Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Should Bush be impeached?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11868		 Page 5 of 5
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:07 am ]
Post subject: 
IantheGecko wrote:
You just repeated yourself, Prime; in the process you're also dodging the question. Image


What question?
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, I have heard of all these things, Captain. Not a bit of it contradicts my point at all. Last time I checked, the president doesn't buy cars for people (I wish he did - I could use another more fuel-efficient vehicle than my Tacoma). Your criticism was that it was his responsibility, and not yours. You got it backwards.

And you still didn't answer MY question to YOU: what are YOU doing to help the situation? Are you walking or cycling instead of driving (or being driven by your parents)? Are you carpooling or using public transportation? If this issue is your concern, what are you doing about it yourself? Because until you are taking responsibility for this issue yourself, you have no grounds to criticize anyone about it, much less someone who is in no position to assume responsibility of it for you.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Yes, I have heard of all these things, Captain. Not a bit of it contradicts my point at all. Last time I checked, the president doesn't buy cars for people (I wish he did - I could use another more fuel-efficient vehicle than my Tacoma). Your criticism was that it was his responsibility, and not yours. You got it backwards.

And you still didn't answer MY question to YOU: what are YOU doing to help the situation? Are you walking or cycling instead of driving (or being driven by your parents)? Are you carpooling or using public transportation? If this issue is your concern, what are you doing about it yourself? Because until you are taking responsibility for this issue yourself, you have no grounds to criticize anyone about it, much less someone who is in no position to assume responsibility of it for you.

I'm pretty sure that, if the President (had the authority to do so do and) mandated that people drive hybrids, solar cars, etc, the same people saying he should mandate them would then complain about how he's taking away their freedom.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:24 am ]
Post subject: 
You're absolutely right about that, StrongRad. But my concern is that CaptainPastHisPrime here is trying to shuck off his personal responsibility in this matter so he can conveniently blame Bush for it. I'm still interested to hear what personal responsibility CPHP is taking to alleviate this problem.
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:29 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
You're absolutely right about that, StrongRad. But my concern is that CaptainPastHisPrime here is trying to shuck off his personal responsibility in this matter so he can conveniently blame Bush for it. I'm still interested to hear what personal responsibility CPHP is taking to alleviate this problem.


Well, all right, you're so anxious to know what my answer is? Well, the answer is... I have no answer. Now, please, don't flame me anymore for this, but I'm not doing much at all.
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:25 am ]
Post subject: 
No one's trying to flame you, and I apologize if any of my posts appeared as such (I'm sure everyone else would, too). We're just trying to remind you that a) if you're going to make points, you'll need to back them up and be able to rebut what others say about them - this is a debate board after all - and b) since we have freedoms, we're all responsible for our own lives, and have to take the first step to move towards change.
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Ju Ju Master wrote:
No one's trying to flame you, and I apologize if any of my posts appeared as such (I'm sure everyone else would, too). We're just trying to remind you that a) if you're going to make points, you'll need to back them up and be able to rebut what others say about them - this is a debate board after all - and b) since we have freedoms, we're all responsible for our own lives, and have to take the first step to move towards change.


Well, I'll still use a car, but I'm gonna use one that is a fuel-efficient one. Maybe even get a hybrid.
Author:  Rusty [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:50 am ]
Post subject: 
IantheGecko wrote:
Image


Oh please god stop using that out of place.

EDIT: When I get a car, I'll only be using it for things I need it for. Going to work and stuff. For everything else, there's my bike.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:33 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm highly entertained by how many of the Democratic candidates for president think they're running against Bush.

Hillary especially has been railing on Bush in the debates.

Someone might want to tell her that Bush is out in 14 months. And that the current Republican candidates are all distancing themselves from the president. It'll only hurt Madam Clinton in the end to keep chasing ghosts.

Though, now that I think about it, that wouldn't be too bad.

Carry on, Hillary!
Author:  Rusty [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:05 am ]
Post subject: 
Yep, them dang Demmacrits.
Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Stephen Colbert claimed he was a democrat on the Report the other night. Do you say dang in the face of the Colbert? I don't.
Author:  Duecex2 [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:31 am ]
Post subject: 
Uh, out of character, Colbert is a democrat.
Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:46 am ]
Post subject: 
People have been telling me he was gonna run as a Republican...

Maybe I shouldn't listen to my family anymore...
Author:  ramrod [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:00 am ]
Post subject: 
clever_dan wrote:
People have been telling me he was gonna run as a Republican...

Maybe I shouldn't listen to my family anymore...
Actually, from the episode I saw, he was running on both tickets.
Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:04 am ]
Post subject: 
And just the other night, he said he was gonna be on the democratic ballot.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:07 am ]
Post subject: 
CaptainPastHisPrime wrote:
Well, I'll still use a car, but I'm gonna use one that is a fuel-efficient one. Maybe even get a hybrid.

That's good. It shows that you do personally care about this issue and are willing to do your part to help solve it.

Now for the other side of the question: exactly what is it that Mr. Bush isn't doing about the problem that you think he should be doing? As noted before, he's not in a position to legislate the types of vehicles people drive; and even if he attempted to do so, there would be widescale dissension. People like myself who already own working vehicles and cannot afford new ones would be unable to comply. (When I bought my Tacoma, I bought it because it was one of the most fuel-efficient trucks on the market. But still, I get at best about 22 mpg).

Now, the oil companies have raised their prices a VERY good bit since Bush has been in office. And some people on this forum say that it's a good thing, that it at least encourages people to seek ways to conserve, if for no other reason than to save the exorbitant amount of money the gas companies charge. But in reality, it hurts people like myself who are entirely dependent upon their personal transportation and cannot find lucrative ways to conserve.

But back to my question: what specifically would you want to see a president do to solve the problem?
Author:  CaptainPastHisPrime [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:13 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
But back to my question: what specifically would you want to see a president do to solve the problem?


Well, he could make the prices of these unaffordable cars a bit more... well, affordable. And you're talking like oil dependency is a good thing. But anyway, when the unaffordable cars are more affordable, what can happen then is that the old cars kinda start phasing out gradually.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Well, he could make the prices of these unaffordable cars a bit more... well, affordable.

No he can't. This is a free market economy. The automobile manufacturers set their sale prices, not the president of the United States. Research and development of those automobiles costs money, and unless they are allowed to set the prices they feel will cover those expenses, then the manufacturers will likely not put effort much into them. In short, the president has very little say in how much they will charge for those cars.

Quote:
And you're talking like oil dependency is a good thing.

I am? I was entirely unaware of that. Can you site me anything specific I said to give you this impression? If anything, I am in favor of reducing our need for petroleum. But I am also a realist: it's not going to happen overnight.

Quote:
But anyway, when the unaffordable cars are more affordable, what can happen then is that the old cars kinda start phasing out gradually.

Yes. But the key word is "gradually." It will take time for the new models to become affordable enough and widely enough available for the majority of the populace to benefit from them.
Author:  Rusty [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Didy, sorry to break in, but you can just find any way to defend Little Georgy, can't you?
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:47 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm not sure what you're talking about, Rusty. I'm addressing a specific issue that was raised against President Bush. It would seem to me that if I prove that issue groundless (which I feel that I have sufficiently done at this point), then your objection to my discourse is irrelevant. Now, if you wanted to chime in and demonstrate that my argumentation is faulty, then you might have contributed something. But as it stands, Rusty, I fail to see either the significance or the relevance of your interjection.
Author:  Rusty [ Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Eh.
Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/