oh, thanks so much…
I’d simply like to be able to disagree with you, challenge your contentions, and debate you without having to deal with your snide remarks.
I’ll vote for Bush.
Me Solomon Grundy
Voting Kerry.
I can’t, in good conscience, vote for that monkey who’s in the White House now. We have taken several steps backwards because of him and we are going to be watching the rest of the scientific world pass us by if he is re-elected.
His antiquated views and methods may have served us better during the cold war, but we live in much different times now. And the fact that his religious beliefs play such a large role in how our country is run is downright scary.
Anyone but Bush in 2004.
Another vote for Thunderbolt, I mean Bush. There is little choice given:
thunderbolt23:
The current incarnation of the Democratic party cannot be trusted to defend Western civilization.
Kerry
I don’t know yet. It will be a tough decision for me. I don’t like GWB’s views on many social policies but at the same time I don’t think Kerry is leadship material. I find it odd that GWB bashers seem to think that somehow all our foreign policy problems will suddenly diminish if Kerry is elected. If the election was today I would have to support Bush.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
Voting Kerry.
I can’t, in good conscience, vote for that monkey who’s in the White House now. We have taken several steps backwards because of him and we are going to be watching the rest of the scientific world pass us by if he is re-elected.
His antiquated views and methods may have served us better during the cold war, but we live in much different times now. And the fact that his religious beliefs play such a large role in how our country is run is downright scary.
Anyone but Bush in 2004.
[/quote]
Could you elaborate on this? What do you mean by “several steps back” and “watching the rest of the scientific world pass us by”? What is “downright scary” about “his religious beliefs play[ing] such a large role in how our country is run”? Is this really a matter of “conscience” or prudence?
Not an attack, but a sincere question.
I’m voting me, running on the world domination platform.
Keep a close eye on CNN twenty years from now. 
I may just exercise my right to not vote. I’m pretty sure Bush will win the election with or without my participation.
Fenelon, sorry for not responding to your questions sooner. I’ve been very busy and the new layout here at T-mag is still a little confusing to me, so I missed your post.
As for science taking a backseat under Bush, there are several issues here. Below are links to a couple articles/websites that will give you an idea of what modern science thinks of our prez. These are just a couple, but you can find more on Google. I tried to find relatively neutral sources (arguable). One is from Scientific American and the other is from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The gist is that Bush uses science only when it benefits his political agenda and ignores it when it does not.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm
This next link is to a Fortune article regarding a paper written by a legend at the Pentagon. In a nutshell: global warming is the single biggest threat to our national security, far and above any terrorist activity. But you won’t hear Bush even acknowledging it.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html
Religion: I agree with Ron Reagan, Jr. that Bush wears his religion on his sleeve. From his views on gay marriage to stem cell research, I believe his beliefs heavily influence how he runs this country. Nancy Reagan has been very vocal about her disagreements with him over stem cell research. I believe we have the tools in front of us to take a big step towards curing some major diseases, but I’m afraid this is another area where other countries will just cruise right on by us.
Energy: we are undeniably facing a major energy crisis. Cheap oil is gone forever, never to return. Sure, you may see some slight {downward} fluctuations in price, but I highly doubt you’ll ever see it get back to the $1.50 range and stay there for any length of time. There are so many viable options out there that we need to start exploring. And it could do absolute wonders for our economy. Below are just a few:
Biomass: from corn stalks and logging waste to algae and used french fry grease, all of these can be used to create fuel now that can be used with most existing diesel vehicles with very little modification. You’ve probably read about many of them in the paper lately with gas prices being such a hot topic these days.
Solar: almost daily there are huge advances being made in solar cell technology. Current efficiencies of photovoltaic cells (PV) are between 10% - 15%. Recently, discoveries in the field show the ability to push that up to around 60% - 70%. The problem is our government throws a pittance towards such renewable energy sciences and, without more funding, it’s going to be a slow tough road.
Wind Energy: Europe is making major strides in the area and it should be explored more in depth here with the backing of our government.
As for the “hydrogen economy” Bush is touting these days, give me a break. The only reason he’s even mentioned it is so he can avoid raising the CAFE standards and pissing off big oil and Detroit. He’s putting something like $1.7 billion into it over the next five years. That’s nothing. If we were serious about it, we would be putting in something like $100 billion. But it doesn’t really matter. Hydrogen has so many serious roadblocks in its way that I doubt it will ever successfully come to fruition.
What we should be doing is scrapping hydrogen {cars} altogether and start redeveloping electric cars. Battery technology is getting much, much better and will continue to do so with the aid of nanotechnology and other sciences. But it needs funding. Bush won’t do this since that would mean turning his back on the oil companies… something he’s not prepared to do.
(By the way, if you haven’t checked out the tzero yet you should at http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm . It’s outrageously expensive - priced somewhere between a Porsche and a Ferrari - but that’s because it’s not a production car. But it goes to show that it can be done and that EVs don’t have to be gutless tin cans with a range of 50 miles.)
Bottom line: Bush wants to keep his campaign contributors (big business) happy, so he does everything to appease them and that hurts our country’s ability to excel in new markets. But because of his energy policy alone, I want him out of office. While I do not think Kerry is some kind of God-send, he’s the only other choice who actually has a chance and that’s why I’ll vote for him.
I think we’re standing on the cusp of some of the most exciting scientific discoveries in the history of the world that could literally change everything. But we need to determine whether we want to continue being a leader (via innovation and economics, not military might), or if we want to watch the rest of the world pass us by. China is doing just that right now.
Loyalty to one’s business and god is fine. I don’t have a problem with that. But they have no place in public office.
no brainer. two choices are socialists and one guy who actually will let us live free…
not voting for either of the pricks espeicaly GEORGE W, a dummy surrounded by ABSOULTE CROOKS. kerry looks like a horse.
I’m not sure yet, but it will definitly be third party. I don’t think I could ever vote for anyone in the 2 major parties ever again.
Bush.
Hmmmm…tough call.
Communist traitor A is driving us over the cliff at 35 m.p.h., while Communist traitor B, if elected, proposes to do it at 70. I’m at a loss.
I’ll probably have to vote Libertarian or Constitution Party with the other 0.0000003% of my fellow Americans.
[quote]lumburjak wrote:
i’m gonna vote for this guy that lives in the dumpster at the end of my street. i think his name is joe[/quote]
Im voting for that guy too. I think he is campaigning under the name Joe Shit “the ragman”, and his campaign slogan is “my job sucks”.
Im wearing the t-shirt he gave me. it says “Vtoe fer Jo, dude” and has shit stains on it, I think thats what this is.
[quote]lumburjak wrote:
i’m gonna vote for this guy that lives in the dumpster at the end of my street. i think his name is joe[/quote]
If he wins he promises to have that dumpster bolted to the ground, because in his words " how would you like it if Waste Management came to your house twice a week at 5 in the morning and emptied out the contents?"
True.
How about TC for president–that would liven things up.
I’ve seen surprising results from both sides of the fence using this tool.
I’ll vote for Bush, albiet my disagreements with him on a number of issues, such as the aforementioned energy policy; however, I am glad to see that no one has mentioned the state of the economy, as that seems to be a political tool utilzed by the Kerry campaign to appeal to the sheeple out there who actualy think that the
President has substantial inluence on the state of the economy. Fiscal policy, ladies and gentleman, has negligible affects on the economy. Mr. “Fed” and his awesomely powerful arm that wields open market operations, which determine the target fed funds rate(the rate that financial institutions charge other F.I.s to borrow excess reserves), has the msot substantial influence. Kerry, in my opinion, is about as far left as a political candidate can get without trying to make his way out of Ted Kennedy’s butt. The distribution of money wealth or any steps taken to take us that much closer to a socialistic society is not on my list of Presidential characteristics.