Is it just me or are left wingist acting more out of control then usual of late? I mean..Those congress men that went to Iraq..I forget their names, Bonird and Mcdurment or something to that effect,going over to Bagdad and feeding them anti american propoganda..What on earth? Why didnt they just stay here and do that? I mean really,come on. And these are Senators! Not just some average joe (or should I say John Lindh?). Alot of people didnt agree with Clitons choices, but we didnt go on forgien soil and critize him! Sheesh. Another perfect example of how the left cant stand to be oposed.

And how about the wonderfully idiotic Barbra Streisand, or whatever her name is. 'Bush has lost touch with the common person' ?!?!?! Lemme ask you some thing Barbra, how many times have to been to Crawford, Texas? How many times have you set in pancake house and drank coffe with the farmers? It doesnt get more common then Crawford, Texas! Trust me, I dont live to far from there. And all that came from a liberal, calling Bush out of touch with the common person, from a liberal, thats amazing. After all, arent they the ones saying he is not smart enough to be president?

People like this really amazing, they really are. Do they actually think America would be as good as it is if they lived in the words they speak? They need a good wake up call I think.

And how about the man I love to hate, Al Gore. Where do you even begin with him? Or how about his buddy Bill Cliton.

Well I think I have vented out just about everything. Keep it friendly folks.

Erm, and you're point being? Are you just venting as much anger towards anyone with different opinions than you do in as few sentences as possible? You should start looking at things from a leftist perspective, then you'd agree that it's not just you who think that "the others" are out of character/line lately. Europe never had been this immigrant-unfriendly in many decades with their foreign policies, which is pretty much thanks to righties across Europe.
Doesn't mean I'm gonna yell how out of line they are; it just makes you realize that things aren't always going the way you hope they will. Opinions differ. Live with them and respect them, even if they're miles apart from your own opinions. Even if your favourite newspapers tell you how evil and out of line those acts/opinions are; it's probably the reason why you read those newspapers in the first place.

[ 10-03-2002, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

I love good pancakes especially with blueberry syrup! Good coffee is fantastic as well. :D

Er...So basicly what your saying is should look at the world with a left wing prespective so I can agree with you right?

Djinn: I hate pancakes :D and coffe for that mater :D

[ 10-03-2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

*sighs*
No! I don't want you to agree with my leftist opinions persé, I just want you to be more open-minded. If it was an "extreme" act of the righties, you won't admit they're out of line that easily as when it's about "extreme" acts of lefties (I'm using quotation marks, as we're not talking far extreme here, just things that piss the other side off...). That's basically my point. You don't have to agree with them in any way and I'm not asking you to either. But in this case, while "your side" is trying the craziest things to lobby for a War in Iraq (towards Europe, for instance), those who are opposed will try to lobby against one just the same. It's just two propaganda machines clashing, but it doesn't make one side more out of line than the other one...
In fact, you actually prove that point in your initial post. While you don't seem to be happy by the way people are attacking Bush, at the same time you can't help but criticize Gore and Clinton, even without telling exactly what they did wrong; just for good measure, so it seems. And you call Barbra Streisand "idiotic", because she had some criticism in Bush's direction... Then what is it exactly that makes you better and of a higher moral ground than someone who disagrees with the way Bush is dealing with things? You're doing the same thing, only in opposite direction... If someone says something about Bush you think is unfair, you criticize it. If someone else says something about Gore or Clinton others think is unfair, you most likely applaud it.

It's always been this way. If there's a Democrat President, the Republicans will be a little fiercer than usual; if there's a Republican President, the Democrats are the ones fiercer than normally. If the Democrats come up with something, the Republicans will most likely criticize it or the person who came up with it; and vice versa. But in the end they're all just trying to do whatever necessary to make their point of view "the right one", and the one of those who disagree the wrong one. Making their criticism sound "sound" and the criticism on them sound "ridiculous". Just propaganda...

[ 10-03-2002, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Wow, Iron Ranger. It's good to know there are still close-minded new-idea-hating blindly-following-the-status-quo right wing family value folks out there to keep us from evolving. :D And friendly?

The only thing I'll say on the Clinton/Gore comments is I'd let 'em back in for a third term if it would bring back the economy of the 90's. Are you watching the market lately? Bush's fault / not Bush's fault - whatever - I had more money when the fat pervert was in office than I do with the monkey in office.

Oh, and the Senators. Do you know that the MAJORITY of Rep. senators don't even own passports? That's embarrasing. Such astounding lack of travel among the affluents who run this Country shows a serious lack of cultural understanding. Remember what we learned about the U.S. historical isolationist view in the first half of this century? On the same note, you can't honestly understand any issue unless you view it, truly, from both sides.

This is why you *should*, just for shits and giggles, take Grojlach's advice and at least attempt seeing it his way. If I really don't like someone, I go read a book they've written so I understand them better. ;)

"Nothing Narrows the mind so wonderfully as foreign travel"
- Old WH40K rulebook (quoting more correctly the original citation)

<font color="plum">Well, I will back <font color="silver">Iron Ranger</font> up on his comments about Barbra Streisand. She has the same amount of perspective on the "common man" as I do on life in Hollywood.

If she wants to champion her cause, that's fine by me. But don't claim you're doing it for the "little people". According to the polls, the majority of the "little people" are perfectly happy with George W.

Personally, I'm still waiting for Alec Baldwin to make good on his promise to "move out of the country" if Bush became President...and waiting....and waiting........and waiting.....</font>

Maybe he could take Babs with him. I'll back Iron Ranger on those statements as well. The only thing I have ever likes Babs in was South Park's Sundance Film Festival episode. Of course I think that episode also had a long of Hanky in it so I would have especially liked it.
[img]graemlins/wizardtrouble.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/repuke.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

So would you lump Scott Ritter in there to? Since he had to go to Iraq to get his message out as well.

<font color = lightgreen>There are four reasons why the economy has stalled:
1) too many investors engaging in speculative behavior with stocks. This is just a nice way of saying gambling; when you gamble, you eventually lose.
2) too many companies pad 401(k) plans with company stock instead of money. When the stock take a hit, so do the 401(k)s, eroding retirement savings.
3) the economy had to have a natural stall after a period of growth. History proves this.
4) the accounting disasters such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco. To say that this is criminal is an understatement.
If you want to invest money in stocks, then statistics show that you must invest in 10 to 15 different industries to minimize risk. This is the power of diversification.
I can show you--or anyone--how to invest and make money regardless of whether the markets go up or down. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

The reason the Democrats are being so vocal lately is because elections are coming up. As the party out of power, they are supposed to criticize the Republicans so they can win elections and become the party in power. That is our system.

I agree with Cerek--I hardly think Barbara Streisand knows what it is like to be in touch with the common person. When was the last time she stopped in for a cheeseburger on her way to the WalMart? [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Azred-
First, I admit I'm going into an [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] excursus.
I'm no expert on this, believe me. But, I ask, why diversify when the market as a whole is tanking? Wouldn't that simply assure you that you get to rise and fall with the Dow (like my mutual funds are proving to do). Wouldn't you be better-served to watch individual stocks closely and pick them up a few at a time. Simply put, my understanding is that long-term market prospects are down, but daily fluctuation of the market and individual stocks is large enough to allow day-traders to still make a buck.

Again, I'm no expert. Don't have $$$ or time to try it this way, though I will take note of expected good stock picks in preparation for the (hopefully sooner rather than later) day I can play the game.

Wow, where to start on this one.

First off, I never said I hated new ideas. Your are sterotyping that because I am a conservitive that I am close minded. Tell me...Where was I talking about new ideas and being openminded? I was crtizing the radical left, thats all. And yes, I would critize the radical right if they did something incredible stupid. And Yes, believe it or not, people can carry on these conversations while being friendly.

Azred covered the encomy deal. And last, you dont know me personaly. So how can you say that I am close midned, open minded, how I should look at things, how I shouldnt, yadda yadda yadda. I do look at things from both sides usally, but most of the time I cant see any scence in most leftist views [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 10-03-2002, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

Well, I.R., I have to admit I was being rather polemico again. Plus, I was still on my first cup of coffee. Believe it or not I have been accused of being a staunch conservative myself - but my beliefs are mostly centralized around being a devil's advocate more than anything else. I guess I'm equally annoyed by the left and the right depending which issue we take up and discuss.

But, I haven't seen the left acting as out-of-control as in previous times. I think the left just go so quiet for a period after 9/11 - when there was nothing for anyone to do other that say "oh my god" in the wake of the shock - that it strikes us when the old disagreements start back up again. Enough time has passed that those opposed to the right won't hesitate to disagree, whereas within the first period of time after 9/11 any rebuff could have been viewed as anti-American. The polls have showed this as well. President Bush's approval rating reached what will likely be an all-time high shortly after the tragedy, and has gone more-or-less slowly down until now as the unity of the moment has worn off. It's still pretty high, but not above 80%.

No worrys [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course I will get hit with the 'Yes lets all blindy follow News polls', but I think Bushs approval rating is around 69% or so. Maybe 60% actaully.

i didn't read ver many replies. i just want to say we all have our opinions, and we all have the freedom to voice them. but if streisand opinion mattered she wouldn't be made fun of on south park.

I think the left and the right wings are out of their tree... but that is nothing new.

The elections coming up are making both sides pretty vocal, as Azred pointed out. Just like Bush spouted "middle of the road" promises until he got elected and then did what he saw fit. Both sides tend to go as moderate as possible to get elected and then do what their party tells them to.

I look at it this way - if we were all the same, and had the same ideas, we would have no way to grow or learn as people. It is the adversity and challenge of new ideas that makes us who we are. So watching the radicals on both sides can be a learning experience. At the very least, we can see what works and what doesn't. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The guys who created Southpark make fun of EVERYONE. :D

I think he said he'd move out if Bush got elected president. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

<font color = lightgreen>I agree, it seems like if you wait for a stock price to hit a bottom you can buy it, then sell when the daily fluctuation in the price goes up. However, this is what causes investors to "lose their shirt", because no one, not even "experts" who have been trading stocks for 30 years, can predict the market. This is because the market's nature is counter-intuitive.
I don't know if you remember the "crash" back in 1987, in which many people lost a lot of money, but if you compared the Dow average on 1 January 1987 versus 31 December 1987 the market actually gained about 2%. The long-term nature of the stock market is positive growth. A proper diversification means that you can take advantage of this growth, regardless of which way the day-to-day averages turn.
The way to succeed is to pick a dollar amount, say $100 per month, and invest that amount every month, especially if the market is going down. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] When the market is down your money buys more; when the market eventually rises your investment will skyrocket. Mathematically, I can prove that a stock price can fall 75% yet a monthly investor can turn a profit. You can't beat that with a stick! [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]
In short, pick a good mutual fund that is well-diversified and invest monthly.

This may have been really off-topic, but I can correct that. *ahem* The economy follows its own patterns and nature, regardless of which party is in power or the economic policies they institute. The Fed, which governs interest rates, have much more influence on the economy.

On to another of Iron Ranger's original topics: since Senators are in charge of American foreign policy, they should go to foreign countries more often to get a first-hand grasp of the situation. No, individual Senators do not have the authority to negotiate treaties, agreements, or accords, but more knowledge never hurt anyone. Were I a Senator, I would be travelling abroad as part of my responsibilities. Since I am over 30, perhaps I should run.... [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Is that true Cerek I hadn't heard that. I really hope it is true, and even better that he follows through with it.

Is that true Cerek I hadn't heard that. I really hope it is true, and even better that he follows through with it.</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah its true, he said he was going to moive to Canada if Bush got elected president. :rolleyes:

Heh, did anyone see him when we has hosting SNL and Al Gore came out there? ROFL