Driver Pays $46,644 for Oil Change

[EnderWiggin]

Cute, EW. Wasn't talking about his stance on environmental issues, just his tendency toward profligate and inefficient use of money.

Oh yes, Bill Clinton and George Bush (x2) prove this quite nicely

Yup.

I do find it odd, though, that many libs that like to think they're rational and well informed are so easily gulled by the prohpets of ecological doom. Guess that comes from feeling your way to a solution.....but thats' all matter for another thread.

 

I hope you're not calling me deluded. That would make me a little bit annoyed, I think.

 

_EW_

[True_Avery]

Sounds like the sheik is a true liberal at heart....waste a lot of money to benefit a small number of people, and with few apparent worries about accountability. Only wish I had that kind of wealth to throw around so "liberally". That he po'd eco-nuts is just icing on this particular piece of cake.

Awww, that is adorable! Can I hug your horse?

 

Cute, EW. Wasn't talking about his stance on environmental issues, just his tendency toward profligate and inefficient use of money. That is sadly a tendency shared by many liberals in government (esp as regards members of society that are nonproductive, and I'm not talking about infants, the infirm (physical/mental), etc..). I do find it odd, though, that many libs that like to think they're rational and well informed are so easily gulled by the prohpets of ecological doom. Guess that comes from feeling your way to a solution.....but thats' all matter for another thread.

Your arguments might hold a drop of water if it wasn't for the fact that democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals, and all the other parties throw away money as well, and many a time for their own "gains".

 

Yes, liberals "like to think they're rational and well informed". Guess who else thinks that?

 

EVERYBODY

 

And each of the parties are gullible to their own little problems of the year. Just because you don't happen to think we harm the planet, don't consider yourself better than them for throwing that money into the war, out of the war, supporting or nonsupporting Bush, being pro-life or pro-choice, etc.

 

I don't regard myself as being liberal, but I'd like our species to treat the planet we -live- on with a little respect instead of like a 5 year old treats their room.

[EnderWiggin]

Awww, that is adorable! Can I hug your horse?

 

 

Your arguments might hold a drop of water if it wasn't for the fact that democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals, and all the other parties throw away money as well, and many a time for their own "gains".

 

Yes, liberals "like to think they're rational and well informed". Guess who else thinks that?

 

EVERYBODY

 

And each of the parties are gullible to their own little problems of the year. Just because you don't happen to think we harm the planet, don't consider yourself better than them for throwing that money into the war, out of the war, supporting or nonsupporting Bush, being pro-life or pro-choice, etc.

 

I don't regard myself as being liberal, but I'd like our species to treat the planet we -live- on with a little respect instead of like a 5 year old treats their room. You may think we don't do damage, but you can go ahead and ask the Dodo how its been doing lately.

 

<3 Avery. My favorite part was the high horse graphic

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

Well, at least that money isn't getting sent to some fundamentalist religious group/PETA/radical environmental group/wacko group of choice to blow things up to make a statement.

[EnderWiggin]

Well, at least that money isn't getting sent to some fundamentalist religious group/PETA/radical environmental group/wacko group of choice to blow things up to make a statement.

 

That's a cop out, Jae. Just because things could be worse doesn't mean that we shouldn't be angry that things are bad.

 

It was mostly tongue lodged firmly in cheek. --Jae

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

Wasn't talking about his stance on environmental issues, just his tendency toward profligate and inefficient use of money.

I agree, with you assessment this does sound like those terrible liberals. If the sheik was like the republicans, he would have borrowed money and then used that borrowed money in a completely inefficient matter.

Oh yes, Bill Clinton and George Bush (x2) prove this quite nicely

Touché

[Totenkopf]

@EW--was talking specifically about the sheiks "wasting" of $$, not any particular politician. Not even particualry picking on a party, as both are full of liberals. Arlen Specter is a liberal who ran as a rep b/c the dems had already chosen their candidate at the time. I'll even give you (and mimartin) that Bush ll has proven to basically be a liberal on spending, even going so far as to outspend them (though it's still useful to keep in mind that Congress controls the power of the purse, not the president). However, liberals don't just tax and spend. They tax heavily, spend even more profigately and then borrow to make up the difference. Also, I think Jae's point was merely to keep things in perspective, not that you can't be disappointed that the world ain't a better place. I don't think most people are deluded across the board, just in certain areas.

 

@TA--will keep a spot in the stable for your guy's horses too. Oh, I've also never said mankind shouldn't clean up after itself. Merely pointed out that the "man-made"

global warming scare is fraudulent and not based on sound science.

 

 

@mimartin--mind you, I said liberal and not dem vs rep. So there's no touche as neither Bush proved to be all that fiscally conservative. As to "W" (since you seem to want to make this about party affiliation), it's ashame he didn't learn from the overreaching disaster that was the Johnson administration. When you want to finance guns 'n butter, there have to be sacrifices somewhere. Either more taxes or less spending. Preferably less spending and less taxation.

[True_Avery]

I've also never said mankind shouldn't clean up after itself. Merely pointed out that the "man-made" global warming scare is fraudulent and not based on sound science.

Now wasn't that so much easier to say instead of encrypting it into punches at "gulled money wasting liberal eco-nuts"?

 

If I am miss-understanding you, then I apologize.

 

However, liberals don't just tax and spend. They tax heavily, spend even more profligately and then borrow to make up the difference.

Could you expand on this?

 

(since you seem to want to make this about party affiliation)

I believe you were the one to make it about party affiliation first by pointing out the "liberal" party numerously.

[mimartin]

Could you expand on this?

 

It seems Totenkopf wants to say Bush is a liberal to explain this away. However that does not explain the other big spender and big burrow of the last 25 years Ronald Reagan or was he a liberal too? An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing

 

I’d also like to point out that the Republicans controlled Congress for half of Bush’s administration. The blame the liberal in Congress does not seem appropriate.

[Totenkopf]

@mimartin/TA--never pointed out dem vs rep. That's a red herring of your own. The fact that there may be more liberals w/in the dem party that the other side is irrelevant. Oddly enough, Reagan brought more money into the federal coffers when he dropped the high tax rates (also, unfortunately when he signed off on the increase in payroll taxes). Yet despite the flow of money, the dems (you seem to want to make this about party) who controlled congress manged to spend $1.37 or so for every dollar raised. The dems, but more specifically liberals of both parties, envision a much larger role for the federal govt in our present/future. Their propensity is to tax and tax and tax. And borrow to cover shortfalls. Bush has proven himself to have liberal spending tendencies (ala Johnson), so it seems apparent that you can't call the guy a real conservative, no matter his party affiliation. Remember, liberal vs conservative doesn't = rep vs dem.

 

@TA--I wasn't being cryptic, though. There's a difference between the desire to be reasonably tidy about your environment and the overt luddite mentality shared by "eco-nuts".

[EnderWiggin]

EVERYBODY'S A LIBERAL! AHHHHHHH!

 

Fix't.

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

Oddly enough, Reagan brought more money into the federal coffers when he dropped the high tax rates (also, unfortunately when he signed off on the increase in payroll taxes). Yet despite the flow of money, the dems (you seem to want to make this about party) who controlled congress manged to spend $1.37 or so for every dollar raised. [/Quote] he, he, he… Seems Conservatives always want to forget who has control of Congress. For the record during George W Bush first four years it was the “self appointed” conservatives and during the first four years of the Reagan administration the conservatives had control of the Senate. So Ronald Reagan is a liberal now.

The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined.[/Quote] If so, then he is king of the liberals, or was until that Bush guy took over.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

wow this thread really went to ****.

[El Sitherino]

wow this thread really went to ****.