standard boilerplate: November 2005

[Dechristo]

conflicting s

 

I guess I'm dependent upon conflicting news sources.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Dechristo

[mattp]

I think the press is currently doing a very good job at quoting Bush's misleading soundbites and then putting them in perspective in the next paragraph with a bit of the opposition party view.

 

One of the main reasons the press didn't do this back in the run up to war, is because there was no opposition party at the time. The most the democrats were saying was, "Hey wait! Let's give this a little more calm reflection". This was accompanied by popular protests in the street. I think these all got good coverage. Anyway, what I'm saying is that if you want the press to print the positions of two sides, you actually gotta have two discernible sides.

 

I don't think we want the press to portray everything as a two sided issue as your post may be read to imply. In fact, there is sometimes something called "truth." In the run-up to the war, the press published stuff that they KNEW was crap, and they repeatedly allowed the White House to lie without ever questionning it. Even if the Democrats were too weak to do so, the press had a responsibility to ask real questions, to once in a while stand up and say "Hey, Mr. Secretary -- that is not what you said last week..." and to allow American readers to learn of the fact that, for example, nobody has ever made any connection between Saddam and AlQueeda.

 

They do us equal disservice, I think, if they print the Democrats talking points uncritically now. Well not quite equal disservice, because the Democrats have better points. But the point is, these important issues cannot be explained by two contrary political statements. First of all, sometimes one or the other of thse statements is complete B.S. and to give it credibility at all is a complete distortion in itself, and second of all, the issues are much more complex than partisan sound bytes can tell.

[Dechristo]

...the issues are much more complex than partisan sound bytes can tell.

[EWolfe]

Sorry. Not getting the audio?

[Dechristo]

Amusing when we are subjective (most of the time) to the point of not realizing our own partisan sound (or literary) sound bytes.

[selkirk]

Yes. Now where were we before we were so rudely interrupted?

 

Ah yes, America sucks, soldiers are yes-men, and the US got what she deserved with GW.

 

"America sucks"? - gee, reading this thread, I wonder why conservatives get the idea that liberals hate America, root for us to "lose", and are unpatriotic. Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's "patriotic" to attack your president, country, and foreign policy ad nauseam with a monomaniacal obsession.

 

 

I love it how conservatives see everything in black and white.

[archenemy]

What's a conservative? The opposite of preservative?

[selkirk]

hmmmm, maybe I should say reactionary?

propoganda blinded patriot?

general all around wankers

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I love it how conservatives see everything in black and white.

 

When it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[mattp]

 

When it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

 

Are you referring to Bush's obvious attempt to divert attention from his being caught lying to us? He's obviously lied again when he says that a senator from New Jersey or a governor from Vermont had access to the same intelligence he did.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

When it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

 

Are you referring to Bush's obvious attempt to divert attention from his being caught lying to us? He's obviously lied again when he says that a senator from New Jersey or a governor from Vermont had access to the same intelligence he did.

 

you are a monomaniac

[mattp]

and proud of it. You gotta admit, though, this latest "duck" looked like a "quack."

[selkirk]

 

When it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

 

Are you referring to Bush's obvious attempt to divert attention from his being caught lying to us? He's obviously lied again when he says that a senator from New Jersey or a governor from Vermont had access to the same intelligence he did.

 

you are a monomaniac

 

you are a monomaniac

 

I'd love to see you say this with a straight face

 

Bush is a genius. He has done a fabuluous job running the country. He was completely correct in invading Iraq. Iraq had WMD's, they just showed restraint and didn't use them when we invaded. Our occupation of Iraq is not a quagmire. We are not creating more terrorists while we are over there. Our civil liberties are not being erroded at home. The patriot act is in no way overreaching. The department of homeland security is a fabulous idea, and has been flawlessly implemented. The No-Child-Left-Behind act has been an utter success, because bush had a fantastic track record with education in Texas. Abstinence only education, reduces pregnancies and risky behaviours. Tax breaks for the wealthy improves the income of the poor.

[archenemy]

It is all a part of the Intelligent Design

[foraker]

you are a monomaniac

 

I think we can safely say that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

you are a monomaniac

 

I think we can safely say that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Yeah, right. Black is white. You Bush-haters have a one-track mind. You can't stop thinking of him and are obsessed with your hatred of him. You post continuously on this board criticisizing everything he says and does.

 

Ya naoborot dumayu a raznykh veshchakh, ne otdaya vsyo vnimaniye na odnu taku dumku. Vy op'yat pokazyvayete sebya durakom. Vot is vsyo.

Edited November 17, 2005 by KaskadskyjKozak

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Bush is a genius. He has done a fabuluous job running the country. He was completely correct in invading Iraq. Iraq had WMD's, they just showed restraint and didn't use them when we invaded. Our occupation of Iraq is not a quagmire. We are not creating more terrorists while we are over there. Our civil liberties are not being erroded at home. The patriot act is in no way overreaching. The department of homeland security is a fabulous idea, and has been flawlessly implemented. The No-Child-Left-Behind act has been an utter success, because bush had a fantastic track record with education in Texas. Abstinence only education, reduces pregnancies and risky behaviours. Tax breaks for the wealthy improves the income of the poor.

 

Bush is a mediocre president. His policies and decisions are mixed bag. He's not the worst president in history and not the best. He is neither a "miserable failure" nor the most capable leader. And only time will tell the effect of his most major decisions - the war on terror and his foreign policy in Iraq.

 

It's funny that I get accused of seeing things in black and white, when it's all YOU folks who clearly do. According to YOU all the Bush presidency is absolutely BLACK, a zero. I don't see it that way, and don't see it in any kind of absolute terms. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[mattp]

Ok then, Mr. Nuance, tell us what he's done WELL. Then tally up what he may have handled in a less than stellar manner. Let's get a little "balance sheet" going.

[JayB]

Tax breaks for the wealthy improves the income of the poor.

 

 

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0

 

Percentage of Households with:

 

Poor Households, 1994 All Households, 1971

Washing Machine 71.7 71.3

Clothes Dryer 50.2 44.5

Refrigerator 97.9 83.3

Stove 97.7 87.0

Color Television 92.5 43.3

Telephone 76.7 93.0

Air-conditioner 49.6 31.8

One or more cars 71.8 79.5

 

Income Status

mean real* income, 1966 mean real income, 1999

Top 20 percent $123.7 $254.8

Second 20 percent 80.5 147.8

Middle 20 percent 47.2 72.2

Next 20 percent 35.3 48.9

Bottom 20 percent 24.7 31.0

 

Help: *Adjusted for inflation.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html

 

[selkirk]

ooh, nit picky. I like that. I'll adjust accordingly.

 

Bush is a genius. He has done a fabuluous job running the country. He was completely correct in invading Iraq. Iraq had WMD's, they just showed restraint and didn't use them when we invaded. Our occupation of Iraq is not a quagmire. We are not creating more terrorists while we are over there. Our civil liberties are not being erroded at home. The patriot act is in no way overreaching. The department of homeland security is a fabulous idea, and has been flawlessly implemented. The No-Child-Left-Behind act has been an utter success, because bush had a fantastic track record with education in Texas. Abstinence only education, reduces pregnancies and risky behaviours.

 

And yeah, in my mind bush has been pretty much a failure. It could have been worse though. He could have actually installed a more effective and trustworty cabinet which would have allowed him to accomplish a larger portion of his agenda. As is, the general level of incompetence of many of his appointees and cabinet seems to have prevented him from making things as bad as they could have been. And your he may not be the worst. I'd put 10 bucks down now that in 20 years, the best that will be said of his policies is ineffectual and poorly executed. And you only get accused of seeing things in black and white when you indicate that all liberals hate this country, don't support the troops and want to see us crash and burn in Iraq. I'd say it's utterly patriotic to attack the president, his cabinent, and his foreign policy when there are so many problems with them.

[Stonehead]

Imagine, for an instance, that the actual reason for occupying Iraq is to be positioned to seize the Saudi oil fields in the event of a coup or eventual installation of a hostile government in the Saudi kingdom. In that scenairo then the Iraqi occupation would prevent the potential situation of being blackmailed or otherwise possible stop in the flow of oil to which we are highly dependent. In that case, 'securing the realm' makes perfect sense.

 

The US people would buy that but is it because there are potential backlash reactions from current regimes in the region that this idea is not promulgated?

[selkirk]

I've heard something similar put forward before. The fundamental need had nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq, but that we needed additional military bases in the area. Makes much more sense than most of the BS that the war was sold on.

[chucK]

Jayb,

I'm not sure I get your argument.

 

Your posted tables and link seem to show that income and consumer-goods ownership levels have steadily risen over the last few decades. Is this supposed to somehow imply that tax breaks for the rich help out the poor?

 

The connection is not obvious to me. Could you elaborate?

[Stonehead]

My concern is that the elites will tend to separate themselves from concept of the greater good. In other words, they will increasingly live in gated communities, send their children to exclusive private schools, etc. They recognize that there are difficult and/or insurmountable problems looming on the horizon and their response is to resign themselves to looking after their own rather than seeing to it that 'lifeboats' are available for everyone. Am I my brother's keeper? Apparently not, or soon (10years?) we shall find out.

[JayB]

The figures show that as the top marginal rate has been progressively lowered, the both the real income and the material-wealth of the poorest 20% of Americans has increased, and their percentage of total federal taxes paid has decreased.

 

I'd elaborate more but I'm too busy at the moment. The poor haven't been getting poorer under this system, they just haven't seen their income and standard of living increase as rapidly as everyone else.