide a little extra compensation fro the jobs, as it is a service to the environment. Therefore, while I agree with you that we need to cut down trees to build houses and make products, I throughly disagree with how Bush's administration allows trees (and specficially the "good" trees) to be cut down. However, I do feel that the cutting down trees is much less of an issue than the oil problem, as you are right in that trees are renewable. 

5.) I have simplistic views on complex matters? I'm pretty sure that all of the stuff I've done with complex systems has allowed me to diagram and see complex systems pretty well. In fact, in some ways I take offense to the thought that I would talk about how I am big into complex systems and then totally disregard them when forming my opinions. I work to see beyond the immediate behaviors and actions and look to the future patterns and relationships that will most likely emerge. It is sort of like how championship players win chess matches....they think steps ahead of where they are and plan around forming the best possible strategy to provide a good (and winning) outcome, while taking into consideration of all the actions the opponent could and probably will take. While this analogy does have its flaws, I just think that its helps to point out that I am not some simplistic minded, one-sided person. Perhaps I do sound one-sided. However, that does not come from not analyzing both sides...rather, it is just the outcome of my critical thinking of complex systems. 

As for who cares what I study....I'm sure you don't. However, topics of complex systems and emergence are gaining lots of support and growing into a strong discipline. Assuming the fact that I have indeed studied complex system theory and applied it to topics such as Enron (why it will be difficult to prosecute the CEO's), the Soviet Union's [unimaginably scary] biological weapons program [during the early 1990's], and the failures of "success", I think I have a pretty good understanding of how to see and analyze complex systems. Honestly, being able to view problems in complex systems helps to show why they have such a persistant nature and are incredibly difficult to solve.

The idea that I treat complex systems with a simplistic agenda...wow. That's amazing, considering I consider my learning of complex systems to be the most beneficial thing I've learned in college (as applying to real-world topics). But I guess we live in a free nation and you can believe anything you want to . But trust me...I'm not lying about anthing here. And if you think I am then you are completely wrong...


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Clarke was critical of the Clinton administration too


so? bush is good president because clinton made mistakes too?



> "... a President who did not distort the pre-war intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, but who was given this intelligence from the CIA.”


don't you think it's a bit questionable, that tenet wasn't fired? he only provided "flawed" intelligence which led to an unjust war?


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


once again, you don't really know what you're talking about. I'm in the lumber business, so i can tell you with all certainty that sawmills have drastically changed their production over the last 20 years. 20 years ago, you're right, big logs were all the rage. However, since then, several factors have completely reversed that production style. Mills now process primarily small logs. First off, the market for large raw logs in Asia has virtually dried up. That is why when you drive through Coos Bay and see the docks where all those container ships used to be loaded out of mile high piles of large raw logs on the docks, now you see empty space and an Indian casino instead. The market for large timbers has changed and been replaced primarily with engineered wood products such as I-Joists and Glulams. The market for 2x10 and 2x12 production has been severly hampered by I-Joists. Therefore mills do not have the demand for large log types of products they once had. Furthermore, on the production side of the equation, mills figured out that they are much more profitable and efficient buying small logs instead of large logs, so most mills that still exist in the US are small log mills, very few large log mills even exist anymore and the ones that do are barely profitable even in the best lumber markets. Also, on the production side, the raw log resource available to mills the last 20 years has changed drastically. It used to be that most of the production came off federal or state lands, where most of the largest trees are. Not anymore, the supply of logs has completely reversed back to private lands and as of today 70% of the timber processed in this country is from private land. Private lands tend to provide smaller logs as the resource is harvested and replanted on 20 to 50 year harvest schedules. As you can see in this somewhat outdated chart, private timber harvest is way up and public is way down in the US. LINK .

the timber industry makes a lot more money on small logs because they get higher overruns on small log production (2.5% vs 1.8%), they get more fiber per dollar on Scribner scale on small logs with taper, small log production lines are more efficient end producers, and the end products from small log production are in much higher demand than the large log products like timbers and wide dimension (2x10 and 2x12) as well as raw large log exports.

so your contentions above are highly misinformed and false.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> FYI, I wouldn't say TommyBoy "slam-dunked" me. I do feel that his posts were very good, and I could reply to many of the things said if I weren't busy actually having a life.


Umm is this intended to be a personal attack questioning a person for their Life and opinions? I would say that a homeowner like Tommyboy, who has a career a wife 2 little girls, one of whom was born just last week, very definately has a life.

To me this says...."errr I can't reply so I'll just somehow try to make myself look better than the other by implying I have a life and he does not"


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> Umm is this intended to be a personal attack questioning a person for their Life and opinions? I would say that a homeowner like Tommyboy, who has a career a wife 2 little girls, one of whom was born just last week, very definately has a life.
> 
> To me this says...."errr I can't reply so I'll just somehow try to make myself look better than the other by implying I have a life and he does not"


This wasn't an attack on TommyBoy...I mean, especially since I complimented hims post, which was made entirely to discredit my opinions and ideas. 

Rather, I was more making a general statement about my life, with some part being in response to the comments by Talkhard, who said:



> Tommyboy, I have to say, your two posts were a slam dunk. It cheers me immensely when common sense and irrefutable facts win the day around here. I get so sick of the same liberal nonsense being spouted as if it is gospel. You exposed the lying propaganda for what it is.


The comment was more in response to that...in which I was replying that I myself can come up with a similarly excellent post....if I really want to sacrifice my time for really no reason. Sorry that you got confused and misunderstood the meaning.

Regardless. 

I must say one thing about that last post by TommyBoy.

That link...why hell yeah its outdated. The dates on there end with 1998. All that that shows me is that the number of public trees cut down decreased up and through the time that Clinton was in office. It has no relevance at all to do with Bush and his policies, so please do not pass it off like it does. 

Furthermore, I am not in the timber industry and thus cannot/will not try to refute your claims about the profitability of small tree logging. However, it just seems to me that since most of the trees that are chopped down are smaller, that due to the rarity/scarcity of the large trees, they would be worth quite a bit more. I'm pretty sure there are some applications for large blocks of wood that cannot be done by only using small trees....however..your the expert. 

Regardless, as I said, the tree issue is much less of a problem (in my opinion) then some of the other topics (Iraq, Oil/Alternate Energy/ Abortion....etc.).


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

the link is outdated but the trends are the same

I searched for some more recent data for you and found this:




> Timber harvests on national forests declined by three-fourths during the 1990s, from 10.5 to 2.5 billion board feet (bbf) (USDA Forest Service 2000a). This is far below the long-term sustained-yield capability of national forest lands (12.16 bbf) and the Allowable Sale Quantity (7.56 bbf) established by land and resource management plans (Fedkiw 1998).


link 


and furthermore, this:



> INDUSTRY HAS CHANGED
> 
> Even if it all sounds familiar, it's not. The landscape over the last decade has fundamentally changed.
> 
> ...


link


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> Consider:
> 
> In 1987, loggers cut 12.7 billion board feet of timber from all national forests. By 2002, the figure had fallen to 1.7 billion board feet.
> ...


Nice post TommyBoy. 

In 1983 (before Perfection was born) Ronald Reagan came to Klamath Falls, my home town, and met with Atiyeh, Hatfield and Smith. He had some important questions to answer about this very topic. 

Read it HERE



> Q. Mr. President, since last fall, our company employment has increased by over 750 full-time jobs. All of our plywood plants are now running. And we've realized a 13-percent productivity improvement in that same period. Now, this improvement is partly because of market recoveries. But the most important reason were the short-term timber contracts made available to us from the Forest Service and the BLM [Bureau of Land Management]. Will these kind of contracts continue to be available?
> 
> The President. Yes. I don't think there would be any change in that at all. And, as a matter of fact, all of you know better than most some great misunderstanding, for example, about our national forests and the BLM land and all.


Apparently the market recovery was seen as a much bigger factor than the public land contracts. By the time the economy turned down again, (1989) it was too late for the Northwest timber market. The contracts were gone. 

There are more than a few communities that were and still continue to be decimated by the Northwest Forest Plan. The logging industry in the Northwest has been portrayed as enviromental jackasses that would destroy the earth if they had the means and given the chance. Now there are more BLM and USFS personel in Klamath and Lake counties then fallers, choke setters, and harvester operators combined. 

Klamath and Lake counties have and continue to be ignored by Salem and Washington. It's the same for Sacramento. From there it is easy to lay the blame on 'changing markets' and automation but Tommyboy's post points out the reality. In the late 80's with the end of the Reagan era the Republican party leadership shifted to the Southeast to join the Democratic party who was already there. Pork barrelists on both sides have used the enviromental idiots as an excuse to take the logging industry away from the west coast to the south to strengthen their powerbase in their home states.

If it only hurt a few losers in Southern Oregon and Northern California why should anyone in Washington care? The I-5 corridor and the voter base in both states got the silicon revolution and the tech boom so those people are too busy to worry about it. To most of them the east side of the Cascades is little more than the more fortunate peoples playground anyway.


----------

