Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Aug 9, 8:42 pm, Joe > wrote:

> Drilling in ANWR and off Florida will result in oil futures
> immediately coming down.

Which will lower the price a bit thus causing the demand to go up.
And we're back full circle.

> That said, oil companies also need
> to start seriously pursuing alternative fuels and engines.
> The solution is to be agressive on both fronts - oil and
> future technology.

High gas prices are sure to drive the search for alternatives --
hopefully stoking the American ingenuity.

> But here's what I really want to know right now: Why aren't
> we getting cash back from Iraq's oil profits? We've spent
> billions on rebuilding Iraq, our economy's in the toilet,
> we've sent thousands to their death, and Iraq gets a free
> ride all the way to the bank. Yes, their profits are in
> our banks right now earning interest.

> Neither candidate is going to touch this one, because neither
> of them have a clue. They're both idiots,

I don't think either is an idiot. Barack sure didn't graduate with
top honors from Columbia and Harvard by being stupid. And McCain has
been around the block more than a few times to know how things
work.

> right along with the current administration.

> Some links for your consideration:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...5/1248831.aspx

Patrick

wrote in
:

> On Aug 9, 8:42 pm, Joe > wrote:
>
>> Drilling in ANWR and off Florida will result in oil futures
>> immediately coming down.
>
> Which will lower the price a bit thus causing the demand to go up.
> And we're back full circle.

No, we're back to the America's middle class not having to go to food
banks.

Today's fuel prices are at the point where the cost of daily items has
risen beyond the middle class family's ability to pay for them. Gas
prices need to come down to the point where the middle class can remain
the middle class.

>> That said, oil companies also need
>> to start seriously pursuing alternative fuels and engines.
>> The solution is to be agressive on both fronts - oil and
>> future technology.
>
> High gas prices are sure to drive the search for alternatives --
> hopefully stoking the American ingenuity.

Patrick, that's absurd. As long as oil and energy companies continue to
make money (which they still are), they will never look seriously at
alternative sources of fuel.

That said, there are individuals and smaller groups looking for
alternatives, but the "American ingenuity", as you put it, certainly
isn't found in the current crop of oil and energy companies.

>> But here's what I really want to know right now: Why aren't
>> we getting cash back from Iraq's oil profits? We've spent
>> billions on rebuilding Iraq, our economy's in the toilet,
>> we've sent thousands to their death, and Iraq gets a free
>> ride all the way to the bank. Yes, their profits are in
>> our banks right now earning interest.
>
>> Neither candidate is going to touch this one, because neither
>> of them have a clue. They're both idiots,
>
> I don't think either is an idiot. Barack sure didn't graduate with
> top honors from Columbia and Harvard by being stupid. And McCain has
> been around the block more than a few times to know how things
> work.

They're not idiots in the true sense of the word - they're idiots in
that they really think they are bringing solutions to the table, when
all they're bringing is rhetoric and bull****.

>> right along with the current administration.
>
>> Some links for your
>>
consideration:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...q.oil/http://n
>>
ews.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080805/wl_mcclatchy/3010139http://www.syra
>>
cuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/08/walsh_iraq_should_use_...http://pundit
>> s.thehill.com/2008/05/30/payment-for-services-in-
iraq/http://deepbackg
>> round.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/05/1248831.aspx
>
> Patrick

Those in control now (and those soon to be in control) are all fools, in
that they are pushing the American public beyond the breaking point, and
the American public is not going to take it anymore. We're rapidly
getting to that point.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:36:48 -0700, "Frank ess" >
wrote:

>
>
>Spike wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:30:36 -0400, "dwight" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Jul 31, 12:38 pm, "dwight" > wrote:
>>>>
SNIP
>>> today's booming babyers.
>>>
>>> dwight
>
>At the risk of derailing someone's sexual reveries, and as a darn sure
>way to stimulate snorts of derision, I want to mention the two-door
>station wagon. A squared-off hatchback. A "Kammback", to coin a
>(shudder) GM phrase. Picture that VEGA Kammback with decent motive
>power. If it were maybe five percent bigger, just the size of a five
>percent smaller Mustang.
>
>If I had the money, I'd hire a designer and a prototype constructor to
>make me a 2010 Mustang Kammback wagon.
>
>I loved-loved-loved the look of the 1971-73 Vega Kammback. It was a
>delight to drive, even with a hundred (optimistic) horsepower in a
>2300-pound car. A five percent larger one would be roomy and less than
>3000 pounds; with the 210-HP V6 or 300-HP V8 garden-variety engines,
>good performance. If they could keep the Vega-like balance and
>handling, a potentially marvelous compromise car. Like the Vega wagon.
>
>OK, maybe ten percent larger. But lean, geddit?
>
>A modern, right-sized domestic Volvo P1800 ES. Who could resist a
>Mustang Shooting Brake?
>
>My Vega Kammback ( I was a thirty-something family guy, carrying Mrs,
>Daughter, four racing wheel/tires and camping gear to the races) :
>http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/wagon.htm

Yep :0) That killed my desire :0) LOL

In 1962, my parents had a VW bug. We lived on Cape Cod, MA.
With my brother and sister, all our luggage on the roof rack, mom's
three cats. we traveled to dad's next duty station... Hurlburt Field
(Ft Walton Beach), FL. After a robbery in NYC outside the Museum of
Natural History, all the luggage was gone. One cat died enroute. But
the rest of us survived the trip.

Of course, we still don't speak to each other today! (j/k)

wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2:40 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>>>>> I like McCain. But I would have to wait to see who his running mate
>>>>> is because I worry about how much four years in the White House would
>>>>> take out of him. If four years can age a 50 year old about a decade,
>>>>> what will four years do to a 71 year old guy?
>
>>>> I think McCain is physically and mentally tougher than many know. I
>>>> don't think four years as president will be close to what he went
>>>> through as a POW. His benchmark for what constitutes overwhelming
>>>> stress is far beyond anything most people can comprehend. I want him to
>>>> pick a true conservative for a running mate so that person can have the
>>>> potential to become a president that actually governs from truly
>>>> conservative principles.
>
>>> Back in 2000 the Republicans/Bush campaign was telling us his years as
>>> a POW made him mentally unstable. And we bought it. So now they're
>>> telling us he's the best choice they/we have?
>
>> ... and because is was said means it was true then or today? You are
>> making a broad statement about why McCain didn't get the nomination in
>> 2000. IMO, it was because he is not conservative enough.
>
> And according to you, Bush isn't conservative enough either. But the
> Bush campaign machine/Carl Rove destroys good records (like McCain's
> war record) and turns dumb ****s like Bush into election winners.
> It's crap. And they're back at it again this year with Obama. A
> hardworking overachiever is slowly being branded an anti-American,
> Muslim and elitist. And people, once again, are taking the garbage,
> hook, line and sinker... hell, they're even gnawing at the pole and
> are willing to swallow the reel. It pains me to watch/see it happen,
> again.

Both sides are presenting their arguments and it is up to us to decide
who wins the most points. The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote
their way are stupid. We are in a situation of once again voting
against the other guy and not for someone.

Before you get too involved in trashing the Republicans and their
tactics you need to look into how Obama won his first election in
Chicago. He forced his competition off the ballet through slimy legal
maneuvering. He is far from the "pure as the driven snow" politician
his handlers present to the public.

How do you justify Obama sitting in a church that preached racism and
Black Liberation Theology? Now he either believes in the Rev. Wrights
views or he stayed there for political gain and let his children be
indoctrinated in this BS. As for him being a Muslim, that depends on
your religious beliefs and point of view. He is actually a REFORMED
Muslim since he attended Muslim schools for a few years and his father
is Muslim. At one time he was a Muslim and this is undeniable fact.

The Republicans are only pointing out his political leanings and the
FACT he has hardly any relevant experience to qualify him for the job of
president. Saying this is attacking him just isn't true. Obama had
hoped that he could use the fact he is black to bully anyone from
criticizing him in any way. Well that just won't fly with the majority
of Americans. All Obama is attempting to do is suppress the truth about
his voting record and past in any manner possible because he can't deny it.

>> He got it
>> this year from dumb luck and a lack of popular good conservative
>> candidates.
>
>> Romney is a Mormon,
>
> Like this even matters. So he's a Mormon... big deal. These
> Republican party dis-qualifiers just kill me!!

I agree it doesn't matter but I'm giving you what I believe is Romey's
biggest political liability. Read up on how the Mormon faith was
started. It is a relatively new strain of the Christian faith and has
had its fair share of scrutiny. We don't elect politicians for
president that stray too far off the beaten path of what is normal for
the majority of us. We don't elect as president people that we see as a
possible risk.

> > Rudy had **** poor strategy,
>
> Agreed
>
>> Huckabee is a preacher,
>
> I would have thought for a Republican this would have put him over the
> top.

Patrick, don't assume I am a Republican or I fit your definition of a
conservative. Here's my views in a nutshell: I want low taxes; a
balanced budget; a small government along with restrained spending by
it; let abortion, gay marriage etc. issues get resolve on a state by
state basis; a strong military that we stand behind; welfare is for the
truly needy and not the able bodied; I want politicians that don't make
careers as elected officials and think they are royalty; and lastly I
don't want politicians wearing religion on their sleeves like it is a
qualification for the job. I have other but those are the highlights.

>> Fred didn't want it bad enough,
>
> Fred pretty much sleep walked through the whole affair.
>
>> and McCain managed to win
>> NH and Florida. When Rudy dropped out after his one worthwhile primary
>> try in Florida and endorsed McCain it was over. Then when the
>> Republicans realized what happened they had no steam to push Romney aver
>> the top. Then the last twist of fate is that McCain probably has the
>> best chance of winning in November of them all.
>
>>> And the Democrats are the demons...
>
>> Well, demons is a little too dramatic for me but go for it if you want.
>
> I was only repeating the "fair and balanced" FauOX news mantra.

Well, this just isn't true. Fox has political commentators just like
CNN, MSNBC etc. so if you are going to paint Fox this way then go ahead
and do it to the others. In reality, Fox is the closest to being in the
center than any cable channel. Your problem is that you are using the
MSM as your benchmark for the center and they are way to the left so
anyone to their right you consider to be far right. If you don't
believe me then just look at the number of journalists that have given
money to Democrat candidates or consider themselves liberal. The proof
it right in front of you.

>>>>>> On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
>>>>>> going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
>>>>>> regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
>>>>>> the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
>>>>>> intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
>>>>>> any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
>>>>>> and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
>>>>>> in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
>>>>>> inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
>>>>>> idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
>>>>>> any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
>>>>>> f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.
>>>>> Yet, we elected Bush/Rupublicans to two terms and what has he/they
>>>>> done for our country's industrial base? In a word, nothing.
>>>> IMO, Bush was elected thanks to the Democrat's ability to throw liberal
>>>> candidates at us election after election. Bill Clinton didn't run as a
>>>> liberal and he got two terms.
>
>>> Liberal. Find a Websters. Gotta love how the Republicans repackage
>>> words.
>
>> ..... just like the Democrats. Face it, liberals hate being called
>> liberals ever since Reagan made it a "bad" word.
>
> Always reminds me (liberal) of a "bad word" a little kid makes up to
> tease you with. "You're a... ginglehopper." Then starts laughing and
> thinks they've really got something on you. You just smile and say,
> "boy, you really got me with that one… I sure hate being that."

Well, if you prefer ginglehopper instead of liberal I can probably
accommodate you.

>>>>> I think Obama would be smart enough that once in office he'd select a
>>>>> bi-partisan cabinet.
>
>>>> Obama is an empty suit, IMO. At best he is a blank slate and for me
>>>> that makes him too risky to be president. He is a loaf of bread that
>>>> was pulled out of the oven too early and still has a gooey center. Just
>>>> because he has an Ivy League education doesn't make him smart in the way
>>>> needed to run the country. Have you really watched him when he hasn't
>>>> got a teleprompter? The guy is a bumbling, fumbling, stuttering mess.
>>>> He has trouble stringing two sentences together and says "ummmm" to the
>>>> point I can't listen to him for long.
>
>>> Ever listen to Bush? And we elected his dumb ass. And McCain's
>>> speaking prowess borders on an awkward monotone 6th grader delivering
>>> his first ever speech in front of a school assembly. In comparison,
>>> Obama is light years ahead of these two.
>
>> Now to me you are being extremely shallow it what you consider
>> qualifications to be president. So anyone that doesn't have a silver
>> tongue is disqualified?
>
> Obviously there are more qualifications, but those are important.

Obama can read a teleprompter and that just isn't a reason to consider
him to be up for the job. The problem with making this too important is
that it makes a person not look at what is actually being said. If it
sounds good coming out of Obama's mouth then it must be the right
position? As I said, this is exactly how Hilter came to power by giving
good speeches.

>> Have you listened to Obama off a teleprompter?
>> The guy is a bumbling mess. If you took "ummmm" out of his vocabulary
>> he would have a mental meltdown.
>
> Sure. A top-honors Columbia/Harvard grad. One of _this country's_
> best and brightest.

I have a BS in engineering and I can say without a doubt that there are
plenty of engineers with BS degrees that are dumb as a stone about
applying their book knowledge to the real world. I'll take a guy with
good common sense before an over educated "idiot" any day. If Obama is
so smart then why can't he speak just as good without a teleprompter?

> For the record, he taught constitutional law for twelve years, was a
> Lecturer for four years, and a Senior Lecturer for eight years. So for
> some reason, I think the FauOX news "fair and balanced" reporting is
> off just smidgen.

....... and this means what is the real world? All this means to me is
he was insulated in the extremely liberal world of academia for several
years. Hardly a qualification to be President of the United States.
What is your beef with Fox News? It seems obsessive. Why is Fox the
most watched cable news network is they are so biased?

>> Hitler was a great speaker so that
>> made him a great leader?
>
> Please don't draw the line that Obama is now, somehow, a Nazi. He's
> already, somehow, a Muslim and an elitist. Care to explain how that
> is?

You drew the line not me. I provided a very good example as to why one
shouldn't put too much emphasis of a person's ability to give a speech.

>>>> He also comes across as being very arrogant and I think he actually
>>>> believes the hype his campaign is spewing forth that he is the political
>>>> messiah we have been waiting for. In reality he is just the latest
>>>> liberal, elitist, sock puppet presidential candidate that George Soros
>>>> is trying to con us into electing president. The only thing that
>>>> differentiates him from Gore, Kerry, Ted Kennedy etc. is that his skin
>>>> is black and he has far less experience to qualify him to be president.
>
>>> And tune in tomorrow for more of the "fair and balanced" O'Reilley
>>> Factor...
>
>> ..... and Oberman and Chris Matthews are not blowing Obama every chance
>> they get? I know Mathews' leg tingles when Obama speaks.
>
> They're the talking bobble heads of the left. They suck as bad as the
> FauOX team. ALL should all be thrown in the toilet, where turds
> belong, and flushed.

See, I don't let any of them both me that much. My TV has an off button
and the History Channel, HGTV, Food Network, Discovery Channel, Science
Channel, etc. have too many good shows for me to complain all that much.

>> The real truth is that Fox News is more balanced than any other network, period.
>
> <COUGH CHOKE COUGH CHOKE... wheezing... dry heaves... now trying to
> catch my breath> WOW! The power of advertising. Say it enough times
> -- "fair and balanced" -- and people will come to believe it.
>
> Let's just say everything they/FauOX claim to be, they're not.

Well it is true. I watch them all to some extent and Fox is the closest
to the center. CNN isn't as bad as MSNBC. Now MSNBC as has their heads
up Obama's ass so far and for so long I think they have forgotten what
the Sun looks like.

>>>>>> As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
>>>>>> candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
>>>>>> can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
>>>>>> is the most dangerous candidate of all.
>>>>> Because, again, these two really don't know what they can do until
>>>>> they sit in the big chair. Campaigns are more about sounding/looking
>>>>> Presidential, than addressing specifics on issues.
>>>> IMO, campaigns are about the candidates laying out their general
>>>> political leanings and the broad goals they intent to pursue. Their may
>>>> be surprises for the winner once they are in office but they also need
>>>> to know the general workings of the system. This is where McCain has a
>>>> big edge over Obama. I think Obama it being run by major players behind
>>>> the scene. It is why he is so scripted and they won't let him be put in
>>>> situations where he has to think fast on his feet. When he is in these
>>>> situations he tends to freeze up or say stupid things.
>
>>> You don't think McCain is being run by major players behind the
>>> scenes? The Bush machine is hard at work, my friend.
>
>> Well, they all have players working behind the scenes. Obama has been
>> groomed by George Soros and the slimy Chicago political machine and they
>> own him.
>
> No one is slimier than Rove. No one.

Some people just can't stand a winner. Rove knows politics like no
other person breathing today. You're just too politically jaded to
appreciate it.

>>>>>> That is exactly what we have
>>>>>> in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
>>>>>> thing: power.
>
>>>>>> McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
>>>>>> margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
>>>>>> government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
>>>>>> not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.
>
>>>>> From what I seen/heard so far, I don't think the Democrats will own
>>>>> Congress for very long anyway.
>
>>>> I agree, judging by their performance the past two years. They have
>>>> accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful unless you consider holding
>>>> hearings on Bush's administration a worthwhile pursuit.
>
>>> What the Republicans need to debate is another Terry Schiavo
>>> case... spend a couple months talking about that to collect some more
>>> religious votes.
>
> Real problems to be solved and they spent time debating this.
> Amazing.

....... and Pelosi just goes hoe instead of doing something meaningful to
help the average person that is having to choose between filling their
gas tanks and buying decent food for their family.

>> Domestic drilling will be plenty.
>
> Sadly, high gas prices is the only way alternatives will be found.

To some extent but the alternatives don't exist today so just how long
should we have to pay $4+ per gallon for gas to wait on these
alternatives to happen? Just how much is too much to charge for a
gallon of gas. How much inflation should we have to endure to give you
greenies as much time as needed for these alternative sources to
develop? You are on the losing end of this argument as far as 90% of
the public is concerned.

> This is a good article I just ran across.
>
> http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...02/1148/AUTO01

Sure keep gas at $4 per gallon. Al Gore and his limousine liberal
buddies can afford it all day long. Plus, Gore is making a fortune off
of the green movement and scaring people over global warming. People
are getting fed up with Democrats being controlled by socialists,
Marxist and wacko environmental fringe groups. It won't be long before
the Republicans are back in control of Congress if they don't get a clue.

>> Maybe throw in a little gay marriage for good measure.
>
> Another pointless Republican rallying cry.

...... and the liberals don't have any pointless battle cries they use to
get voters to the polls?

>>>>>> Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with a 60%
>>>>>> growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on personal
>>>>>> liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every nook and
>>>>>> cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly represents
>>>>>> the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The difference will
>>>>>> be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government disasters that
>>>>>> we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not greater.
>>>>> I think at this point, another presidential win for the Republicans
>>>>> would be pat on the back for the last 8 years of Bush.
>>>> I disagree. I think it would be a signal to the Democrats that the
>>>> country is tired of their party being controlled by the far left,
>>>> radical liberal elites.
>>> As opposed to 8 years of the radical righties?
>> Polls are just numbers and don't tell the real story most of the time.
>> Especially approval/disapproval ratings. Congress has a lower rating
>> than Bush so what does that mean?
>
> Has Congress EVER had favorable approval ratings?

WEll, when they slip into SINGLE DIGITS I think that is something to
take note of.

> Now we know Presidents have. And we know dub yah's ratings have been
> in the ****ter for months and months now -- the reason he's been made
> invisible and currently sent on a site-seeing trip overseas.

Bush's ratings are a result of him disappointing conservatives as well
as ****ing off liberals. Don't take it as a sign that the country is
turning liberal en mass. Just look at the polls between Obama and
McCain to figure this out.

>>>> If they had nominated a more centrist candidate
>>>> they would be beating ANY republican by double digits.
>
>>> And why is that? Because the radical righties ran us into a ditch?
>
>> No because that is where the majority of the country resides. It isn't
>> the far left or far right.
>
> My feelings exactly. Yet we get these radical blow hards, from both
> sides, on the 24-hour "news" channels spouting their radical/biased
> doctrines.
>
> TV news has been reduced to put-downs, insinuations, yelling matches,
> etc. It's sickening... it truly is.

The press is worthless anymore, IMO.

>> Obama is trying hard to make himself LOOK
>> like a centrist but is won't be hard for the Republicans to prove he is
>> one of the most, if not the most, liberal (don't you love it when I use
>> that word?) nominees to be run up the flag pole.
>
> It's going to be sad to witness what Rove and his disciples will run
> Obama through.

Informing people of the truth is not sad. Obama is extremely liberal
and he knows that this will be his downfall. The people in this country
don't elect liberals as president. Especially, with people like Reid
and Pelosi controlling Congress.

>> They are doing it now
>> and they haven't even called out the heavy artillery yet. Wait until
>> the Republican convention, they will define Obama as being so liberal
>> that he will make George McGovern look like a Rush Limbaugh.
>
> Oh, I don't doubt it. If they could package G-W to look like the
> second coming of Jesus, I don't doubt they'll be able to tar and
> feather Obama. And we wonder why our Presidential picks are so crappy
> all the time. It's because most times the smart people won't allow
> themselves to be run through the gauntlet of smear campaigns.

How is pointing out a person's political leanings a smear campaign?
Complaining about this makes Obama and his supporters sound like a bunch
of whiners.

>>>> Instead they
>>>> give us an unknown, untested, elitist liberal because they think the
>>>> majority of us are stupid enough to be fleeced into voting for him.
>
>>> Hell, we were stupid enough to vote in George W, twice.
>
>> I like to think of it as we were smart enough to not elect Gore or Kerry.
>
> But in retrospect, we weren’t as smart as we thought.

Look at Gore now. The thought he could have been president scares the
hell out of me. Go watch some videos of him since 2000. He is a raving
lunatic and is why he won't run for president again. He looks like a
psych ward patient in them.

>>> And why is Obama being branded an elitist? Because he was focused and
>>> worked his ass off to get to/through law school? Trust me, my son
>>> just graduated from a big name school, and I saw the commitment/hard
>>> work it took. (And my son is far from an elitist now. In fact he's
>>> spending, almost donating, the next year working in an inner city
>>> charter high school working with kids who would have dropped out.)
>>> But somehow a drunken spoiled rich kid -- George W -- gets branded a
>>> good ol' cowboy and gets elected to two terms. Gotta love politics!
>
>> Well, I guess you didn't get the transcript of his speech to the liberal
>> San Francisco elites he made when he though there were no records in the
>> room. Pull off the glasses that are filtering you perception and you'll
>> see what the rest of us do. He is extremely liberal and that almost
>> always included arrogance, elitism and a belief the majority of the
>> population is too stupid to know what is good for them.
>
> Okay, but if he was all that why did all the Republicans tout him as a
> reanimated Reagan? And he got elected twice? But only now, late in
> his presidency, the vale has come off. WTF?

The only people touting him as a reanimated Reagan was Obama and his
talking heads. This was just another attempt on their part to mask over
his extremely liberal roots.

>>>> Also, don't put too much stock in just how poorly the country thinks of
>>>> Bush. He disapproval ratings are low because many conservatives think
>>>> he has betrayed them. Many people like to think (incorrectly) that his
>>>> rating are low because all those people that give him a thumbs down are
>>>> wanting a more liberal government. This isn't so.
>
>>> A "centrist candidate" is a more liberal government.
>
>> Not by my definition of centrist.
>
> Bush’s ratings are low because he’s bungled everything up.

You won't get much of an argument from me here. He has killed a lot of
terrorists and that is why we haven't had suicide bombers in our
shopping malls under his watch after 9-11.

>>>> IMO, the general population is still very much right of center and this
>>>> is why McCain is holding his own right now.
>
>>> I think it's because the Bush campaign machine is kicking in. They're
>>> working overtime to brand Obama:
>
>> It is because they have figured out his weak spot and it is Obama's
>> arrogance. He really believes he is "The One" the political messiah we
>> have all been waiting for. If his head gets any bigger it is going to
>> explode.
>
> More FauOX news propaganda. The truth is the Republican wish they had
> someone of Obama’s caliber. (Note: I wrote caliber, not skin
> color.)

They do. Mike Huckabee can run circles around Obama verbally. He is
the best off-the-cuff speaker that ran for president this election by
far. Now the fact he is a preacher and doesn't think dinosaurs existed
is a deal breaker for most people. None the less, he is witty, funny
and can articulate his ideas with ease and in a way that doesn't sound
arrogant or demeaning.

>>> An elitist
>
>>> A scary Muslim
>
>>> A scary "liberal"
>
>>> A hater of America
>
>>> Unknown commodity
>
>>> That's their keys to victory.
>
>> Well, I think the public is getting tired of hearing the press do the
>> hard sell on this yahoo.
>
> So FauOX news (BTW -- Carl Rove works for them now – how convenient )
> goes into full character assignation. Make **** up, twist things
> around, insinuate… just keep the drum beat going, eventually people
> will believe it.

Fox News is just one cable outlet. Obama is being shoved down our
throats by newspapers, magazines, CBS/NBC/ABC nightly news shows, CNN,
MSNBC etc. We are suffering from Obama fatigue. why do you think he
has conveniently taken a vacation this week? Maybe the guys at
NBC/MSNBC had to pull their head out of his ass long enough to cover the
Olympics and he can't function without them up there.

>> Obama believes his own hype and it is showing.
>> The keys to McCain winning is to paint Obama for what he is, a
>> liberal, elitist candidate that wants to lead us down a path to
>> socialism. Obama's voting record is all you need to study to figure
>> this out. Check out what Black Liberation Theology is based in. It is
>> COMMUNISM. He sat in a church for twenty years listening to this
>> garbage and allowed his children to be indoctrinated with it. Now he
>> either believes in it or he sacrificed his children for political gain.
>
>>>> Also, anyone that has
>>>> followed politics even a little bit knows McCain is nothing like Bush.
>
>>> And thank God for that!
>
>> I'm not real pleased with Bush either but it is because he is too
>> liberal for my tastes is many ways.
> I knew when Colin Powell got shown the door, it was truly over. I
> think that they told him to sell the war, and once he did, they no
> longer needed his services.

I don't think Powell had any answers either. Bush needed Patreus to
step in just after Franks stepped down. Then Bush would have been in a
completely different situation today.

>>>> McCain is a true centrist right to his core. I would prefer someone
>>>> more conservative than him but when given a choice between McCain and
>>>> Obama the choice for me is very easy. McCain wins hands down. I
>>>> shudder to think what the Supreme Court would look like after eight
>>>> years of Obama in the White house. We would be well on our way to being
>>>> a full blown socialist society. Then the things that made, and make,
>>>> this country great would be lost.
>
>>> The Republicans have been losing pieces of our great country for
>>> years. And I'd have a hard time rewarding their incompetence with a
>>> election victory.
>
>> The Democrats have been systematically destroying this country ever
>> since Roosevelt shoved the New Deal down our throats. They won't stop
>> until we are a full blown socialist society. Now that is something that
>> will truly destroy this country and no longer make it great.
>
> It isn’t the Democrats. It’s the corporations. They’re taking over.
> With lobbying groups, and deep pockets they can buy members of
> Congress and the President. And they’re buying the government. Case
> in point: they’re slowly taking over the military. Companies like
> Blackwater don’t answer to voters, they answer to stockholders. And
> what happens when these stockholders start getting influence/money
> from those outside the US?

You should watch the movie "War, Inc." You'll like it.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid.

This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional thinking.

I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white,
Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman, us-them
kind of mindset.

Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps, so we
can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from the
wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling lines.

While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the other side,
the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking the eternal
question, "What the ****?"

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid.
>
> This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional thinking.
>
> I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white,
> Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman,
> us-them kind of mindset.
>
> Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps, so
> we can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from the
> wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling lines.
>
> While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the other
> side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking the
> eternal question, "What the ****?"

Most of us have moved beyond that point. I guess what comes with that
is apathy for forcing change to eliminate what remains along the edges.
It is discouraging to see less than 20-30% of the population make the
other 70-80% miserable. IMO, the only thing that will unite us as a
species is for a group of big, bad aliens to descend upon us with the
intent of annihilation. Even then there will be a few of us that will
side with the aliens and I bet they will be the politicians.

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid.
>
> This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional thinking.
>
> I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white,
> Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman,
> us-them kind of mindset.
>
> Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps, so
> we can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from the
> wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling lines.
>
> While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the other
> side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking the
> eternal question, "What the ****?"
>
> dwight
>
>


ROFL!!

--


"Over here is a chance for a meal,
a young boobie. That's a bird..." - SurvivorMan

Michael Johnson wrote:
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid.
>>
>> This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional
>> thinking.
>>
>> I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white,
>> Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman,
>> us-them kind of mindset.
>>
>> Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps,
>> so we can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from the
>> wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling lines.
>>
>> While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the other
>> side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking the
>> eternal question, "What the ****?"
>
> Most of us have moved beyond that point. I guess what comes with that
> is apathy for forcing change to eliminate what remains along the edges.
> It is discouraging to see less than 20-30% of the population make the
> other 70-80% miserable. IMO, the only thing that will unite us as a
> species is for a group of big, bad aliens to descend upon us with the
> intent of annihilation. Even then there will be a few of us that will
> side with the aliens and I bet they will be the politicians.


Heh, ever seen the old TV show "The Invaders" ??

--


"While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe
on the other side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere
in between asking the eternal question, "What the ****?" - TFrog93

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid.
>>
>> This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional
>> thinking.
>>
>> I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white,
>> Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman,
>> us-them kind of mindset.
>>
>> Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps, so
>> we can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from the
>> wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling lines.
>>
>> While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the other
>> side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking the
>> eternal question, "What the ****?"
>
> Most of us have moved beyond that point. I guess what comes with that is
> apathy for forcing change to eliminate what remains along the edges. It is
> discouraging to see less than 20-30% of the population make the other
> 70-80% miserable. IMO, the only thing that will unite us as a species is
> for a group of big, bad aliens to descend upon us with the intent of
> annihilation. Even then there will be a few of us that will side with the
> aliens and I bet they will be the politicians.

Substitute "nazis" for "aliens," and you'll see the truth of that.

It was when my children were of school age that I began to notice (and
regret) that the public school system was aimed squarely at the
50-percentile.

It is no accident that television programming is geared toward a 12 year old
mentality.

Politicians also play to the same bell curve. "Change," without any real
definition. Or, hell, the every-four-years constitutional amendment against
some outrage against society, like flag burning or gay marriage.

But the broader the brush, the more distorted the image. As long as we have
(virtually) only two political parties, both sides will pander to the
largest possible constituency. This results in campaigns without substance,
fear of taking a real stance on anything remotely controversial. We know
what the party's ideals are, but we won't get a candidate who represents
them (either party).

The voting public is so evenly split, that both candidates have to do all
they can to attract those just across the center, in addition to their own
power base, WITHOUT losing the fanatical wing of their own parties. That's a
public tightrope walk, and one slip means lost votes.

In a sense, the two-party system and the nature of campaigns (and
financing), by definition, means that those elected to office are deathly
afraid to actually DO anything. As we see in every campaign, every vote cast
while in office is recorded and rehashed, and can be twisted to have a
variety of meanings.

I laugh when I hear candidates for President talk about money - taxing or
spending, since they can't very well usurp the powers of Congress when they
get elected. Talk all you want, candidates, but know that you'll be working
with a Congress just FULL of people who are afraid to make a mistake (or
take a position). Unless there is a HUGE popular groundswell to support
action, nothing gets done.

Good luck, Obama. Good luck, McCain. Make your speeches, pander to the good
citizens, gather ye voters while ye may. For tomorrow, you, too, will be
stuck in the Oval Office, complaining about a do-nothing Congress and how
you can't get anything on your agenda DONE.

If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the one-man/one-vote
thing.

dwight

WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> The lefties assume anyone that doesn't vote their way are stupid.
>>>
>>> This is the whole problem with mass populations. Two-dimensional
>>> thinking.
>>>
>>> I thought by now we would be beyond the black-and-white,
>>> Republican-Democrat, Ford-Chevy, AOL-restoftheinternet, man-woman,
>>> us-them kind of mindset.
>>>
>>> Sure, it's much easier to break all of humanity down into two camps,
>>> so we can clearly dilineate what separates the right-thinking from
>>> the wrong-thinking, but far too many of us insist on straddling lines.
>>>
>>> While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe on the other
>>> side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere in between asking the
>>> eternal question, "What the ****?"
>>
>> Most of us have moved beyond that point. I guess what comes with that
>> is apathy for forcing change to eliminate what remains along the
>> edges. It is discouraging to see less than 20-30% of the population
>> make the other 70-80% miserable. IMO, the only thing that will unite
>> us as a species is for a group of big, bad aliens to descend upon us
>> with the intent of annihilation. Even then there will be a few of us
>> that will side with the aliens and I bet they will be the politicians.
>
>
> Heh, ever seen the old TV show "The Invaders" ??

I was thinking along the lines of Independence Day.