  Paul, your arguments were effective, logical, and I respect them. While this isn't an excuse for anything I stated, the post was meant to go to Thomas Chen's personal blog, but I'm on three of them, and all the post screens look the same except for a small titleline in the top right corner, and I accidentally posted it on this one. Anyway, the first half of this is an apology for the crude, unpolished, vulgar post from before. This is not characteristic of me, as my previous posts (I hope) convey. Back to the issue at hand...
I'll sum up the previous post in a more formal language; There is an element of monarchy (in both Democratic AND Republican parties) in that there is a lineage of elitists that are pedigreed to run the country, and that these families become separated from many of the realities of Joe American, which I believe manifests itself in the use of American soldiers as expendable tools. John Kerry was one of these expendables, and as far is foreign policy is concerned, could draw from his personal experiences, which were perilous no matter what that article implied (Don't try to tell me that having a rocket shot at your boat doesn't deserve an award if you are the commander, as well as going after the shooter who could very well have been able to defend himself with another, closer-range firearm. And don't forget the Oregon vet's story that was so popular on the campaign trail, and that may have been Kerry's push over Dean. And demeaning the Purple-Hearts is also a joke... as if it was his obligation to reject them??? But I've digressed). Back to the issue; a man who knows the detriments and personal losses of war would be more hesitant to thrust the volunteer (How many soldiers do you believe volunteered to fight for Sadam's phantom WMDs) soldiers (How many soldiers do you believe volunteered to fight for Sadam's phantom WMD's) into a frivolous war. Point 2. I believe Bush's war against Iraq is entirely a farce with negative short term and long term affects.
The short-term affects is the death toll that grows daily. Long term affects are more anti-American senitiments that take a death toll and add hundreds or thousands in a single day (9/11, USS Cole, embassy bombings). If a regime change is the goal, don't lie about it, but as of now Bush is using American men and women to fight for oil, which is necessary to accomodate America's mass automotive transportation. And reflecting current consumer trends and the pressure on Bush to secure American jobs (ridiculous amounts of which outsourced by GM to Mexico), more gas is needed to satisfy the throats of gas-chugging SUV's, trucks, and to a lesser extent, vans; in all of said categories American companies generally control the market. If gas gets too expensive, American cars depreciate in a hurry and sales numbers go down, resulting in more GM/Daimler Chrysler layoffs. I'm entirely aware that Japanese car companies have success in this country for a variety of reasons, which I understand to be largely affordability, dependability, and gas mileage.
GM is one of the largest companies in America, and rather than allow the pressure from another market to create a need for quality improvement, Bush's actions act in giving American motor companies too much room for error. The last point that a gas tax would emphasize fuel-efficiency, environmental protection, and reduce accidents is largely unarguable.
If you disagree with the principal of taxes, that's your opinion, but let me point out that Andrew Sullivan, the author of the article that brought the issue to my attention, is a REPUBLICAN. Not that a Democrat wouldn't support it, but take care when you go throwing around those increasingly meaningless slanders such as "liberal and conservative. " I hope I have clarified myself in a somewhat dignified manner. If I missed something, you have further questions, or just plain disagree, please post a response. One more apology for accidentally posting a private on a public, I will be sure to take more care in the future. Love, Rob 
