The Election/Next Four Years

[Guest Midnight Rush]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Kerry today proved himself to be a bigger man than the entire democratic party in '00 put together.

Midnight Rush, just shut up. If you want to act like this, don't do it in the name of our party, which is so much better than you're acting.[/QUOTE]

Goto hell I'm done with this place. All of you are idiots.

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Yes. That was an excellent speech, and demonstrated just how different Kerry is from Gore (whose "concession" speech was plagued by a sort of snide bitterness). I admire him for showing optimism about America's future under President Bush (even if I can't bring myself to feel the same way), and for admitting defeat without any waffling whatsoever.

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]I was actually kind of sad when he gave that speech, near the end when he got kind of choked up it showed me just how good a man he was. I think that Bush's main task in America will be to reunite it's people after this election, considering it was one of the most harshly contested in American history. Kerry's speech about optimism should help the healing begin, though I wouldn't rule him out as making another try for the White House in four years. Perhaps we may just see a President Kerry in 2008.[/SIZE]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Actually I think we're far more likely to see a President Clinton in 2008 (hint: not Bill).

Anyway as someone who voted Bush in Ohio, I'm glad things turned out the way they did, heh.

I am not sure why people are so concerned that the U.S. is "torn apart" due to such strong bi-partisanship. I think it will die down soon enough, since so much of it was fueled by the extremely aggressive, bitter campaigning. I've never seen so much mudslinging before as went on during the last couple of months, from both parties (but more so from the Democrats; I usually vote Dem but this time they were just shameful). Anyway, as torn apart as the U.S. is by some current issues, you have to keep in mind that we're still all aiming for the same goals as far as security goes and as far as economy goes. (Religious issues, well, that's nothing new and it'll never change.) Some people think they can do it better than others, is all. Dems might "hate" Reps and vice versa, but if **** ever hit the fan again (like 9/11), we'd all be united. Just like everyone was back then.

Anyway, let's hope that Bush's administration doesn't end up screwing up more than I expected Kerry's to, heh....

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Actually I think we're far more likely to see a President Clinton in 2008 (hint: not Bill).[/quote]
Given the choice between Hillary or Chelsea, I'd go with Chelsea. Easier on the eyes, you know.

[quote]I am not sure why people are so concerned that the U.S. is "torn apart" due to such strong bi-partisanship. I think it will die down soon enough, since so much of it was fueled by the extremely aggressive, bitter campaigning.[/quote]
Actually, it looks like there's more to it than simple mud-slinging. Those who are unhappy with Bush's handling of various issues now are most likely going to become even more unhappy, considering that Bush preached the horrors of "flip-flopping."

[list]
[*]He doesn't seem too keen on the idea of repealing NCLB (A project that is so flawed it blows my mind.)
[*]We know that Bush isn't going to budge an Ideological inch in the War on Terror (This is fairly clear. He's said we're winning the war, so why change what we're doing?)
[*]With the Chief Justices resigning, it can be said with fair certainty that Bush is going to appoint Justices that are in line with his Ideological stance on things like Abortion (And we all know what Bush's stance on Abortion is, and we all know who is going to get pissed about that)
[*]Bush certainly isn't going to budge on Gay Marriage, so people are going to continue to be unhappy about that.
[*]Bush's take on job recovery isn't the best thing around, because...let's face it. Improving high school education isn't going to help the 40-year-old IT programmers who are losing their jobs to overseas programmers who are working for half the salary.
[*]Gas prices since the War started have skyrocketed, and if this trend is accurate, a prolonged conflict in Iraq, and later, whatever other nations are deemed threats and we invade (the likelihood of which seems to be increasing exponentially these days), will further drive prices up, or at the very least, prevent a price drop.
[*]Like gas prices, tuition prices have been steadily increasing, and it appears that nothing is being done to assist college students in their finances. The only reason I'm still able to afford school is because my Student Loan magically took care of the entire amount of the tuition increase after McGreevey cut funding.
Now, yes, this was McGreevey's fault, and he was acting in response to previous fiscal irresponsibility, but if tuition continues to rise (which it has been, regardless of McGreevey's major snafu), the college student will find his or herself struggling to keep up with the finances of college life. Combine this with the general loss of job opportunities, and you've got the future leaders of America struggling to get a college education. I shouldn't have to say it, but that's not a good idea.
[*]With Bush in office for four more years, that means another four years of Michael Moore, and we all know what Moore does: piss people off or lead them around.
[/list]

Obviously, that's just going off the top of my head, but they're major issues that are going to have a significant impact on the progression of America in the next four years.

[QUOTE]I've never seen so much mudslinging before as went on during the last couple of months, from both parties (but more so from the Democrats; I usually vote Dem but this time they were just shameful).[/QUOTE]
Again, though, I don't think either party is more at fault than the other. Just watching Fox (The Simpsons re-runs, specifically) between 6 and 7 pm, you see roughly the same amount of negative mudslinging sponsored by both parties.

I think the Veteran Swiftboat ads are something to be considered when discussing the mudslinging and propaganda, as well, because while not directly Republican-endorsed, it took major Republican leaders a while to denounce those ads, and I think that's a major point here concerning the role of media in politics.

No side is more innocent than the other when it comes down to elections.

[QUOTE]Anyway, as torn apart as the U.S. is by some current issues, you have to keep in mind that we're still all aiming for the same goals as far as security goes and as far as economy goes. (Religious issues, well, that's nothing new and it'll never change.) Some people think they can do it better than others, is all.[/QUOTE]
Same goals, somewhat. While we may all want the same thing (though, what I've listed doesn't really support that), priorities need to be re-checked. I've said it before and I'll say it again. With American Domestic issues damn near failing, with minimalist effort to fix those problems...if we don't fix them, there won't be any America left to protect.

[QUOTE]Dems might "hate" Reps and vice versa, but if **** ever hit the fan again (like 9/11), we'd all be united. Just like everyone was back then.[/QUOTE]
There shouldn't have to be a 9/11 for that to happen, though. The solution is simple: everyone needs to cut out the virulent partisan bullsh-t.

[quote]Anyway, let's hope that Bush's administration doesn't end up screwing up more than I expected Kerry's to, heh....[/QUOTE]
Depending on what you wanted Bush to do (i.e., fix Education, do something worthwhile to improve the economy, etc) your take on the job he's done will obviously be different, but he isn't improving Education. That much is clear, and IT jobs are still being lost, so I'm not sure what improvement is there.

We've got people living in slums in just about every major metropolitan area, with nothing Governmental being done to help them, it seems. It's all falling in the hands of...The Red Cross? Volunteers? Noble, definitely, but not enough.

Our nation is at a very weird place right now, and that weirdness isn't a good weird, either.

For key domestic issues, certainly, Bush is screwing things up in a major way. Internationally, it's eh. It's really become a quagmire of bizarre militaristic procedures.

[dposse]

I was going to make a thread about this, but i thought it was wise to put it here.

Here is my very angry rant on the election:



Ladies and gentleman, Our country is doomed.

John Kerry, after a very close election, has concided to George W. Bush. This has intensified my hate and anger for President Bush.

I dont think our country can survive another 4 years under Bush. Our Ecomony, the war, Gay marriage.....All this is going to go down the drain because of Bush. The President has done a good job protecting us after 9/11. That i will admit. But, his mind is so focused on Iraq and its people that he forgets our own needs. Gas prices have hit record highs, and it will go much higher. People have lost jobs. The President is planning to change the consistution to ban Gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with Homosexuals, and he is using his religious views to justify it. The President wears his religion like a badge, and religon should NEVER be a part of politics. I wonder if VP Cheneys daughter agrees with that. Will our Soliders get out of Iraq anytime soon? I doubt it. The President has pushed all our allies away and went alone with just a few countrys helping us. Is that right? I dont think so. Our country is now going to be ruled by the repulicans. The repulicans are not outnumbering the democrats in both the house and the senate. The United States could never be more divided than it is right now.

And after all this, my one hope is that i will be able to get a job next year. That doesnt seem very possible right now, does it?

[Harry]

[QUOTE=Siren]Dearest Harry, I'm going to assume you're trying to be sarcastic here, as that's what you do: try to be sarcastic. But for the sake of argument, I'll treat your points as having some sort of serious and substantial basis for discussion.

Considering it's been hailed as one of the most important elections held in the past Century, yes, I think it has some major significance in both the immediate future and in the distant future.[/QUOTE]
Dearest Siren, It appears I misinterpretted what you were saying (and looking back I don't know what I was thinking) and I agree with a few of your points. I still don't think this election is world turning events just yet though. Time will tell though.

[Meggido]

I live in Australia so the US election isn't supposed to effect me directly, but I found myself at 1:00 in the afternoon watching the progress of the election. I've got to ask, how can you (as a country) possibly vote for Bush? The man can't even string a proper sentence together without changing the entire meaning. Here are some examples:

Bush - "The terrorists do not stop coming up with ways to hurt our country and neither do we" - talking about the problem with terrorists he makes it sound like your entire country is doing the same job.

and Bush - "We will not have an all volunteer army." - This was Bush trying to say conscription will not be introduced with the war in Iraq.

Now what I'm saying is I still haven't heard who has won, but here in Australia because people were stupid enough to vote Howard back in (not me I voted for Latham), if Bush gets in again it will be another three years at least of saying yes Prime Minister Bush. This is because Howard has his head so far up Bush's backside that we don't get a say.

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] Well, I'm glad that Bush talked directly to all the people who voted for Kerry and his hopes to unify the nation, although I'm still riled up over his win. And I love Kerry even more for that speech. :)

All day today I've been going over the pros of Bush and decided not to bash him at all at school or anywhere. He is right about one thing, if we want a unifed nation we're going to have to cooperate.[/color]

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] Ok, so I've (partially) gotten over the fact that Bush has won, but now I'm wondering how the next four years will be like.

I'm wondering how Bush is going to deal with 'unifying the country', and how things in Iraq with progress. I haven't really been keeping up with what's going on in Iraq, and all I really know if that the elections there are being held in January. And I'm still wondering what the Bush administration will do with North Korea, for that matter.

And of course the economy is always at the top of my list. I know the president doesn't have a large impact, but I wonder what direction it will go in the coming years.

Comments?[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]I just wanted to let you know that I've merged these threads, as they are directly related. I recommend using this thread for this particular topic.

Anyway, my opinion is that things will reach their logical conclusion. Iraq was never going to be easy and it will continue to be difficult. However, elections [i]are[/i] going to be held soon and that should allow Iraq to really begin the process of having a legitimate government (and moving ahead with its various important functions, particularly in terms of building up a military).

On other issues, we aren't going to see many changes I think. I mean, no radical departures or anything. In foreign policy, that's not such a bad thing; no doubt that things have been tough, but in general things are going in the right direction for the long term. Afterall, people forget that the allies were occupying Japan for ten years until that country got back on its feet.

Anyway, my main hope is that European leaders actually start to concede their positions in some areas. I think that Europe has an important role to play, but many countries in Europe (most noteably France) have been very duplicitous during the last few years. It would actually help them to try to unify the two continents, if only because any further divisions simply aren't going to help their own cause.

As far as North Korea goes, I am always keenly watching that situation. The two Koreas are a part of my local neighbourhood, so I think everyone in this region especially has a very strong interest in how that goes.

My feeling is that the situation will eventually be resolved. I strongly doubt that North Korea is going to attack anyone, for various reasons. Their interest isn't to physically dominate, but to intimidate and aim to get the best deal that they can. Other countries need to meet that with a sense of reservation more than anything I think.

In my view, the biggest threat in Asia is both regional terrorism (particularly the kind coming from Indonesia), as well as the situation between China and Taiwan, which has potentially devistating consequences if something goes wrong there.[/color]

[sakura18]

Hmmm? I don't think anything's gonna change. Chances are, if Bush acts like he did the last 4 years, everything's basically gonna be the same. ....at least that's what I think ^-^'

[SaiyanPrincessX]

After a 45 minute wait in line I voted, first time, for Bush.

I didn't really know much about a lot of other issues in my community. ^_^;

Voted no for Gay marriages. I don't have a problem with homosexuals in general, but I am opposed to the idea of allowing them to marry because I believe in what the original morals were based on, a woman and a man.

I didn't stay up to watch the election. I waited untill today to see the results. I'm not really a political person.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[COLOR=Indigo]Some things I'd like to touch on, just for conversaiton's sake. [/COLOR]

[list]
[*]He doesn't seem too keen on the idea of repealing NCLB (A project that is so flawed it blows my mind.)

[COLOR=Indigo]
No he doesn't. I would have marked this up as a big strike against Bush and a tally for Kerry except for the fact that Kerry not only supported the bill, but he stated that the only flaw with it was that it was under funded.
[/COLOR]


[*]We know that Bush isn't going to budge an Ideological inch in the War on Terror (This is fairly clear. He's said we're winning the war, so why change what we're doing?)

[COLOR=Indigo]We are winning the war on terror,that is fairly obvious since we haven't been attaked again. We are fighting an uphill battle in the War in Iraq (which is probably what you meant) and I don't think Bush should waiver from his belief in the war. I am not going to get locked into yet another debate on whether or not the war in Iraq was right or wrong, it is too cylical and people tend to only read what they want. My problem with the war is that aspects have been handled poorly, hopefully Bush finally realizes that.[/COLOR]


[*]With the Chief Justices resigning, it can be said with fair certainty that Bush is going to appoint Justices that are in line with his Ideological stance on things like Abortion (And we all know what Bush's stance on Abortion is, and we all know who is going to get pissed about that)

[COLOR=Indigo]I agree. My biggest fear was that we would have an even more conservative Senate and House than we did yesterday...and we do. Hopefully there will be enough people to sit on the vote if Bush nominates someone that is too conservative.[/COLOR]


[*]Bush certainly isn't going to budge on Gay Marriage, so people are going to continue to be unhappy about that.

[COLOR=Indigo]No, and that sucks, but Kerry didn't support it either. Obviously neither did the majority of Americans, since nearly all of the "Sanctity of Marriage" laws passed in individual states last night. I do think that is something that will change over time though.[/COLOR]


[*]Bush's take on job recovery isn't the best thing around, because...let's face it. Improving high school education isn't going to help the 40-year-old IT programmers who are losing their jobs to overseas programmers who are working for half the salary.

[COLOR=Indigo]Bush's economic plans are actually pretty good, as many economic professors will grudgingly admit. The out sourcing of jobs is a big problem, but ninety percent of the jobs that have been out sourced aren't IT jobs, they are manufacturing jobs. Most of the time companies are forced to out source because overhead is too high and Unions refuse to bend their policies.

I'll agree with you that Bush is encouraging the outsourcing of jobs by encouraging global trade on a nearly free basis. But, if you go back to the 1920's you will see that free trade always, without fail, encourages more business endeavors and creates more jobs in the long run. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton utilized similar tactics and our economy flourished under them.

I could delve into it more but I copied this to my phone to finish and my thumbs are getting sore.[/COLOR]



[*]Gas prices since the War started have skyrocketed, and if this trend is accurate, a prolonged conflict in Iraq, and later, whatever other nations are deemed threats and we invade (the likelihood of which seems to be increasing exponentially these days), will further drive prices up, or at the very least, prevent a price drop.

[COLOR=Indigo]Probably. Gas prices should be as high as they are if only to encourage car pooling and public transportation, heh. Compared to other countries our gas prices are still astronomically low. America really needs to put even more funding into finding an alternate fuel resource.
[/COLOR]


[*]Like gas prices, tuition prices have been steadily increasing, and it appears that nothing is being done to assist college students in their finances. The only reason I'm still able to afford school is because my Student Loan magically took care of the entire amount of the tuition increase after McGreevey cut funding.
Now, yes, this was McGreevey's fault, and he was acting in response to previous fiscal irresponsibility, but if tuition continues to rise (which it has been, regardless of McGreevey's major snafu), the college student will find his or herself struggling to keep up with the finances of college life. Combine this with the general loss of job opportunities, and you've got the future leaders of America struggling to get a college education. I shouldn't have to say it, but that's not a good idea.

[COLOR=Indigo]I agree that college is getting more expensive, especially if you live in the North East. But this really is a state issue, not a federal issue. Take Georgia, for example. If you do well in high school the state makes sure you can go to college, all you have to do is keep up your grades. [/COLOR]


[*]With Bush in office for four more years, that means another four years of Michael Moore, and we all know what Moore does: piss people off or lead them around.

&

[*]There shouldn't have to be a 9/11 for that to happen, though. The solution is simple: everyone needs to cut out the virulent partisan bullsh-t.

[COLOR=Indigo]Amen[/COLOR]
[/list]

[Japan]

[QUOTE=Ugamon]*Sigh*

I wonder how long till he starts drafting us.. cuz personally I wouldn't last a week in a army camp.. but somehow i ain't surprised that Bush won... I personally think the system is somewhat rigged. Kinda like last time where some of the vote "didn't get counted"

All you peeps out there prepare for the ugly Bush wars...[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Navy]Didn't you listen at all to the debates? Bush said himself that there is going to be no draft. PERIOD. It was just a scare tactic the democrats used to have people not want to vote for Bush. Privitizing social secuirity was another scare tactic for the senior citizens.

As for me, I voted for Bush. I am glad I did, and I am glad he won. I am also happy that Cathy McMorris(R) won over Don Barbieri(D) for the seat in the House of Representives for the East side of Washington state.


What is so ugly about the war? I have friends fighting over there, and they like what they do.

One of the reasons why the the system was messed up in 2000 was because there were people being handed cigarettes and drugs for free if they voted for Al Gore.

Even in this election, officials found voter registration cards under the name of "Marry Poppins." and "Donald Duck." Now I call that 'rigged.' I am glad that they caught that and got rid of them.[/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] What is ugly about the war? War is war. Even if the soldiers are happy to be protecting their country, it doesn't mean it's ok that thousands of soldiers have died, leaving families devasted.

But anyways, since 'Next Four Years' has been added on to the topic, I wonder what Bush will do when it comes to North Korea. I know Iraq is our main concern, but I think a country that's building a bunch of nukes should be a concern as well. And then the federal deficit...Bush's numbers especially never added up.

But nonetheless...I'm most concerned about jobs for young people. Like...fresh out of college people and then people in college. Kerry said he would work on those two problems (the money-wise problems for people in college), which is one reason I liked him since my sister is in college and she goes to NYU...the freaking motherload of big college tuitions.

I'm not even going to bat an eye for the issue on gay marriage. Chances are it will become legalized sooner or later. All civil rights movements have taken some time and lots of fights.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo]Some things I'd like to touch on, just for conversaiton's sake.[/color'][color=black][/quote][/color]

Sure thing.

[list]
[*]He doesn't seem too keen on the idea of repealing NCLB (A project that is so flawed it blows my mind.)
[color=indigo]
No he doesn't. I would have marked this up as a big strike against Bush and a tally for Kerry except for the fact that Kerry not only supported the bill, but he stated that the only flaw with it was that it was under funded. [/color]
[/list][color=indigo][indent][color=black]Fair enough, but my point here was more that Kerry would certainly be more receptive to the idea of revamping NCLB than Bush if the inherent flaws in the fundamental design of the proposal/legislation were brought to his attention.[/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=black]I'm of the opinion that because Bush signed the bill into law, and has been supporting it so adamantly (digging himself in too deep, essentially), when clearly, it's a piece of sh-t, engaging him to seriously revamp NCLB--essentially re-building it from the ground up--would be exceedingly difficult, because...he is so concerned with "flip-flopping," and his image.[/color]
[/indent][/color]
[list]
[*]We know that Bush isn't going to budge an Ideological inch in the War on Terror (This is fairly clear. He's said we're winning the war, so why change what we're doing?)

[color=indigo]We are winning the war on terror,that is fairly obvious since we haven't been attaked again. We are fighting an uphill battle in the War in Iraq (which is probably what you meant) and I don't think Bush should waiver from his belief in the war. I am not going to get locked into yet another debate on whether or not the war in Iraq was right or wrong, it is too cylical and people tend to only read what they want. My problem with the war is that aspects have been handled poorly, hopefully Bush finally realizes that.[/color]
[/list][indent][color=black]I don't necessarily view a victorious campaign in the War on Terror as negating attacks. While it's certainly a positive result (I don't know who would disagree with that, heh), the fact that our involvement in various Middle Eastern nations may very well be contributing to an increase in the recruitment probabilities/rates of various terrorist cells/organizations like Al Qaida and groups like Hamas, or even those sympathetic to the Islamic Jihad's cause, gives the impression that the War on Terror is not as successful as we think, even though there hasn't been any [i]direct[/i] attack on America in the past four years, even though various Embassies and ground forces are constantly coming under fire, bombings, etc.[/color]

On the surface, yes, there haven't been any new attacks on a major, national level, but there are still countless sleeper cells throughout the world, the locations of many of them still unknown, and rather common smaller attacks on a more individual/small group/personal level, if that makes sense.

I too don't want to get drawn into some huge debate about right/wrong in war, and I have a feeling you and I would agree on many of those points anyway. I've accepted the necessity of war, and granted, there always will be war as long as there are humans, but like you said, there's a right way and a wrong way to handle war, and it's safe to say there have been some pretty major SNAFUs concerning this war in particular.

It seems to me that the likelihood of Bush admitting a mistake in his handling of the war is very unlikely (the image and "mixed messages" again being a factor here), and more and more, Kerry's statement that Bush/Cheney will be giving us more of the same is sounding accurate.
[/indent]
[list]
[*]With the Chief Justices resigning, it can be said with fair certainty that Bush is going to appoint Justices that are in line with his Ideological stance on things like Abortion (And we all know what Bush's stance on Abortion is, and we all know who is going to get pissed about that)

[color=indigo]I agree. My biggest fear was that we would have an even more conservative Senate and House than we did yesterday...and we do. Hopefully there will be enough people to sit on the vote if Bush nominates someone that is too conservative.[/color]
[/list][indent][color=black]I'm not sure what the House and/or Senate vote ratio would need to be to counter the Presidental nominations, but let's hope with the GOP-dominated House and Senate, that there are still enough Dems in there.[/color]

[/indent]
[list]
[*]Bush certainly isn't going to budge on Gay Marriage, so people are going to continue to be unhappy about that.

[color=indigo]No, and that sucks, but Kerry didn't support it either. Obviously neither did the majority of Americans, since nearly all of the "Sanctity of Marriage" laws passed in individual states last night. I do think that is something that will change over time though.[/color]
[/list][indent][color=black]I'm seeing those results of the individual states, and I'm also noticing a trend, as well. The majority of those states that voted to ban Gay Marriage also went to President Bush in the election. Looks like a Republican state to begin with, and oddly enough, I'm not seeing the Sanctity of Marriage ballot options offered in every state, especially none in the upper NE or NW, which went to Kerry.[/color]

[/indent]
[list]
[*]Bush's take on job recovery isn't the best thing around, because...let's face it. Improving high school education isn't going to help the 40-year-old IT programmers who are losing their jobs to overseas programmers who are working for half the salary.

[color=indigo]Bush's economic plans are actually pretty good, as many economic professors will grudgingly admit. The out sourcing of jobs is a big problem, but ninety percent of the jobs that have been out sourced aren't IT jobs, they are manufacturing jobs. Most of the time companies are forced to out source because overhead is too high and Unions refuse to bend their policies.

I'll agree with you that Bush is encouraging the outsourcing of jobs by encouraging global trade on a nearly free basis. But, if you go back to the 1920's you will see that free trade always, without fail, encourages more business endeavors and creates more jobs in the long run. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton utilized similar tactics and our economy flourished under them.

I could delve into it more but I copied this to my phone to finish and my thumbs are getting sore.[/color]
[/list][indent][color=black]My point in mentioning IT jobs was that during the debates, Bush had emphasized "improving" education in order to better prepare Americans for jobs in the 21st Century, and while manufacturing jobs are certainly going to be prevalent in the upcoming decades, IT will probably go through a major boom again, in keeping with the economic cycles we've seen over the past few decades.[/color]

I think one of the main reasons that companies outsource is because it's cheaper, salary-wise, too, and that's a big problem. Cheaper labor equals more cost effective production, regardless of what is being produced, and it's hurting the economy, and something needs to be done. Whether it's providing incentive bonuses to companies who hire within America, or even simply establishing some guidelines concerning the global trade agreements...[i]something[/i].

Please do add to it, too.
[/indent]
[list]
[*]Gas prices since the War started have skyrocketed, and if this trend is accurate, a prolonged conflict in Iraq, and later, whatever other nations are deemed threats and we invade (the likelihood of which seems to be increasing exponentially these days), will further drive prices up, or at the very least, prevent a price drop.

[color=indigo]Probably. Gas prices should be as high as they are if only to encourage car pooling and public transportation, heh. Compared to other countries our gas prices are still astronomically low. America really needs to put even more funding into finding an alternate fuel resource.[/color]
[/list][indent][color=black]In the world economy, we're doing good, but in national elections, other countries aren't electing our officials. We are. Even though we're doing better than other nations, paying upwards of 2.15 per gallon of regular is hurting [i]us[/i], regardless of what nations we're comparing ourselves to.[/color]

[/indent]
[list]
[*]Like gas prices, tuition prices have been steadily increasing, and it appears that nothing is being done to assist college students in their finances. The only reason I'm still able to afford school is because my Student Loan magically took care of the entire amount of the tuition increase after McGreevey cut funding.
Now, yes, this was McGreevey's fault, and he was acting in response to previous fiscal irresponsibility, but if tuition continues to rise (which it has been, regardless of McGreevey's major snafu), the college student will find his or herself struggling to keep up with the finances of college life. Combine this with the general loss of job opportunities, and you've got the future leaders of America struggling to get a college education. I shouldn't have to say it, but that's not a good idea.

[color=indigo]I agree that college is getting more expensive, especially if you live in the North East. But this really is a state issue, not a federal issue. Take Georgia, for example. If you do well in high school the state makes sure you can go to college, all you have to do is keep up your grades. [/color]
[/list][indent][color=black]But perhaps a Federal involvement in higher education is a good thing. Enabling students to go to college, to have a better opportunity for a better education...improving higher education through a plan more well-planned than NCLB may be an important first step in assisting college graduates in finding jobs post-graduation...in helping Americans secure jobs for the future, improving their skills so that they are able to compete in the job market, perhaps to begin to reverse the trend of particular instances of job outsourcings.[/color]

[/indent]
[list]
[*]With Bush in office for four more years, that means another four years of Michael Moore, and we all know what Moore does: piss people off or lead them around.

&
[*]There shouldn't have to be a 9/11 for that to happen, though. The solution is simple: everyone needs to cut out the virulent partisan bullsh-t.

[color=indigo]Amen[/color]
[/list][indent][color=black]Yes.[/color]

[/indent]