Dumb Question- If Bush Could Run Again, Would You Vote For Him? - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 3

View Poll Results: 4 more years for Bush? if he could.

Voters
267. This poll is closed
  • yes

    91 34.08%
  • no

    176 65.92%

Dumb Question- If Bush Could Run Again, Would You Vote For Him?

Page 3 of 8 First 12345 ... Last
  1. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    263

    Reputation

    What good is a tax surplus. We now have a better and stronger economy then when we had a surplus. Bush has failed to advertise that.
    The surplus could pay off some national debt for one. A tax cut wasn't really needed and all the future tax cuts were really unnecessary.

    Also, a stronger economy for whom? The cost of living is rising faster than wages.

    I agree. Some children should be left behind. Not everyone is suppose to be smart, and we need short order cooks. This money can be put into national security.. acutally.. he should cut NASA too.. we don't need anymore battle bots on mars
    Uh oh, I'm afraid I agree with you on something Just kidding. I think that the quality of education should get better but the opportunities are there for teenagers to better themselves. At my High School, the drop out rate was extremely high; so high that your driver's license was suspended for six months for dropping out.

    Anyway, at age 16-18, people kept dropping out because they'd rather stick to their $9/hr job than finish school. People are such idiots. I think opportunities should be available for every student but if they blow it, tough ****.

    Good. Not everyone should go to college. I work for a college and I have no problem failing people, though i get heat for it. More than half of my students shouldn't be out of 10th grade let a lone college. A degree at college is worthless today because of the amount given out.
    Whats funny about this is that now it seems like jobs (Engineering ones anyway) send you right back to Graduate School once you get hired. I have no problem with people failing either. The problem with College is that its not about higher education any more. Now its about quotas. People don't give a **** about education as much as they care about how many women are in Mathematics or Sciences.

    Speculation. Give an exact amount.
    $8.8 billion.

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

    The united states spends more money, time, man power to aid international issues than ANY country combined. These nations stop laughing after they ask for our help.
    I agree but my point is I want America to be respected by everyone; an example of a country where people can aspire to be. They don't have to be afraid of getting tortured if they mentioned they don't like Kim Jong-Il or all those doctors in Turkmenistan who promised to help out the leader, not the citizens there. Thats the way I want America to be seen. As inspiration.

    True. Kenedy, Kerry, Clinton, Bush, Edwards, and mike moore will get lots of money when we drill in alaska.. they all have a take in the oil game
    Of course, as long as the money is right, political parties will turn against their principles.

  2. New Member
    brogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    272
    Rep Power
    254

    Reputation

    You can't reason with the left.

    George Bush is the sole reason for everything wrong in America to them. No man has ever been hated so much, while being responsible for so little.

    I don't even like him that much as a President (too liberal), but I can't stand the ridiculous amount of hatred people spew about him.

    Also, keep in mind, the democrats in Congress and the Senate are saints and completely blameless for the actions of the government.
  3. Registered User
    GREENFEATHER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    52
    Posts
    159
    Rep Power
    191

    Reputation

    I didn't vote for him the first time, his old man either. Beelzebub will be wearing long johns before I ever voted for anyone with the last name of Shrub!! Before I get branded as a left winger, it has nothing to do with right or left, it has to do with the man and his old man. Those 2 are the evil incarnated on Earth in my opinion!! I used to be a republican, then I saw the light and became a Libertarian.
    ROB
    •   
       

  4. New Member
    Jeffrw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    147

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

    1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.


    That is the biggest joke in the world. The only people who think that Bush did a good job with that do not work anywhere near a public school.

    Its not that schools shouldn't be accountable, but he has failed to supply the necessary funding to support it.

    And for those of you who don't know everything about it, its not just buying new books or computers. It fails to pay for the additional teachers, tutors and teaching aides that are required to go with his plan.

    Also Private Industry wouldn't work for education. Education is not that profitable. It also doesn't take into account how poor many districts are. And I'm not just talking inner city, but also rural and blue-collar towns. If you elimenated the taxes and government support, most American's would not be able to afford the tuition for their kids.
    Also if the government had no hand in education, how can they possibly require that students attend? You can't make Americans attend a private institution.
  5. New Member
    Innings Eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Age
    42
    Posts
    112
    Rep Power
    164

    Reputation

    Alright, alright. Nice exchange of ideas. Now exactly which one of you "lettered" on the debate team? Also, have you been telling others you earned it playing football?
  6. New Member
    2fast2live's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Age
    41
    Posts
    91
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Yes, but im making a lot of money here in Iraq, so i guess im biased.
  7. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    And for those of you who don't know everything about it, its not just buying new books or computers. It fails to pay for the additional teachers, tutors and teaching aides that are required to go with his plan. Also Private Industry wouldn't work for education. Education is not that profitable. It also doesn't take into account how poor many districts are.
    This is news indeed since the private economy has managed to take once massively costly items like TVs, computers and cars and essentially made them available to anyone at prices almost anyone can afford. Either there is something incredible and magical about education that makes it immune to the market forces that affect every single other product or service in the exact same way, or your statement is incorrect. I'm inclided to think the latter is the correct option. After all the manufacturers of TVs, basketballs and footballs, boomboxes, snazzy sneakers, fast food services and chrome spinner rims don't take into account the relative paucity of the people in those districts, but in my last trip into the ghetto for a client I saw no shortage of those items.

    That education as it currently exists might be destroyed by privatization I have no doubt. It's an inefficient model based on old technology and political correctness more than effectiveness these days, and a change from that model would mean the end of a lot of cushy administrative careers and a mixed business model that seems to have done more to support its employees than its customers (kids and parents) over the years, which I think is what's really behind the resistance to change of almost any kind the education community offers. The only change they seem to support is an increase in their budget. At least privatization would get rid of that reversed logic, that a failing system should get more money.

    As for what bush has done for education, I doubt he's improved or made it worse in any tangible way.


    Also if the government had no hand in education, how can they possibly require that students attend? You can't make Americans attend a private institution.
    Many state laws require people take out insurance policies on their cars, but this doesn't mean the state or federal government needs to own the insurance companies too.
  8. New Member
    Jeffrw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    147

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    This is news indeed since the private economy has managed to take once massively costly items like TVs, computers and cars and essentially made them available to anyone at prices almost anyone can afford. Either there is something incredible and magical about education that makes it immune to the market forces that affect every single other product or service in the exact same way, or your statement is incorrect. I'm inclided to think the latter is the correct option. After all the manufacturers of TVs, basketballs and footballs, boomboxes, snazzy sneakers, fast food services and chrome spinner rims don't take into account the relative paucity of the people in those districts, but in my last trip into the ghetto for a client I saw no shortage of those items.
    Do you noticed how all of your examples of private industry making things affordable are all products produced overseas by cheap labor? And fast food? Why is fast food so cheap and fast? Because its filled with CRAP. I don't think anybody on here is going to step up and say McDonald's makes quality food.
    That education as it currently exists might be destroyed by privatization I have no doubt. It's an inefficient model based on old technology and political correctness more than effectiveness these days, and a change from that model would mean the end of a lot of cushy administrative careers and a mixed business model that seems to have done more to support its employees than its customers (kids and parents) over the years, which I think is what's really behind the resistance to change of almost any kind the education community offers. The only change they seem to support is an increase in their budget. At least privatization would get rid of that reversed logic, that a failing system should get more money.
    So where is this money going to come from? I mean seriously, if you cut out all taxes, then only people attending would pay right? So it'd be tuition. The school I work at has 700 students. 41% are low income. This is a former factory town (Amaco/Standard and Clark) not an inner city. There are no fancy suburbs or subdivisions. It's a basic middle income town. So how would this be affordable? You would still need quality teachers, so you need competive pay. You still need secratarial, maintance, janitorial, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc. That's a lot of people and their money has to come from somewhere. Plus you have the overhead costs of supplies and utilities bills.

    Many state laws require people take out insurance policies on their cars, but this doesn't mean the state or federal government needs to own the insurance companies too.
    Yes but driving a car is a privelage not a right. Also the government controls, regulates and pays for the highways. So I am to assume that you think an education is a product and not a right?
  9. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    Do you noticed how all of your examples of private industry making things affordable are all products produced overseas by cheap labor? And fast food? Why is fast food so cheap and fast? Because its filled with CRAP. I don't anybody on here is going to step up and say McDonald's makes quality food.
    No, but that's not my point. If there is a demand for something and it can be done, it will be delivered by the market. It's the profit incentive. As for the cheap labor, you're assuming the only business model for education is the current one used by public education. That's blaming the problems of the government on the private sector. The private market would provide a variety of choices, from things similar to what we have now to targetted courses for learning trades or specific subjects. There can be distance learning, at home learning, predesigned packages, endless options requiring different amounts of resources and labor.

    The current failed model of education is the government's failure, not that of the private sector, and just as government manufactured cars in the old socialist states were horrible, saying the private sector couldn't do it better and using those cars as the example would obviously be as incorrect as it is to point to our current education model and say private industry couldn't do it better, when obviously they could.

    So where is this money going to come from? I mean seriously, if you cut out all taxes, then only people attending would pay right? So it'd be tuition. The school I work at has 700 students. 41% are low income. This is a former factory town (Amaco/Standard and Clark) not an inner city. There are no fancy suburbs or subdivisions. It's a basic middle income town. So how would this be affordable? You would still need quality teachers, so you need competive pay. You still need secratarial, maintance, janitorial, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc. That's a lot of people and their money has to come from somewhere. Plus you have the overhead costs of supplies and utilities bills.
    See above. You're limiting possiblities to the current model of education. Of course it would be impossible to fund our current public education system privately, because no private investor in his right mind would pour a cent into such a wasteful, ridiculously inefficient structure. That is not the only option there is, unless of course the private market is stopped from discovering and developing other options for people. Yes, lower income families would have differnt options than rich people. I'd rather they had more and different options than being forced into the one size fits all failure we currently have.

    Yes but driving a car is a privelage not a right. So I am to assume that you think an education is a product and not a right?
    No, I do not belive education is a right, not in the sense you seem to imply. Rights do not impose costs on other people. The right to free speech doesn't mean everyone gets their own subsidized daily newspaper. Nor should the right to do something be confused with the ability to do something. I have the right to buy a Lexus, but I have no right to force anyone else to pay for it if i can't afford it myself. People certainly have the right to persue an education for themselves or their children, but definitely not to force others to hand it to them. At least in my opinion, I admit people can disagree on this issue and the fact that kids didn't exactly ask to be here kind of greys it a bit.

    I would still argue though that the efficiency of the private market would better meet the needs and wants of all people, which is in my opinion a better option than forcing almost everyone into making one choice. The poorness of our current educational system is, I think, easily tracable to the fact that it is government controlled and comes with all the weird and perverse incentives of such a structurte, making the delivery of a quality education to kids a systemic impossiblity over time. It will degenerate and there's no way to stop it because failure simply isn't punished. The system always sees an income no matter how dissatisfied it's 'customers' are. That is the basic problem and it isn't correctable in the end. It promotes waste, it promotes inefficiency.

    The end the result is exactly what proponents of public education say they want to avoid: the poor and middle income kids get forced into a failing system with no other options, and the rich get to do what they want with their kids. They gap between them will continue to widen too, until the poor and the middle income kids have the same advantage the rich ones do. But that advantage is not massive amounts of money, though that is an advantage we'd all like to be sure. The one advantage they need which would respect everyone's rights and do the most to level the playing field of opportunities is choice. In the end that's what the rich kids really have going for them: options. And the only way to ensure everyone has options is to make people compete in offerring those options to them.
  10. New Member
    Jeffrw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    147

    Reputation

    Okay you say I keep looking at failed structure and then applying the Private Sector idea to it. So far though you have only given me the idea of a Private Sector but haven't actually explained how this would work or how an investor would set this up. It's like you've said "here's an idea that looks better on paper, so I'll leave it to someone else to figure out how to make it work money wise."

    Until you can also add to your theory how someone might make money of this, this is simply an insanely optimistic dream. It's like saying we should have world peace.

    What's to stop these businesses from going under? Who can guarantee that there will be enough schools to pull this off? Think how much the market goes up and down. Would you want to send your kid to school that is losing money the last three quarters and has now laid off half the Janitoral staff? Or now there's 35 kids in Bio instead of 25 because you had to fire a couple teachers to make numbers? Now my kid can fall behind because the teacher can't possibly give as much attention to al those kids. You would need more schools than McDonald's, and think how many those are. So maybe for schools you have "different brands"? How will this make education even for everyone?

    So what exactly is so wasteful, in your opinion, about Public Education? Is it just those cushy adminstration jobs? It might interest you to know that those cushy jobs are a part of the Free Economy. Principles, Superintendants, etc. are not union jobs like teachers. Their salary is set by good ol' supply and demand. Obviously if you want a well educated and compotent person to run the school, you need to compete with other school's offers right? That's exactly what they do. High salarys of superintendants are because of competition. The reason they run so high is because the pool of people with enough experience and education to have this job is small. Few people+Lots of jobs=higher pay. These cushy jobs wouldn't go away if education was privatized. People always want to work where there is more money.

    Here's a solution that is more than reasonable and would put more money back in education: Federal Caps on Superintendant/Adminstrative pay.
  11. New Member
    Jeffrw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    147

    Reputation

    And one more point: You say it is all about choices and that's what makes rich kids better off than middle/lower class. So then how would a Private Sector make things better for the non-rich? THe rich will still be going to the Abercrombie or whatever of education and the poor will still be going to the thrift shop of education.
  12. New Member
    Bigdaddyandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    97
    Rep Power
    159

    Reputation

    Does'nt matter, it's just 2 puppets and one puppetmaster.
    Beside does anyone in their right mind actually believe Bush is in charge of anything?
    Cheney's got his hand so far up George's ass, they could be a ventriloquist act.
  13. New Member
    chauncy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    43
    Posts
    17
    Rep Power
    122

    Reputation

    not a chance.
  14. New Member
    kymo99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    42
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    120

    Reputation

    No. But he was still a better alternative than Kerry!
  15. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    Okay you say I keep looking at failed structure and then applying the Private Sector idea to it. So far though you have only given me the idea of a Private Sector but haven't actually explained how this would work or how an investor would set this up. It's like you've said "here's an idea that looks better on paper, so I'll leave it to someone else to figure out how to make it work money wise."
    That's because no one knows. I would say you're approaching the idea from the wrong mindset. There are, or ideally should be no rules other than don't steal and don't hurt in the private sector. Any plan that works would be acceptable, any plan that turns enough of a profit for someone in some way will succeed. And profits doesn't mean money, it just means a person is marginally satisfied with the trade/how they spent their time for whatever reason. The basic model is there's a demand for a product or a product someone thinks there is a demand for, they solicit investors and get going on delivering it. It's what happened for example in the PC market. A lot of the people most deeply involved in the computer business before PCs thought there was no real reason for regular people to have them. Now there are people who couldn't see living without them. The whole point of the private sector is that it doesn't have to stick to strict rules of how you do this, and how you deliver that. There is no plan per se. There's just the demand, the possible demand, and the risk, and people can deal with those in countless ways. For existing models I'd point to existing distance learning programs. Some schools offer lectures on DVD, CD, etc. Some schools exist for the teaching of specific trades, business skills, languages, etc.

    Until you can also add to your theory how someone might make money of this, this is simply an insanely optimistic dream. It's like saying we should have world peace.
    Sounds like you're biased against the idea to begin with. Since there are already a decent amount of private schools of all types thriving right now, even in light of a virtual government monopoly on education, it seems a lot less insanely optimistic than you would indicate. After all, those schools are still managing to pull in profits when there is a "free" alternative available. There are however lots of government rules that make competition hard.

    What's to stop these businesses from going under?
    Nothing but their own ability to keep their customers satisfied. That's the point.

    Who can guarantee that there will be enough schools to pull this off?
    Who guarantees there are enough TVs to go around, or cars? Who guarantees there are enough tomatoes on the shelves at the super market, or apples or steaks? Somehow those things manage to stay stocked at a reasonable level to satisfy everyone's demand for them. It isn't magic, just economics.

    Think how much the market goes up and down. Would you want to send your kid to school that is losing money the last three quarters and has now laid off half the Janitoral staff?
    The market going up and down isn't a general reflection of its stability. It is a general reflection of government intervention however. On any given day, when the market is up or down, when you look at a snap shot of business conditions the vast majority are pulling in profits. They might not be making a killing but they are surviving and usually thriving. That's the weeding mechanism of the market in place, generally speaking people who run their businesses poorly lose and don't get another chance, unless the government subsidizes them with easy credit and similar things. There can be ups and downs depending on market conditions, but when those are general responses to consumer demand, investors, etc., they are good things because they represent the self balancing of the market. The wave like movement of the market in boom in bust cycles is generally the result of government intervention, credit expansion and investment misallocation. While this can make investment projects temporally far from the retail/consumer market very iffy, generally the business cycle does not hit the retail markets hard if at all. Even during the great depression those markets only went down 10-20%. When a business does go under in the retail market it would generally be because of competition, which means some other business is satisfying consumers' demands better, cheaper or both. That's a good thing.

    Or now there's 35 kids in Bio instead of 25 because you had to fire a couple teachers to make numbers? Now my kid can fall behind because the teacher can't possibly give as much attention to al those kids. You would need more schools than McDonald's, and think how many those are. So maybe for schools you have "different brands"? How will this make education even for everyone?
    How have the public schools done that, except by making it equally horrible for everyone? That education would not be the same for everyone is, once more, the point. Not everyone has a Rolls Royce or a plasma TV. But, almost everyone does have access to various versions of cars and TVs that are within their price ranges.

    It seems to me you think all kids have the right to the same education even if it comes at the expense of others. I don't. It's an arguable point. I don't agree with it because even though you can make several moral and ethical arguments that kids should be provided for as innocents or on similar grounds, any attempt to provide a communal solution through the public sector leads to waste, lack of options, increasing costs and eventual collapse. So eventually it's every kid gets the same poor education except the super rich, who can still afford to opt out. In my view every kid and their parents should get a choice of options delivered by the free market. Maybe a new immigrant doesn't see the need for his kid to learn Shakespeare, but would like him to learn a marketable trade so he and his family's economic position can be advanced further and quicker. While I think in an ideal world every kid would get the greatest education possible, the world isn't ideal. Like anything education is a scarce service and throughout history the only mechanism that has shown itself to be good at alleviating scarcity by appropriate pricing is the market. All governments do is basically devalue the general market so everyone can get a hold of a good, even though it costs a ridiculous amount in taxes and wasted resources and the end product keeps worsening in quality, and often dwindeling in quantity too.

    So what exactly is so wasteful, in your opinion, about Public Education? Is it just those cushy adminstration jobs? It might interest you to know that those cushy jobs are a part of the Free Economy. Principles, Superintendants, etc. are not union jobs like teachers. Their salary is set by good ol' supply and demand.
    If the government employs them they are not private sector jobs, plain and simple. No matter what calculations the government might use to try and fool people into believing they are being paid in line with their demand, it is essentially economic nonsense. Such things can't be calculated aprior, only discovered through the market. Even if the government just owned the institutions and contracted out the jobs, the amount of educational facilities is not market determined and so therefore neither are the amounts of administrators needed nor are their salaries. Further points on this below.

    Obviously if you want a well educated and compotent person to run the school, you need to compete with other school's offers right?
    Wrong. That's like saying contractors compete for each other for defense contracts. Technically true, but competing for a government contract or a government job is not the same as competing for a private contract or job. If anything the tax resources used to pay the salary of such people have been pulled out of the private sector and have destroyed other potential productive options for the use of the capital. That's opportunity cost. There is also no guarantee of productivity once in the position because of the perverse incentive structure of public sector jobs. If the market justification for the position is interrupted at any step of the way by public intervention and decision making, it basically destroys the whole process.

    For example the government can artificially create an increase in 'demand' for such jobs by simply opening more schools. In a free market the product/service demanders, the consumers, set the salaries, numbers of workers, etc., in the end because there is a limit to what they are willing to pay and there is a limit maximum efficiency will allow at any given price. No such mechanism is at work at all in the public sector. The 'customers' and their 'demand' are artificial and invented through compulsion, the amount of institutions and jobs necessary to run them likewise artificial and invented. To allow for your argument would be to say that if the government decided Ford was the only car Americans should own, and made that rule compulsory, that somehow the 'demand' for Fords would be legitimate in a market sense. The larger amount of workers would be legitimate in a market sense as well. And, because the 'demand' can be artificially raised through further legislation, say forcing everyone to trade in and buy a new one at 4 years, salaries and 'demand' can likewise be bid up absent any true market mechanism or actual increase in demand. That's not the free market nor is it competition. In any sense of the word.

    In education you have another problem as well, the imposition of a single 'business' model on all institutions. The compulsary laws, the entrenched interests, the strings tied to federal money, the relatively lower number of people in private schools and the general if not total restriction of that market by the 'free' alternative of public education make innovations less likely as well.

    That's exactly what they do. High salarys of superintendants are because of competition. The reason they run so high is because the pool of people with enough experience and education to have this job is small. Few people+Lots of jobs=higher pay. These cushy jobs wouldn't go away if education was privatized. People always want to work where there is more money.
    I find that and 'interesting' view of supply and demand to say the least, given the above.

    Here's a solution that is more than reasonable and would put more money back in education: Federal Caps on Superintendant/Adminstrative pay.
    Which, granting your above argument which I don't but let's do so for argument's sake here, will cause an even greater shortage of such people. That's what price caps do.

    And one more point: You say it is all about choices and that's what makes rich kids better off than middle/lower class. So then how would a Private Sector make things better for the non-rich? The rich will still be going to the Abercrombie or whatever of education and the poor will still be going to the thrift shop of education.
    Yes. I've already said there will be a variety of choices, and that includes low income choices and it stands to reason those would not be the best of options, but they would be options that weren't there before. And the incentive structure inherent in the market would ensure they would be the best for the price. Everyone would be able to get the best they could afford, and they would have more options too, unlike now where everyone gets the mediocre to the worst, and the rich are the only ones who can make an actual choice. It's that ability to choose which will give the greatest advantage. Once the middle and lower income people have the option to choose the market can begin the process of honing in on their actual needs and wants as well, instead of the government imposed one size fits all curriculum there is now. There's also a virtual guarantee the methods used would improve because there's no unions or voters to please or consciences to salve, just consumer demand for better and better products at each given price point. That everyone cannot afford a Rolls Royce isn't justification for nationalizing the automotive industry, especially since everyone knows the end result will be cars similar to those once made in Russia and East Germany; unreliable oil burning gas-guzzlers in bland designs that necessitate a huge tax burden.

    In every single case without exception if a product is delivered by the market rather than the government, it is cheaper and of better quality, there are no shortages or surpluses worth mentioning at any level and everyone involved at every step of the way is involved voluntarily. I've yet to see anything about education that would make it different except the assertion that because the current government model doesn't work that the private market couldn't possibly work, which doesn't really sit right because the private market in all other cases does function better. In the end there is nothing special about education. It's a product/service some people want or feel they need, and someone will deliver it to them. If it's the government I'll grant you the delivery is guaranteed, but so is continually falling quality of service/product. It's got nothing to do with the educators themselves, it's just the nature of a compulsary government system.
    Last edited by CDB; 03-04-2006 at 02:39 PM.
  16. New Member
    Jeffrw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    147

    Reputation

    If the government employs them they are not private sector jobs, plain and simple. No matter what calculations the government might use to try and fool people into believing they are being paid in line with their demand, it is essentially economic nonsense. Such things can't be calculated aprior, only discovered through the market. Even if the government just owned the institutions and contracted out the jobs, the amount of educational facilities is not market determined and so therefore neither are the amounts of administrators needed nor are their salaries. Further points on this below.
    This makes no sense. So you are saying just because state/federal money is involved in paying for a job it somehow automatically erases a competetive job market?

    It simple to understand that a wealthy suburban district has money money than a rural area. This will be true for either public or private education. Joe Superintendant just recieved his masters and administrative certification. Straigh A's, dean's list, all that. He gets offered both of those jobs, which one is he more likely to take? It doesn't matter if there is only a certain number of these fixed non-market jobs available.

    The point is that as long as the pay is different, there are few solid canidates and many positions, this creates competition amongst districts to "snag" the next "C.E.O." of the school.

    You also said caps cause a shortage? So I guess fewer people try to get into professional sports now? Caps seem to work fine there. Keeps the money steady and guarantees an even playing field. Even if what is capped is the total amount of all pay (not just adminstration) this would be good. They could even run it like baseball, where those who go over have to do revenue sharing with the smaller "teams".

    It is somewhat disapointing that someone who is obviously intelligent does not think that everyone should have a fair shake at a quality education.

    More stupid uneducated people is only going to lead to more sixteen yearolds asking Superdrol questions here. And I don't think anyone wants that!
  17. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    This makes no sense. So you are saying just because state/federal money is involved in paying for a job it somehow automatically erases a competetive job market?
    Yes. Competition for manufactured demand is not a free market by any stretch of the imagination, and it's barely a competitive market.

    It simple to understand that a wealthy suburban district has money money than a rural area. This will be true for either public or private education. Joe Superintendant just recieved his masters and administrative certification. Straigh A's, dean's list, all that. He gets offered both of those jobs, which one is he more likely to take? It doesn't matter if there is only a certain number of these fixed non-market jobs available.

    The point is that as long as the pay is different, there are few solid canidates and many positions, this creates competition amongst districts to "snag" the next "C.E.O." of the school.

    You also said caps cause a shortage? So I guess fewer people try to get into professional sports now? Caps seem to work fine there. Keeps the money steady and guarantees an even playing field. Even if what is capped is the total amount of all pay (not just adminstration) this would be good. They could even run it like baseball, where those who go over have to do revenue sharing with the smaller "teams".
    Price caps cause shortages, yes. Honestly trying to argue otherwise is like arguing 2+2 doesn't equal 4. It's an economic certainty. They will generally appear at the margins first, which you can see to a degree in the recent free agent fiasco if football. Cap their salaries they will go somewhere else or not work. Admitedly the salaries in professional sports are very high and it is possible that even capped there might not be an immediate shortage because the cap is high enough that there is no pronounced effect at first; the salaries still available satisify most player's demands. It would be lik government capping the price of gas at 50 dollars a gallon. Meaningless now, but it would start to manifest itself as a shortage if the market price every wanted to push above that amount. That a similar cap be placed on a much lower salaried position would lead to a more pronounced and immediate effect is basically a given.

    It is somewhat disapointing that someone who is obviously intelligent does not think that everyone should have a fair shake at a quality education.

    More stupid uneducated people is only going to lead to more sixteen yearolds asking Superdrol questions here. And I don't think anyone wants that!
    Not by any stretch, but I'd say it's just as disappointing that so many people refuse to see the possibilities and many benefits of a free system and keep forcing everyone to throw money into the hole public education has become, to the point where any attempt at change and more specifically change to allow the least fortunate to have some option is opposed with such vehement force by the very teachers and administrators who are supposed to be educating those kids. At the very least that indicates to me there are some conflicting interests involved in the system. In a free system there is one interest: keep your customers happy so they don't go anywhere else. With public education the approach is not to outperform other options, but to outlaw them.
  18. New Member
    Jeffrw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    147

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    In a free system there is one interest: keep your customers happy so they don't go anywhere else.
    Not really. It's to make money. If public education is private, you would have one of the largest corporations in America. It would also be one of the most influential institutions in the country. You will have advertising in schools. You will have food courts with fast food. Maybe you don't think this is a big deal, but I think it's horrible now, the amount of "sponsorship" that goes on currently. I can't imagine what it would be like when actual companies have a stake in the schools. If Pepsi owns Lay's and Pizza Hut/Taco Bell/KFC, it's not a far stretch to imagine them wanting to get "involved" in education.

    It doesn't matter anyway. This will never happen. And not because people do not support this idea, but because it is so far fetched that one can only dream. If this was even a possibilty, there would already be an example somewhere in this country of somebody trying it. Hell, private schools have enough trouble staying afloat now.

    BTW, still disagree about the salary cap/revenue sharing. Until I enetered my "career" job, Every job I had had a maximum pay. From my first job at McDonals's to my last part time job I had doing retail for the st. louis blues. This already exists in many jobs.
  19. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    In a free system there is one interest: keep your customers happy so they don't go anywhere else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    Not really. It's to make money.
    You accomplish the latter by accomplishing the former though. That's how the system works. Companies don't make money if people don't buy their products. Not unless they use the government to force purchases or limit alternatives to a product with inflexible demand.

    If public education is private, you would have one of the largest corporations in America. It would also be one of the most influential institutions in the country.
    Jeff, you have to start seeing other options than the current model. One institution? There's isn't one manufacturer/distributor of any other good or service in the world unless such an arrangement is government enforced. Why do you think education would be any different? It's like people in the former USSR saying they shouldn't privatize television because there'd only be one network, it ignores the reality that in a free system it just doesn't work that way.

    You will have advertising in schools.
    Unless of course the customers didn't want it. And if they didn't mind, who honestly cares?

    You will have food courts with fast food. Maybe you don't think this is a big deal, but I think it's horrible now, the amount of "sponsorship" that goes on currently.
    That is all happening under the government run system...

    What exactly would stop parents from enrolling their kids in schools that offer healthy food, not the admittedly horrible stuff they're getting access to in our current government run model? Don't you think that would be a great selling point for a school, good onsite meal/nutrition options/education? If I had a kid and the such a system was in place, it's something I'd look for.

    I can't imagine what it would be like when actual companies have a stake in the schools.
    What you're missing though is that the main profit they get from the schools would be based on the kids' educations, not how many bags of chips and bottles of soda they sold. While that might be an additional way to earn a profit and some companies might try it, it isn't guaranteed to happen.

    You're ingoring the very crucial point that the education/care of the kids is the product. If some institutions saw this as a means to an end to the point that they ignored their primary goal of satisfying their customer (parents), they'd lose those customers. To the point that such advertising was incorporated the return companies got on such ads could help lower the overal cost of education, making it more widely available. To the extent parents did not want their kids exposed to such ads, they could simply do business with those who didn't run schools along those lines, or use some other method of education besides an actual school.

    Which brings up another point. A school building with various rooms is just the modern equivalent of the school house, and while that worked fine in the old days who is to say it's the best option now? Have you considered that in the goernment run system on a basic infrastructural level the approach to schooling and education hasn't really changed in literally hundreds of years, despite massive advances in technology? Just get the kids together in one room with one instructor and talk at them is the basic model and has been for longer than it probably should have been. How much of that lack of advance could be laid at the feet of a system whose very existence discourages investment/experimentation with radically different methods? No one could possibly know the answer to that, but it's a question that can and should be asked. I would say the lack of options, choice and real development in this area would be worth getting rid of even if it meant giving Pepsi a free license to advertise to kids.

    If Pepsi owns Lay's and Pizza Hut/Taco Bell/KFC, it's not a far stretch to imagine them wanting to get "involved" in education.
    No, it's not. But Honda's ATV business doesn't necessarily intrude on their auto business, despite some crossover I'm sure, because those in charge are aware they are seperate. I'm sure the ATV business comes it at appropriate times, like some info ater buying a trailer for a Ridgeline, etc. Right now those companies see schools as a source of juicy government contracts, which is basically a guaranteed overpayment for products and services. Even if Pepsi owned and ran education institutions of some kind the involvement of the soft drink/fast food arm of its business would only enter into the realm of their education business to the extent the customers of the education business would tolerate.

    It doesn't matter anyway. This will never happen. And not because people do not support this idea, but because it is so far fetched that one can only dream. If this was even a possibilty, there would already be an example somewhere in this country of somebody trying it. Hell, private schools have enough trouble staying afloat now.
    Eliminate the "free" option and I'm so sure you'd be surprised by the sudden surge of business in this area that I'd literally be willing to bet my car you're wrong. What you're ignoring is companies also had a problem thriving in the old USSR, not because people didn't want the products and not because the companies weren't capable of delivering them, but because of the debilitating blow a 'free' option delivers to the private market. There's also the compounded problem that the 'free' option isn't free but is paid for with taxes, which means capital getting sucked out of the private sector en masse, used in ways where efficiency is not guaranteed by the profit incentive, and causing countless opportunity costs.

    BTW, still disagree about the salary cap/revenue sharing. Until I enetered my "career" job, Every job I had had a maximum pay. From my first job at McDonals's to my last part time job I had doing retail for the st. louis blues. This already exists in many jobs.
    Yes, and they do technically cause shortages which is why companies are always hiring new people to replenish their stock. The thing with employees is that they are human and develop and are worth more skillwise over time generally speaking. Once a skilled worker hits the cap of their current position they either stay happy with that pay/job or move up or out of the company. That people often do move up and out makes it not a true price control cap, however a 'shortage' still manifests at the upper margin in that position, which is why a company will have to rehire people, train them and have them work their way up as others did. The shortage is in a sense unseen because out of everyone who left the system after they hit the cap, a percentage would likely still be there if it was not in place to begin with. It's a shifting pattern and manifests to varying degrees over time due to shifting skill sets, the introduction of new workers, etc. The lower the cap on salary, the more pornounced and immediate the effect is likely to be. You can be sure that, should a company cap the salary for any position below the market rate for such a job, they would experience an immediate and profound shortage. While normal caps you see across companies are common, they do technically cause shortages at the margins and could disrupt employee flow/turnover to a certain extent. They have an advantage though in that through competition the upper and lower levels for certain positions have been discovered and are also allowed to flex over time to incorporate changing market conditions. Government schools have no such advantage nor comparable market discovered price to rely on. A dictated salary cap would be just that, a beauracratic decision.

    Ignoring the probable political impossibility of getting such caps in place in public education, were you to cap those positions you'd see the same employee flow pattern, and were you to cap the top positions, and what's more important cap them at below the price a similar skill set brought them on the open market, you would very quickly see a shortage and possibly a lack of replenishment from the lower levels over time, because people would gradually learn of the slary/career limitations of entering the field to begin with, and so fewer and fewer people would be available.
    Last edited by CDB; 03-06-2006 at 12:05 PM.
  20. New Member
    TheSwagger's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    10
    Rep Power
    119

    Reputation

    If Kerry was still the alternative... absolutely.
  21. New Member
    cj1130's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    108

    Reputation

    i have to say that i am enjoying reading this thread because i like the honesty
  22. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by cj1130
    i have to say that i am enjoying reading this thread because i like the honesty
    Notice too how the poll here roughly reflects the poll numbers in the real world regarding his approval ratings, etc? That's interesting, as I always viewed this board as having a larger conservative presence. Maybe liberals are just lurking, I honestly expected this to be more of a 50/50 split as it progressed.
  23. New Member
    ckohl23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    16
    Rep Power
    127

    Reputation

    no, but i will miss laughing at all his funny faces and expressions
  24. CDB
    CDB is offline
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2673

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by ckohl23
    no, but i will miss laughing at all his funny faces and expressions
    No ****. Bill Maher comes up with some of the best funny photos of W I've ever seen. I'm also going to miss his butchery of the English language when he's gone.
  25. New Member
    Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    204
    Rep Power
    243

    Reputation

    I didnt vote for him the last 2 times and I surely wouldnt vote for him again. I am going to miss him though. No President has ever cracked me up the way he has. The way he smirks at the most inopportune times and his creative use of the english language are the things I'll miss the most.
  26. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    263

    Reputation

    Maynard Meek posted up a list of what good Bush has done. I found some things finally. I had to undertake a massive spiritual journey and undertook many an epic quest.

    - Declaring war on both terrorism and the English language. Now I can make up new words as I see fit. Besides, why do I have to follow some words created by dead white men? I'm a revolutionary, a savior, like Bush.

    - Wiped his ass with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Since they're pretty old I figured they felt smooth on his ass. Thats why he smirks. His ass is fresh and clean. I would be smiling too.

    - The world still isn't a smoking hole but there's still 2 years left. That has to count for something, kind of like partial credit given to us on tests.

    - Taken secret and shady governments to new and exciting heights. Its like climbing Mount Everest. Instead of climbing a mountain, he's ruining people's lives. Every day I read the newspaper to see if he's going to eliminate another civil liberty...without an actual vote taking place.

    - He hasn't choked on a pretzel in years. Well, that we know about. For that, I salute him.

    - Multi-trillion dollar budgets but almost every social service is getting slashed and military numbers don't add up to the amount being spent. Billions are missing and nobody wants to check it out. So props to Bush for introducing the Bizarro Economy.

    - Finally, he has set the bar so low that any average joe can be President and still have 59+ million goobers vote and probably pray for him to win.
  27. New Member
    Joe_Halt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    10
    Rep Power
    111

    Reputation

    Not just no Hell No!
  28. New Member
    Peatee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    34
    Posts
    33
    Rep Power
    119

    Reputation

    Why are you all degrading McCain? He would make a great President. The man was a POW and a war hero, how the heck does he not have any testicles or fortitude?
  29. New Member
    Peatee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    34
    Posts
    33
    Rep Power
    119

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning
    I didnt vote for him the last 2 times and I surely wouldnt vote for him again. I am going to miss him though. No President has ever cracked me up the way he has. The way he smirks at the most inopportune times and his creative use of the english language are the things I'll miss the most.
    He is funny. I love when Letterman makes fun of him with the "Greateest Moments in Presidential History" bit. Funny as hell.
  30. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    No one really likes Bush. But Bush or Hitlary? Hmm... Bush. Bush or McCain? McCain is more competent, even though he is a douche bag. McCain. Bush or Kerry? Id rather pound my nuts with a hammer on the sidewalk than see Kerry as president. Bush is a moron, but less of a Moron than any Democratic candidate. He actually got better grades than Kerry remember.
    Thats not a story the NYT covered. And Al Gore has just gone off the deep end. All of a sudden he looks like the homosexual love child of Karl Marx and Michael Moore.

    Its better to go AWOL like Bush than to serve with the intention of betraying your country to launch a left wing political career. IE Kerry.

    I hate republicans... But I really ****ing hate liberals.
  31. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    I'll admit, though I dislike Bush is heart was in the right place. Problem is his plan has sucked ass.

    What we needed was a general leading this nation. A skilled general with a great track record for victory.
  32. Advanced Member
    Dr Liftalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    10909

    Reputation

    hell fukin noo, that guy has basically run us in debt, taken our civil libertys, pretty much stands for everything i'm against, (even war aside) Cause saddem was a peace of ****, but at least he was keepin islame in check down there.

    God we need a strong liberal to run up against the Neo con's but dosnt seem to matter since there all basically in bed with each other anyways, they just blind us with this whole DEMvsREP as a way to divid and concurr.

    **** illect bill gates, dude already has all the money he needs so he won't get bought out. And he's done wonderful things with his Gates foundation.

    Dr liftalot
  33. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    676

    Reputation

    Actually he hasn't done much good at all. Pumping money in causes that for years and years have been given billions only to fail is not a smart way to hand out funds. His most recent "gift" of money was to a tax exempt trust fund of sorts. Within this fund, though he cannot have access to his money directly, he still keeps his net worth and credit. A net worth that is now untouchable by the IRS. In short, he just pays less taxes then he did before. Most multi-millionairs do what he has done to save his cash from government hands....

    The new figues shows that our "debt" is not nearly as much as projected figure the media expressed it would be. Last year, our economy grew at 3.5 percent, and in the first quarter of this year, it grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent. Over the past three years, our economy has grown by more than $1.3 trillion, an amount that is larger than the size of the entire Canadian or South Korean economy.

    Thanks to economic growth and the rise in tax revenues, this year the deficit will shrink to 2.3 percent of GDP. That's about the same as the average over the past 40 years.

    Here are some hard numbers: Our originial projection for this year's budget deficit was $423 billion. That was a projection. That's what we thought was going to happen. That's what Bush sent up to the Congress, here's what he thinks. The report from OMB tells us that this year's deficit will actually come in at about $296 billion. At this rate we can cut the federal deficit in half by 2008 -- or 2009. Bush is now a full year ahead of schedule.
  34. Registered User
    D_town's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    558
    Rep Power
    409

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Liftalot
    hell fukin noo, that guy has basically run us in debt, taken our civil libertys, pretty much stands for everything i'm against, (even war aside) Cause saddem was a peace of ****, but at least he was keepin islame in check down there.

    God we need a strong liberal to run up against the Neo con's but dosnt seem to matter since there all basically in bed with each other anyways, they just blind us with this whole DEMvsREP as a way to divid and concurr.

    **** illect bill gates, dude already has all the money he needs so he won't get bought out. And he's done wonderful things with his Gates foundation.

    Dr liftalot
    Do you try to spell as bad as you do or is it sarcasm to spell terrible and say ignorant things...
  35. Advanced Member
    Dr Liftalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    10909

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by D_town
    Do you try to spell as bad as you do or is it sarcasm to spell terrible and say ignorant things...
    I wasnt being sarcastic, he really did those things. I just happen to make that post mid sleep cycle after taking REM! I was out of it hard core, sorry about general lack of spell check and grammer.

  36. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Liftalot
    hell fukin noo, that guy has basically run us in debt, taken our civil libertys, pretty much stands for everything i'm against, (even war aside) Cause saddem was a peace of ****, but at least he was keepin islame in check down there.
    Dr liftalot
    OK now that Maynard provided some insight on the Debt Ill handle the civil liberties.

    What exact liberties of yours have been infringed upon? Let me here about these invisible phantom liberties you believe are gone. There is nothing that pisses me off than all these ACLU ***** freaks that think Al Quaida should be able to call people in America and not be listened to. Remember, the CIA and FBI's hands were tied by leftist idealistically ignoranst douche bags in the first place. This is the reason the Gov't was completely powerless to prevent 911. And keeping Al Qaida members awake, forcing them to listen to rap music, interrogating them with women is Torture now? Give me a ****ing break. All these childishly idealistic leftist Mooreon freaks need their parents and families killed by terrorists, then they might wake up.
  37. Board Supporter
    BUCKNUTS's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,230
    Rep Power
    4885

    Reputation

    I have voted for him twice,mostly because I despised his opponents.John Kerry could run against the anti-christ and I still couldn't vote for him. I do not agree with everything our president does with the war in Iraq at the top of my list of things I do not agree with, but I would vote for him again against any candidate the demoncats would produce.I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "get the U.S. out of the U.N. and U.N. out of the U.S. give me a candidate who feels this way and also one who wants to slay the beast that is the irs and he/she has my vote regardless of party affiliation.
  38. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    I think Bush's decisions have ****ed up the world, and the country pretty bad. My kids, when I eventually have them, will be dealing with the negative repercussions from this administration, and Im sure theirs will too.

    BV
  39. Advanced Member
    Dr Liftalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    10909

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris
    OK now that Maynard provided some insight on the Debt Ill handle the civil liberties.

    What exact liberties of yours have been infringed upon? Let me here about these invisible phantom liberties you believe are gone. There is nothing that pisses me off than all these ACLU ***** freaks that think Al Quaida should be able to call people in America and not be listened to. Remember, the CIA and FBI's hands were tied by leftist idealistically ignoranst douche bags in the first place. This is the reason the Gov't was completely powerless to prevent 911. And keeping Al Qaida members awake, forcing them to listen to rap music, interrogating them with women is Torture now? Give me a ****ing break. All these childishly idealistic leftist Mooreon freaks need their parents and families killed by terrorists, then they might wake up.

    I noticed you asked the commen question which most bush supporters ask. "What libertys of yours have been infringed apon" ? > Personally not alot, but he's the biggest threat to our liberty outside of radical or general muslims considering the radicals make up a good 90% of islam from what we've seen as of late.

    Just do a little google search and it should bring up all the answers you seek as far as bush changing laws left and right, He's changed more laws and done more to harm the constitution then any good he's done. Now i don't neccarly think him taking out saddam was a bad thing, but lets face the facts. He's done a number on everyone and is a moron who's managed to outsource American Jobs *good paying ones* and is on the side of big corperation.

    I know they have a team of lawyers judges etc all put together from around the US to debate how he's using his presidental powers and how he wants to change the consitition. Let me quote something they found " He destroying the checks and balances our nation was built apon"

    Now outside of his radical flaws in fiergn policey,The guy is against things like gay mairrage, abortion, stem cell research, etc. All things i believe in, i believe in the right to persue life liberty and justice. His warping of laws to protect us from our selve's using fear and catchey frazes has just gone to far. I understand a need for national security, but i would not sacarific my liberty for security. As in the words of all Benjamin Franklin
    Those who would sacrific Liberty for Security DESERVE NETHER.

    I have nothing against your political views and since i like everyone on AM i'll just agree to disagree since politices are like opionins and opionins are like *******s, because everyone has one. And things tend to get messey.

    Anyways, i'll be sure to come back when i'm not about to pass out and spell check/site my sources etc. I managed to take a meletonin and Rem/powerfull (i work graveyard) and my fiancey calls me to come pick her up from work as she's sick. ARG! me tired!~

    Take care guys!
    drliftalot:bb:
  40. Advanced Member
    Dr Liftalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    10909

    Reputation

    And holding people without fair and due process is also against our policey's
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Taking Testrenx What would you recomend for post cycle
    By sonofsatan666 in forum Post Cycle Therapy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-08-2006, 12:56 AM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-23-2006, 09:04 AM
  3. PP run, what would you add??
    By ripped22 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-18-2006, 05:20 PM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-16-2005, 05:30 PM
  5. What would you reccomend for me?
    By WAHCHING in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-21-2005, 03:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in