The Steamboat Pilot & Today: Discussion: What has 8 years of Bush gotten you?

housepoor (anonymous)
June 24, 2008 at 4:23 p.m.
› Suggest removal

$5 gas, $4 milk, your house is worth 20% less than it was 2 years ago(it's happening here in the as well) and 5 years in Iraq with 4000 Americans dead and 30,000 wounded..and still counting….remember him in his flight suit declare victory? unbelievable that we elected this buffoon twice!!!!

Matthew Stoddard
June 24, 2008 at 4:46 p.m.
› Suggest removal

How would electing Kerry in 2004 have changed anything? (Remember the pic of Kerry coming out of a space capsule, looking like Woody Allen as a sperm in “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask?”)

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/…

One embarrassment for another- it would have equaled out either way. Plus, ANY house is only truly worth what someone will pay for it, just like my comic book collection. I mean, under Bush's reign, the Pilot a few years ago had a section listing showing an 1100 sq. ft house on Oak or Pine built in 1908, on a minimal lot (.17 or .20 acre, if I remember correct) and listed it as a “starter home” for $600,000. I have no problem if that house is worth 20% less than that number, considering it's a few years since that listing and is probably “worth” $800,000 now, with probably no work done since.

justathought (anonymous)
June 25, 2008 at 9:45 a.m.
› Suggest removal

what are we so unhappy about?
A.. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?
B.. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?
F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G.. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J.. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.
K.. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
L.. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M.. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen.
cont….

justathought (anonymous)
June 25, 2008 at 9:45 a.m.
› Suggest removal

cont…

No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it……are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve,There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable' ' discharge after a few days in the brig.

SO housepoor, your actual b!tch would be????

Matthew Stoddard
June 25, 2008 at 10:59 a.m.
› Suggest removal

And to be fair:

A.. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?

This is also one of the problems driving oil prices so high. In a lot of instances, people KEEP those running 24hrs a day, unnecessarily. GOP isn't big on spreading the “conservation” part of Conservative.

B.. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

See “A” above.

C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

Just because unemployment is 5.5% (as of May 08) that doesn't mean the other 94.5% (not 95.4%) is all working. It might mean someone's benefits have dried up. In case you hadn't noticed, major corporations are dropping thousands of jobs a week over the past month. (Longer, actually. Google the numbers.)

D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

How was this different under Democrats? Irrelevant point.

E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

But you can't fly under those same conditions, and the GOP has put into place one of the most idiotic Terror Threat Levels anyone has ever seen. Since it's inception, when was the last time you remember it being below Yellow? What about the last time you flew and you left home it was Yellow, but get to the airport and all of a sudden, they are using Orange for what you can bring and can't?
This is also what has helped illegals- not enough accountability: a mainstay of the Conservative party. And most of those driving across country are driving vehicles that aren't the most economical, helping oil prices go up.

F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

Again- How was this different under Democrats? Irrelevant point. In fact, didn't OJ Simpson just break into a nice, safe hotel room with a bunch of gun-carrying yahoos? OJ Simpson…the Juice! Not Osama Bin Laden. I guess it doesn't count if you were already acquitted of a murder?

Matthew Stoddard
June 25, 2008 at 11:12 a.m.
› Suggest removal

cont'd

G.. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.

Again- How was this different under Democrats? Irrelevant point.

H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Again- How was this different under Democrats? Irrelevant point. (If you want to be truly technical, didn't a Democrat Sheriff here in Routt County want to put winches on the patrol vehicles to help out in instances you cite? Hey- you brought it up; not housepoor or me.)

I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.

And it now costs less than what you paid for it. How is that better than just owning a home? How does losing on an owned investment make a Pres better? (Renting takes care of the “roof over your head” argument.)

J.. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.

K.. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

Again- How were both J & K different under Democrats? Irrelevant point. Plus, the officer usually comes after the fact and takes a report of what happened, more often than not.

L.. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

There was 1 instance of a foreign attack on our soil under Clinton. The other was a what? An ex-military US military soldier. The USS Cole was out at sea in the Middle East (Middle East = Upheaval Central- are you surprised it was attacked?), so if you want to count that, you can count all the roadside bombings in Iraq since an end to major combat was declared by Bush in 2003, 6 weeks after the inital bombing of Iraq. In fact, most of our soldiers have been killed since major combat ended. How well does that convey “end to major combat?”

M.. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Again- How was this different under Democrats? Irrelevant point. In fact, some social & politcal freedoms are restriced thanks to the Patriot Act, instituted under Bush.

And as for the other stuff, Bush cut taxes AND went to war with a country that was further behind other countries such as North Korea or Iran in nuclear development, based on admitted bad intel (like that makes people feel better) in order to get us out of a recession. In order to cut taxes, he's also helped create the largest US debt in history.

justathought (anonymous)
June 25, 2008 at 2:11 p.m.
› Suggest removal

kielbasa, you made my point when you stated “Again- How was this different under Democrats?”, if nothing was different under democrats, why the hell is everyone trying to lay it all off on Bush? Many points I could argue with you but it's not worth the trouble, the truth in the following statement is really the bottom line…. Fact is, we ARE the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen.

grannyrett (anonymous)
June 25, 2008 at 7:56 p.m.
› Suggest removal

justathought—You are so, so right. You might add that after 9/11 President Bush brought pride back to this country. He said—NO MORE to attacks on this country and the people of this country.

dundalk (anonymous)
June 28, 2008 at 8:34 a.m.
› Suggest removal

what has 8 years of Bush given me? no terrorist attacks on u.s. soil since september 11th, 2001. i will take those benefits any day, and twice on Tuesdays.

BoatMaster (anonymous)
June 28, 2008 at 9:15 a.m.
› Suggest removal

Hi Dundalk

Here is what I got…. Rising oil prices,… increased foreign competition against my manufacturing business that hires Americans,…. Higher raw material prices that may put me out of business,…. family members out of a job,…. airline tickets skyrocketing,…. a HUGE bill for a war that is not needed that myself and generations after will have to pay for…. and Nancy Stahoviak re striping roads at her whim. !!

As far as no terrorists attacks on U. S. soil, I am happy about that, but I am positive this would have happened with any U. S. President

knee_dropper (anonymous)
June 28, 2008 at 9:26 a.m.
› Suggest removal

The world loves the US and disdains it's citizens!? Is this bizarro world?. Last I heard, most of our strongest traditional allies have been steadily leaving our side, how many in the “coalition of the willing” do we have left fighting by our side in Iraq? Of those allies that are still there what are their contributions, bet they are not surging their troop levels. We haven't been attacked on our own soil since 9/11; well, our misbegotten war is the best recruiting tool in the Mid-East Osama could have ever wished for. Speaking of Osama, why haven't we caught the number one person of interest behind 9/11? If we hadn't diverted resources from Afghanistan maybe we could have actually done a good job of cleaning out the insurgency there. The Taliban is resurgent and we aren't putting the necessary resources there to uproot it and get the Afghan army trained. Our commander in chief has bungled the job of capturing or killing Osama, strained our relationships with our best allies and squandered the good-will we had after 9/11, continual fear mongering and threats, and budgets/tax cuts that took us from actually having a budget surplus (under a democratic president, imagine that!) to record deficits. That's what I see that buffoon having gotten us. I'm not looking for a commander in chief to kiss my behind, just one that will do a good job of running this country.

grannyrett (anonymous)
June 28, 2008 at 7:28 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Well, Obama sure won't kiss your behind. He'll just tax you into the poor house. But don't worry, cause he'll nationalize everything so you'll qualify for all the welfare programs. That way, you won't have to work anymore for anything.

dundalk (anonymous)
June 29, 2008 at 8:22 a.m.
› Suggest removal

Hi BoatMaster and Good Morning to you!

Any U.S. president hasn't kept terrorists off U.S. soil. If you recall, Clinton had a hell of a time keeping terrorists out of the World Trade towers during his tenure in office.

I will concur that prices are going crazy, ($252. at the grocery store on Friday and not much in my shopping cart to show for it) but I am not willing to concede that its all George Bush's fault.

have a nice day.

BoatMaster (anonymous)
June 29, 2008 at 9:26 a.m.
› Suggest removal

Dundalk

Seems President Bush also had a little problem keeping terrorists away from the World Trade Towers.

dundalk (anonymous)
June 29, 2008 at 9:31 a.m.
› Suggest removal

Touche, Touche… ;)

spukomy (anonymous)
July 6, 2008 at 1:30 a.m.
› Suggest removal

There's no way I'd feel safer if Obummer is elected.

id04sp (anonymous)
July 8, 2008 at 11:12 a.m.
› Suggest removal

The current high energy prices are a direct result of environmental restrictions AND dependence upon the “good will” of sister nations to trade freely and fairly.

Obama wants to continue this policy. Say hello to $10.00 gasoline in the summer of 2009 if he gets elected. It may not make a difference even if McCain is elected, but at least McCain won't waste time with diplomacy when Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz. They think God is on their side, and if we cave, it will only cost us more in the long run.

The Western Nations, Russia, Japan, China, India, etc., should all meet with the Pope at The Vatican and let him divide up the Middle East among us as the Pope did with the New World after Columbus discovered America. Then, we should each go in, take our pieces of the pie and the oil, and treat the Arabs the way we treated Native Americans if that's what it takes to have global peace.

By the way, the Muslims have already decided to conquer and carve up the rest of the world for their God-given purposes, so it's only fair for us to do unto them before they do unto us.

grannyrett (anonymous)
July 8, 2008 at 2:10 p.m.
› Suggest removal

All this “stuff” started after the democrats gained control of the house and senate. Where are their “cures” for all?

knee_dropper (anonymous)
July 8, 2008 at 10:16 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Id, energy prices reflect what the seller can get their product for. In a way that will maximize profits for them, do you expect them to give us the oil like we owe them something? Maybe instead of being slaves to oil, we should be using our greatest national resource, our ingenuity and ability to adapt to find a substitute. Europe already had the mid-East divided up a century ago and that didn't work and our current occupation of a fraction of it isn't either

grannyrett (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.
› Suggest removal

knee_dropper—Green energy is a wonderful thing, but while we are developing it, we need oil. It isn't like we can just stop depending on it tomorrow. We need to work on both fronts together.

knee_dropper (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 11:42 a.m.
› Suggest removal

I didn't say that we should abandon oil altogether, but we need to drastically cut our reliance on the mid-East for oil as soon as possible. Id's idea is to have the pope split up the mid-East among the world's powers, which falls right into line with the rest of his 18th century thinking. If we invested a fraction of what's being spent on the war in Iraq since it started, we'd probably be well on our way to energy independence.

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 12:13 p.m.
› Suggest removal

knee_dropper:

Less than 20% of what we import comes from the middle East. That hardly constitutes “reliance.”

Most of our imported crude comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, in that order.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the US will be at least 85% dependent on fossil fuel for its energy needs 50 years from now. We are decades away from being able to sever our umbilical to petroleum. In the interim, demand (primarily due to China & India) for crude is skyrocketing, while the supply remains static. Until supply is addressed, prices will continue to climb. Anyone opposed to developing our own resources has no business complaining about gas prices.

You write:

“If we invested a fraction of what's being spent on the war in Iraq since it started, we'd probably be well on our way to energy independence.”

Invested in what? The Republicans tried to ramp up domestic drilling (ANWR & offshore) 12 years ago, and were vetoed by President Clinton. One of the Democrat arguments was 'Hell, it'll take 5-10 years before we see any benefit. Better to encourage conservation & raise gas taxes to discourage consumption.'

How's that working out for you? If you add the mean estimates of what's in ANWR & offshore to our own proven reserves, we have more than the proven supply of Iraq. Do you think it's good or bad that we remain shut off from those resources?

You claim that “we'd probably be well on our way to energy independence” if only we hadn't taken on Afghanistan & Iraq.

A bold statment. I'd love to see you substantiate it.

BoatMaster (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 12:26 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Hi Jazzslave

You have a valid point in that you must “specify” what the money is to be spent on to become energy independant.

But I believe you are incorrect in saying we are not dependant on Middle East Oil. We are!.. no mater what the amounts we consume are.

knee_dropper (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 1:39 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Jazz, never said Afghanistan & Iraq, just Iraq. How much have we spent in Iraq, over 535,000,000,000 dollars. You chose to seize on one part of my statement and apparently chose to ignore to the post that I was referring to. Do you believe that the pope should divy up the mid-East among the world powers? That would go a ways to our supply issues, just like the war was supposed to pay for itself with Iraqi oil money. All I was trying to state is that money could have been spent in a much more constructive way that would benefit this country; or even better, if it hadn't been added to our national debt. Even if the mid-East supplies less than 20% of our oil, where is that going to be replaced if the tap gets turned off? As far as high fuel prices now go, I'm laughing my ass off at all those soccer moms still driving their H2s & Excursions; the faster they use it up, the sooner we have to move on.

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 2:03 p.m.
› Suggest removal

knee_dropper:

If you think id04sp is serious about the pope carving up the Middle East, then you're obviously unfamiliar with the expression “tongue in cheek.”

If you think we're so close to being able to jettison an oil-based economy that our involvement in Iraq is the only obstacle, then it's impossible to take you seriously.

knee_dropper (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 2:08 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Did I say that Iraq was the only obstacle? …Or an incredible waste of money that could have been put to more constructive uses.

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 2:55 p.m.
› Suggest removal

So spell it out - If we allocate our $ in precisely the manner you believe to be prudent, how close are we to becoming self sufficient? Does self-sufficiency=walking away from the Saudis alone, or from all foreign imports?

Whichever it is, how do you propose we get there? Do your strategies include developing our own resources (ANWR, offshore, shale)? How do you feel about McCain's proposal to build 40+ new nuclear plants in 20 years?

So far, you've offered vague generalities: If not for reckless spending in other areas, we'd be so much closer to energy independence. How much closer? What's the timetable? Where else should those dollars have been spent?

Be specific about what the plan is.

Here's an interesting notion: Newt Gingrich & Terry Maple have proposed a market based initiative - a partnership between government and the private sector. A combination of aggressive tax incentives and public & private awards (as opposed to taxes, regulation, & govt bureauacracy) to stimulate the kinds of new technologies necessary to make the transformation everyone says we need. A $1 billion prize, for example, would be one heck of an incentive.

That's the most interesting proposal I've heard from anyone. If the Uber Socialist (Obama) has anything to offer beyond rhetoric & tax hikes, I'm all ears.

In the meantime, drill, drill, drill!

knee_dropper (anonymous)
July 9, 2008 at 4:13 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Jazz:
Well for starters, I'd like to see our universities receive more government funding. Colorado State is currently working with Solix Biofuel to produce bio-diesel from algae. There's a multitude of other research projects like this going on right now that could use funding. As it is Colorado has the lowest rate of higher education funding in the union. I'd like to see tax breaks for infrastructure to generate (wind, solar, geothermal) and transmit power in this country. Nuclear fusion is another area of research that I think has potential in the future. Unless we can figure out where to permanently store the nuclear waste we already have, I'd be a little hesitant to add another 40 to the 100+ nuclear (fission) reactors we have operating. If the government can get Yucca to finally start accepting the waste, yes, by all means lets start building more nuclear power plants. However, I am firmly against drilling in ANWR. The oil in ANWR would meet about 3% of our needs, drilling in that area for 3% of our oil consumption needs is too shortsighted. I don't know enough about the off-shore drilling moratorium to have a position on that. We aren't going to be able to drill our way out of the oil demand that we have right now and I think that the current oil prices are good for one thing; it's actually starting to impact the American families driving habits. High oil prices have been a long time coming and it's not going to go down, so it's time to move on. Now that oil is at the price it is the financial incentives should be there to make it feasible. The sooner we get our national interests out of the middle East, the better; let the Chinese get their hands dirty trying to keep that area stable. I don't claim to be an expert, but those are some things that I would like to see advanced in our domestic policy. Sorry, Jazz, I don't have any time tables, how about this, once we're self-sufficient then we can leave Iraq. Should be sometime in the next 100 years according to McCain.