Bush is an idiot

Funny, most truly brilliant people I have come across never felt the need to beat the message of their mental superiority over other?s heads?it was just sort of self evident.

Hmmm let?s review one of your posts????

And quickly - I'd much, much rather the rest of the world be pissed off at us when we are announcing our presence with authority than feel sorry for us because we just got sucker punched in the groin. On the karaoke chick, "she has accomplished what they claim the American Soldiers haven't been able to" - No, if it were not for American soldiers, she wouldn't have been able to perform in the first place. How quickly we forget the purple thumb, even if the savages can't stop killing one another right now. Yes, there were a ton of mistakes made in this war, and it was much more of a hornets' nest than we thought it would be, but you might as well whine to Thad Matta that he wasn't drilling his players enough on practicing their three pointers. I know that Risk is a really fun board game, and I'm sure you are all would be really, really good world leaders, but real war and real foreign policy is a little more complicated with a lot more unforeseen happenstances than a piece of cardboard.

Run on sentences. Incoherent points. Rambling. Sorry, not seeing any brilliance here. But clearly you have convinced yourself of that fact so feel free to dismiss my inability to make heads or toes of your dribble as a lack of mental acumen on my part.

Interesting though, most mental tests I am familiar with test an individual?s ability to problem solve- a measure of creative thinking ability. And yet all of your posting tends to fall in the following categories:

1) Remind people of your brilliance
2) Insult people


Now, impress us all and show the world how you are going to get yourself, creatively, out of being made to look like an idiot, yet again, by some limp wristed pansy.

30gAy... thank you for patronizing this thread. unlike some, you are never a bore. and you are always brilliant.

BULLSHit



I couldn't help it.......................

are you whipping out the "I'm a Mensa Member" bragging card for any particular reason here? :roll: we are all sufficiently impressed, I am sure.

If you are a card carrying Mensa, I would assume that you are the complete opposite of "W". I'm confused.

I used to have a library card. Does that count?

I used to have a library card. Does that count?

hell yes it counts! and I used to have a Sam's card, and it had my picture on it too.

Bob,
I'll take any reference to heeding Carter with a grain of salt. I agree on the dependence on foreign oil, but it's not that easy. The Russians have and will have far more leverage with crude than the Middle East, which is scary as hell. However, there isn't a real alternative right now. Sure, we can stop importing oil, but there is a cost. Our economy would drastically slow (you think Smoot-Hawley was bad, watch if this had happened), and while it would slow but not stop dollars funneled to hostile states, it wouldn't stop the yen, yuan, rupee or euro from enriching the hostile states. In the meantime, foreign economies would leave the US in the dust, and our geopolitical stronghold would cease. There are answers, but it is best to leave them private sector, who has far more incentive than the public. As for unilateral war, please don't dumb down my argument. I never said any of that.

Well put, but the argument for the lack of change is the same one that has the EPA sitting on its hands regarding emissions, and you know how childish it is to see our Pres say, "if they[China,india] cheat, what's the point"? This is the argument of a man who supports the status quo. No excise taxes for gas hogs because you'll hurt an already wounded Detroit. Meanwhile the big three were invited to D.C. a couple weeks back, yet no invite for Toyota, which employs thousands of Americans and is leading the technological change we need. This is simply a lack of intellect and leadership, and protects the status quo, which means nothing changes until a catastrophe occurs. The free market does not work in the presence of monopolies or oligopolies, Econ 101. Government can and should incentivize change through a series of tax credits[high efficiency products] and excise taxes that will get the big 3 off their dimwitted, short-term thinking butts. You can't charge 40k for a mainstream, fuel-efficient everyman's car, yet everyone will line up for the extended cab, V-10, big wheeled slice of Americana, the SUV/Truck. They'll throw a six year loan on that pig and will be proud of it. That's it in a nutshell, because it's the way many folks want it. Both the everyman's fartbox and the over-chromed SUV cost about the same to produce and Detroit is going to be dragged kicking and screaming here along with half the American public in order to change to a sane energy policy. No one will leave the U.S. in the dust provided we have forward looking leadership that promotes our strengths.... technology and innovation. I've had six plus years of fear mongering about the middle east boogie-man is going to get us and the whole charade over there is nothing more than trying to manage the unmanageable. Adapt and leave those people alone!!!!!!!!!

"You know who he was running against, right? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't Lady Thatcher."

Could have been Bozo the Clown and we still would have been better off.

"We are a global community." That's a cute T-shirt and a swell Michael Jackson song, but it's nowhere near the truth."

Depending upon what age you perspective comes from, and the Michael Jackson reference worries me enough, the 47 and a half years I've been around it has become, is becoming, and will continue to become a global community.

But what do I know? I'm just a lil 'ole liberal arts major. But, if anyone needs some Bach tranposed I'm here for ya.

And while we are at the Mensa picnic the militant Muslims will be plotting our destruction. Damn, we are geniuses.

6thGen,
I am not about to accuse anyone of being an idiot nor do I intend to be patronizing even though I am sure I come off that way at times. I am going to try address your points succinctly because we are obviously worlds apart in our opinions and neither of us will EVER convince the other.

1) You say you love the gem I added about people regretting their decision to vote for Bush - I actually fervently wish I knew less Bush supporters than I actually do but I am surrounded by people here in this conservative part of Florida who have been vocal about this and do regret their vote - sorry - what can I say - I get angry with them but they are actually more angry at themselves than I am!

2) I remember who he was running against but I have no desire, will or inclination at this point to debate the merits of John Kerry - I know many people disliked and did not respect him but IMHO he would have been head and shoulders a better alternative - heck - anyone for that matter would have - no need to respond to this point though -it is moot.

3) How was Bush awarded the presidency????? Hmmmm, let's try recall the FACTS from 2000- Bush loses popular vote - yes, yes I know that does not matter - it is all about the electoral votes - so it is left to this State of ours and after months of hanging chads, lost votes, mistakes made on both sides, etc.. the supreme court HANDS him the presidency!

4) I have no worry about you picking on me - I have no idea whatsoever of what is an acceptable loss for casualties of war - what I do know however is that the losses suffered on both sides, but much much more so in sheer numbers on the Iraqi civilian side SHOULD be UNACCEPTABLE to all. Full stop. Period. Would you accept these losses here? Look at what happened when 3000+ innocent lives were lost on 911...... I will never be convinced this was a justifiable war. Simple as that.

I will also add that it is despicable, disingenious and hypocritcal to accuse people who vehemently oppose this war of being unpatriotic (and I am not saying you are doing this!) - I would add that this administration in their callous lack of regard for human rights and the ease with which they accept human sacrifice make them the unpatriotic ones.

5) Your stab at Carter and his policies fell flat with me - sorry - I am quite familiar with the nuances and difficulties of middle eastern politics and have my own ideas of what could possibly work. In an age where violence and bullying have become the norm I would welcome a visionary who could bring about change and democracy in a peaceful manner - you are welcome to call me naive and wishful.

6) I can skip portion of global community as I did not say that.....

7) Your disparaging comment about a balanced budget being regrettable is .. how do I put this....regrettable. Glad that you happy that you have been handed an unprecendented deficit - I trust that you will not mind if I tell you that probably many people are PISSED as hell about China holding such large IOU's.

8) I am just as tired as you seem to be about the debate on Bush being or not being a conservative and please tell me that you do not seriously believe that Bush is a compassionate conservative or fiscally responsible???? And absolutely NO, you did not all know what you were getting into bed with as you so quaintly and easily put it - read the dozens of editorials of hard core republicans who are sickened by how Bush and his party have violated and desecrated the tenets of the GOP.

9) Please do pipe up and explain who exactly is paying attention to Bush right now because I really really want to know? The people in this country??? Well maybe the 25% or so who approve of him -another 50% are paying no attention whatsoever with the remaining 25% probably actively working against him (these are just approximations and wishful thinking apart from the 25-30% approval rating which is actually thankfully documented (lest I be accused of being partial or biased!)...The house and Senate?? No -not them either? Oh, I see you mean other nations??? Nope, they have tuned him out and are now more interested in his successor - the UN possibly??? NO, sorry - they too have little interest in listening right now to his pathetic rhetoric... He is actually as lame as a lame duck can be - thankfully unelectable again - even more thankfully his VP is also unelectable, many members of his own party are running away from him and his policies in their own hopes of re-election - so pray do tell - who is listening and paying attention????

10) Your statement about prefering not to ask the rest of the world for their opinion if it involves protecting this country (and I going to try be very polite and not insulting here) is actually very sad because you probably believe the rubbish you are being fed. You probably believe you are safer now then before and how wrong and misguided you are in this. What your president has wrought upon this world with his arrogance and disregard is mindboggling and tragic - yes, tragic! For those of us who actually enjoy traveling, relish the differences in cultures and religions (and do not mock me by shooting down this argument by talking about suicide bombers or other extremists as I am talking about the vast majority of sane people who all want we all aspire to have - love, happiness health, etc..) we are dismayed by how much standing we have lost in the world and by how much more vulnerable we are.

And whilst many of my statements are indeed opinions as you state, my statement of the intelligence agencies of this country (you can happily forget other countries' intelligence for this point) telling him he was heading into an abject debacle is fact. You and I have absolutely nowhere to go if you believe this war was justified and if you do not believe that information was misused and trumped up in order to make a bogus case for war (for Christ's sake, even Powell now regrets his supposedly due dilligence and intelligence gathering!)

Real war and real foreign policy is as you say complicated. It is messy and hard and cannot be summarily summed up with bullet points and rhetoric. Too bad we had/have a president who could not respect due process, who found it alarmingly simple to march us into this war of madness on trumped up charges of protecting us, who bullied with embarrassing insouciance and indifference to other nations and who has now handed the world a mess of unimaginable proportions.

3. The Supreme Court did not hand Bush the Presidency, the Court turned it back to our humble state and told them that if they couldn?t offer a consistent and Constitutional method of recount, then they couldn?t put the rest of the country on hold while they got their act together. By the way, how did Gore?s recount go? What about the NYT recount? In the end, who had more legitimate votes ? Bush or Gore? Thanks.

4. Do you apply the same standard to Truman?

5. I?d love to hear these ideas.

7. How long have we been hearing about unprecedented deficits? I?m not a protectionist, and I?m not all that concerned that with China holding US bonds. I am a little bit worried that their government has been throwing good money after bad for a numbers of years, and how that will affect the economy, but if their boom has created sufficient liquidity in their system to splurge on some risk free debt and lower our cost of borrowing money, good for the Chinese.

8. I never said Bush was fiscally responsible. Quite the contrary. As for the articles, I?ve read them. I read them in 2000, I?ve read them recently. Several ?hard core? Republicans (not sure if I?d call them that, esp. critics such as Novak, Will, and to a lesser extent WFB, but it?s your prerogative) have never liked Bush and they now have their chance to be ?I told you so?s? since his approval ratings are in the toilet. When I voted for Bush, I knew what I was getting into bed with as much as I could. I didn?t really plan on a large scale terrorist attack that would necessitate a response, but I don?t think many people did. As for the compassionate conservative, I?ve already addressed that.

9. I?ve been preaching against the 17th amendment for years (as well as most of the ?Progressive Era? policies). If one chamber didn?t have to patronize the electorate, we would at least have one that was responsible and respectable. As for having a President able to respond to threats, negotiate treaties and have a handshake that means something, again ? that?s a good thing for the country, no matter how much you disagree with his policies. Bragging about looking weak is for certain other posters on this board. It?s not for heads of state.

10. I was in Italy a few weeks ago and I didn?t think it was tragic. The wine was great, the Italians were very accommodating and the food was remarkable. Same thing in France last year. Also, you give me the last attack on our soil and I?ll give you some numbers from when we had a Democrat in office. You can give me platitudes on how vulnerable we are and I?ll answer them with actual attacks ? zero. Despite the warm and fuzzy feeling you get when the French politicians like you (hell, they don?t even like each other) because they feel sorry for you, the truth is you are more far more vulnerable in that case as you are flashing weakness to people who would like to knock you down.

The Rest - Do I really need to address this? Hasn?t someone done this yet? Powell has been undermining the administration for years, even while he was giving his presentations. We had intelligence from Clinton, the British, the French, the CIA, even the freaking Russians. The rush to war rings hollow when you have 13 years of UN sanctions, repeated attacks on our troops, an attempt on a former President?s life, and a dictator telling everyone how he was going to attack. Sure, we couldn?t get anyone from Russia, de Villepin or Annan on board, but that was because they were all too busy cashing in on the Oil for Food program. The rest of your argument is the same banality you?d expect to hear from Penn, Rosie, and the rest of the wearers of the tin foil hat.

Damn, Seababe, I've always considered Bach overrated. I did recently hear some Vivaldi that would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up at San Stefano (the one in Venice).

Here is the ABC news clip I was talking about....I like the look of it:clap_1:


http://mms.tveyes.com/Transcript.as...04/03/07+18:35:25&term=baghdad&PlayClip=FALSE

"Damn, Seababe, I've always considered Bach overrated. I did recently hear some Vivaldi that would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up at San Stefano (the one in Venice)."

Vivaldi isn't to my taste actually neither is Bach but it was a requirement in music theory to be able to transpose it. Didn't like it then, don't now, and I'm actually more of a performer/teacher (play flute, piano, viola) with a taste for Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Scarlatti, Mozart, and Rimsky Korsakoff.

Is your middle name "condescending" by chance? Really....it's just not attractive at all I'm so turned off by uppity people. Intelligence is a great thing along with knowledge and experience traveling but snotty attitudes are so unappealing. High IQ's don't make you any better than the next guy.

I love jovial good natured people though.

Funny, most truly brilliant people I have come across never felt the need to beat the message of their mental superiority over other?s heads?it was just sort of self evident.

Exactly. And they also understand the value of humility. Which is not to be confused with false modesty.

"Exactly. And they also understand the value of humility. Which is not to be confused with false modesty."

:clap_1:

Well put, but the argument for the lack of change is the same one that has the EPA sitting on its hands regarding emissions, and you know how childish it is to see our Pres say, "if they[China,india] cheat, what's the point"? This is the argument of a man who supports the status quo. No excise taxes for gas hogs because you'll hurt an already wounded Detroit. Meanwhile the big three were invited to D.C. a couple weeks back, yet no invite for Toyota, which employs thousands of Americans and is leading the technological change we need. This is simply a lack of intellect and leadership, and protects the status quo, which means nothing changes until a catastrophe occurs. The free market does not work in the presence of monopolies or oligopolies, Econ 101. Government can and should incentivize change through a series of tax credits[high efficiency products] and excise taxes that will get the big 3 off their dimwitted, short-term thinking butts. You can't charge 40k for a mainstream, fuel-efficient everyman's car, yet everyone will line up for the extended cab, V-10, big wheeled slice of Americana, the SUV/Truck. They'll throw a six year loan on that pig and will be proud of it. That's it in a nutshell, because it's the way many folks want it. Both the everyman's fartbox and the over-chromed SUV cost about the same to produce and Detroit is going to be dragged kicking and screaming here along with half the American public in order to change to a sane energy policy. No one will leave the U.S. in the dust provided we have forward looking leadership that promotes our strengths.... technology and innovation. I've had six plus years of fear mongering about the middle east boogie-man is going to get us and the whole charade over there is nothing more than trying to manage the unmanageable. Adapt and leave those people alone!!!!!!!!!

Gas is taxed, and those that choose to use more gas are taxed more than those who choose to use less. I don?t want to get into it here, because scientists can come close to agreeing, but the global warming thing is completely overblown, and it is incredibly arrogant of man to believe that he has so much of an effect on weather patterns. Regardless, I?ll look at it from your point of view. The Big Three are far too protected (if they got rid of their unions it wouldn?t be an issue, again ? another topic), but they are no sort of a monopoly or an oligopoly. If the state believes that she should be protecting her hapless citizens, it could offer economic incentives to develop energy efficient products. The US does that. Look at what you are paying for ears of corn and you can mirror that to the state support of ethanol. The problem is that the market still can?t turn corn into fuel at a reasonable price, no matter how much the tax payers are chipping in to fund their research. The next step would be to put a heavier tax on gasoline. That?s fine, and if we are trying to lessen emissions, that would be one way to do it. Due to worldwide demand discussed earlier, consumers are already paying significantly more for gas than they were a few years ago, and again, you know whom the burden falls on. Depending on the severity of the tax, the state would risk severely crimping certain sectors of the economy, residential and commercial construction, the trucking industry (and to a lesser extent every industry it serves), youth soccer leagues, etc. while shifting capital to other sectors. The state is actually discouraging more widespread innovation by shifting private capital to higher earning sectors, rather than letting the market do as it would. As the price of gas rises, industries that cater to the aforementioned sectors have incentive to create more fuel efficient vehicles on their own, without state intervention. This is what we saw in the 70s, with the move from the General Lee to the Toyota Corolla. The problem I have with the Nader and Gore crowd is that the ones that plant the seeds are far more anti-development than they are anti-high water. Look at Nader?s history. I believe that the market has and will regulate itself much better without state intervention. As fuel consumption increases, assuming relatively constant demand, fuel prices increase. Therefore fuel users have a strong incentive to use more efficient vehicles. When the state steps in, to saver her citizens from their own stupidity, the state tends to screw it up. To give you a quick example, and please forgive my oversimplification ? the US had above and beyond the best rail system in the world in the 19th century. President Cleveland then decided that railroads had an unfair monopolistic advantage, so he decided to step in and help ?the consumer? out, regulating what the railroads. What he and his predecessors did, through overregulation, was destroy a solid industry, all to help out consumers. What they accomplished was far more of a burden on consumers than any help they intended to offer. I know that this is the equivalent of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the caves of Pakistan, but I?d love for you to pick up a copy of Free to Choose, by Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman (RIP). It will at least give you an opposing viewpoint. He explains far more eloquently there what I don?t have the time to do here. In short, I do agree that the US consumes far too much fuel, but I believe that the answer lies in a free market, rather than a government that tries to make things fair.

"Damn, Seababe, I've always considered Bach overrated. I did recently hear some Vivaldi that would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up at San Stefano (the one in Venice)."

Vivaldi isn't to my taste actually neither is Bach but it was a requirement in music theory to be able to transpose it. Didn't like it then, don't now, and I'm actually more of a performer/teacher (play flute, piano, viola) with a taste for Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Scarlatti, Mozart, and Rimsky Korsakoff.

Is your middle name "condescending" by chance? Really....it's just not attractive at all I'm so turned off by uppity people. Intelligence is a great thing along with knowledge and experience traveling but snotty attitudes are so unappealing. High IQ's don't make you any better than the next guy.

I love jovial good natured people though.

Alanis Morisette could write another verse on your second paragraph. Yes, I probably came off as a condescending ahole, but I could list ten snotty attidue and condescending quotes from the rest of all of you to every one of mine, be it to our head of state or to those that agree with certain of his policies. Don't worry though, I'm trying to balance you all out, just give me time. You folks on the other side of the aisle are alright, you just need to realize your own hypocrisy and irony as you ask your right leaning friends to do the same. For instance, there is a poster on here who would shout from the mountaintop if the public sector (i.e. the state) decided to step into his bedroom, but he parades his bedroom to the public sector on a regular basis. I agree with him on the former, just not the latter.

"Alanis Morisette could write another verse on your second paragraph."

I love Alanis so I am going to take that as a compliment meant or not. Especially since I have published a book of poetry and so love to write...can ya tell? <smile>

"Yes, I probably came off as a condescending ahole"

Yes moreso than alot of other posters. I enjoy (as my husband, kids, and friends) will tell you a good debate. I enjoy learning from others always have, always will. Debate usually renders snippy remarks and snotty comments eventually I've learned from experience. My problem is with people who come off as "better than thou" because I'm not impressed with what you know I'm more impressed with who you "are".

Sorry to get off thread base. Trying to type and work at the same time not multi-tasking very well today.

Is your middle name "condescending" by chance? Really....it's just not attractive at all I'm so turned off by uppity people. Intelligence is a great thing along with knowledge and experience traveling but snotty attitudes are so unappealing. High IQ's don't make you any better than the next guy.

I love jovial good natured people though.

I agree. Now let 30-gAy handle this blow hard.

Damn, Seababe, I've always considered Bach overrated. I did recently hear some Vivaldi that would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up at San Stefano (the one in Venice).

Hmm, are we to be as impressed with the depth of your cultural sophistication as well as your blazing intelligence?

I must protest.

A Vivaldi concert in the San Stefano? I think you mean the Chiesa di San Vitale, which is located at the southern end of the Campo San Stefano and hosts Vivaldi concerts in the evening.

Due to its location at the foot of the Accademia bridge, which puts it square on a well beaten tourist trail, the performances are geared to tourists and does not offer the highest quality in baroque musical concerts.

Anyone in the know, would attend a performance in the Scuola Grande di San Rocco.

Clearly, you are neither as brilliant nor cultured as you would like to think.

So the path to the Accademia caters less to tourists than the path to Saint Mark's? I'm shocked you made it there, given the Dolce and Gabbana, Guicci, and other stores of high fashion that are obviously catering to locals in the know.

So the path to the Accademia caters less to tourists than the path to Saint Mark's? I'm shocked you made it there, given the Dolce and Gabbana, Guicci, and other stores of high fashion that are obviously catering to locals in the know.

I said Scuola Grande di San Rocco, which is between the Dorsoduro and San Polo quarters of Venice and no where near the Piazza San Marco.

Apparently your IQ test did not contain a section on reading comprehension either.

But thank you for yet a second opportunity to make you look ridiculous.

Gas is taxed, and those that choose to use more gas are taxed more than those who choose to use less. I don’t want to get into it here, because scientists can come close to agreeing, but the global warming thing is completely overblown, and it is incredibly arrogant of man to believe that he has so much of an effect on weather patterns. Regardless, I’ll look at it from your point of view. The Big Three are far too protected (if they got rid of their unions it wouldn’t be an issue, again – another topic), but they are no sort of a monopoly or an oligopoly. If the state believes that she should be protecting her hapless citizens, it could offer economic incentives to develop energy efficient products. The US does that. Look at what you are paying for ears of corn and you can mirror that to the state support of ethanol. The problem is that the market still can’t turn corn into fuel at a reasonable price, no matter how much the tax payers are chipping in to fund their research. The next step would be to put a heavier tax on gasoline. That’s fine, and if we are trying to lessen emissions, that would be one way to do it. Due to worldwide demand discussed earlier, consumers are already paying significantly more for gas than they were a few years ago, and again, you know whom the burden falls on. Depending on the severity of the tax, the state would risk severely crimping certain sectors of the economy, residential and commercial construction, the trucking industry (and to a lesser extent every industry it serves), youth soccer leagues, etc. while shifting capital to other sectors. The state is actually discouraging more widespread innovation by shifting private capital to higher earning sectors, rather than letting the market do as it would. As the price of gas rises, industries that cater to the aforementioned sectors have incentive to create more fuel efficient vehicles on their own, without state intervention. This is what we saw in the 70s, with the move from the General Lee to the Toyota Corolla. The problem I have with the Nader and Gore crowd is that the ones that plant the seeds are far more anti-development than they are anti-high water. Look at Nader’s history. I believe that the market has and will regulate itself much better without state intervention. As fuel consumption increases, assuming relatively constant demand, fuel prices increase. Therefore fuel users have a strong incentive to use more efficient vehicles. When the state steps in, to saver her citizens from their own stupidity, the state tends to screw it up. To give you a quick example, and please forgive my oversimplification – the US had above and beyond the best rail system in the world in the 19th century. President Cleveland then decided that railroads had an unfair monopolistic advantage, so he decided to step in and help “the consumer” out, regulating what the railroads. What he and his predecessors did, through overregulation, was destroy a solid industry, all to help out consumers. What they accomplished was far more of a burden on consumers than any help they intended to offer. I know that this is the equivalent of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the caves of Pakistan, but I’d love for you to pick up a copy of Free to Choose, by Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman (RIP). It will at least give you an opposing viewpoint. He explains far more eloquently there what I don’t have the time to do here. In short, I do agree that the US consumes far too much fuel, but I believe that the answer lies in a free market, rather than a government that tries to make things fair.

6th Gen, You are contradicting yourself. Monopolies preclude competition. Freidman would be the first to tell you free market is out the window when we deficit spend and offer our young for oil supply. Your offer of sales tax is unfocused. Everything is taxed, that's not the issue. The economies of scale are so large here, the Feds could bring about change by spurring competition, not stifling it. Until recently the Feds rewarded the purchasing of high gross vehicle weight purchases. This is insanity! There must be incentive for innovation, and the argument that this will all happen when gas rises enough is that tired perspective of "I've got mine, what's your problem" attitude that infects our society. The lower and middle class don't need to be economically crushed to protect the interest of multinational companies. It's bad enough that a voluntary military is a defacto body tax on the lower rungs of society, now we combine that with asking they give their lives for oil. It's unnecessary, and it's embarassing to us as a people.

Sorry for my mistake. My Italian isn't up to snuff, so some things run together. Maybe if I can make it over to Venice again before I hit 30, I'll be sure to ask you for directions. If not I just might end up lost like everyone else who's ever been to the city.

Bob,
You are changing the subject and moving the goalposts. First, monopolies do not discourage competition. Predatory practices may, but monopolies, unless they are state monopolies do not. As for weight subsidies, I?m for doing away with all subsidies, all tariffs, export taxes, and anything else that precludes free trade. Finally, please explain how the lower and middle class is crushed to protect the interest of multinational companies? If you refer to my rail example, I agree. The Feds stepped in to regulate the rails and crushed affordable rail transportation. If it is on the overregulation of drug companies, again we are on the same page. The excessive regulation may save some lives by making drug companies go through years of scrutiny and red tape, but the lives saved pale in comparison to the lives that would be saved if a drug is brought to market sooner. And the cost to get past that barrier stifles competition, so while costs are drastically increased for that reason, they are also inflated due tightening the doors to the market, putting a heavy burden on the middle and lower classes while protecting bigger drug companies from startup competition. As for the poor giving their lives for oil, please quit looking for black helicopters while we are having somewhat of a productive discussion.

Here - two articles just from today - one on increased quality, the other on the lower price.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY0OGMxMjEyZDk0N2Y5NzVhOTg4M2RjZjlkZTY0ZjI=

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTIzM2JhMTNjZDJjYmE0MzIzODk4OTQxZjIxN2YxYTU=