GW Bush reminds me of Windows

[iPodmini-girl]

OK so I've been having a bit of insomnia, so bear with me. I was reading news and reading threads here and suddenly thought....hhmm....Windows and George Bush are kinda similar. Here's why I think so, let me know what you all think

1. both take away choice and freedoms

2. says one thing, does another

3. does a lot of things under the radar so you don't know about it and therefore can't stop it from happening

4. generally doesn't make sense (plug and play never works, so why have it....and GWB....well have you ever heard him speak??)

Well that's a few anyways, it makes sense to my sleep deprived mind...

Mel :)

[x86isslow]

i have a feeling this will get moved from community discussion to politics very soon...

btw, bush maybe a total ... but he does have a mac on his desk.:eek:

[MacRumorSkeptic]

My response:

1. Agreed! He continues the taking away of freedoms and choices the way every other president has in these modern times, and thats by spending our money to advance socialism. e.g. expansion of medicare, expansion of space program, federal money towards encouragement of marriage, faith based initiatives, to name a few. Most importantly he signed the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, an absolute assault on our 1st Ammendment Rights.

2. Like what?

3. Such as?

4. I'll give you that.

Well we're 2 of 4, 50% in agreement, not bad. Although I doubt you would site the same taking away of freedoms and choices that I did.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by x86isslow

btw, bush maybe a total ... but he does have a mac on his desk.:eek:

He does ? Man, that changes EVERYTHING ! ;)

[iPodmini-girl]

example of says one thing does another: no child left behind....but gives no money to acheive the goals this program schools must meet; kyoto protocol, backed out right after elected

under the radar: most people don't realize there is an office of faith based initiatives, it wasn't exactly widely published


oh yes, a few of my "favorite" things:
his freedom stealing desire to "codify marriage" so that only hetero couples can marry, the odd conditions under which he became president (supreme court was stacked in his favor, his little brother is the gov of Fla), the immense budget surplus that is now a large deficit, and his keen desire to help big business (particularly oil companies that want to drill out federally protected wilderness in Alaska) over doing anything postive for the environment

[ShadowHunter]

Originally posted by iPodmini-girl
example of says one thing does another: no child left behind....but gives no money to acheive this; kyoto protocol, backed out right after elected

under the radar: most people don't realize there is an office of faith based initiatives, it wasn't exactly widely published

Oh yes, a few of my "favorite" things:
his freedom stealing desire to "codify marriage" so that only hetero couples can marry, the odd conditions under which he became president (supreme court was stacked in his favor, his little brother is the gov of Fla), the immense budget surplus that is now a large deficit, and his keen desire to help big business (particularly oil companies that want to drill out federally protected wilderness in Alaska) over doing anything postive for the environment

1.) When he was elected, he let one of the most liberal Senators have free-reign with the education budget, naturally it grew by leaps and bounds. How is that not allocating money to the task??

2.) He never supported Kyoto, made that very clear. Who the heck could in all seriousness anyway? It was just a joke plan, under the guise of "environmental concern," that would have crippled the US economy while barely touching the others. It was all about jealousy on the part of a bunch of socialistic or 3rd world countries that are broke. Why don't we hound China, who is WAY less environmentally concerned then we are?

3.) Who cares if theres an office of faith based initiatives? He is taking advantage of organizations that are best suited to directly help people (something that the government has completely to do in almost every instance). No one is proposing 1 particular religion, not even generally.

4.) Can we cut it out with the typical liberal regurgitated drivel?
a.) Over 50% of the popuation supports marriage as male-female only.
b.) Bush won Floriduh fair and square, the US supreme court just prevented the Floriduh supreme court from stepping OUTSIDE of the law. Recall that Gore was the one who filed suits?
c.) The budget surplus that is gone is because the economy went into the crapper, a trend that started well before Bush came to office.
d.) and remember without big business, you can kiss goodbye most jobs in the US and our entire economy. can this argument just die already, the "big business anti people" crap belongs in the liberal arguments in the 70s, not the 00s.
e.) drilling is alaska would have had a very minimal impact on the local wildlife, they were talking about drilling extraordinairily small portions of alaska that could have ENDED our dependence on middle east oil. When gas is $3/gallon I blame the liberals who prevented us from ever having cheap oil.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by x86isslow
i have a feeling this will get moved from community discussion to politics very soon...

btw, bush maybe a total ... but he does have a mac on his desk.:eek:

Do you happen to know what kind of Mac that President Bush has on his desk? I don't really want to turn this into political discussion. My thought is that Bush is more like a Mac. He has deep seated beliefs and those principles guide his decisons. He says what he means and follows through.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by x86isslow
btw, bush maybe a total ... but he does have a mac on his desk.:eek:

So does Wes Clark. ;)

[etoiles]

Originally posted by ShadowHunter

2.) He never supported Kyoto, made that very clear. Who the heck could in all seriousness anyway? It was just a joke plan, under the guise of "environmental concern," that would have crippled the US economy while barely touching the others. It was all about jealousy on the part of a bunch of socialistic or 3rd world countries that are broke. Why don't we hound China, who is WAY less environmentally concerned then we are?


CO2 emissions (1995):

US 643.4 Ton/km2 (5.98E+09 Ton/y)
China 363.5 Ton/km2 (3.32E+09 Ton/y)

The US is number one CO2 polluter in the world, preceding China by quite a margin. And then you have to realize that most of the production of American goods doesn't even happen in the US, but in China, Mexico etc., so the actual impact of the 'American way of life' in the world is much bigger... don't get me wrong, I like my comfort, too. But everybody should make an effort. And things like pushing for fuel efficient cars is not going to cripple the economy. Except maybe some oil companies in the short term...wait a minute.

[iPodmini-girl]

There's not enough oil in Alaska to end our dependence on foreign sources for oil. Oil is a limited resource anyway as it's non-renewable, why not focus on some viable alternatives to oil, that would end our dependence on foreign oil.


As for what's wrong with NO Child Left Behind: http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0305/cover.html that's just one article, there's many more


I see a great problem with big business getting the treatment it does from Bush, IMO, he is under the thumb of many, and that's not good....plus his background predisposes him to prefer oil and big business

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by ShadowHunter


2.) He never supported Kyoto, made that very clear. Who the heck could in all seriousness anyway? It was just a joke plan, under the guise of "environmental concern," that would have crippled the US economy while barely touching the others. It was all about jealousy on the part of a bunch of socialistic or 3rd world countries that are broke. Why don't we hound China, who is WAY less environmentally concerned then we are?


Do you realise what this makes you sound like? You think that we are all commy bastards in the rest of the world? DO oyu really think the US of A is the shining light meant to show us the path to happiness? The reason why it iwll cripple your economy is because you economy relies on being able to **** up the environment to make money. You realise you use up over half the worlds resources but you are only fraction of its population?




a.) Over 50% of the popuation supports marriage as male-female only.



A great example of how the majority can simply be wrong and misinformed. There is no justification for this being illegal except the religious underpinnings of government. It's called progress people! :rolleyes:




e.) drilling is alaska would have had a very minimal impact on the local wildlife, they were talking about drilling extraordinairily small portions of alaska that could have ENDED our dependence on middle east oil. When gas is $3/gallon I blame the liberals who prevented us from ever having cheap oil.

How can cheaper fuel prices be a good thing? Everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that we need to reduce our reliance on oil. Making it cheaper would only increase its use. There are solutions to this problem, my favourite is replacing our petroleum economy with a Hydrogen economy. Studies have proven its completely viable. We just need the oil companies and the Bush family to stop shoving oil down our throats.

[vniow]

Originally posted by ShadowHunter

a.) Over 50% of the popuation supports marriage as male-female only.


That doesn't make it right to deny those rights to those who don't fit the male-female definition of marriage.

[amnesiac1984]

d.) and remember without big business, you can kiss goodbye most jobs in the US and our entire economy. can this argument just die already, the "big business anti people" crap belongs in the liberal arguments in the 70s, not the 00s.

its not the anti big business argument. its the anti government being controlled by a select few big business that gets my goat. There is no reason for Bush to be campaigning for me oil except for the fct that he is ion the oil companies pockets.

there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of big business, but there is a lot wrong with some big businesses. The business world does not run on the same ethics as society in general.

[iPodmini-girl]

I did forget to respond to the anti'gay marriage standpoint taken. What others have said is true, religion is largely responsible for this standpoint. I don't understand how in a society that makes it illegal to not hire somebody based on sexual orientation that it is legal to deny these same people the rights of marriage. If a gay couple has a death, the remaining partner has no legal rights in most instances as to funeral arrangements, life insurance, etc. I feel that denying anyone the right to marry is clearly violating their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the US Constitution. Also, most people used to think slavery was ok, and now it's viewed as totally unacceptable; even after slavery was over, minorities were scorned, that's no longer ok either; it was once acceptable to assume women were intellectually inferior, unworthy of education, and should have no opinion in the political process, well that's changed too.....same idea, we're all humans and entitled to the same privileges, rights, and protections



Shadowhunter: in response to what you termed "regurgitated drivel" I am not regurgitating anything, I'm stating my opinions, I could apply the same statement to you except sub in conservative right wing instead of liberal

Also, the US is just a slob really. How many other countries actually ship out their garbage to other countries because they don't want to deal with it? We are the #1 consumers in the world. I personally think autos need some tighter regulations on fuel economy. Nobody in Northern NJ or NYC need to be driving Hummers....there's no terrain there which requires it. Yet, I see many drive up to where I live from those areas (I live in a touristy mountainous area). Ppl in cities don't often need suv's at all, especially single people, it's a bit of overkill. Do we need cars? Yes. Do I own one? Yes. Do I drive an environmentally friendly (relatively) car? Yes. Although I live in an area which makes 4 wheel drive a logical option, and useful, I still drive a small sedan which is great on gas and gets me around just fine.

[ShadowHunter]

Originally posted by etoiles
CO2 emissions (1995):

US 643.4 Ton/km2 (5.98E+09 Ton/y)
China 363.5 Ton/km2 (3.32E+09 Ton/y)

The US is number one CO2 polluter in the world, preceding China by quite a margin. And then you have to realize that most of the production of American goods doesn't even happen in the US, but in China, Mexico etc., so the actual impact of the 'American way of life' in the world is much bigger... don't get me wrong, I like my comfort, too. But everybody should make an effort. And things like pushing for fuel efficient cars is not going to cripple the economy. Except maybe some oil companies in the short term...wait a minute.

That data is 9 years old!! You might be right, but let's at least look at something recent that goes along with the tons of new regulations that have been introduced in the past few years.

edit: Ok, I bow out of this thread. I would never get anything done today if I replied to everything!!!!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by ShadowHunter
edit: Ok, I bow out of this thread. I would never get anything done today if I replied to everything!!!!

Because like your reply above, you have no legitimate answer to all the refutation you've encountered.

[ShadowHunter]

Originally posted by iPodmini-girl
Also, the US is just a slob really. How many other countries actually ship out their garbage to other countries because they don't want to deal with it? We are the #1 consumers in the world. I personally think autos need some tighter regulations on fuel economy. Nobody in Northern NJ or NYC need to be driving Hummers....there's no terrain there which requires it. Yet, I see many drive up to where I live from those areas (I live in a touristy mountainous area). Ppl in cities don't often need suv's at all, especially single people, it's a bit of overkill. Do we need cars? Yes. Do I own one? Yes. Do I drive an environmentally friendly (relatively) car? Yes. Although I live in an area which makes 4 wheel drive a logical option, and useful, I still drive a small sedan which is great on gas and gets me around just fine.

Ok, I said no more, but I just have to say my opinion here.

This is where the fundamental differences between liberal/conservative show. You think that our freedom of choice should be limited or regulated by the government based on need, (debateable) damage to the environment, etc. I believe in absolute freedom of choice, while accepting consequences, as I believe was the intent of the founders of this nation. These are just fundamental differences, and I think it really makes it difficult for either side to see eye to eye.

Ok, back to work.

[ShadowHunter]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Because like your reply above, you have no legitimate answer to all the refutation you've encountered.

Figures someone would say it :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by ShadowHunter
Figures someone would say it :rolleyes:

And you still have yet to refute a single point with something other than stereotypes and generalisations.

[MacRumorSkeptic]

3.) Who cares if theres an office of faith based initiatives? He is taking advantage of organizations that are best suited to directly help people (something that the government has completely to do in almost every instance). No one is proposing 1 particular religion, not even generally.

I care! Nowhere is it authorized in the constitution to do this.

The US is number one CO2 polluter in the world, preceding China by quite a margin. And then you have to realize that most of the production of American goods doesn't even happen in the US, but in China, Mexico etc., so the actual impact of the 'American way of life' in the world is much bigger... don't get me wrong, I like my comfort, too. But everybody should make an effort. And things like pushing for fuel efficient cars is not going to cripple the economy. Except maybe some oil companies in the short term...wait a minute.

US businesses overseas and in Mexico help those nations economies greatly. So its those countries way of life and their governments who allow this impact.

There is nothing wrong with consumers pushing for fuel efficient cars, but it becomes tyranny once the federal government threatens to legislate it. Anyone who doesn't think that a federal requirement for fuel effiecient cars would hurt our economy is fooling themselves. It would have an immediate impact on oil and automobile companies and all the jobs they supply. Also, allow me to ask, whats the first thing automobile manufacturers do to increase fuel effeciency? Thats Right!!! they make the cars smaller, lighter, and thus a whole lot more dangerous to drive! Costing us precious human lifes all in the name of protecting the environment. Lets let the free market fix this problem.

Nobody in Northern NJ or NYC need to be driving Hummers....there's no terrain there which requires it. Yet, I see many drive up to where I live from those areas (I live in a touristy mountainous area). Ppl in cities don't often need suv's at all, especially single people, it's a bit of overkill.

Whatever happened to the idea of liberty?!

[iPodmini-girl]

my point was that hummers are just wasteful vehicles that suck up resources quickly and add to pollution at a faster rate

[etoiles]

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic
Also, allow me to ask, whats the first thing automobile manufacturers do to increase fuel effeciency? Thats Right!!! they make the cars smaller, lighter, and thus a whole lot more dangerous to drive! Costing us precious human lifes all in the name of protecting the environment. Lets let the free market fix this problem.


I am sure the roads would be lot safer if we all drove around in battle tanks ;)
small cars are not 'a lot more dangerous to drive'. Certain SUV's can be more dangerous than tiny cars because they wont deform as well upon impact, resulting in your body absorbing more of the shock...


Whatever happened to the idea of liberty?!

Well, liberty always has its limits. You cannot walk up to the next person and hit him/her without facing consequences. Your liberty ends where the next persons liberty starts. When you share space with other people (such as in a big city) you have certain things to respect. A good thing to ask yourself is: what if everybody did it ? Where you go from there is up to you.

[pseudobrit]

The government has the power to regulate automobiles.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by iPodmini-girl
my point was that hummers are just wasteful vehicles that suck up resources quickly and add to pollution at a faster rate

exactly.

I'm all for liberty too, but you have to realise the seriousness of this situation. Shadow, you said yourself its about freedom of choice but you have to live with the consequences. The problem with this is that its not just you who lives with the consequences of you driving a huge SUV. The victim is the environment and don't think that doesn't mean it harms us as well. Restriction of freedoms is what the Law is what it is for. I agree that we shouldn't have to legislate this but until society is taught to be responsible and is well informed it is necessary. I believe we are in a crisis of the environment and something really has to be done right now. This is where agreements like kyoto can come in handy, if country's are set targets then the people, with all there patriotic feelings will want to pull together and meet these targets. The problem is the american governments and majorities are so egotistical that they feel as if agreeing to these things are like admitting they have been wrong all along.

[MacRumorSkeptic]

my point was that hummers are just wasteful vehicles that suck up resources quickly and add to pollution at a faster rate

That may be, but would you have the federal government regulate them or do you think it should be left to the states?

The government has the power to regulate automobiles.

Yes it does, but just because the government has the power to do something doesn't mean that it should. Example: Before the 14th ammendment of the U.S. constitution it was technically legal for an individual state to take away rights to speech, religion, guns, etc. This is one of the reasons slavery was legally acceptable in certain states. Does that mean that government should act if it can justify it for some reason such as the greater good?

I think that if an automobile is going to be regulated its better left to the states. For example: California or New York's pollution problems differ greatly with smaller states that have less traffic congestion. It would be silly to have a 1 size fits all regulation when its not necessary for these smaller states.

This is where agreements like kyoto can come in handy, if country's are set targets then the people, with all there patriotic feelings will want to pull together and meet these targets. The problem is the american governments and majorities are so egotistical that they feel as if agreeing to these things are like admitting they have been wrong all along.

Its not that Americans are egotistical or afraid to admit their wrong, its that agreements like Kyoto are overbearing and will cripple an econonomy. If you cripple the U.S. economy the rest of the worlds will follow.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by MacRumorSkeptic

Its not that Americans are egotistical or afraid to admit their wrong, its that agreements like Kyoto are overbearing and will cripple an econonomy. If you cripple the U.S. economy the rest of the worlds will follow.

Its not going to be easy by any means, and maybe kyoto is a little overbearing but I still don't see the Bush administration doing anything about the environment. Something has to be done and its gonna cost, so why get yourself into a huge deficit persuing oil in the middle east? As mush as I disagree with Tony Blairs actions I do think his energy policy is pretty good, we've already got huge programs for wind energy being set up, and this method of electricity generation has gotten more and more efficient (one of the biggest turbine blade manufacturers is just down the road from me). Hug offshore wind turbines are already coming online off the coast of Wales and we are set to meet our kyoto targets. The reason why kyoto is so overbearing to you is because you are so much more reliant on fossil fuels. You only have to look at the difference in price of petrol here to where you are.

As for a hydrogen economy, it can work now, it just needs some investment.

We shouldn't be going to mars now, that money could be spent rebuilding our energy system to one thats more efficient and eco-friendly then we can put this issue behind us and thrive, the only stopping us is OPEC and its political clout. Do you realise they want compensation if governments switch to alternative energy? Thats like goldminers wanting compensation when their goldmine runs out. We need politicians to be out of the oil companies pockets and for that matter out of anyones pockets.

[iPodmini-girl]

I think that if an automobile is going to be regulated its better left to the states. For example: California or New York's pollution problems differ greatly with smaller states that have less traffic congestion. It would be silly to have a 1 size fits all regulation when its not necessary for these smaller states.



I live in the Adirondack Mountains where we have had lakes "die" due to acid rain, trees are weakened and die as well. The reason that this occurs is not the fault of NYC at all, it's the result of weather patterns. The pollution that arrives here is from midwestern states. Therefore, I think it's a national problem and not a state problem because most states don't see much of the impact from their own air pollution.

[bont]

As mush as I disagree with Tony Blairs actions I do think his energy policy is pretty good, we've already got huge programs for wind energy being set up, and this method of electricity generation has gotten more and more efficient (one of the biggest turbine blade manufacturers is just down the road from me)

Apparently it uses more energy to manufacture these things (which are a blot on the landscape where I live) than they'll ever produce themselves, it's just a cover-up so the gov can promote their "green" credentials.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by bont
Apparently it uses more energy to manufacture these things (which are a blot on the landscape where I live) than they'll ever produce themselves, it's just a cover-up so the gov can promote their "green" credentials.

Source?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by iPodmini-girl
I think that if an automobile is going to be regulated its better left to the states. For example: California or New York's pollution problems differ greatly with smaller states that have less traffic congestion. It would be silly to have a 1 size fits all regulation when its not necessary for these smaller states.

You're asking that car manufacturers make 50 different emissions systems for each model they make or exclude whole states from their distribution. This sort of thing has happened on a small scale, with VW being forced to stop selling its 50mpg TDI models in NY and CA because it couldn't pass the specific smog tests for a certain model year. The next year they were changed and the car was on the market again. It's a bad idea.

It's not very effective a way to run things. This is why there's a uniform vehicle code between the states for safety and signal standards.

[bont]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Source?

Somebody at work told me :D

Although it wouldn't surprise me if it was true, they're all over the place here and its very rare to see one actually rotate.
I'm no NIMBY, if they were beneficial, then fine.....

[iPodmini-girl]

pseudobrit: That comment about states needing to regulate cars wasn't mine, it was quoted from somebody else. I see how you got confused since I didn't label it as such. Sorry. Bet that post made me sound a bit schizo. I feel it should be regulated at the federal level.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by bont
Apparently it uses more energy to manufacture these things (which are a blot on the landscape where I live) than they'll ever produce themselves, it's just a cover-up so the gov can promote their "green" credentials.

That's the biggest load of garbage I've ever heard, source please?

These things are getting more and more powerful and more and more efficient with each new model that comes out. They are already in use all over scandanavia and they are the most efficient way of generating electricity for almost no cost, and no cost to the environment (apart from the visual disturbance). They may be a blot on the landscape and that's understandable but the majority of these with be offshore and huge floating platforms have been proposed to replace the north sea oil rigs. What do you think is uglier a towering block of a stinking industrial oil rig or several clean white masts gracefully turning in the wind.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by bont
Somebody at work told me :D

Although it wouldn't surprise me if it was true, they're all over the place here and its very rare to see one actually rotate.
I'm no NIMBY, if they were beneficial, then fine.....

if they aren't moving in your area then somebody isn't doing there job or they are just broken, or they were built where there is not much wind.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by iPodmini-girl
OK so I've been having a bit of insomnia, so bear with me. I was reading news and reading threads here and suddenly thought....hhmm....Windows and George Bush are kinda similar. Here's why I think so, let me know what you all think

1. both take away choice and freedoms

2. says one thing, does another

3. does a lot of things under the radar so you don't know about it and therefore can't stop it from happening

4. generally doesn't make sense (plug and play never works, so why have it....and GWB....well have you ever heard him speak??)

Well that's a few anyways, it makes sense to my sleep deprived mind...

Mel :)

Well, I heard a nice joke today...

Decisions

George W. Bush has a heart attack and dies. He goes to hell where the devil is waiting for him.

" I don't know what to do with you here," says the devil.

"You're on my list but I have no room for you. You definitely have to
stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do." "I've got three folks here
who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to
take their place. I'll even let you decide who leaves."

George thought that sounded pretty good, so he agreed.

The devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large
pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty-handed over and over and over.
Such was his fate in hell.

"No!" George said. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day long,"

The devil led him to the next room: in it was Tony Blair with a
sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer , time after time after time.

"No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant
agony if all I could do was break rocks all day."

The devil opened a third door. In it, George saw Bill Clinton, lying in
the floor with his arms folded behind his head, and his legs staked in a
spread eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky........doing what she does best.

George Bush looked at this in disbelief for a while and finally said, "Yeah, I can handle this."

The devil smiled and said....."OK, Monica, you're free to go!"

[zimv20]

Originally posted by groovebuster
The devil smiled and said....."OK, Monica, you're free to go!"

it took me a minute, but i figured out that, had he chosen the other rooms, either the water or rocks would get to go free.

good one!

p.s. :-)