This is HILLARIOUS! I seriously lol-ed when I read that. I've never heard anyone try to make that that argument that way.

I don't think it's a matter of civilization exactly... it's more of an awareness of the outside world; some might say urban people are more informed. Rural areas are generally more isolationist and against major changes that may disrupt their way of life. In more densely populated, faster growing areas, the need for change is much more apparent, and people showed that with their votes yesterday. For example, the need to protect the environment would be most apparent where natural landscape is least abundant and/or is in the most jeopardy- in densely populated areas. If you live on ten acres, you don't mind a 10'x10' pile of crap on your property near as much as someone who lives in a studio apartment. Another example is air pollution- greater the pop. density = greater the air pollution = more respiratory problems and other obvious ecological impacts = a more apparent and urgent need for change.


After all, you don't value something until you start to lose it, right? How long will we have to wait for people to acknowledge the destruction of our own planet? Can't we learn from these densely populated areas and prevent further erosion of our environment?








...oh yaeh, can someone help me pry my arms from around this tree?

 

President Bush's policies and views are why I didn't vote for him, but they aren't why I'm upset he won. I really feel he's not suited for the job.

He can't resolve the Iraq sitation, things have stalled out in Afghanistan, he can't find the rest of al-qaida, Saudi Arabia is probably going to have a revolution or be invaded, and there's a dozen other problems in the world that Bush takes no interest in because we have no economic interests in those regions.


All your measures of success for Bush's current term are your personal financial successes. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't have done the same things regardless of who was President? What do you think will happen when government spending has to decrease to counter the rising debt Bush has continued to allow? Regardless of who does it, the economy will slow again when that happens. Bush has run a large deficit (usually something that makes conservatives scream and pull out their hair) to keep the economy from falling, when he should have kept it down and let the economy recover on its own. Hopefully he will have the fortitude to do what it takes to correct it before he leaves it to his successor.

Finally, I must say I can't blame you for voting for him. It's a whole lot easier to overlook his shortcomings when he shares your politics. however, if Al Gore had been elected in 200, and the world was exactly as it is now, I wouldn't have supported him this year either. I think our nation just didn't act like the greatest nation in the world. We could have done much better.

 

Ummm....but i'm not supporting him...i was merely pointing out, what clinton ignored about al-qaeda, and the fact that bush misjudged or should have evaluated even more, instead of invading iraq right away, the whole scenario on the war on terror...

though i have to admit....i feel a bit safer with saddam out of his throne

 

I agree, but I think Bush just pisses off the terrorists even more with his haughty attitude and cowboy swagger. So I don't think he is the man to secure the nation. I think he does the exact opposite.

I know this is a valid point because people all over the world, including our allies, are afraid of Bush. He scares people with his "I'm not going to listen to anybody attitude."

Personally, I think this, along with his overall "evilness", is his biggest fault as a president.

 

That's only part of it. My post about why I think people voted "against Kerry" is the other half. Not only do I think he would hurt businesses and individual pocket-books here, but I stongly disagree with the values of his party. His entire campaign was a giant contradiction.. I just didn't trust him.

As far as the deficit, that thing about our grandchildren having to pay for it is what the democrats in the 80s said about Reagan and his defence spending. It took 15 years by my estimation. The really funny thing about this is that Kerry talked about health care for all Americans, but the math on that didn't make sense with only those making over $200k getting a tax increase. I could see a lie coming.

Anyway... these are all oversimplified statements, but I think you know what I mean.

 

Very well said.

 

Just watch out if Saudi Arabia gets invaded, there is a really good chance that Bush would be putting our military in the way to protect them.

 

Who is going to invade Saudi Arabia? Out of curiosity??

 

I think the revolt is the biggest problem.

 

the monkey strikes again!

go BUSH!





aloha from the summit of *-^-Mauna kea-^-*

 

I think a revotultion, or more likely a coup, will be the biggest problem there, not an invasion.

-Chris

 

Eliminating the deficit happened almost solely because of the dotcom boom. Clinton deserves true credit only for being wise enough to use the huge budget windfall properly to reduce the debt. Bush has once again taken it the other way, which I find very odd for a Republican to do without a huge increase in defense spending.

 

Of course, we owe it to them for their assistance during the first gulf war, on top of our other ties economically. That's what an ally is. The problem arises out of the fact that it will strengthen the Islamic world's reasons for hating us.

Revolution by fundamentalists, in turn supported by the hardline Islamic nations such as Iran as well as the non-geovernment organizations like Al-qaida.

 

BARNED! j/k

 

And his personal ties with papa being so intrenched with the Saudi leadership