THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

The Democratic response to the president's speech last night sure was a real knee-slapper. Now the Left is suddenly worried about Islamic terrorism, concerned about our troops and doing the political backstroke on their surrender plan for Iraq. And Jim Webb was the stooge to deliver it all. Who ever thought the former Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration would be carrying water for Nancy Pelosi?

Webb whined about how the economy really isn't that good. He launched into his class warfare routine, complaining about how corporate CEO's make 400 times the money regular workers do. It really is a tired act. Funny how the economy is doing better than it was 10 years ago, but when Clinton was in office, the Democrats and the media declared it an economic boom. The Big Lie continues.

Then there was the laughable line about how the president took us to war in Iraq recklessly. Really? Were Hillary Clinton and John Kerry reckless when they voted for the war in Iraq? Somehow that little fact seems to escape critics of the war. The Democrats want the war to end ... OK, we get it. But what is their plan for dealing with the violence that will only escalate if we withdraw now? Just sit back and watch it? Have the Democrats completely given up on the idea of actually accomplishing our goal in Iraq?

Apparently so.


by: Boortz

The Democratic response to the president's speech last night sure was a real knee-slapper. Now the Left is suddenly worried about Islamic terrorism, concerned about our troops and doing the political backstroke on their surrender plan for Iraq. And Jim Webb was the stooge to deliver it all. Who ever thought the former Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration would be carrying water for Nancy Pelosi?When was the "Left" not worried about Islamic terrorism? When were they not concerned about the troops? And I think Jim Webb has reason to be a little more concerned than others.

Webb whined about how the economy really isn't that good. He launched into his class warfare routine, complaining about how corporate CEO's make 400 times the money regular workers do. It really is a tired act. Funny how the economy is doing better than it was 10 years ago, but when Clinton was in office, the Democrats and the media declared it an economic boom. The Big Lie continues.A booming economy is quite meaningless when only a small percentage of the population reap most of its benefits.

Then there was the laughable line about how the president took us to war in Iraq recklessly. Really? Were Hillary Clinton and John Kerry reckless when they voted for the war in Iraq? Somehow that little fact seems to escape critics of the war. They didn't vote for the war, they voted to give the President the authority to go to war. They had no way of knowing that the President would take that authority and screw it up.

The Democrats want the war to end ... OK, we get it. But what is their plan for dealing with the violence that will only escalate if we withdraw now? Just sit back and watch it? Have the Democrats completely given up on the idea of actually accomplishing our goal in Iraq?

Apparently so.No. As far as I can tell, they just don't think our goal in Iraq is worth the financial and human costs.

by: BoortzIt must suck when your name sounds like a fart.

See... democrats DO get to reply to Bush's state of the union...

This 'party patriotism' is so stupid. I hope people wake up one of these days and realize that 'their' party could be wrong on a couple of issues too.

I thought Webb made some fantastic points.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. . .

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy: that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

Bravo Senator Webb!

THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

by: Boortz

Do you have anything to say sisko?

Funny how the economy is doing better than it was 10 years ago, but when Clinton was in office

I've heard of drinking the RightWing Kool-Aid, but this is truly beyond belief.

Funny how the economy is doing better than it was 10 years ago, By what possible yardstick is the economy doing better? Only by the 30 stocks that constitute the Dow. The S&P Indexes of the 500 and 1000 largest companies are down considerably from their highs, and the NASDAQ is off about 40%. Poverty and jobless rates have increased. I will admit the economy is doing very well for Donald Trump, who pays far less in capital gains taxes. And inheritance tax - once he becomes so full of himself he literally explodes.

Poverty and jobless rates have increased.

Actually, they've decreased...

The unemployment rate RIGHT NOW is just above the lowest the united states has EVER HAD.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/us/rec_unem.jpg

And poverty is steadily declining...

http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/labormkt/figure%201.jpg

Doesn't look like your argument adds up...

http://economics.about.com/od/economicindicatorinfo/a/bush_economy.htm

Economic Indicators and Bush

In the article "Presidential Elections and the Economy" we examined the link between economic performance and an incumbent's chance of getting re-elected to the post of President of the United States. We saw that the unemployment rate and the growth of the economy, as measured by Real GNP growth, give us some information on the likelihood an incumbent President will be re-elected. In particular strong unemployment and growth numbers in the final two years of a Presidency are particularly important.

With the data available at the time, we compared the current Bush administration to the 2nd term of the Clinton administration:

Let's consider the performance of jobs, as measured by the unemployment rate, and the economy as measured by the growth rate of real GDP, under George W. Bush's presidency. We only have data up to and including the first three months of 2004, so we will have to use that for our comparisons. First, the growth rate of real GNP:

Real GNP Growth
Clinton's 2nd Term: 4.20%


2001: 0.5% (Bush's 1st Term)
2002: 2.2%
2003: 3.1%
2004: 4.2% (First quarter) 37 Months Under Bush: 2.10%
Last 15 Months: 3.32%

-------and secondly, the average unemployment rate:

The Unemployment Rate
Clinton's 2nd Term: 4.40%

2001: 4.76% (Bush's 1st Term)
2002: 5.78%
2003: 6.00%
2004: 5.63% (First quarter) 37 Months Under Bush: 5.51%
Last 15 Months: 5.92%

We see that both real GNP growth and the unemployment rate have been worse under the Bush administration than they were under Clinton in his second term as President. As we can see from our real GNP growth statistics, the growth rate of real GNP has been rising steadily since the recession at the beginning of decade, whereas the unemployment rate is continuing to get worse.

When was the "Left" not worried about Islamic terrorism? When were they not concerned about the troops? And I think Jim Webb has reason to be a little more concerned than others.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "Left" as you call them are NOT worried about terrorism, they see it from a different angle than conservatives do. People on the right believe in trying to wipe out terrorism at its source. They realize that the thugocracies ruling in the Middle East are perfect breeding grounds for the radical form of Islam that much of the world either has been or is a victim of. Kind of like the way stagnant water is the perfect breeding ground for mosquitos. What conservatives believe is in trying to replace the kinds of governments that allow for Radical Islam to grow. A hard solution, it HAS cost the U.S., the "insurgents" and the radicals in Iran are going to do all they can to fight this.

In the meantime the "Left," as you called them, jester, do not believe in trying to give people in the Middle East a chance at a better life, at least not while Bush is in Office. Having Bush claim success for ANYTHING is anathema to that crowd, dammit. Anyway, they believe that terrorism is a law enforcement problem that America's policy should be to clean up the mess after a terrorist hit and maybe try to catch the people who pulled off the attack. Of course, they'll have to be given the Constitutional rights that Americans get and a lengthy trial and appeals and so forth.

Of course, the flaw with the "left's" way of doing things is that it gives the Islamists the iniative. THEY can decide when and where to strike, and seeing as who actually going into the Middle East and stopping terror at the point of a gun is a no-no, they'll have safe havens for their training and so forth. Not a good idea overall, dammit.

A booming economy is quite meaningless when only a small percentage of the population reap most of its benefits.

Kinda like saying that the economy is booming, but nobody has got a job. I'm having a problem grasping that brand of logic, dammit.

They didn't vote for the war, they voted to give the President the authority to go to war. They had no way of knowing that the President would take that authority and screw it up.

So, the Democrats gave Bush permission to go to war, yet weren't expecting Bush to use that authority to fight? I'm not getting that. If there was something Bush did wrong, one has to look at Somalia. The Ethiopian army managed to completely decimate the Islamist government that had taken over Somalia and was looking to expand its way of doing things. The Ethiopians managed to wipe those Islamists out in a matter of a week or two with a little help from the Kenyans and a couple of American AC-130s. Of course the Ethiopians didn't believe in having to spend 18 months going to the U.N. and begging and going before Congress and going through useless negotiation and taking prisoners and giving them rights or any of that. The Ethiopians swept into Somalia overnight RAN the Islamists out of Somalian cities, slammed them up against the barrier put there by the Kenyans and quietly killed them out of sight of the spineless Left, U.N. the Europeans and other softies who don't believe in that kind of thing. It worked, there may be a lesson there. If there is a criticism I have for Bush and the war in Iraq, it has to do with not being hard enough in dealing with the "insurgents" and others who are trying to sabotage Iraqi democracy, dammit.


No. As far as I can tell, they just don't think our goal in Iraq is worth the financial and human costs.

It'll be worth the cost if America has the fortitude in trying to place a government in the Middle East that doesn't believe in Radical Islamic terrorism, dammit.

Wow Darth, I never realized that the "source" of terrorism was Iraq.
:rolleyes:

Wow Darth, I never realized that the "source" of terrorism was Iraq.

Gee, dharmabum, I never said that Iraq was a source of terrorism, I'm talking about how to squash insurgencies, dammit.

Gee, dharmabum, I never said that Iraq was a source of terrorism, I'm talking about how to squash insurgencies, dammit.

No Darth, what you said was:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "Left" as you call them are NOT worried about terrorism, they see it from a different angle than conservatives do. People on the right believe in trying to wipe out terrorism at its source.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "Left" as you call them are NOT worried about terrorism, they see it from a different angle than conservatives do.

True. We do.

People on the right believe in trying to wipe out terrorism at its source.

Guffaw.

The war in Iraq not only will have NO effect on *wiping out terrorism*, it will serve to increase terrorism.

Not only that, but Bush and his co-conspirators were not in any way concerned with *wiping out terrorism* in their foray into Iraq. It is about control of massive oil resources. Period.

They realize that the thugocracies ruling in the Middle East are perfect breeding grounds for the radical form of Islam that much of the world either has been or is a victim of.

Breeding grounds that are only made worse breeding gounds by every Muslim that this government kills.

What conservatives believe is in trying to replace the kinds of governments that allow for Radical Islam to grow. A hard solution...

No "solution" whatsoever.

None.

In the meantime the "Left," as you called them, jester, do not believe in trying to give people in the Middle East a chance at a better life, at least not while Bush is in Office. Having Bush claim success for ANYTHING is anathema to that crowd

LOL.

Tell ya what, bub. If you can think of ANYTHING that that cretin has made a *success* of in the past 6 years, feel free to share it with us.

:hahanot:

Anyway, they believe that terrorism is a law enforcement problem

Yep.

It is.

A booming economy is quite meaningless when only a small percentage of the population reap most of its benefits.

Kinda like saying that the economy is booming, but nobody has got a job.

Uhhh.....no. It's actually more like saying that there is little meaning in calling it a 'booming economy' when a small percentage of the population is reaping most of the benefits of it.

It'll be worth the cost if America has the fortitude in trying to place a government in the Middle East that doesn't believe in Radical Islamic terrorism

Bullshit.

Firstly, placing one government in the Middle East that "doesn't believe in Radical Islamic terrorism" ---even IF it were possible for this country to do it-- is not going to make a difference big enough to justify the expenditure of two trillion taxdollars and (so far) 3200 soldier's lives.

Face it; Iraq was far better off --in virtually every way that can be measured or assessed-- before your cretinous pal invaded it than it is since he did it.

You are SO wrong on this in SO many ways it's hard to know where to begin.

Read more carefully, dharmabum. That quote of mine that you lifted was in response to Jester's reply on whether or not the Democrats are "concerned" about terrorism. THEN I moved on and replied to Jester's idea that Bush screwed up the war in Iraq where I detailed how the Ethiopians dealt with Islamists in Somalia. Two very different replies to two very different statements, dammit.

You're taking my posts out of context, dammit.

Darth, I understood your "point" better then you did.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "Left" as you call them are NOT worried about terrorism, they see it from a different angle than conservatives do. People on the right believe in trying to wipe out terrorism at its source.
....Firstly, I was quoting Boortz when I referred to them as the "Left." I myself would have used the word "Democrats," since that's who he was actually talking about.

Secondly, until you have a more objective view of what the "Left" believes, and attempt to understand what they actually think, I see no use in discussing this issue with you.

Kinda like saying that the economy is booming, but nobody has got a job. I'm having a problem grasping that brand of logic, dammit.It means that only certain indicators show the economy to be booming. Regardless, economic indicators never tell the entire story. You can't feed your kids the Dow Jones Industrial Average for dinner.

So, the Democrats gave Bush permission to go to war, yet weren't expecting Bush to use that authority to fight? I'm not getting that. If there was something Bush did wrong, one has to look at Somalia. The Ethiopian army managed to completely decimate the Islamist government that had taken over Somalia and was looking to expand its way of doing things. The Ethiopians managed to wipe those Islamists out in a matter of a week or two with a little help from the Kenyans and a couple of American AC-130s. Of course the Ethiopians didn't believe in having to spend 18 months going to the U.N. and begging and going before Congress and going through useless negotiation and taking prisoners and giving them rights or any of that. The Ethiopians swept into Somalia overnight RAN the Islamists out of Somalian cities, slammed them up against the barrier put there by the Kenyans and quietly killed them out of sight of the spineless Left, U.N. the Europeans and other softies who don't believe in that kind of thing. It worked, there may be a lesson there. If there is a criticism I have for Bush and the war in Iraq, it has to do with not being hard enough in dealing with the "insurgents" and others who are trying to sabotage Iraqi democracy, dammit.You cannot be serious. There are several things that should have been done differently at every stage of the war. They have been noted several times, so I won't waste time repeating them.

As for the comparison of Somalia and Iraq, there isn't much that the two have in common. In Somalia, the Islamists held territory and controlled the capital and most of the country. The Ethiopians and Islamists were therefore engaged in conventional warfare which drove back the Islamists. On the other hand, our enemies in Iraq hold no territory or cities, are dispersed amongst the population, and have engaged us in a guerilla war. The strategies used by Ethiopia in Somalia therefore have no way of being used in Iraq. They're simply two different types of wars.

It would be more valid to compare the war in Somalia to our war in Afghanistan, or even to the initial stage of the Iraq war. In both cases we were successful and kicked the living shit out of the enemy. However, the present situation in Iraq is a completely different animal, and a different strategy will have to be used.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "Left" as you call them are NOT worried about terrorism, they see it from a different angle than conservatives do. People on the right believe in trying to wipe out terrorism at its source. They realize that the thugocracies ruling in the Middle East are perfect breeding grounds for the radical form of Islam that much of the world either has been or is a victim of. Kind of like the way stagnant water is the perfect breeding ground for mosquitos. What conservatives believe is in trying to replace the kinds of governments that allow for Radical Islam to grow.

It would seem that the conservative way hasn't worked so well.


A hard solution, it HAS cost the U.S., the "insurgents" and the radicals in Iran are going to do all they can to fight this.

It never ceases to appall me that you mention how hard this has been for the US but don't seem to give even a passing mention to those who have really suffered, the Iraqi people.


In the meantime the "Left," as you called them, jester, do not believe in trying to give people in the Middle East a chance at a better life, at least not while Bush is in Office.

When you make idiotic remarks like that it only makes you look like more of a partisan hack than those you attack.


Having Bush claim success for ANYTHING is anathema to that crowd, dammit.

Of course Darth. Those on the left are willing to sacrifice American and Iraqi lives just to make Bush look bad. If you believe this you have no credibility whatsoever.


Anyway, they believe that terrorism is a law enforcement problem that America's policy should be to clean up the mess after a terrorist hit and maybe try to catch the people who pulled off the attack. Of course, they'll have to be given the Constitutional rights that Americans get and a lengthy trial and appeals and so forth.

I see now you aren't capable of being honest about the "left". Maybe it's out of ignorance, but I doubt it.


Of course, the flaw with the "left's" way of doing things is that it gives the Islamists the iniative.

The "right" has been doing things their way for several years now...who has the initiative now?


THEY can decide when and where to strike, and seeing as who actually going into the Middle East and stopping terror at the point of a gun is a no-no, they'll have safe havens for their training and so forth. Not a good idea overall, dammit.

Again Darth, Bush has had 3+ years to do things his way...how's that working out? I would imagine you'll find some way to blame the "left" for the failures in Iraq so far.


So, the Democrats gave Bush permission to go to war, yet weren't expecting Bush to use that authority to fight? I'm not getting that.

Bush promised to use that autority as a last resort. The truth is that he wanted war from the outset. Get it now?


If there was something Bush did wrong, one has to look at Somalia. The Ethiopian army managed to completely decimate the Islamist government that had taken over Somalia and was looking to expand its way of doing things. The Ethiopians managed to wipe those Islamists out in a matter of a week or two with a little help from the Kenyans and a couple of American AC-130s. Of course the Ethiopians didn't believe in having to spend 18 months going to the U.N. and begging and going before Congress and going through useless negotiation and taking prisoners and giving them rights or any of that. The Ethiopians swept into Somalia overnight RAN the Islamists out of Somalian cities, slammed them up against the barrier put there by the Kenyans and quietly killed them out of sight of the spineless Left, U.N. the Europeans and other softies who don't believe in that kind of thing. It worked, there may be a lesson there. If there is a criticism I have for Bush and the war in Iraq, it has to do with not being hard enough in dealing with the "insurgents" and others who are trying to sabotage Iraqi democracy, dammit.

Jester astutely pointed out the flaws in your thinking on this topic.


It'll be worth the cost if America has the fortitude in trying to place a government in the Middle East that doesn't believe in Radical Islamic terrorism, dammit.

How noble of you to make that decision for the Iraqi people.

I hate it when life catches up with me and I can't respond to rebuttals the way I should be doing. Anyway, here we go, again, dammit.


Vile's quotes.........

It would seem that the conservative way hasn't worked so well.

Your determined to take the tenacity of our enemy, the Islamists as proof that we are losing the war on terror. We've wiped out two thugacracies, Libya's Qadafi decided to give up their nuclear weapons program, for a while Lebanon decided to not allow Hezbollah and Iran and Syria to use their country as a springboard for attacking Israel. Afghanistan isn't the kind of country that welcomes invaders, yet the U.S. was able to oust the taliban from that nation in weeks. Iraq is the same story. Both countries have strived to form a new government to replace their previous oppressive regimes. I can add that interecepted messages from the "insurgents" have indicated that they're not doing all that well in Iraq. Yet, you'll sit there and absorb all the bad news about Iraq and conclude we're losing.

It never ceases to appall me that you mention how hard this has been for the US but don't seem to give even a passing mention to those who have really suffered, the Iraqi people.

Wars have a tendency to be rough on the civilians, no matter how careful one fights. The people who should harvest the blame for civilian deaths in Iraq are the "insurgents" who have made a home industry of blowing up markets and mosques. Yet you never seem to want to blame THEM, dammit.

Of course Darth. Those on the left are willing to sacrifice American and Iraqi lives just to make Bush look bad. If you believe this you have no credibility whatsoever.

You would've to look long and hard to find ANYONE on the Democrat side giving Bush credit for ANYTHING, dammit. IF the Left is not willing to sacrifice lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, they're sure as hell willing to use the casualties to put pressure on Bush to get out of Iraq.

I see now you aren't capable of being honest about the "left". Maybe it's out of ignorance, but I doubt it.

Really? What happened to the people responsible for the '93 WTC bombing? From what I recall there WERE given rights and protections afforded to U.S. civilians, a lawyer a grand jury and public testimony as to how these guys were tracked down. What does that sound like to you? It sounds to me like the democrats believe that terrorism is a law enforcement issue and in spite of the fact that terrorists are usually foreign born and trained, they're given trials as if they were American citizens. What part did I get wrong?

The "right" has been doing things their way for several years now...who has the initiative now?

Who WILL have the initiative if we go and give Iraq to the "insurgents?" Try Iran, dammit.

Bush promised to use that autority as a last resort. The truth is that he wanted war from the outset. Get it now?

Which is why Bush spent some 18 months making the case to go to war with Saddam. 18 months doesn't sound like Bush went and rushed to war. Don't split hair with me, Bush went before Congress twice to get a resolution to go to war with Iraq, Bush went before the U.N. to lay his case before the world. I can add that Saddam had more than a decade for the U.N. weapon inspectors to do their job.

How noble of you to make that decision for the Iraqi people.

Yeah, we should've sat back and let Saddam run his torture chambers and rape rooms and gas the Kurds on holidays and tell the Iraqis "gee, it sucks to be you." Dammit.

What about FT? No rebuttal for him?

What about FT? No rebuttal for him?

Gee, is it my job to provide rebuttals for everyone? Dammit.

His post in another one of my little gems of a post is far more interesting. I'm thinking about responding to some critics over on the "Bin Laden and Pelosi, allies?" thread.

Just curious. Thanks for the well-thought out reply!

IF the Left is not willing to sacrifice lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, they're sure as hell willing to use the casualties to put pressure on Bush to get out of Iraq.

Hold on a second, let's think about what you just said. If the left is not willing to sacrifice American lives and Iraqi citizens, then they are "using" those casualties to pressure Bush into leaving Iraq.

...

You can't seriously be trying to spin that to make democrats look bad. They do not like the American and Iraqi casualties, and they want to leave Iraq to prevent further casualties.

This does not mean democrats want to lose in Iraq.

This does not mean democrats are exploiting the casualties to get across their agenda.

Honestly, I cannot believe you made such ridiculous claims. You're Michael Moore on the other side of the aisle.

Hold on a second, let's think about what you just said. If the left is not willing to sacrifice American lives and Iraqi citizens, then they are "using" those casualties to pressure Bush into leaving Iraq.

...

You can't seriously be trying to spin that to make democrats look bad. They do not like the American and Iraqi casualties, and they want to leave Iraq to prevent further casualties.

This does not mean democrats want to lose in Iraq.

This does not mean democrats are exploiting the casualties to get across their agenda.

Honestly, I cannot believe you made such ridiculous claims. You're Michael Moore on the other side of the aisle.

I don't think ALL democrats want to "lose" the war in Iraq...

However, i think MOST of them have USED the war in order to make themselves better off... most of them have changed sides, they were all for it back in the beginning.. and then they jumped ship. Hey, that's all fine and good, but don't try to bury what you originally thought.

I think big time democrats PLASTER the deaths of american soldiers RIGHT UP FRONT so that people will think of that first, thus manipulating that this is a very "peaceful" war whey you look at the history of war.

I would have to say he's partly correct Carbon.. but the republicans would do the same thing. It's all about making the other side look wrong, it's not about being right.

I don't think ALL democrats want to "lose" the war in Iraq...

I don't know any Democrats with any credibility who thinks that we can still "win" in Iraq. (as Bush defined "winning")

The best we can hope for at this point is to prevent the civil war in Iraq from spilling outside it's borders and becoming WW3.

the economy is good when the democrats say it is. that always coincides with who is in office

the economy is good when the democrats say it is. that always coincides with who is in office

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, tell that to Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. </sarcasm>

wait a minute, what year is this? 1980?

The point, Trav, is that the economy is "good" when liquid capital is available to the average person for spending.

The economy right now is very good for a few people and not good for most others.

As the Republican Senator from LA said on Meet the Press this weekend, (echoing John Edwards, Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel) "It is like there are two Americas".

there are not two Americas, there are two Americans. one who sits around wishing he had what the other guy had and one who goes out and works to aquire the things the other guy has. What does a politician accomplish by saying such things as "there are two americas?" If you ask me all it does is legitamize the lazy. Perhaps if they wait for the right combination of politicians to assume office they too could have what the other guy has, simply by doing nothing. The simple fact in America is this: the opportunity to be whatever you want is here, it just takes a lot bit of want to.

Your denial of the obvious economic realities makes discussion a waste of time.

Rest assured, all the people who worked for Enron, Tyco, K-Mart and Worldcom and worked their asses off only to lose everything anyway, would all disagree with your nonsense.

The point, Trav, is that the economy is "good" when liquid capital is available to the average person for spending.

could you reconcile that with the growth in consumer spending over the last several years. There seems to be adiscrepancy between your opinion and the facts.


The economy right now is very good for a few people and not good for most others.

As the Republican Senator from LA said on Meet the Press this weekend, (echoing John Edwards, Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel) "It is like there are two Americas".

Merely saying so doesn't make it so. Facts please.

even I know not to put all your stocks with one company. It is sad they got robbed, but how is that my fault?

could you reconcile that with the growth in consumer spending over the last several years.


Growth? What Growth? (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/08/news/economy/may_spending/index.htm)

Consumer spending continues to soften
MasterCard Advisors' "Spending Pulse" report for national retail sales shows four months of slowing spending.
By Parija Bhatnagar, CNNMoney.com staff writer
June 8, 2006: 3:47 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - A new report tracking national retail sales in May indicates that this year's run-up in gas prices has started to eat into an already slowing rate of consumer spending.

According to the latest report from MasterCard Advisors, the consulting arm of Mastercard International (Research), total retail sales last month excluding auto purchases rose 0.2 percent from the prior month.

Lets take a look at a leading indicator (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/consumer_spending/index.html)of consumer spending and where it is right now, shall we?

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/real_consumption_v_nahb.png

Notice where it is... DOWN.

I KNOW you weren't talking about growth in wages, (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0511-08.htm) because when they haven't been falling over the last 6 years they have been stagnant when compared to inflation.

Real Wages Fall at Fastest Rate in 14 Years
by Christopher Swann in Washington

Real wages in the US are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years, according to data surveyed by the Financial Times.

Inflation rose 3.1 per cent in the year to March but salaries climbed just 2.4 per cent, according to the Employment Cost Index. In the final three months of 2004, real wages fell by 0.9 per cent.

The last time salaries fell this steeply was at the start of 1991, when real wages declined by 1.1 per cent.

It isn't about mere consumer spending, because that goes up whenever inflation does.

It is really about Consumer Discretionary Spending, which means having more then just enough money to pay the bills.

It isn't about mere consumer spending, because that goes up whenever inflation does.

It is really about Consumer Discretionary Spending, which means having more then just enough money to pay the bills.


Good luck trying to make the ConservaFascists understand that.

________________________________________________

The Corporate States of America has for many decades had a policy of ruthlessly crushing --thru either clandestine means or outright military invasion-- any country on earth that gets in the way of U.S. Corporate profits or who is not willing to play by US-imposed rules ; Iran under Mossadegh, Guatemala under Arbenz, Cuba under Castro, Chile under Allende, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas and Ortega, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, and Bolivia under Morales, to name a few. The list is long and bloody.

The entire reason for existence of the mainstream Corporate Media is to protect the fascists, to smear those exposing truths, to ignore movements seeking to expose criminal acts, to enable the machinations of the Bush cabal and to grant life to the manipulative mechanisms of the State.

If anyone in here guilty of Facism.. its you FT.. constantly printing article after article after article from Ihategeorgebush.com, trying to manipulate and mindfuck anyone who doesn't know any better that every single false assumption you make and can't prove is true, and then getting some jackoff that thinks like you to write an opinion article and pass it off as fact, all the while bashing anyone else who posts an opinion article by saying "Oh, he works for the corporate media". LMAO... If the media is so corporate, and so on Bush's side, than how come they bash him so much?

constantly printing article after article after article from Ihategeorgebush.com,

Please give just ONE example of that... just one.

I will wait...

If the media is so corporate, and so on Bush's side,

The one has nothing to do with the other.

If anyone in here guilty of Facism.. its you FT..

Even though I am completely unfamiliar with the term *facism*, I invite you to elucidate on that accusation.

....constantly printing article after article after article from Ihategeorgebush.com, ...

You're again revealed to be a baldfaced liar.

Not only have I never been to a website named "Ihategeorgebush.com", I have never heard of any such website.

trying to manipulate and mindfuck anyone who doesn't know any better that every single false assumption you make and can't prove is true, ....

ROTFL. You have yet to refute --in the slightest way-- anything I have ever posted here.


...and then getting some jackoff that thinks like you to write an opinion article and pass it off as fact, ......


You're again revealed to be a liar.

I have never urged or prompted any human being on earth to write about GWBush.

...all the while bashing anyone else who posts an opinion article by saying "Oh, he works for the corporate media".

Ahhhh.....here we have a concrete claim for once.

Please post here every instance where I have --""bashed anyone who posted an opinion article by saying --"Oh, he works for the corporate media""--.......""


"If the media is so corporate, and so on Bush's side, than how come they bash him so much?

Ok. You claim here that the mainstream Media --""bashes him so much"". I have not seen it.

Show me.

Please post 10 or 20 examples of the incessant "bashing* of GWBush in the mainstream Media that you're refering to.

Even though I am completely unfamiliar with the term *facism*, I invite you to elucidate on that accusation.

okay... i posted a "typo"... my bad



You're again revealed to be a baldfaced liar.

Not only have I never been to a website named "Ihategeorgebush.com", I have never heard of any such website.

They might as well be labeled that... because most of their lives and "professional careers" revolve around that very phrase. And hey, i'm not saying they are 100% wrong, but come on, there is OBVIOUSLY an agenda.. that you can't deny.



ROTFL. You have yet to refute --in the slightest way-- anything I have ever posted here.

You don't refute much of what i say either... you normally go on cruise control about corporations and people being sheep or whatever radical buzzword or phrase you want to throw in there.





You're again revealed to be a liar.

I have never urged or prompted any human being on earth to write about GWBush.

Didn't mean it that way, sorry if you misunderstood.. i merely meant that you often, actually almost always, refer to people who badmouth america or george bush in opinion articles..



Ahhhh.....here we have a concrete claim for once.

Please post here every instance where I have --""bashed anyone who posted an opinion article by saying --"Oh, he works for the corporate media""--.......""

ummm wow can someone else back me up on this one? You use your radicals sources like they are from wilkpedia.. and then if anyone uses a conservative source it its instantly ignored.. how convenient!

Maybe when Rush makes a good point(he's usually due for a good one once a day)... i'll say that and watch you pass it off because it's "Rush Limbaugh"




Ok. You claim here that the mainstream Media --""bashes him so much"". I have not seen it.

Show me.

Please post 10 or 20 examples of the incessant "bashing* of GWBush in the mainstream Media that you're refering to.

I will gladly show some examples, and post questions after each example. My purpose is not to prove that the media "bashes bush" as badly as you, because that is probably impossible. My objective is to ask why certain articles and headlines are being written about if our mainstream media IS.. as you say so many times.. controlled by corporations.. and is right wing friendly, like you also say:

I'll post headline, my questions, and then the link

George Bush should learn lessons from History

Article questioning MANY of Bush's moves.. If we live in a facist and media controlled country.. and there is some conspiracy by the media to paint Bush as a good guy.. why are these questions and articles allowed to be published?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067215/

Bush to stem cell community: Drop dead

That's not a quote.. that's the media "supposedly" covering for our president and always putting him in a positive spin :rolleyes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/

A weakened president knows what he's getting

Now wait.. i thought the media always portrayed Bush as STRONG and BOLD... not weak? What's up with that?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8789892/

Bush owes us an apology

For what? Not giving you credit for all of the great press you give him?:D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Dems Make War On Bush's Iraq Plan

If media was pro-Bush, and corporations controlled what was printed... why would they fuel the other side?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/politics/main2393050.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

GOP Opposition To Bush Iraq Plan Grows

Why would the media reveal their own flaws if its all a Corporate, Conservative controlled media?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/politics/main2393312.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

Ford: Reasons For Iraq War 'A Big Mistake'

Why would a conservative controlled media allow this to be printed?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/28/politics/main2304283.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories


Sorry, i did two searches, one on MSNBC and one on CBS obviously.. i don't feel like spending boatloads of time on finding more examples. I am not saying these articles are incorrect, i am just wondering why they even exist if our media is so tightly controlled by corporations and conservatives, like you theorize FT.

Why would a conservative controlled media allow this to be printed?

For plausible deniability when they are inevitably accused of being biased.

Or because they realize that 80% of the country is against the war so they are merely reporting whatever will get them ratings.

Or because they realize that 80% of the country is against the war so they are merely reporting whatever will get them ratings.

WOW!! I think someone who usually has a partisan agenda to spew has finally hit on the REAL media bias, that moderates have been talking about forever.

For the last time, there is no "Conservative" bias, and there is no "Liberal" bias. There is the bias of whatever will get them the best ratings at that moment!

For the last time, there is no "Conservative" bias, and there is no "Liberal" bias. There is the bias of whatever will get them the best ratings at that moment!

That used to be true. That was the case back when we still had the fairness doctrine and conservatives first started whining about a nonexistent liberal bias.

Unfortunately now (thanks to conservative media policies) we have a media that specificly targets market segments.

Fox targets the "conservative market" and CBS and MSNBC have tepidly attempted to target the "liberal market".

someone who usually has a partisan agenda to spew

You are mistaken here.

You are mistaken here.
Bullcrap, dear. You make it very clear that you are a Liberal, and you hate Conservatives, and therefore all of your opinions are partisan (definition: prejudiced in favor of a particular cause).

You make it very clear that you are a Liberal, and you hate Conservatives, and therefore all of your opinions are partisan (definition: prejudiced in favor of a particular cause).

Ok, using that defnition I see where you are coming from. I use Partisan to mean prejudiced in favor of a particular political party, which I am not.

By your definition, anyone with an opinion is partisan.

Ok, using that defnition I see where you are coming from. I use Partisan to mean prejudiced in favor of a particular political party, which I am not.

By your definition, anyone with an opinion is partisan.
I was talking politically, but since I know you hate both major parties, it's the political ideology (liberalism) about which I am talking.

Ok, using that defnition I see where you are coming from. I use Partisan to mean prejudiced in favor of a particular political party, which I am not.

By your definition, anyone with an opinion is partisan.
Main Entry: 1par·ti·san
Variant(s): also par·ti·zan /'pär-t&-z&n, -s&n, -"zan, chiefly British "pär-t&-'zan/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French partisan, from north Italian dialect partian, from part part, party, from Latin part-, pars part
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Sorry, i did two searches, one on MSNBC and one on CBS obviously.. i don't feel like spending boatloads of time on finding more examples.

??

The examples I asked for were not **examples where the Press failed to praise Bush**.

I asked for examples of the MSM ---per your allegation-- *bashing* Bush.

Are the articles you provided the most illustrative of that you could find of the MSM "bashing" Bush ....??

Point out to me something in the articles that you see as *bashing Bush*.

??

The examples I asked for were not **examples where the Press failed to praise Bush**.

I asked for examples of the MSM ---per your allegation-- *bashing* Bush.

Are the articles you provided the most illustrative of that you could find of the MSM "bashing" Bush ....??

Point out to me something in the articles that you see as *bashing Bush*.

What do you consider "bashing"? Since you consider criticizing him quite bluntly to be fair observation (pretty much agreed...), I suppose you wouldn't consider it bashing until the press calls for his execution. Am I right?

What do you consider "bashing"? Since you consider criticizing him quite bluntly to be fair observation (pretty much agreed...), I suppose you wouldn't consider it bashing until the press calls for his execution. Am I right?
:lolhit:

What do you consider "bashing"? Since you consider criticizing him quite bluntly to be fair observation (pretty much agreed...), I suppose you wouldn't consider it bashing until the press calls for his execution. Am I right?

No, you are not right.

I searched through all the articles, and the piece concerning Keith Olberman's views was the only one where I could find anything that could be remotely called "bashing".

Feel free to go through them and point out to me anything in the other articles where you see something you'd call "bashing Bush".

As an example, in answering my request for articles where the mainstream Media "bashes Bush", Decka gave the following link......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/24/politics/main2393050.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

I just read the entire CBS news article at that link. I did a word search of that article.

The word *Bush* is in print three times in the article.

Here are all three instances where Mr Bush was mentioned or refered to;

(1) "In a calculated snub of President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed plans for a troop buildup in Iraq on Wednesday as "not in the national interest" of the United States."

Nowhere in that sentence does the article express ANY opinion whatsoever --pro or con-- on president Bush. There is no "bashing" of the Democrats or of Bush. It simply notes, correctly, that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is registering its opposition to his proposal to send more troops to Iraq.

(2) In the wake of midterm election losses, Mr. Bush announced two weeks ago that he would order an additional 21,500 troops into the war zone. In Tuesday night's State of the Union address, he implored skeptical lawmakers to give the strategy a chance.

Nowhere in that paragraph does the article express ANY opinion whatsoever --pro or con-- on president Bush. There is no "bashing".


(3) Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the committee's senior Republican, readily conceded he was not sure Mr. Bush's new policy would succeed.

Nowhere in that sentence does the article express ANY opinion whatsoever --pro or con-- on president Bush. There is no "bashing".

From what I read, the other articles are in a similar vein. They may report --in a straightforward way-- on Democratic opposition to certain actions or proposals by Bush, but there is no "bashing" in simply reporting cold, hard fact.

If you can find something different, let me know.

If that is so true FT.. than how come the headline is so definitive.. DEMS MAKE WAR ON BUSH'S IRAQ PLAN... if the story isn't about Bush at all.. than how come he is even in the headline?

I was talking politically, but since I know you hate both major parties, it's the political ideology (liberalism) about which I am talking.

You have defended conservatism more often than not, from my observations, so you are also partisan towards conservatism.

"The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead animals."

If that is so true FT.. than how come the headline is so definitive.. DEMS MAKE WAR ON BUSH'S IRAQ PLAN... if the story isn't about Bush at all.. than how come he is even in the headline?

Because it is Bush's war, his "plan" and his responsibility.

of all the topics on this forum the "debate" with freethinker about which way the media leans is the one that is the biggest waste of time. The guy is so far left he makes Castro look conservative. Of course he is going to see anything right of him as "right wing". He wont even admit the fake documents about Bush and the national guard that came out on 60 minutes wasn't a right wing thing.

Trav, you are easily as far to the right as FT (or Hugo Chavez for that matter) is to the left.

Growth? What Growth? (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/08/news/economy/may_spending/index.htm)

You might want to re-think about what the chart is telling you. The chart says that from Feb 05 to Feb 06 Consumer spending increased by nearly 10%, from Mar 05 to Mar 06 Consumer spending increased by nearly 8%, same for the Apr 05-06 comparisons .... In sum the chart you've provided indicates that people are spending at an increasing rate. (The rate of increase may be slowing but it is still increasing.) The exact opposite of your contention that there isn't enough liquid capital available.



Lets take a look at a leading indicator (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/consumer_spending/index.html)of consumer spending and where it is right now, shall we?

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/real_consumption_v_nahb.png

Notice where it is... DOWN.

Nice but we're talking about what has been, not forecasting.

I KNOW you weren't talking about growth in wages, (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0511-08.htm) because when they haven't been falling over the last 6 years they have been stagnant when compared to inflation.

Irrelevant to the benchmark you set.



It isn't about mere consumer spending, because that goes up whenever inflation does.

It is really about Consumer Discretionary Spending, which means having more then just enough money to pay the bills.

Consumer spending, according to your chart, has grown at rates in excess of the inflation rate so again your point is refuted.

For plausible deniability when they are inevitably accused of being biased.

Or because they realize that 80% of the country is against the war so they are merely reporting whatever will get them ratings.


This sounds like the edge of another one of the whacko conspiracy theories. Can we expect to be seeing articles about the illuminati, the trilateral commission, the Bilderburg group, the freemasons (am i leaving out anybody) and how it's all a giant conspiracy to rule the world?

If that is so true FT.. than how come the headline is so definitive.. DEMS MAKE WAR ON BUSH'S IRAQ PLAN... if the story isn't about Bush at all.. than how come he is even in the headline?

The story IS about Bush, and also about the opposition that the Democrats have to his plan for more troops.

But there is no "bashing" of Bush in the story. None.

I searched through all the articles, and the piece concerning Keith Olberman's prompting of the president to apologize was the only one where I could find anything that could be even remotely be called "bashing".

Feel free to go through them and point out to me anything in the other articles where you see something you'd call "bashing Bush".

You have defended conservatism more often than not, from my observations, so you are also partisan towards conservatism.

"The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead animals."

Hahahahaha... Wow. You are the only person ever who has called me a conservative. I'm pro-choice, pro-welfare, pro-environment, and anti-war. I'm pretty sure the conservatives do not want me grouped with them.

Hahahahaha... Wow. You are the only person ever who has called me a conservative. I'm pro-choice, pro-welfare, pro-environment, and anti-war. I'm pretty sure the conservatives do not want me grouped with them.
I'm sure it looks that way from any fringe lunatic's perspective, DF.

I'm sure it looks that way from any fringe lunatic's perspective, DF.
So, Prae, you're pretty conservative, right? How do you feel about my political leanings?

I consider myself a moderate, leaning left. On a few issues I lean right, but I'm sure if you counted them up I'd be a little more to the left.

I consider myself a moderate, leaning left. On a few issues I lean right, but I'm sure if you counted them up I'd be a little more to the left.
I'd say that's pretty accurate.

You have defended conservatism more often than not, from my observations, so you are also partisan towards conservatism.

"The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead animals."

I could definitely say the same thing about you, being partisan and all. So why do you call someone else something when you are exactly that?

I could definitely say the same thing about you, being partisan and all. So why do you call someone else something when you are exactly that?
I called him partisan because he's a liberal (and he IS), so he decided that I'm a conservative. I suppose I'll just have to start supporting Bush now, because dharma says I'm a right-winger. :rolleyes:

The story IS about Bush, and also about the opposition that the Democrats have to his plan for more troops.

But there is no "bashing" of Bush in the story. None.

I searched through all the articles, and the piece concerning Keith Olberman's prompting of the president to apologize was the only one where I could find anything that could be even remotely be called "bashing".

Feel free to go through them and point out to me anything in the other articles where you see something you'd call "bashing Bush".

You see... "Bashing" is a relative term... what is "bashing"? By YOUR standards, NONE of that is "bashing" bush. Bashing bush by your standards probably has something to do with calling for his murder with a high powered rifle.

I already stated that in my post.. obviously you missed it... but can you answer MY question? Why do these articles even exist if our media is so corporate and conservative friendly, and they are all conspiring to make Bush look good?

.....

... what is "bashing"? By YOUR standards, NONE of that is "bashing" bush.

No, it isn't.

Other than the Olberman piece, not only could I not find anything "bashing" Bush, I couldn't find any commentary where rebuke or disapproval was being aimed at him

Once again I invite you to go through the articles and point out to me where the Media is "bashing" Bush. You said ---"""If the media is so corporate, and so on Bush's side, than how come they bash him so much?""

You've given no evidence of "so much" bashing. Olberman had a piece where he said that Bush ought to apologize.......other than that, I see nothing that could remotely be called 'bashing'.

Just give me some examples from the links to the articles you posted where rebuke or disapproval was being leveled at Bush.

Decka seems to think that ANY criticism of the President is too much and is evidence of a "liberal" bias... only because he is currently a Republican.

But he ignores all the blasting of Bill Clinton that went on during his 8 years in office.

Decka seems to think that ANY criticism of the President is too much and is evidence of a "liberal" bias... only because he is currently a Republican.

But she ignores all the blasting of Bill Clinton that went on during his 8 years in office.
when Clinton left office she was 9 years old.:slap:

Sheesh. I did it again.
Decka is just so shrill I keep thinking he is a she.

I suppose I'll just have to start supporting Bush now, because dharma says I'm a right-winger. :rolleyes:

That's MY job, darkfantasy, dammit!

I called him partisan because he's a liberal (and he IS), so he decided that I'm a conservative. I suppose I'll just have to start supporting Bush now, because dharma says I'm a right-winger. :rolleyes:

Riiiiiiiight, so the moral here is that you can label me, but I shouldn't label you.

Can you say hypocrisy?

Riiiiiiiight, so the moral here is that you can label me, but I shouldn't label you.

Can you say hypocrisy?
Excuse me? You're not a liberal? You've said so before if I recall.

I can call you something that you've called yourself, but you cannot call me something that I am not and have not called myself.

If you aren't a liberal, I extend my most sincere apologies for assuming that you were.

If you aren't a liberal, I extend my most sincere apologies for assuming that you were.

Thank you.

I consider myself socially liberal (i.e. social safety nets, belief in caring for the less fortunate) and fiscally conservative (i.e. balanced budgets, paying off debt) as I believe most Americans are.

I consider myself socially liberal (i.e. social safety nets, belief in caring for the less fortunate) and fiscally conservative (i.e. balanced budgets, paying off debt) as I believe most Americans are.

Take it from me, homeslice, you don't have the slightest clue what fiscal conservatism is, dammit.

Take it from me, homeslice, you don't have the slightest clue what fiscal conservatism is, dammit.

You are an idiot, so I take that as a compliment.

You are the one with no clue what REAL fiscal conservatism is.

You've given no evidence of "so much" bashing. Olberman had a piece where he said that Bush ought to apologize.......other than that, I see nothing that could remotely be called 'bashing'.


You aren't understanding the context of the argument...

I am well aware that none of these articles will be considered "bashing" by you. You have set the ante quite high.

I am wondering (i'll ask for the 3rd time) why these stories exist. You say it's a conspiracy by conservatives who own corporations and control what the media says. You preach that on a daily basis on here. Well, if that is true, then these articles probably wouldn't be what would come out of such a fixed arrangement, right? While these articles aren't all out trashing Bush, they ARE casting him a negative light. And hey, some of it is well warranted. I am merely asking why these stories are written. If I had the power to fix a boxing match.. i wouldn't set it up so that the guy who I DIDNT BET ON won...

You are an idiot, so I take that as a compliment.

You are the one with no clue what REAL fiscal conservatism is.
Pot... kettle... black?

Only in this case the kettle is actually pink.

Pot... kettle... black?

Only in this case the kettle is actually pink.

You know what? Shut the fuck up.
I am sick and tired of letting everyone else beat up on me while hearing you whine about how I should be nicer.

I tried being nice and it has gotten me nowhere. I think I will try Napsters advice for a change.

Decka seems to think that ANY criticism of the President is too much and is evidence of a "liberal" bias... only because he is currently a Republican.

bzzzt.. I am no republican. Nice guess though.

Conservative? Yes.. Republican? No.. big difference.

I think the president does deserve criticism, hell i have plenty of it myself... Much of it is warranted, some of it is not. I think i'm just standing next to a red giant of liberals that i somehow come off as some fundamentalist, "I love Bush" Republican.. which is humorous, and shows how skewed perspective can make things.

But he ignores all the blasting of Bill Clinton that went on during his 8 years in office.

Clinton did get "blasted".. but it turned out much of it was warranted.. because he DID lie.. right? Or did i miss something.

He also got many free passes on responsibilities with terrorism. He had many opportunities to put a halt to anything we encountered under Bush. And while he might have gone on Fox and pointed his finger(again), yelling and all pissed off, desperately trying to save face... i wasn't 100% convinced.

But please, give me an example of me "ignoring" all the "blasting" of Bill Clinton.. I won't hold my breath

You are an idiot, so I take that as a compliment.

You are the one with no clue what REAL fiscal conservatism is.

On my worst day, I'm brighter than you'll ever be. A FISCAL conservative doesn't write posts on the evils of corporations, nor do they believe that our industry and infrastructure should be nationalized and that's two of the many things you've gotten wrong on what true conservatives believe, dammit.

Clinton did get "blasted".. but it turned out much of it was warranted.. because he DID lie.. right? Or did i miss something.

Yes, simpleton, it seems you missed out on the entire "Whitewater" investigation that found nothing and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.

Sheesh. I did it again.
Decka is just so shrill I keep thinking he is a she.
i thought you were replying to DF for some reason...

but still, Decka was 17 when Clinton left office...not exactly an age known for awareness of the world around them.

When doesn't our government waste millions of taxpayer dollars? Reguardless of the party in charge..

oh. and i'm still waiting for those examples

You know what? Shut the fuck up.
I am sick and tired of letting everyone else beat up on me while hearing you whine about how I should be nicer.

I tried being nice and it has gotten me nowhere. I think I will try Napsters advice for a change.
:eek:

When doesn't our government waste millions of taxpayer dollars? Reguardless of the party in charge..

oh. and i'm still waiting for those examples
when it shuts down because of a budget impasse:woohoo:

Darth, on your best day you will still be so stupid that you make me look like Einstein's smarter, better looking brother.

Real fiscal conservatives believe in balanced budgets, low debt and investment in our infrastructure. They see Corporations for what they are, useful but requiring constant oversight to reduce corruption and waste. Anti-trust laws were championed by Republicans for pete's sake!

Darth, on your best day you will still be so stupid that you make me look like Einstein's smarter, better looking brother.

This is coming from a guy who is patently unable to start a thread without copying an article and pasting it here.

This is coming from a guy who is patently unable to start a thread without copying an article and pasting it here.

ROFL!!!

You are one dumb S.O.B.

The best criticism you can come up with about me is that I at least try to substantiate what I say.

Too funny!

Fist fight, fist fight!

Darth, on your best day you will still be so stupid that you make me look like Einstein's smarter, better looking brother.

Real fiscal conservatives believe in balanced budgets, low debt and investment in our infrastructure. They see Corporations for what they are, useful but requiring constant oversight to reduce corruption and waste. Anti-trust laws were championed by Republicans for pete's sake!
Let me throw the lions a bone:

I think antitrust laws, at least as they are enforced nowadays, are ineffective and do more harm than good. What should be attacked is when a company or a group of companies behaves in a monopolistic, predatory way. Then the penalty should be fines, not silly attempts to reconstruct the company. (Such efforts are made obsolete by changing economic conditions long before the courts resolve all the appeals).

Enforcement now stinks because all that really gets attacked are mergers that might produce a monopoly, which might produce predatory behavior. It is a case of guilty until proven innocent. Size is not the problem, it is behavior. Size is usually efficient.

I think I will try Napsters advice for a change.

Probably not a good idea.

Let me throw the lions a bone:

I think antitrust laws, at least as they are enforced nowadays, are ineffective and do more harm than good. What should be attacked is when a company or a group of companies behaves in a monopolistic, predatory way. Then the penalty should be fines, not silly attempts to reconstruct the company. (Such efforts are made obsolete by changing economic conditions long before the courts resolve all the appeals).

Enforcement now stinks because all that really gets attacked are mergers that might produce a monopoly, which might produce predatory behavior. It is a case of guilty until proven innocent. Size is not the problem, it is behavior. Size is usually efficient.

Interesting, but I would think that at times what a large corporation would do to be "efficient" would be "monopolistic and predatory" from the perspective of a smaller competitor.

Probably not a good idea.
Do you have a reason for thinking that?

Interesting, but I would think that at times what a large corporation would do to be "efficient" would be "monopolistic and predatory" from the perspective of a smaller competitor.
Do you think large corporations (and small ones too--to smaller ones) don't do that sort of thing now?

The predatory behavior that is monopolistic is using a monopoly position to prevent new entries, to present price or other terms on a "take it or leave it" basis when the customer has no choices, and other things like that.

These behaviors are generally illegal, with fines and injunctive reliefs provided when they occur. Reliance on preventing the occurrence of monopoly is ineffectual--companies can become monopolies anyway if they outrun all of their competitors.

Do you have a reason for thinking that?

Yes I do. It's my considered opinion after reading many of his posts, that his advice isn't usually sound. He presents some interesting ideas occasionally, but when he strays into the realm of "advice", it usually falls flat.

At any rate, my recommendation to dharma not to fllow Napster's advice was mostly because I don't think much of Napster's confrontational, and trollish, posting style. He's a self-described 'instigator' and we don't need any more of those around here IMO.

Do you think large corporations (and small ones too--to smaller ones) don't do that sort of thing now?

I'm sure they do, but that doesn't mean that's a good thing, or that we need more of that sort of thing.


The predatory behavior that is monopolistic is using a monopoly position to prevent new entries, to present price or other terms on a "take it or leave it" basis when the customer has no choices, and other things like that.

These behaviors are generally illegal, with fines and injunctive reliefs provided when they occur. Reliance on preventing the occurrence of monopoly is ineffectual--companies can become monopolies anyway if they outrun all of their competitors.

I see your point, but I was referring mostly to the practice of large corporations where they deliberately sell a product below cost for the sole purpose of eliminating competition. Even if they aren't undercutting their cost on an item, a sufficiently large corporation can undercut most competitors who don't have the volume to be able to compete across the board with a giant. To a degree I think the economy thrives better when there are more choices available to consumers. I don't want to reach a point where my only choice is to shop at Wal-mart, even if they do have the lowest prices.

You know what? Shut the fuck up.
I am sick and tired of letting everyone else beat up on me while hearing you whine about how I should be nicer.

I tried being nice and it has gotten me nowhere. I think I will try Napsters advice for a change.
Yeeeeessss, let your hatred consume you! Give in to the dark side! Hate leads to power! Join me, and we shall rule AllForums with an iron fist!

Real fiscal conservatives believe in balanced budgets, low debt and investment in our infrastructure. They see Corporations for what they are, useful but requiring constant oversight to reduce corruption and waste.

Yet you went and did a post on corporations that would strip them of the methods by which they can operate in society (the stripping of "human" rights of a corporation, its ability to own property, enter contracts, limited liability and so forth) low debt doesn't equal taxing the living crap out of every single rich person the government can corner, I KNOW that got implied somewhere, and I've yet to see you post ANYTHING on wanting new highways, bridges power plants and such anywhere in your short career on these boards, dammit.

Anti-trust laws were championed by Republicans for pete's sake!

There's a difference between anti-TRUST and anti-CORPORATE the latter isn't championed by republicans, dammit.

To a degree I think the economy thrives better when there are more choices available to consumers. I don't want to reach a point where my only choice is to shop at Wal-mart, even if they do have the lowest prices.

It doesn't work that way, vile. The bigger Wal Mart gets or Target or KMart or whatever the more there is for people who specialize in niche products. Wal Mart is very, very good at selling general merchandise but they're poor at selling specialty products or prime stuff. You can buy a steak at Wal Mart, but to buy the prime stuff requires a specialty shop. You can buy shoes at Wal Mart, but premium brand shoes such as Timberland are found elsewhere. I don't even bother buying CLOTHES there at all. That's a toss up between BJs, EMS and Cabelas.

In short, Wal Mart is able to take care of a persons general needs but if it takes some kind of skill and knowledge to sell a product or if its not a mainstream type product, or if you're looking for premium quality, Wal Mart and other such big box stores will always fall short. It's a question of being in the right place where people are demanding a certain something Wal Mart falls short on and selling it. It's not easy or guaranteed, but people can be very successful at it, dammit.


At any rate, my recommendation to dharma not to fllow Napster's advice was mostly because I don't think much of Napster's confrontational, and trollish, posting style. He a self-described 'instigator' and we don't need any more of those around here IMO.

Which is why I'll stop at the here and now, dammit.